A.M. Links: White House Ready To Plunge Over Fiscal Cliff, Military Uses Drones in the U.S., Dope and Gay Marriage Legal in Washington

|

Have a news tip for us? Send it to: 24_7@reason.com

The updated Reason app for Apple and Android now includes Reason 24/7!

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

NEXT: Facebook Disengages Instagram From Twitter

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. …the White House is ready and willing to plunge over the fiscal cliff if the president doesn’t get his way.

    Why not? Politically there is no downside to Democrats.

    1. Correct.

      The entire narrative is that if we “fall” over the fiscal “cliff” it is because Republicans are holding the middle class hostage in order to avoid tax cuts for the “rich.” The idea that Team BLUE is holding the middle class hostage in order to hose the rich in new taxes isn’t even on the screen in the public debate.

      1. Obama is the victim, of course. It has nothing to do with lack of leadership skills.

        1. As always, Obama’s only flaw is failing to properly explain how perfect everything he is doing to everyone who disagrees with him.

      2. Well obviously, getting that $70 billion from rich people is way more crucial to cutting the size of the deficit than the $700 billion from the middle class.

        (Numbers over 10 years, I believe)

    2. As The President has established already, he’s awesome at pulling cars out of ditches that Republicans recklessly drove there. And what is a cliff but one big ditch?

    3. Jump MF, jump.

    4. What? When the automatic cuts kick in and the world doesn’t end, all the politicians are in trouble.

      1. It’s not the cuts that will cause problems.

      2. See this is what I don’t get…so a deal is made to raise the ceiling that involves cuts, either by action or sequester. Now the cut side of the deal is off the table unless more revenue and spending are agreed to? What good is a deal if only half of it ever gets done? Why make any deal?

        1. These are politicians we are talking about.

          1. They aren’t cuts!

            I read that as they aren’t ‘cunts!’ Sorry for that 😉 Seriously, though, I realize they aren’t actual reductions in spending…just in growth of spending. It just seems like the sequester and tax issues are separate and only the sequester was part of the original debt ceiling deal.

            1. Ken’s spidey senses were twitching there for a moment.

        2. I thought the sequestration was automatic unless they pass new legislation.

          1. Right. So across the board reductions in (the growth of) spending. Wasn’t the idea that there was a number in mind for reducing spending as a condition of raising the debt limit? And, so shouldn’t they be negotiating where the spending will be reduced (if they don;t like across the board calamity), rather than how to raise revenue?

    5. Why not? Politically there is no downside to Democrats.

      That’s only for the proglodytes that take their marching orders from the media, which is maybe 5% of the population.

      Most people don’t even know what the fiscal cliff is. And they have child like faith in the ability of the president to control everything so they give him credit and blame where none is due.

      1. This. For the vast majority of Americans the government is the President and the President is the government. If times get bad then the President is at fault.

        1. Then why did he get re-elected?

          1. Because people are stupid?

            More tactfully, rational ignorance is a bitch.

          2. Because he is the President and he promised to give people things. People made the choice between a guy who is promising to give them stuff and another guy who is promising to give them nothing.

            1. Romney promised to give people nothing? I must have really bad hearing

              1. You’re right. Voters seemed to go with their guy about who would best get them theirs.

    6. And there’s really nothing in the fiscal cliff that the Dems don’t want anyway.

      Higher taxes? Check.

      Lower defense budget? Check.

      Entitlements not cut? Check.

      Discretionary (read: easily restored) spending cuts, for teh headlines? Sure, why not.

  2. Antivirus pioneer John McAfee has been busted in Guatemala which plans to send him back to Belize for questioning about a murder.

    He should have scheduled a full scan of their extradiction laws before going there.

    1. He didn’t have 18 hours to spare.

      1. Will McAfee be offered a free 30 day trial?

        1. Once convicted, they can automatically renew his sentence yearly…a month in advance, unless he navigates the labyrinth of choices to deactivate autorenewal.

    2. Having corresponded with the guy, I can say: Nope, I don’t know what he’s doing, either.

      J.D., you wild and crazy guy

  3. New Star Trek trailer

    Is the villain KHAAAAAAN?!

