A.M. Links: Gary Johnson Running in 2016, U.S. Birth Rate Down 4th Year Straight, IMF Says Recession Will Last a Decade

News from the U.S. to Gaza

|

  • he's no bob barr

    Gary Johnson says he'll run for president in 2016, if he's still relevant. No word on whether he'd run as a Libertarian again if he doesn't get elected this November.

  • The city of Kalamazoo says an ordinance it passed to treat possession of less than an ounce of marijuana as a misdemeanor punishable by no more than a $100 fine or up to 93 days in jail means the city's "decriminalized marijuana."
  • A group trying to promote the manufacture of guns through 3D printers at home hit a snag when the company that makes the 3D printer cancelled the lease the group's founder had on a printer because the company considered what he was doing to be illegal.
  • The U.S. birth rate is down for a fourth year in a row, though the decline has slowed as the decrease was by only 1 percent this year. The lower birth rate's blamed on economic conditions.
  • The chief economist at the IMF says it'll take the world a decade to climb out of the economic crisis that started in 2008, though he's not blaming aggravating government policies for the length of time he's predicting.
  • Human Rights Watch accuses Hamas, the militant group that runs what goes for the Palesitinian government in Gaza since 2006, of running security forces that torture detainees, make arbitrary arrest and force confessions.

Follow Reason on Twitter and like us on Facebook. You can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up here.

Have a news tip? Send it to us!

NEXT: Sex Offenders Sue, Want Fewer Halloween Restrictions

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. Problem: Federally mandated school lunch program causes kids in Lake County to throw away about $75,000 a year in wasted food because they don’t want to eat pre-packaged veggies.

    Solution: Trash Cams!

    “It’s a big issue, and it’s very hard to get our hands around it,” said School Board member Todd Howard, who suggested “trash-cams.” “They have to take (the vegetable), and then it ends up in the trash can, and that’s a waste of taxpayer money. It’s also not giving students the nutrition that they need.”

    I heard about this on the morning radio show on the way to work. One of the personalities suggested we replace the veggies with like the Flintstones gummy vitamins, if it’s really just about nutrition, but of course the federal government would never go for that.

    1. If George Bush had started spying on trashcans in the name of stopping terrorism, the Leftists would have had a stroke. But doing the same thing in the name of making some poor kid eat nasty vegetables is just good government.

      1. It’s not fascism when the left does it.

      2. I listened to the same show. Todd Howard called in and made it sound a little more reasonable. He claimed the plan was to repurpose some obsoleted security cameras, and the goal was to see if different presentations would result in more vegetables being eaten.

        In other words, would apple slices be thrown out less than whole apples? If veggies are in a casserole, do the kids eat them? If the plan is to actually figure out how to make the veggies appealing, it seems like a positive approach. He also said this was a response to the federal mandate regarding school lunches.

        1. I’m glad you listened and mentioned that, since it allows me to point out the absurdity even more (with someone to potentially corroborate). Why couldn’t a teacher stand by the trash and do that job? Because of labor contracts. Why couldn’t they do a homeroom survey for the kids to find out what is being thrown away and why?

          I taught English in Japan for a year and over there the teachers eat with the kids, either in the classroom itself for elementary age or in a lunch room for middle school. So the teachers are getting direct feedback because they see what kids are eating and not eating.

          1. In a lot of school districts the teachers are afraid to sit with the kids. I’m thinking Philadelphia.

            1. In a lot of school districts the teachers are afraid aren’t explicitly being paid extra to sit with the kids.

              FIFY

      3. If Obama was requiring trashcan cameras, that would be one thing, but last I checked, he wasn’t on the Lake County School Board. It’s almost hilarious the way Obama is turning into this universal boogeyman, who’s personally responsible for everything that goes on in the entire world.

        1. It might be different if he didn’t want to be personally responsible for everything that goes on in the entire world.

        2. Which is, of course, not applicable to this conversation considering not a single person even mentioned Obama, much less blamed him outright for this.

          1. The “If George Bush…” thing suggests that John thinks it has something to do with the President.

    2. Gonna have to force feed them I guess

      1. No just “reeducate them”. Maybe we could build a few camps or something.

        1. “Did I say death camps? I meant happy camps!”

          1. Weight loss camps.

          2. Weight and health camps.

            1. For the children.

              1. Healthy eating makes you free.

          3. A place to help them concentrate.

        2. No just “reeducate them”. Maybe we could build a few camps or something.

          Already got them, they’re called public schools.

          1. I think those are de-education camps.

    3. One of the personalities suggested we replace the veggies with like the Flintstones gummy vitamins

      This really should be aggressively pushed as a sort of false flag provocational argument against the Cloverfield monster, because it would force the nutrition police to choose between actually getting kids vitamins, and forcing kids to “morally improve” by eating foods that taste like my ass.

      1. I have read in several places where vitamin pills do you no good. Your body just doesn’t absorb vitamins that are not in food. All they do is make your urine extra nutritious.

        1. http://www.mayoclinic.com/heal…..ts/NU00198

          The examples given here regarding why vitamin pills are insufficient seem really specious to me.

          One example they give is that a vitamin C pill won’t contain other needed vitamins. Ummmm…so you take a comprehensive supplement that contains those other vitamins.

          They also give examples of things like fiber that “fight constipation”, or that might have health impacts decades down the line. Ummmm…so what you’re saying is that if kids aren’t constipated, vitamin pills are actually a perfectly good supplement to use for current nutritional concerns?

          1. That is all bullshit. But I seem to remember reading stuff that wasn’t. But who knows. Maybe you are right.

          2. They make fiber gummies similar to the Flintstones vitamin gummies. They’re pretty good, actually. Your biggest problem would be stopping the kids from eating too damn many and producing a bunch of noxious gas.

        2. You’re supposed to take the vitamin pills in the middle of an actual meal to prevent that problem. Once everything’s dissolved in the stomach your intestines have no idea what the vitamins were originally attached to, only that there’s something to be digested. Also, protein can help the absorption of some vitamins.

      2. Well I think it’s blatantly obvious that “healthy eating” is not the intended goal. I don’t have a link to it right here, but the kids’ dinner she put on had things that were loaded with carbs, but touted as being healthy because they weren’t the knee-jerk idea of junk foods.

        Unfortunately, getting people to understand that what they put into their mouths is their own decision and not the government’s is the difficult part, whether it be edible, nutritional, or phallic.

        1. You forgot hallucinogenic.

          1. Falls under edible!

            1. What about breathable, then?

      3. by eating foods that taste like my ass.

        Man, and I thought I was kinky.

    4. Springer and Povich have been using trash cams for years.

    5. Nah; just give them some Soylent Green.

      1. In the future, Soylent Green will be made from people politicians.

        1. Don’t you care about the children’s nutrition?

    6. And you thought a broccoli mandate was far-fetched.

      The article claims that the camera will not capture who is throwing the “food” away but what is being thrown away. Which seems silly to me; you could just have the janitor go through the garbage to find that out.

      1. Nah. The camera stuff creates jobs.

      2. The new CBA prevents janitors from handing trash.

    7. I would encourage all children to throw their vegetables away, and flip the camera off while doing so.

      1. Another example of the insanity of the GOP. A bunch of whiny brats throwing temper tantrums because they can’t have chicken nuggets every meal and TEAM RED wants to act like they’re heroes.

        1. It’s because they cannot have free birth control with their broccoli.

    8. Example #5740985278457284975 of how the biggest bully of them all is the State.

    9. It all ends up in the toilet anyway.

    10. These problems are easily solved. Stop providing meals and snacks, period. Instead, hook the kids up to IVs and feed them that way. Total nutrition control.

      1. While you’re at it, since they have to sit still with the IV, make them pedal at their desks to run generators so the school can retain its “sustainability” certification.

        1. Yes, nice enhancement. They get PE grades based on the energy they produce.

    1. They clearly didn’t get the memo that everything should be recycled back to Reason 24/7, judging from the 3D gun printing story.

      1. Ooo, good catch. Ed’s costing reason page views.

    2. The Kochtopus!

  2. The lower birth rate’s blamed on economic conditions.

    Looks like we need another massive blackout. Or third Clinton term.

  3. No link to the Obama hate whitey video? What is this Reason or Newsweek?

    1. All I can do is shake my head at you, John.

      1. You missed the sarcasm in that?

        1. Apparently. Poe’wnd!

          1. I meant it sarcastically. Honest.

    2. It’s not that they’ll ignore the secret Obama video, which I agree isn’t that much of a big deal (we’ve known for over four years that Obama is more than willing to play the race card and pander to racist blacks), it’s that they made such a big deal out of the secret Romney video, which was just as much of a big nothing-burger as this secret Obama video.

      There’s definitely a double standard as to how Romney and Obama are covered here. It’s nowhere near as bad as the double standard in the rest of the so-called “mainstream media”, but it still exists nonetheless.

      1. The 47% video broke on September 18th. Over the next two days Hit and Run did 8 separate posts on it in addition to mentioning it in every PM and AM links.

        https://reason.com/blog/weekly/2012-09-15

        Now this has broke and it isn’t even worthy of being mentioned in the AM link? Maybe there will be a blizzard of posts about it today. But the difference in coverage is pretty stark.

        1. Do your really expect Reason’s ‘editors’ to buck the media collective?

          That’s social and career suicide.

          1. Wait, are you all joking, or is there actually an Obama “hate whitey” video? I’m confused.

            1. Oh, I see. Just have to look at extra comments.

        2. See, they let Hit y Runpublicans post that stuff, that way they maintain plausible deniability.

  4. Obama campaign: Video touted on Drudge Report a ‘desperate attack’
    http://thehill.com/video/campa…..ate-attack

    1. Accurately quoting the President and showing an unedited video of him speaking is a desperate attack?

      1. It’s “desperate” by the Republicans because Romney is down in the polls. When Democrats release the secret recording of Romney’s “47% speech”, it is sound campaign strategy.

      2. Next you’ll be listing his campaign promises from ’08.
        Desperate Racist!

      3. I don’t understand, is that the video you were referring to John? I missed the point where he attacked whitey?

        1. Here

          Now here’s the thing, when 9-11 happened in New York City, they waived the Stafford Act ? said, ‘This is too serious a problem. We can’t expect New York City to rebuild on its own. Forget that dollar you gotta put in. Well, here’s ten dollars.’ And that was the right thing to do. When Hurricane Andrew struck in Florida, people said, ‘Look at this devastation. We don’t expect you to come up with y’own money, here. Here’s the money to rebuild. We’re not gonna wait for you to scratch it together ? because you’re part of the American family.

          White America hates blacks and doesn’t consider them part of the country and doesn’t care when they die. That would be attacking whitey.

          1. Huh?

            The portion you quoted has nothing to do with that? You are assuming a lot here.

            1. Damn you second question mark!

            2. You really think that is NOT what Obama was talking about? Come on.

              1. Who is “they” in the 9/11 scenario and who is “people” in the Hurricane Andrew scenario? I guess I just don’t see which group is getting the sharp end of the stick in each case, since everyone was affected by 9/11 and tons of hispanics, blacks, and whites were affected by Andrew.

                1. Who is “they” in the 9/11 scenario and who is “people” in the Hurricane Andrew scenario?

                  So, generic, if you have a better explanation than Obama dogwhistling at a black rally, I would love to hear it.

                  1. Not a better scenario. I am arguing from a worse vantage point as I do not have the ability to see the video right now. I was only commenting on the one section John commented, which did not mention Katrina, nor did it specifically mention black people or white people.

                    This one isn’t as bad as “you didn’t build that”, where the short version was bad, but in context of the long version made to look even worse. On this statement it doesn’t sound bad in short, but with the greater context is made to sound worse.

                2. “Who is “they” in the 9/11 scenario and who is “people” in the Hurricane Andrew scenario?”

                  Seeing that Obama is doing his best Al Sharpton impression while making this speech it shouldn’t be that difficult to figure it out.

            3. The portion you quoted has nothing to do with that? You are assuming a lot here.

              I don’t think so. The implication is pretty strong.

          2. Huh, why wasn’t the stafford act waived for New Orleans?

            1. It was. Obama was lying

              1. ah, well that sounds about right.

          3. To be fair, I think this is actually a reasonable point.

            I agree that the victims of 9/11 were treated infinitely differently from the victims of any other war or disaster in American history.

            We definitely did not make every Katrina widow a millionaire.

            1. On the limited point on 9/11, I concur, but the fact remains that a) Obama also talked about Hurricane Andrew b) he was dogwhistling and c) the Stafford Act was waived for Katrina.

            2. But that wasn’t because New Orleans was black. It was because 9-11 affected a small number of people and was incredibly shocking to the country. If anything the response to Katrina was racist against whites. Mississippi was hammered worse than New Orleans but got much less attention.