    1. Looks like him. Wonder if they are going to keep the same backstory or change it?

      1. looks like Spock will be sacrificed again…

        1. Don’t grieve, Admiral. It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh…

          1. Of all the souls that I’ve encountered in my travels, his was the most… human.

            1. Yuman.

              1. Spock is from south west Arizona?

              2. Now I have Rob Zombie singing in my head.

                thanks.

        2. As the utilitarian asshole of the crew, it is only logical.

          1. Always sacrifice the utilitarians first, they cant complain.

            Tulpa, you are on notice.

        3. Why not? They’ve got a spare.

      2. I don’t know how they would keep the same story, awesome as it was. Although hopefully they still reference the eugenics wars of the 1990’s, since those events took place before the timeline was altered in the reboot.

      3. Rumored according to IMDB.

    2. Why can’t they come up with something new? That story has already been told, and quite well, too.

    3. The new Star Trek is complete and utter dreck. JJ Abrams deserves the Sideways Rusty Spoon treatment.

      1. Zod, you are fucking hard to please!

        1. No I’m not. Stop making these Star Trek movies and I’ll be pleased. Very pleased, actually.

      2. Right, because all of the first run series and movies were such amazing cinematic masterpieces. Perhaps you would have prefered they spent half an hour traveling through a worm hole?

        1. Disclaimer: I enjoyed the first batch of movies, just saying they weren’t perfect.

          1. How. DARE. You.

            Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was, in fact, very perfect. Very perfect indeed. I challenge you to find a flaw.

            1. The days/hours “code” was brutally obvious and unbelievable.

            2. khan’s prosthetic chest and a starship computer that couldn’t see that the system was missing a fucking planet.

              1. That wasn’t a prosthetic

                1. I went back and compared the tos and st2 chests and i have to agree that it wasn’t prosthetic due to matching blemishes.

        2. Well, now that pot is legal and CGI has improved, maybe that’s not such a bad idea…

        3. Right, because all of the first run series and movies were such amazing cinematic masterpieces

          Hm. I don’t see where I said that anywhere, do you?

          I have my criticisms of the entire canon, fyi. There’s no one more savage on Star Trek than Trekkers.

          However, this new batch of movies is nothing more than 2 Fast 2 Furious: Qo’nos Drift. It fucking blows.

          1. Well, well, just fuck off and die in a fire then.

            My favorite to date. That includes WoK.

            1. Your lack of taste is a choice on your part and I am not going to respect it. What was it you liked best: the nonsensical plot, the ‘action’ scenes, the bright lights, or the gratuitous alien sex and fighting?

              1. gratuitous alien sex

              2. My favorite part was Spock trying to talk over his dentures

              3. I liked the fact that they went out of their way to ensure the new kids maintained the mannerisms of their original counterparts. Star Trek is all about the characters. The story/action are secondary.

                That and the gratuitous alien sex.

          2. I’m not saying it was a great movie, I’m just tired of true fans saying how much it sucked compared to the originals. It was a mindless action movie with a decent plot. Those can be fun, too.

    4. one man wmd is how they are describing the next villan. that doesn’t really sound like khan. it sounds more like gary mitchell or trelane.

      1. I’m going with gary mitchell. the plot synopsis says the threat is from one of their own.

  4. Marijuana and gay marriage [sic] are legal in Washington, today!

    Next up: Federal prosecutions and full faith and credit challenges.

    1. Nah, the federal prosecutions won’t start until the commercial growing and selling starts.

      1. Nah, the federal prosecutions won’t start until the commercial growing and selling starts.

        They need to keep the veil legitimacy in keeping with the obvious will of the people.

        I wonder, however, how the fedgov would have responded to these initiatives had they passed in solid red states, as opposed to blue ones? Would they be more keen to “set an example” if it were South Carolina and Oklahoma?

        1. As a South Carolinian I’m just trying to imagine the scaremongering if such a thing was even proposed here.

    2. So now homosexuals are using the power of the state and its licenses to force others to recognize their
      relationships.