              There is absolutely no evidence that the government response to Katrina was driven by racism. To claim otherwise is not just a lie but a poisonous one. That statement shows that everything Obama said about race during the 08 election was a lie. Yeah, anyone paying attention already knew that. But having video proof is nice if not a little bit sad to once again see the worse suspicions about the guy confirmed.

              1. There is absolutely no evidence that the government response to Katrina was driven by racism.

                No doubt, but it was driven by ineptitude and corruption (in New Orleans and Louisiana). Of course pointing that out wouldn’t have riled up a crowd…but I don’t see this as a huge revelation that will changed many people’s opinion on black Jesus.

              2. Other parishes in Louisiana were hit harder, like St. Bernard. But New Orleans sucked all the air out of the room and made it all about them.

        2. Report for sarcasm meter recalibration.

      4. Accurately quoting the President and showing an unedited video of him speaking is a desperate attack?

        Of course.

        They said the same thing about quoting Os you didn’t build that riff.

    2. The Obama campaign thought they were going to get Romney by releasing his “47%” video. Instead they opened a can of worms.

  5. …though he’s not blaming aggravating government policies for the length of time he’s predicting.

    Shit happens.

  6. A decade to climb out of the crisis huh? Not unlike Depression part 1 where these bullshit Top-down policies pushed the datum well past the slaughter of WW2. SO…when’s WW3 going to start? 2013?

    Maybe 2012 is the end of the world(as we know it).

    1. World War III will involve nukes. There won’t be any fun and games with Rosie the Riveter.

      1. To some extent, I’ll take instant incineration over being riddled with holes on some godforsaken beach. Either way, at least I won’t have to deal with traffic ever fucking again.

        1. Naw, I will take the beach. You might live through the beach. Anything is better than getting radiated.

          1. Nah, its not so bad.

            Like anything, it depends on the dosage.

            1. That’s what the TSA keeps telling me

            2. But… but… pesticides…

              /Ken

            3. I think it would be cool to glow in the dark.

            4. I wouldn’t mind getting a big bulging Warty penis.

              1. That thing is his navel. You have to lift it to see the horrors below.

          2. Anything is better than getting radiated.

            Eh…I think being tortured over several hours and dieing slowly and painfully sans fingernails and nutsack is much worse than being blasted apart in a second, but to each his own.

          3. Ra-di-a-tion. Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it’s bad for you. Pernicious nonsense. Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to have them, too.

          4. I think I’d like a chance to fight back – at least in theory. The prospect of enduring that kind of fear is – terryfying.

        2. Think of all the broken glass.

      2. Here’s the thing:

        If it was the stimulus of war spending that finally ended the Depression, Japan’s stimulus spending since the 1990’s would have worked.

        And we would have economically collapsed in the late 40’s.

        It’s much more likely that Depression conditions didn’t return after the war because the rationing and forced bond buying systems employed during the war had dramatically reduced consumption and produced an extraordinary savings rate. So we went into the late 40’s with people having insane personal balance sheets, which produced an economic expansion when those people shifted back to consumption.

        So it was never the broken windows at all. It was the forced savings.

        The only way to repair balance sheets without forced savings is for liquidation to be allowed to proceed. And that’s the one thing that all US and European fiscal and monetary policy is trying to avoid.

        1. IIRC, the recovery started before the war. It then got obscured by the war.

          1. It started long before the war everywhere but the U.S. We lost the 30’s the same way the Japanese lost the last couple of decades – but spending like crazy assholes.

          2. The US was almost out of the Depression in 1936. (check out the unemployment figures) Then FDR threatened to pack the court, his overturned New Deal policies were re-implemented, and the uncertainty pushed the US back into Depression.

        2. That is exactly what happened fluffy. Think about what we did in World War II. We stopped producing consumer goods and convinced everyone to save huge amounts of money in the form or war bonds. In 1946 there was five years worth of pent up demand. No one had bought a new refrigerator or so much as a new set of tires for their car since 1941 and they were all flush with cash from five years of savings. If that isn’t a recipe for a boom nothing is.

          1. To add on, from an anecdotal perspective, my grandmother had very little to spend the war paycheck my father was earning, so she sunk it all into paying off her house. He got off the ‘liberty scow’ with a paid-off house and money in the bank. A lot of her friends did the same thing.

            1. not father – grandfather, obvs.

            2. My grandparents did the same thing. There was nothing to spend your money on. Everything was rationed. So you might as well pay off your house or save the money. But once the war ended no matter how frugal you were, you had to replace a few things.

              The sad and pathetic thing is that the Keynesians wanted to keep all of the war time rationing and control measures in place. That is why the Democrats lost the Congress in 1946. They refused to get rid of war time rationing. Indeed, the UK didn’t get rid of it until the 1950s.

              There is a reason why the history books in school completely skip over the 1946 elections. It is because their results put complete lie to the entire World War II myth.

              1. It’s almost like opportunity cost was something we discovered last week.

            3. And the US govt had monstrous debts to repay, which I thought libertarians understood meant that future taxpayers took it up the poop chute.

              If what you guys are claiming is the total explanation, we should pay off every American’s mortgage and hand them a check for $100,000 and that would create a boom.

              1. No, because the difference is they werent paying off the debts with transfer payments but from their work.

                War work in some cases.

                Also, as Barro’s work has shown, war spending has a higher multiplier than domestic spending…still less than 1, but less destructive. So, even when the money was from government war spending it was hurting less than your suggestion.

                Also, I dont think anyone was suggesting it was the “total explanation”, but a part.

                1. And, BTW, roughly the same thing has worked in Estonia in a non-war situation.

                  They dramatically cut the standard of living across the country for a few years and the result has been growth. Same thing happened in the US during WW2.

              2. Sure future taxpayers had to pay that. But debt is only bad relative to your wealth. Since we got really rich over the next 20 years, the debt didn’t matter much.

              3. the US govt had monstrous debts to repay, which I thought libertarians understood meant that future taxpayers took it up the poop chute.

                Sure. Always true, because math. If we hadn’t borrowed for WWII, taxes could have been cut when spending was cut. Taxes weren’t cut very much at all, because the debt was being paid off with the revenue no longer needed for the war.

                The difference between WWII and now is that the government drastically cut spending after WWII, which allowed a lot of the debt to be paid off.

                All that pent-up demand prevented the cut in spending from setting off an economic contraction; demand was essentially shifted from the government back to the private sector.

                Roght now, we have no savings/pent-up demand, and no reduction in government spending. So the only possible source of funds to pay off the debt is the taxpayers.

          2. It should also be pointed out that the depression lasted well into 1946 until the Republican congress repealed the New Deal over Truman’s objections.

            1. Taft Hartley’s reform of the NLRA in 1947 was huge. As well as the lifting of Smoot-Hawley tariffs.

          3. Consumer production wasn’t exactly booming during the Depression either. And there wasn’t much money to save. so I’ve always found that explanation a little too cute.

            Particularly since all the money on those balance sheets came from govt spending which had to be financed by future taxpayers. The boom had to be stronger than the deprivation of the war years was in order to avoid a fiscal crisis, and it was, so an internal explanation is going to fall short.

            1. But there was little demand in Europe. The external explanation has been debunked pretty thoroughly.

              And so what if it came from future taxpayers? Who is to say you can’t borrow from the future to have prosperity today? It sucks for the future. But it is not impossible.

            2. That’s true, but the standard Keynesian explanation for the benefit of stimulus is that it raises incomes and consumption.

              The anemic results of the various Keynesian attempts at direct stimulus since 1932 may be a function of the fact that income support for individuals and firms with disastrous balance sheets can’t actually produce recovery.

              If it wasn’t the income support that produced recovery, but was the balance sheet improvements that came from forced savings, that’s important because there are other ways to produce repaired balance sheets – like bankruptcy and liquidation.

              The entire Keynesian critique was that traditional liquidation didn’t work fast enough to avert “unnecessary” economic suffering. That critique loses its force if the historical record shows that income supports didn’t produce recovery, but balance sheet improvements did.

        3. I can’t find the link, but I remember reading an article (on a free-market site) that said that the savings during the war and the amount of consumption afterwards suggests that this is not the explanation. More likely, removing all the government controls of the economy, freeing up private capital by reducing spending, etc, allowed the market to thrive once again

      3. Why don’t we just bomb Chicago for our stimulus?

        1. Why don’t we just bomb Chicago for our stimulus?

          Not just yet! The Cubs are gonna win next year, and then you can bomb the city.

          1. Just let it go. If they didn’t win this year, even the Mayan apocalypse can’t overcome the curse. Bombing would be a mercy.

        2. How about Detroit instead?

          1. I do not think anyone would notice.

          2. It’s been done already.

      4. Actually, I think we’re talking about WW IV; WW III was the Cold War, which we somehow managed to win.

    2. In 2008, I said if TARP passed we wouldnt recover until 2020 at the earliest (actually, I think I said 10+ years, so that would be 2018, technically).

      I still stand behind it.

      1. It always makes me laugh when worried commentators handwring over the possibility that we may go into another recession.

        What makes them think the first one ended?

        1. I think we might have come out of it a time or two. I predicted a dodecadip recession.

        2. But…but…but the government man said it was over?

        3. lowered expectations. Now, any month that doesn’t show a net loss in jobs means the recession is over (forget the fact that we’re not adding near enough jobs to keep up with working age growth). The fact is, if the official unemployment rate counted people who stopped looking for jobs, it would be growing every month. Only the mass exit of people from the workforce have kept the UR down.

      2. I don’t see why we should recover by 2018 or 2020, our balance sheet gets worse daily. The rollercoaster has still got alot of downhill to go.

        1. Well, that was best case. Im not sure we can get there now.

      3. So how does that work with QE3? Do we square the delay? So we are now looking at 2122 as our relief date? Hopefully, Mega City One is complete by then.

        1. Rush 2112!

          If nothing else, the Solar Federation fails then.

          1. Dude’s not going to live that long. Maybe Zombie Rush or Android Rush…

            1. Android Rush sounds like a new Gatorade flavor.

              1. I know, I love to see him debate though, maybe him against Howard Stern.

                1. I’d like to see Neil Peart debate Obama. He can give all his answers in Morse using his kit.

                  1. Neil is too smart to be a politician.

          2. uh, last lines…

            We have assumed control, we have assumed control.

            I think we are doomed.

            1. In the “VH1 Classic Albums” series about the album, Peart confirmed that he intended the ending to be a happy one as the people of the Solar Federation are liberated.

              1. ^^^quote from wikipedia, not me.

                1. yes, I am just (being an @ss) interpreting Peart as having relied on the ancient race (Top Men) to come to the rescue from tyranny…new boss, same as the old boss…eventually. But I’ve liked the idea of the liberation since I first listened to the album 🙂

        2. So Bernanke says he is going to keep interest rates in the toiler until 2015.

          Who wants to take bets on the year that inflation forces them to change their minds?

    3. It was the idiotic “bold experimentation” – which O-bumbler is repeating, of course.

    4. Another setback or two and the recovery should line up nicely with my 7th graders’ college graduation. Sweet.

  7. North and South Korea ‘on the verge of nuclear war’
    A senior North Korean diplomat warned a meeting of the UN General Assembly in New York that “a spark of fire could set off a thermonuclear war” on the Korean Peninsula.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..r-war.html

    1. I was worried when I saw the headline. Then I saw it was a NORK saying it I stopped paying attention. Those clowns have been threatening war for nearly 60 years.

      1. 60 years ago they weren’t just threatening.

        1. Nearly. The war ended in 53.

        2. 60 years ago China gave them a head nod, now China’s trying to stay out of their craziness.

          1. 60 years ago Mao got rid of the last of the Nationalist Army in mainland China by marching them into American guns. For a long time we couldn’t understand why they were so willing to absorb such incredible casualties.

    2. Did the South Koreans politely point out that China may take some small degree of offense to having a nuclear war and the attendant fallout on its border?

  8. So…Hamas sounds a lot like the police in my area. Weird.

    1. And Human Rights Watch is nowhere to be found.

  9. …the company that makes the 3D printer cancelled the lease the group’s founder had on a printer because the company considered what he was doing to be illegal.

    You can still make Lucy Liu copies, though, right?

    1. If you want a plastic Lucy Liu, have at it.

    2. I’ve got a printrbot I keep meaning to set up. I need to check the specs and see if I can print the right kind of plastic. (and that the parts are less than 9″x9″x4″)

  10. A group trying to promote the manufacture of guns through 3D printers at home hit a snag when the company that makes the 3D printer cancelled the lease the group’s founder had on a printer because the company considered what he was doing to be illegal.

    Except is isnt illegal, so the company is in breach of contract. Slam dunk lawsuit in 3..2..1…

  11. Men keener than their wives on spending time together
    A third of husbands would gladly spend all their spare time with their wife if they could, but only 20 per cent of wives feel the same, a study has found.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sci…..ether.html

    1. Difference between a puppy and a wife?

      Five years later the dog is still happy to see you when you come home from work.