      What we need is not government marriage licenses, but freedom of association.

      The marijuana thing is probably OK as long as I don’t have to pay for their munchies.

      1. So now homosexuals are using the power of the state and its licenses to force others to recognize their relationships.

        This is just stupid.

        I agree that government simply needs to get out of marriage altogether, but so long as government is in the marriage business, the only way to have a semblance of liberty is to allow gay marriage.

        1. Word. And no one is forced to recognize anything. For example, I don’t recognize any marriages where both parties’ names begin with the letter “H”.

          1. If you run a business and you give health care to the spouse of a worker then now you must also give it to the homosexual spouse so you are forced by these state licenses.

            If you sell cakes or wedding photos you now must recognize these state licensed marriages.

            1. Well, I don’t do any of those things. And if I did, I still would have been forced to do those things for those damned “H” couples too, so I don’t really see what the difference is. I shouldn’t be forbidden to refuse to sell cakes to anyone.

            2. And, under current discrimination law, even if the government were out of the marriage business, you’d STILL be forced to recognize these marriages.

              Don’t like gays? Fine. But don’t try and use this whole “the state now forces us” nonsense as a veil to cover it.

              1. I thought that freedom was the right to choose who you liked and was not the States business.

                But you seem not to mind the state being involved as long as its supports homosexual marriage.

                Remember antidiscrimination laws are not freedom. The State simply went from having laws which prevented some people freely associated to laws to force people to associate.

                1. Why should homosexual marriage be any different than heterosexual marriage?

                  1. It should not, neither should involve a state license.

                2. “But you seem not to mind the state being involved as long as its supports homosexual marriage.”

                  No. I think that as long as the state is going to be involved, it needs to treat similarly situated people the same.

            3. So your actual problem is with the regulatory state, not marriage.

              1. But marriage being made part of the regulatory state is part of that problem and expanding the use of such licenses is the wrong way to go.

                Now you have a whole another group of people who will support the licensing of marriage.

                1. But marriage being made part of the regulatory state is part of that problem

                  It isn’t part – it is THE problem. The only problem.

                  1. The only problem.

                    Im glad to see I convinced you the other day.

                    Now lets fix the ONLY problem.

                    1. “Now lets fix the ONLY problem.”

                      By doing what? Arguing about it on H&R?

              2. So your actual problem is with the regulatory state, not marriage.

                No. His problem is with gay marriage. He was fine with the regulatory state until it meant he had to “recognize” gay marriage.

            4. So what? Gay business owners have been forced to recognize their straight employee’s heterosexual marriages for years.

              1. Which is why we should get rid of state licences for marrage.

              2. Thanks, thom.

              3. So what? Gay business owners have been forced to recognize their straight employee’s heterosexual marriages for years.

                Is there any court case where a gay-run business was forced to provide a service for a heterosexual couple based on discrimination laws?

            5. The real answer, MLG, is that SoCons were absolutely fine with state-sanctioned marriage as long as it was marriage of which they approved. Then once someone they don’t like wants to take advantage of this, they all of a sudden discover they have a principled objection to all state-sanctioned marriage, but this principled objection only manifests itself in opposition to expanding the marriage franchise. There is no “end government sanctioned marriage now” movement.

              1. Tonio, their hypocrisy isn’t in issue, and I frankly haven’t seen any SoCons do what you’re talking about.

                The only thing that matters is whether the argument is correct.

                1. Tonio, their hypocrisy isn’t in issue, and I frankly haven’t seen any SoCons do what you’re talking about.

                  Look further up thread.

                2. Randy, of course I know that there’s no significant opposition to all state sanctioned marriage. And the absence of such opposition proves that the opposition isn’t principled at all, but rather a flimsy facade erected to conceal the bigotry.

                  And in the real world in which we live, this matters.

                  1. And the absence of such opposition proves that the opposition isn’t principled at all, but rather a flimsy facade erected to conceal the bigotry.

                    Had I known that homosexuality carried the gift of clairvoyance, I would have signed up years ago.

                    1. Snark all you want, Randy, but their actions still fail the believability test. Again, this is not some hypothetical situation where everyone is a rational actor, and arguments are considered purely on their own merits.


              2. There is no “end government sanctioned marriage now” movement.

                Bullshit. Ive been running it for 20+ years.

                1. But you’re one individual, Rob. When NOM starts agitating for that, or when an organization with similar power and budget does, then it might be believable.

                  1. But you’re one individual, Rob. When NOM starts agitating for that, or when an organization with similar power and budget does, then it might be believable.

                    Who knew they put goalposts on wheels?

                2. I subscribe to robc’s newsletter. I’m part of the movement too.

            6. No, you’re conflating two different things here. Government recognition of gay marriage does not force photographers to offer their services to gay couples. I am completely against anything like this, as I’m sure we all are; it’s anti-property rights. But it is not part and parcel of allowing homosexuals to contract themselves to one another.

              1. Government don’t recognize marriages, they license it. And a marriage license is not a contract between two people, its a government contract with the force of law and that law requires others to recognize and provide benefits to that married couple. The two people who sign up for that “contract” don’t even get to decide what is in the “contract”, and the government can change that “contract” when ever they want and apply it to all marriages no matter how long ago they occurred.

                1. DJF, the problem is with the regulatory state. Had interracial marriage not been legalized, and we were debating that today instead of gay marriage, would you have the same view you do on gay marriage? I too would prefer if the government got out of it entirely. But if we are going to have government granted marriage licenses, they should be available to both gay and straight couples

          2. Uhmm, that was MY folks…

        2. Do you also agree that the government should get out of subsidizing housing but as long as they are going to subsidize housing they should also subsidize homosexual or as they call it LGBT housing?

          http://articles.philly.com/201…..community.

          Neither licensing nor subsidies nor government in general go away when you make it bigger.

          1. Not quite. I don’t believe the government should subsidize housing, but I don’t believe it should be permitted to discriminate in administering that subsidy if it does.

          2. OK, someone please answer this question.

            If recognizing more marriages is bad because it makes the government bigger, then wouldn’t other arbitrary limitations on who can get married also be good? Such as laws against interracial marriage? Or some other less provocative example such as couples whose names both start with “H”?

            1. How about no state marriage licenses at all being the right answer?

              1. There is no conflict between the two positions.

              2. But which is more important? Fewer state recognized marriages (as much as I would like it, they aren’t going away completely), or equality under the law?

                1. But which is more important? Fewer state recognized marriages (as much as I would like it, they aren’t going away completely), or equality under the law?

                  Well if equality under the law is all we care about, then I fully expect homosexuals everywhere to come out in full support of consensual polygamous relationships, or line marriages.

                  1. Since when is it reasonable to expect people to behave in a principled and consistent way?

          3. Do you also agree that the government should get out of subsidizing housing but as long as they are going to subsidize housing they should also subsidize homosexual or as they call it LGBT housing?

            Someone needs to learn to write analogies.

          4. I wasn’t aware that LGBT people had different requirements for housing than the rest of us. What do they need? Special toilets or something?

          5. And notice how DJF is moving the goalposts …

            1. Notice how Tonio is invented goalposts and proclaiming they are being moved without providing evidence.

      2. A munchies joke! So original. So funny.

        1. You laugh now, but just wait until these reefer madness crazies buy up all the munchies at the local convince store and leave none for you.

          And now that there is no more Twinkies it will be even worse.

          1. No. I do not laugh now bc your Muncie jokes are about as funny as Gallagher.

        2. Stoners will laugh at anything, so the bar isn’t very high for pot humor.

          1. Ooh! A joke about how stoners will laugh at anything. How original.

            Cheech and Chong were not documentarists, you know?

            1. Toke up and mellow out, dude. The only Cheech and Chong movie I ever saw was The Corsican Brothers, but I’ve seen plenty of people laugh at trivial shit or for no apparent reason at all while stoned. I’m sure you’re an exception, though, because you’re such a special little pot-addled snowflake.

              1. Toke up and mellow out, dude

                Seriously, who knew that marijuana users were such a touchy bunch?