      1. Five years? It took that long for your wife to begin despising you? You must be one helluva guy!

        1. Difference between a job and a wife?

          Five years later the job still sucks.

      2. Were the wives in the room at the time the husbands answered? That’s the only thing I can see skewing the results that badly.

    2. Boy things sure are topsy-turvy in the Randian household. Maybe I have a skewed perception of psychological health, but I think anyone who says they would ‘gladly spend all their spare time’ with one person isn’t healthy.

      1. “all of their spare time” probably removes the manadatory drinks with the buds, poker nights on sundays and required kid activity attendance. Yeah, after that, ALL OF THEIR SPARE TIME.

      2. Well, nobody would want to spend all of their time with you. :-p

    3. The wives would rather spend that time with some sort of vibrating object (including washing machines and dryers).

      1. just one more cup of coffee and I could oblige them.

    4. That’s because the men have a different fantasy, er, idea of what they will be doing with all that time than the women?

    5. This is just from years of conditioning on the husbands part.

      “Of course I would spend all my time with you, if I could. Dinner was delicious and, no those pants don’t make you look fat.”

    6. “For women, this is much less important as the security and confidence marriage brings enables them to blossom as individuals.”

      So women need a man in their lives to blossom as individuals?

  12. Sorry Gaga, but you’re no Hurley. Speaking of which, Grant cheated on her why? That’s one thing I’ll never figure out.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..-gown.html

    1. Liz Hurley was and still is I think beautiful. But as beautiful as she is, she is most definitely not a black transvestite hooker. That is why Hugh cheated.

    2. Really? A safety pin on the right shoulder? So it’s tacky or white trash when I use rope to hold up my pants, but when they use a safety pin to hold up their thousand dollar dresses it is stylish?

      1. Well, to be fair, if you used safety pins to hold up your evening gown, you’d still look tacky.

    3. I’m going to guess the same reason that I imagine Jude Law cheated. Liz Hurley and Sienna Miller won’t do certain things because they are just too beautiful.

      1. “No way I’m going to chance that stuff getting into my hair!”

  13. Pron 4 John!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..rview.html

  14. What Daily Fail is complete without some Christina Hendricks?
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..shoot.html
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..earer.html

    1. She is lucky she has enormous breasts.

      1. And so are we.

    2. I’m sorry, but she’s just fat now.

  15. Wait a minute. Which one is the manatee?
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..beach.html

  16. Fuckup at VA hospital costs man his manhood. Needless to say he’s suing.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..HOURS.html

    1. But government can provide health care for all?

      1. No. But it can provide it for many badly. But at least we can pretend to feel good about ourselves, unlike our horrible “free-market,” puppy-killing, child-raping system we have now.

        1. At least there’s no nasty profits when government does it.

          Better to have crappy health care for all then to allow evil capitalists to profit off of sick people.

          It’s a moral issue. Profits are evil. It’s about eliminating profits, not quality health care.

    2. And people ask me why I don’t use that ‘free’ healthcare I am entitled to.

      Because you get what you pay for.

    3. Sounds like a service-related claim, which can’t go forward under Feres.

    4. Why would you be getting a penile implant and a circumcision at a VA hospital? Someone please tell me this wasn’t elective surgery.

    5. Why would you be getting a penile implant and a circumcision at a VA hospital? Someone please tell me this wasn’t elective surgery.

  17. …punishable by no more than a $100 fine or up to 93 days in jail means the city’s “decriminalized marijuana.”

    Let’s see, on the one hand the city gets a c-note. On the other, it has to house and feed a toker for three months. Which will the ‘zoo choose?

    1. the prison guards union will vote for #2 all day long.

      1. Well, the “*93* days” does smell like some kind of contractual artifact.

    2. Hey, that time in jail, it wasn’t “criminal”, so no worries!

  18. Beating up defenseless women is sexy!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..geant.html

  19. House committee: Requests for security in Libya denied
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/…..e/1608323/

    American diplomats in Libya made repeated requests for increased security for the consulate in Benghazi and were turned down by officials in Washington, leaders of a House committee said Tuesday. In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Chairman Darrell Issa and Rep. Jason Chaffetz said their information came from “individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya.”

    Issa, R-Calif. and Chaffetz, R-Utah said the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months before Sept. 11.

    The lawmakers said they plan a hearing on Oct. 10. They asked Clinton whether the State Department was aware of the previous incidents, and whether the level of security that was provided to the U.S. mission met the security threat, and how the department responded to requests for more security.

  20. The Taliban Were Dead But Have Returned Under Obama
    http://news.investors.com/ibd-…..uld-it.htm

    Because its 33,000 troops fell well short of what was needed, and because last year and this year Obama ordered out tens of thousands of troops in a rapid drawdown that undid his surge’s inadequate gains.

    It is set in stone that America will leave Afghanistan in 2014. No wonder the Times reports that “military and diplomatic officials” in Kabul “and in Washington said that despite attempts to engage directly with Taliban leaders this year, they now expect that any significant progress will come only after 2014, once the bulk of NATO troops have left.”

    1. Gotta love/lament those unintended consequences.

    2. Since we would call any Afghani force that opposed the Kabul regime for any reason whatsoever “the Taliban”, I think this was inevitable.

      Afghanistan is littered with local warlords, tribal leaders, drug lords, etc. But no matter what the situation on the ground is, as soon as anyone steps out against Kabul, we can be sure that the Obama administration will call them “the Taliban”. Hell, now they call half the population of Pakistan “the Taliban”.

      1. It’s Taliban all the way down.

        Afghanistan is turning out to be the country that no power can crack.

        The British, the old Soviets, and now America? Perhaps only the Jamaicans could do it.

        1. Jamaicans? They are more ganja oriented – Afghanistan is opiate-land. Maybe China could try?

          1. Ha! Once again you underestimate their tactical bobsledding skills!

          2. hey, mon, you gotta mix the two.

      2. Leave it to the warlords. They can join the 15th century some other time.

  21. Plunging Sales Germany Infected by European Automotive Plague
    http://www.spiegel.de/internat…..59221.html

    Car sales in Germany plunged in September, ending the country’s surprising resistance to the ongoing crisis in the European automotive industry. Overall, the sector is facing its worst performance in the European Union in 17 years — and there is no turnaround in sight.