              2. This was also a joke, dude. Note the deliberate mirroring of the original comment of this subthread.

                1. I’m not offended by jokes about pot head, just lazy unfunny jokes about pot heads. The cheeohs jokes. The too stoned to find the polls. That shit.

                  1. How about the fact they can’t type or spell?

                    1. “How about the fact they can’t type or spell?”

                      I blame touch keyboards and fat fingers.

                    2. …And pot; don’t forget the pot.

                  2. It does get a bit tiresome sometimes. Drugs affect different people in different ways. And it is mostly people who rarely smoke or are just starting who get the giggles and munchies. I guarantee you talk to several people every day who smoke weed all day and you would never notice. This time it’s not a joke.

        3. I always wonder if it’s the marijuana or the copious alcohol consumption that tends to accompany it that makes users so hungry.

          1. I always wonder if it’s the marijuana or the copious alcohol consumption that tends to accompany it that makes users so hungry.

            As someone who never drinks alcohol, all I can say is “what”?

            1. Just my own experience then. I’m not a fan of pot for my own personal consumption.

          2. Pretty sure it’s the pot. Though I suppose individual experience may vary. Most of the regular pot smokers I know don’t drink much anyway.

          3. It’s the pot.

          4. As someone who has done both, I would say that marijuana makes me feel hungrier, but getting drunk also brings around the munchies for me. The latter might just be more of a realization that I need to eat something to suck up some of the booze.

            1. Drinking makes me hungry… if I do it for three days straight and fail to eat anything for that period.

              Otherwise, not so much.

          5. It’s the pot, but I don’t think it’s hunger, just some sort of oral fixation (bring on the facile jokes). I found, uhh, back in the day, that drinking something or smoking alleviated any desire I had to munch.

      3. So, DJF, you’re a member of an advocacy/lobbying/whatever group seeking to end government involvement in ALL marriages, right? What’s the name of that group? Linky to website?

        Because if no such thing exists, or if you’re not a member of it, then you’re talking shit.

        1. So unless I take the time and effort to create a group which you can Google then any opinion on the spread of state licenses is “shit”

          So you can’t really argue against getting rid of state licenses. Nor the fact that such licenses are used to force others to recognize what they would not voluntarily recognize.

          1. It’s not your personal failure to create such a group, but the fact that such a group, somehow, doesn’t exist, despite the large number of people who claim principled opposition to (all) state sanctioned marriage.

            1. Bullshit.
              See below

        2. Im a member of one. Its called robc.

          Its 43 years old, but its only been advocating to end government involvement in ALL marriages for about 21 or 22 years. Its really vague when that started, at this point.

          1. would you really join a club that had you as a member

    3. And running a business or teaching your own children are barely legal and held in the utmost contempt. Sure, WA is a couple steps ahead, but it made sure they are hundreds of steps behind.

  5. School evacuated as pupil brings hand grenade to show and tell

    more

    1. Well, at least the kid didn’t get expelled or shot or something.

      I’m pretty sure I remember at least one kid bringing in grandpa’s old WWII grenade for show and tell in elementary school. No one ever seemed to worried.

      1. I did when I was in elementary school and everyone thought it was the coolest thing ever.

    2. Oh for fucks sake. Everyone in her family knew it was a dummy grenade. Fucking fuckity fuck.

      1. Everyone in her family knew. But that doesnt’ mean the schoolteachers knew or cared. Or the “resource officers” (police officers in school). Or most particularly the administrators.

        Because if the choice is between busting the balls of one student, vs one or more calls from hysterical, uninformed parents, the student is going to lose every single time.

        1. I guess my point is that anyone with even a movie level knowledge of grenades and the thinking skills of a 7 year old would (if they were worried about it) simply confiscate the grenade, which, by virtue of having NOT exploded will continue to NOT explode until activated. Then, call the parents and tell them the story so that the parents could say, “oh yeah, that’s a dummy grenade. we let her bring it.”

          1. It’s the same level of understanding that leads people to believe that guns “just go off” sometimes. Because it is obviously a good idea to design a weapon that might just explode for no reason at any moment.

            1. To be fair, an old active grenade may just explode as the explosive degrades. Most military munitions have expiration dates. Propellants tend to lose their capability, while many explosives will become unstable.

              Having said that, it is very easy to differentiate a real grenade from a dummy.

        2. Brett, it sounds like you haven’t spent any actual time around anti-gun hysterics.

          by virtue of having NOT exploded will continue to NOT explode until activated

          Yes, that’s how rational people think, but hysterics of any sort are definitionally NOT rational.

          the parents could say, “oh yeah, that’s a dummy grenade.

          Which would require the school to trust the parents’ trustworthiness and expertise. Remember, educrats think parents are idiots.

          And again – choice between busting students balls, or calls from hysterical parents.

    3. My 6th grade teacher threw a mock hand grenade in class once.

      1. I’ll bet he was pissed when it didn’t go off.

    4. “I was understandably concerned for the welfare of the students,” he said.

      Well, as long as he thought his actions were understandable, then I guess it’s ok.

  6. Dr. No of the senate will agree to tax hikes on the wealthy

    Doesn’t he know the Democrats will never agree to needed spending cuts and entitlement reforms? They just imagine that tax hikes are the way to save the day!

    1. Coburn’s a pretty good guy. He’s not going to go full-on federalist reforms and tear out the roots of the government, but he seems quite a bit more intelligent and principled than the other GOP representatives.

      1. He was my Senator until I moved from Oklahoma about 4 years ago. I liked him a lot, but he had a few blights on his record… such as voting for TARP. But thinking the Democrats will give in to any demands of fiscal conservatives is completely asinine. They hold all the cards. They will negotiate. Nor will the media even ask for negotiations. It’s either go all in with Obama, or be labeled as obstructionists.

      2. So is he clueless, too, or just ugly?

        “I know we have to raise revenue,” the senator from Oklahoma told MSNBC. “I don’t really care which way we do it. Actually, I would rather see rates go up than do it the other way, because it gives us a greater chance to reform the tax code and broaden the base in the future.”

        There is zero chance that raising taxes on a single class will lead to reforming the tax code. It will only make permanent the idea that government spending can continue to go up until everyone is taxed 100%.

        “No, fuck you, cut spending.”

        1. I took his comment to mean that the tax tax code will become even more fucked up making major reform possible at some point in the future.

          The reality is that revamping the tax code is not going to happen with the dems controlling the Senate and Presidency.

          1. Or the Republicans controlling the Senate and Presidency.

    2. Is Coburn not the one that has been going on all the talk shows saying the opposite for a couple months and is going to retire? Can’t keep these statists separate. Either way, I am disappoint.

  7. Tanks are now on the streets of Cairo

    Condi called this “birth pangs of democracy” when Iraqis were killing US soldiers.

    1. I wonder what she is calling this?

      1. puerperal fever

    2. So what will O! and Hill call it – “The Resounding Success of our Efforts, see!”

      1. What efforts? They did what Ron Paul would in Egypt – nothing.

        1. I see, when all is well, they fall all over themselves to credit O! his new tone and apologia tour – when it goes to shite, “what? We didn’t do anything?!”

          1. Shrieking Idiot is lying through his teeth, like he he always does about everything. Obama overtly undermined Mubarak, publicly called for his ouster, and tacitly supported the 100% predictable takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood.

            1. Shorter shreek – it’s ok when my team does it, and does it worse.

              1. Yeah, Egypt and Iraq – EXACTLY ALIKE!

              1. Go jerk off to your Shepherd Fairy poster for the 900th time, you dishonest piece of shit.

              2. HAHAHA!! Look at me, I live in a bubble and can’t think!!!

              3. Like Peak Oil, you retard?

  8. A man who has fathered nine children has been told by a judge to stop procreating.

    Corey Curtis, of Racine, Wisconsin, has been ordered to stop breeding as a condition of probation until he can financially support his nine children from six different women, The Smoking Gun reported.

    more

    1. I almost agree with this… why should tax payers be on the hook because this guy can’t wear a damn condom?

      1. They shouldn’t be, but I prefer the children growing up hungry and with a chip on their shoulder against they’re shitty dad. God willing, they’d let him die in the street when he is old and destitute. And then everyone can remember the story of Cletus, the piece of shit who had too many kids and adjust their behavior accordingly.