  22. US importing welfare cases? Just .068 percent of visa applications denied due to dependency risk in FY 2011
    http://dailycaller.com/2012/10…..n-fy-2011/

    “Federal immigration law establishes those seeking entrance into the United States cannot be welfare-reliant,” Sessions reacted to the data to TheDC. “The initial assessment of State Department data suggests that the law is being ignored. In fact, we know that federal authorities are even encouraging welfare use among foreign nationals.”

    The revelation follows a recent study of census data by the Center for Immigration Studies, which found that in 2010, 36 percent of immigrant-headed households were on at least one major welfare program ? largely nutrition assistance and Medicaid (both considered inadmissible in determining one’s dependency risk according to current policy) ? compared to 23 percent of native headed households. Based on the study, the top countries for which welfare use was highest among their immigrant-heads of households in America were Mexico (57 percent), Guatemala (55 percent) and the Dominican Republic (54 percent).

    1. “compared to 23 percent of native headed households.”

      I find this number low. And of course, these numbers never include Social Security and Medicare, the two biggest programs of em all

  23. Gary Johnson says he’ll run for president in 2016, if he’s still relevant.

    “Still”??

    1. Gary who?

      1. Isn’t he that actor dude who got in the motorcylce crash and is all effed in the head now?

  24. “The U.S. birth rate is down for a fourth year in a row, though the decline has slowed as the decrease was by only 1 percent this year. The lower birth rate’s blamed on economic conditions.”

    Or, in other words, your average reproductive American is smarter about screwing than Congress is about spending.

    1. I give you people gold.

    2. well the incentives are perverse. If someone else was raising my children and I could go screw a new woman every night….damn, you see whats going to happen…

      1. Yeah, maybe it’s that reproductive Americans are smarter about screwing than they are about voting.

        1. Maybe what we need are politicians who think with their dicks like we do?

          1. if they spent more time in bed and less time on the hill, we’d all be better off.

  25. There is a great 3-tier lawsuit getting under way in VA, but there isnt a single clear link to explain it all.

    I dont think anyone involved is on the side of liberty. Its all about a set of rent-seekers arguing over who gets the rents.

  26. http://www.france24.com/en/201…..ial-debate

    Biden says “the middle class have been buried for the last four years”. Sometimes I wonder if Biden isn’t so much stupid but maybe an actual honest politician who just can’t help but blurt out the truth.

    1. Obviously he meant the last four years of the previous administration. Passing the buck is preferable to honesty in D.C.

    2. Hey John,

      Did you check out that Sam Zell thread?

      Some of my fellow libertarians have lost their freaking minds.

      They’re turning into Johnson-tards right before our eyes!

      1. I missed it. What happened?

          1. It is a hard choice. You either roll the dice that Romney will rise to the occasion and do better than he appears he will or you roll the dice that the incredible damage Obama would do to the country during a second administration would finally teach the country a lesson and produce something better.

            Both possibilities are long shots. And I frankly have no idea which one is more likely.

            1. Or you roll the dice and hope enough Americans come to their senses and vote for Johnson.

              1. That is not a long shot, that is an impossibility. Johnson isn’t going to win.

              2. Or you roll the dice and hope enough Americans come to their senses and vote for Johnson.

                Or you just tell the whole system to get fucked, and stay home that day.

            2. Or you roll the dice and hope enough Americans come to their senses and vote for Johnson.

            3. Server squirrels are eating my comments…

              Read down in the Zell thread, it ain’t about Zell…

              If I understand the Johnsontards correctly, they want to reelect Obama in order to teach Romney a lesson?

              Their protest vote isn’t against Obama. It’s against Romney. If Obama gets enough people to vote for Johnson, he’ll win another term for sure…

              Actually, if Obama were smart? He’d offer to debate Johnson one on one! Obama should be out there trying to bring as much attention to Johnson as possible. I’m surprised Obama’s PACs aren’t running ads for Johnson with their own money!

              1. If I understand the Johnsontards correctly, they want to reelect Obama in order to teach Romney a lesson?

                You assume that I, a Johnson voter, would naturally just vote for your TEAM were Johnson not on the ballot.

                Ken, here’s the thing – I don’t accept the flawed premises of your argument. There are more than two candidates on my general ballot, and there will be more than two on yours. You are implicitly arguing that all votes ‘belong’ to just two of the candidates.

                1. What Randian said.

                  I dont want Obama to win. I want Johnson to win (of the people on my ballot). So Im voting for Johnson.

                  Of course, what Im really hoping for, as I think it has a higher probability of happening (as sad as that is) than Johnson winning, is Romney winning in a squeaker, a few EC votes of Romney’s go to Paul preventing Romney from a majority, and then the house saying fuck it, and electing Paul.

                  1. I want Johnson to win, of course, but between Obama and Romney, I’d prefer that Obama loses.

                    1. I want Johnson to win, of course, but between Obama and Romney, I’d prefer that Obama loses.

                      And the chances of Obama responding to a protest vote for Johnson is nil.

                      The chances of Romney responding to a protest vote–if he loses–is nil.

                      I’d much rather fight for a more libertarian world with Romney as president rather than fight for a more libertarian world with Obama as president.

                  2. You don’t want Obama to win, you just want Johnson to spoil the election and defeat Romney?

                    That doesn’t make sense this time.

                    It’s different when there’s an incumbent who is as socialistic as Obama is.

                    Again, how bad would Obama have to be before you would vote as necessary to get rid of him? As bad as Lenin or worse? Because that’s irrational.

                    There has to be some spot on the spectrum of awful presidents that’s bad enough to justify voting for Romney–that isn’t as bad as Lenin.

                    If Obama isn’t in that segment of spectrum somewhere, then what more exactly would he have to do to get there?

                    Some of you sound like you’re about to start defending Obama as not being so bad after all–please don’t go there.

                    1. Ken will you ever understand that we’re voting for Johnson and not against Obama or Romney?

                      Jesus Christ. It’s like we’re committing a crime against humanity by actually voting for someone we support instead of the less shitty of the two “major” candidates. Well fuck that shit. I’ll vote my conscience. I’ll vote Johnson.

                    2. You don’t want Obama to win, you just want Johnson to spoil the election and defeat Romney?

                      I want Johnson to win.

                      What about that is not getting through to you, exactly?

                    3. He’s given into the dark side. The only emotions he experiences are fear and hate.

                    4. I’m not punishing anyone. I’m voting for the best candidate. Best by far. Johnson is highly unlikely to win, of course, but there may very well be a flash point where the LP gets enough votes to start actually affecting policy. Or even to start winning elections.