      2. Takes two to procreate. Why is he the only one in trouble? Tell those women to figure out birth control or keep their legs closed.

        1. WOAR ON WYMMINZZ!!!

      3. The obvious answer is that we shouldn’t be responsible for this guy’s douchebaggery, and that the court clearly has no right to tell him to wear a bag.

        But as long as we have a welfare system that puts taxpayers on the hook for this guy’s douchebaggery, I pretty much agree.

      4. I wasn’t aware that the women he impregnated were all quadruple amputees and therefore incapable of making money for themselves.

        1. being a quadruple amputee shouldn’t necessarily mean you can’t make a buck. There are some unusual tastes out here…

          1. Q: What do you call a man who has no arms or legs, but can play ten musical instruments?

            A: Stump the Band.

          2. what is this, Dr. Adder appreciation day?

    2. Six different women eh, I guess he’s not the only one making great decisions.

      1. He’s still supposed to support his kids. This is a condition of parole.

        Ray Charles had 12 kids by 9 different women and no one had to tell him to wear a condom because he supported all of them. In December 2002 at a luncheon, he gave 10 of them checks for a million dollars.

  9. A new study reports that the United States actually faces little risk of another terrorist attack.

    The system works! All praise Napolitano!

  10. don’t let those damn Commies win the masturbation race too!

    1. You’re welcome to compete against them.

      1. Why do you think the invisible hand is so hairy that it’s considered furry?

    2. That sounds like a race where everybody wins.

    3. I’d need a bigger orange bucket.

  11. Apparently, operators even track civilian automobiles for giggles.

    The drone should count as my passenger to grant me legal access to HOV lanes.

    1. Surprise, surprise. Give government a power, and they’ll misuse it. And yet, if you suggest the solution to this is not giving government the power in the first place, people will look at you as if you’re a space alien or something.

  12. Why would anyone be surprised by what Turbo Tax Tim had to say – as he was not fired the day he uttered his famous “we don’t have any plans, but we do know we don’t like yours” line, we can see that the O! admin doesn’t care.

  13. Researchers say a form of ecstasy may heal combat trauma.

    Too bad the government doesn’t care about the medicinal value of substances they have banned.

    1. “”I don’t think any VA is going to touch this with a 10-foot pole because of the type of drug it is””

      The type of drug that makes you feel good and has few negative side effects when taken in moderation? Yeah, can’t have that.

      And people have known about its usefulness in this kind of therapy for years. Makes a lot of sense. It allows people to experience the traumatic memories and thoughts without the usual intense panic reaction.

      1. OMG! People might enjoy themselves. We must not allow any positive news about such things!

        1. It’s For The Children? that we must ban adults from doing things that are perfectly safe for adults to do.

      2. I don’t trust the VA to take a pulse correctly, much less administer a drug.

        Of course, letting private docs administer it – ha! The FDA and DEA would commit ritual seppuku first.

    2. I wonder how much the pharmacy industry is supporting the drug war? After all if people are no longer prohibited to make and use certain drugs will this spread to making and using your own medical drugs?

      1. I was on depression medication for a long time in my formative years.

        I didn’t start to get over serious depression until I kicked those drugs to the curb and starting self-medicating.

        Big-pharma is terrified of that.

        1. Swapped cymbalta shit for booze years ago. Frankly, I think my liver is better shape.

      2. The pharmacy industry doesn’t serve no-knock warrants and shoot your dog.

        I bet they’d love to market directly to the public without all those “ask your Dr about..”

        1. No, but they do support the regulatory environment which leads to such situations.

      3. It’s one thing to grow your own pot. It’s another to make your own aspirin. I’ll stick with the guys who have way more incentive to do some QC.

        Plus, I’d need to have a license to own laboratory glassware.

        1. It’s another to make your own aspirin.

          Actually, synthesizing aspirin is really easy to do at home.