                      I think it’s significant that the LP has now run two “mainstream” candidates in a row. The LP is starting to be an appealing alternative.

            4. You could also just come to grips that you have no control over who is going to be President and stop worrying about the inevitable.

        1. I missed it. What happened?

          Ken got all butthurt that we won’t just be Republican with him like we’re supposed to be.

          1. I’m a Republican, and I’m probably not going to vote for Romney. The guy’s a progressive.

            1. But but…Obama is Lenin!

              1. Obama’s one of many politicians that can only be appropriately described as The Spawn of Satan’s Asshole, but I’m having serious trouble bringing myself to vote for someone like Romney. It makes me feel filthy.

              2. Read it again.

                1. Oh, I know Ken, you weren’t saying Obama is Lenin. You were just comparing them to convince us to vote for Romney.

                  Great plan.

                  1. Obama is obviously not Lenin.

                    But he is Hugo Chavez or Fido Castro or a certain austrian corporal.

                    The real difference isn’t Obama’s personality or governing style. It’s the stability of the US system of government.

                    And don’t delude yourself that four more years of Obama’s cult won’t do serious damage.

            2. I used to consider myself a Republican, and am still technically registered as one, but I’ve accepted that Buckley’s bizarre anti-Soviet alliance of warmongers, theocrats, and libertarians ended with the Cold War.

              I will be enjoying the novelty of voting for the last Republican senatorial candidate to ever appear on the ballot in California. But other than that, I vote Libertarian whenever I can.

              I am grateful, though, that Romney is providing an opportunity to vote against the liberal governor of Massachusetts to those of us who were too young to vote against Dukakis.

          2. There was a whole lot of that brand of butthurt yesterday.

      2. Nothing’s changed for the people voting for Johnson, but in a matter of weeks you’ve gone from “I’m so principled I would never vote for a libertarian emperor, so sorry I couldn’t support Paul or Johnson” to “Oh gee Romney said a couple nice things about capitalism and parasites. Oh and he worked at a business! Romney 2012!” The problem isn’t other people turning into Johnson-tards. It’s you turning into one of Romney’s useful idiots

        1. Of course something’s changed for the people voting for Johnson–a whole lot of them have had to support the Repub/libertarian candidate instead of the Republican candidate they wanted.

          Know why Johnson can’t win? Because he’s the Consolation Candidate. Even the people ‘supporting’ him now really wanted what was behind door number 2.

  27. http://washington.cbslocal.com…..ssistance/

    DC: Professor: Drones Will Soon Be Able To Kill During War Without Human Assistance

    “Drones could soon operate without the help of humans.”

    “Agence France-Presse is reporting that the Pentagon wants its drones to be more autonomous, so that they can run with little to no assistance from people.”

    “‘Before they were blind, deaf and dumb,’ Mark Maybury, chief scientist for the U.S. Air Force, told AFP. ‘Now we’re beginning to make them to see, hear and sense.'”

    “Ronald Arkin, a professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology, believes that drones will soon be able to kill enemies on their own independently.”

    “‘It is not my belief that an unmanned system will be able to be perfectly ethical in the battlefield, but I am convinced that they can perform more ethically than human soldiers are capable of,’ Arkin told AFP.” …

    —————

    This is exactly what we need. Holy shit.

    1. Its nice to see my alma mater is at least partially responsible for skynet.

      1. Are you John Connor?

    2. What about rape?

  28. Sounds like a pretty solid deal to me dude.
    http://www.AnonProject.tk

  29. http://www.examiner.com/articl…..res-mexico

    Administration’s ‘Gunwalking’ facilitated bloodiest massacres in Mexico

    “Sunday evening, the Spanish language channel Univision revealed several devastating details about the sheer magnitude of the carnage wrought by the Obama administration’s ‘Project Gunwalker.’ Investigative reporters for the program ‘Aqu? y Ahora’ (‘Here and Now’) discovered that weapons from the infamous Operation Fast and Furious were used in the slaughter of 14 innocent teenagers at a birthday party in Ciudad Juarez in January, 2010. …” …

    ——

    So when’s Eric Holder’s execution?

    1. Didn’t you hear? That’s all Bush’s fault.

    2. And people think immigration is a problem. These Spanish language reporters are doing a lot more uh whats that word … oh yeah, journalism, than the idiots in the MSM

  30. Gaga put her ample cleavage on show

    That’s no cleavage; that’s the Darien Gap.

  31. Univision: Juarez drug cartel leader ‘El Diego’ was captured with Fast and Furious weapons

    “When Mexican authorities took Juarez drug cartel carnage king Jose Antonio Acosta Hernandez ? better known as ‘El Diego’ ? into custody, he had weapons from Operation Fast and Furious on his person, the English-language transcript of the Spanish-language television network Univision’s special investigation into the scandal shows.”

    “‘According to investigations, ‘El Diego’ forms the link between this massacre and Fast and Furious,’ an anchor read on air in Spanish Sunday evening, referring to two different mass killings drug cartel operatives used Fast and Furious weapons to conduct as Univision reported.” …

    1. http://dailycaller.com/2012/10…..s-weapons/

      This is gold. Reason’s staff should hammer the living shit out of this when they’re interviewed on the topic.

      1. “The system worked.”

        /Janet Napolitano

    2. Did they catch his notorious lieutenant Baby Jaguar?

  32. TN: GOP congressional candidate in Obama ‘threat’ row after posting picture of gun on Facebook with message to President saying ‘Welcome to Tennessee’

    “A congressional candidate has courted controversy after posting a picture of a gun on his Facebook page along with the message: ‘Welcome to Tennessee Mr Obama’.”

    “Some have claimed that the post by Republican Brad Staats – who has also suggested that Mr Obama may be ‘a traitor’ – could be interpreted as a threat against the President.”

    “However, the candidate has defended his statement, insisting that the message was in fact a protest against the UN Small Arms Treaty.” …

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..ebook.html

    ——-

    rasist!!!1

  33. http://www.jconline.com/articl…..otest-Indy

    IN: Veteran, ACLU files suit for right to protest in Indy

    “A disabled veteran from Lebanon filed suit Monday against the Indiana War Memorials Commission and the Indiana State Police after he was threatened with arrest in July …” …

    “In a press release, the ACLU said Smith ‘brought his 10- year-old son to Monument Circle to protest an action he believed would violate his Second Amendment rights.'” …

    “Smith went to Monument Circle … ‘bearing several signs that expressed his opposition to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, believing that the proposed treaty threatened his Second Amendment rights. State officials told Smith he would be arrested if he did not leave the public space because he did not have a state permit allowing him to protest.'” …

    ———–

    Will they soon make it a crime to piss without a permit, too?

    1. He should have gone to a designated free speech zone.

  34. TX: Austin Police Once Again Arrest Man While Video Recording, Confiscate yet Another Camera

    http://www.pixiq.com/article/a…..-recording

    “Austin police once again arrested a member of the Peaceful Streets Project, the activist organization that monitors police by video recording them in public.”

    “This time, it was a 61-year-old man named Lynn Foster, who is described as the ‘most docile member’ of the group.”

    “As they’ve done on three previous occasions, police confiscated his camera and have refused to return it, even though the law states they need a subpoena to do so.”

    “But Austin police have proven not to let petty distractions like subpoenas to prevent them from suppressing evidence.” …

    ———-

    To protect and serve, eh?

  35. Is anyone else having trouble viewing Reason on their iPad because of the YouTube videos?

    1. Yes! If there is a YouTube embed, it causes a large black bar to run down the entire comment thread. Is that your problem too?

      1. That is my problem.

        1. My slow Brazilian Internet connection makes it all the more annoying.

    2. Filthy 1-percenters and their iPads. Serves you right@!111

      1. I bang it against the table out of frustration, but the golden plated hard cover keeps it from breaking.

  36. OMG! Teh frakingz!!

    Before a series of small quakes on Halloween 2008, the Dallas area had never recorded a magnitude-3 earthquake, said Cliff Frohlich, associate director and senior research scientist at the University of Texas at Austin’s Institute for Geophysics. USGS data show that, since then, it has felt at least one quake at or above a magnitude 3 every year except 2010.

    To clarify, there have been 4 years in recorded history where a magnitude 3 (Did the Earth just move? My feet felt weird for a second.) earthquake has been recorded in Dallas. Remeber, a 3 is 10000x weaker than a 7.

    1. The anti-fracking play here is to use the fact that the word “earthquakes” is scaaaaaary, even though the type of “earthquakes” we’re talking about (in the magnitude 2 to 3 range) are less noticeable and significant than your upstairs neighbor moving his couch around his apartment.

  37. Anyone up for dispensing a little professional (office politics-related) advice? Cause I need some.

    1. Yes, yes I will take this challenge.

      (Full disclosure: I was told yesterday by a co-worker that I am mean, and by another that I am “rude”. My answer to both of them was that A) I don’t like other people making me do more work because they screwed up; and B) I don’t think she fully understands what the word “rude” means)

      1. Dude, point A is totally where I’m at now because of bad project management.

        And people wonder why I’m a misanthrope.

    2. So long as you understand that the best course typicaly involves making sure you don’t do anything that even accidentally aligns with our advice, sure.

    3. Alrighty. So I work in a somewhat technical (read: male-dominated) field. I have been here for going on 6 years. My technical skills are not super, but they are adequate for the job. I have a colleague who has pretty much the same skillset as me (maybe a little bit less) and who has been working here a few years less than I have. He has expressed, on more than one occasion, his desire to be a simple worker-bee and just keep his head down and do his work. My edge is that I am a super project lead. I can keep projects on schedule and moving along. I can keep track of all kinds of moving parts and different personalities and work ethics. And, I’ll be fucked if I ever thought I’d say this, I actually like it. Project management, that is.

      So guess who they picked to be the lead developer? Not me, is who.

      Anyway, how would you approach this issue with your boss? I really like my colleague who was chosen as development lead. He’s actually good to work with and easy to talk to, but he’s frustrating as a manager because he doesn’t want to do it and is not good at decision-making and just plain old getting shit done. So I don’t want to speak ill of him – I want to speak well of myself. I just don’t know how to do that, or even if I should bring it up at this time.

      1. One suggestion (make lemonade out of those lemons)

        Tell your boss you are interested in becoming a Lead Developer someday, and ask him what you need to do to make it happen.

        In the meantime, help your friend out, non-ostentatiously. After a year or so, he’ll be singing your praises.

        If an internal opening opens up, you’ll have a good shot at it.

        You also will position yourself to get a lead developer job with someone else.

      2. The best way that I can suggest is the way that I did it when just such a thing happened at my work (loss mitigation, homeowner side, at a law firm). The department had been in the hands of incompetents since I came over to it. I kept my head down for months, tweaking things on my own as I could so that my job was made easier. I would make suggestions about ways things could be done better; 3 times out of 10 they might be implemented.

        The problem at my work is that the manager who came in right after me is female, and the rest of the department is about 75% female. So the team-lead positions would go to females who were either really friendly with the manager (almost seems quid pro quo) or at least acted that part. Well that team leader left for something else, and instead of promoting from within our team to someone who knew what was going on, they pulled over someone from the other team, who was in turn replaced by a manager’s favorite. Some facebook post went south, and the newly appointed team lead (on my side) was canned a week later.

        That was when I put my name into the mix. Sorry for the long set up, but you should send a professional email to your manager stating your desire for increased responsibility in that area. Point out times that you have done something beneficial, and make it obvious that you are not trying to usurp the other guy, but would like to make sure you are considered for future projects if not this one.

        1. Tarran’s response was better than mine. 🙁

          Apologies for including an anecdote that basically made your problem about me.

      3. So, my colleague just called me to discuss an issue that a project lead should be able to grab and go. It’s like he’s getting the title (it’s not really an official title, just an organizational structure) and I’m his inglorious consiglieri behind the scenes.

        Anyways, thanks for the advice, guys. It sounds sound 🙂

        1. Good luck. Let us know how it goes. Worse comes to worse, if the project bombs at least you don’t get stuck with the blame.

      4. Promotions and salary increases are easier to obtain by changing employers. That and you won’t have co-workers pissed that you got the promotion instead of them. A good PM who is technically literate (and who shields the devs from the inanity of the “business” people) are highly valuable.

  38. There has to be some spot on the spectrum of awful presidents that’s bad enough to justify voting for Romney–that isn’t as bad as Lenin.

    This is where your “analysis” falls completely to pieces, Ken.

    The question is not, “What would it take for you pig-ignorant bastards to vote for Romney?”

    The question is, “What will it take for the Republican Party to actually put forward a candidate who is a substantively better alternative to the fucking statist crooks we have had for the past twelve years?”

  39. a little professional (office politics-related) advice?

    Kill them all.

    Let Cthulu sort them out feast on their souls.

  40. Bitcoin: Monetarists Anonymous
    http://www.economist.com/node/…..sanonymous

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.