          1. Having done it, I agree, but I’m resonably certain most people aren’t up for it. Plus, there’s that pesky license issue for the glassware.

            1. Plus 120 generic tablets are like $1 at the grocery store.

  14. Short of cash and need some gift ideas? Why not practise the ancient art of tampon craft?

    1. These are awesome, thanks for the laugh. I especially liked the Easter Bunny.

    2. Reduce, recycle, reuse and love Mother Earth.

  15. the White House is ready and willing to plunge over the fiscal cliff if the president doesn’t get his way.

    Petulant narcissist is petulant.

    1. But but but Republicans!!!111!!!

  16. A new study shows that young doctors have minimal interest in going into primary care, even as the physician shortage is likely to get critical under Obamacare.

    But it won’t be a problem for you at all if you start learning Tagalog and Urdu now.

    1. Now all the shitty doctors who used to get permanently booted down to morgue duty(Everything I know about the medical profession comes from Scrubs), will be promoted to Primary care. I’m sooooo glad we have free healthcare and will get to live as long as the caring Europeans. Thank god.

      1. Everything I know about Scrubs just came from you right now. However what I know about the medical profession comes from being in it for the last 35 years and FWIW I have no idea what that shitty doctors “getting permanently booted down to morgue duty” deal even is. Ah, Hollywood.

        1. I can’t remember but one character was so bad at being a doctor for the living, even though he got through med school, they put him in the morgue where he would autopsies I guess.

          Regardless of how true/probably untrue that BS is, I’m sure Obamacare is going to help create a “market” for less than stellar physicians in Primary care.

    2. What will the government do when these doctors simply up and quit?

      1. (Assuming they’ve paid off their student loans, of course.)

  17. …the military makes extensive domestic use of drones. Apparently, operators even track civilian automobiles for giggles.

    For giggles? Or because, like me, they’ve been watching Netflix reruns of Alias and know that this country is lousy with Alliance and Covenant operatives.

    Also, there are no civilians where drones are concerned.

    1. I think it’s probably more like that scene from that Will Smith movie where they are scanning for topless women. (Actual memory of movie may be wrong)

    2. Ah, you reminded me of the days when Jennifer Garner was hot.

  18. Demi Moore drunk.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..avitz.html

    1. She’s really let herself go since GI Jane.

      1. Time is cruel, I think she looks pretty good for her age.

    2. So, someone going to a party, getting drunk and dancing is news? I thought that’s what parties were for.

    3. Or she downed 5 cans of Red Bull.

    4. I love the pained smiles from her “friends.” Apparently her boyfriend was there (pic further down the page, and Ewwww). Nice.

    5. She doesn’t look too bad, but those around her don’t seem too enthused.

      And those hipster glasses simply do not work on her. Or anyone, really.

    6. I like how the couch they are all sitting on is apparently ‘slip-covered’. Maybe they burn them after the celebs leave…can never be too careful I suppose.

  19. BASE jumper goes “splat”.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-open.html

    1. Avoidable risk, not avoided.

    2. I would have thought they’d carry a backup parachute for just these situations, but maybe 1,000 feet isn’t enough time/ space to deploy it? I know nothing of this sort of thing, so serious question.

      1. Depends on how long he waits to pull the first one. We carried backup chutes for 1000 foot jumps, but we were doing static line where the main chute deploys automatically as you exit the aircraft. But you have to be on your game, because the backups are a completely manual operation and you don’t have any time to spare once the main chute doesn’t deploy. Below ~800 or so, a backup is pretty much farking worthless except as a shroud.

        1. Yeah, that is what I was wondering. I wouldn’t think 1,000 feet left a lot of room for error in the big scheme of things.

      2. You only have about ten seconds. I doubt it would have helped.

    3. Splat video or it didn’t happen.

      1. You are macabe, aren’t you?

  20. For your Holiday listening pleasure,

    Macro Follies

    The latest by econstories.tv (they Keynes and Hayek rap battle guys)

  21. Which one of you bemonocled capitalists got your child slave factory raided?

    Police and child advocates broke padlocks and busted down doors in a surprise raid of a sweatshop in India, only to find a group of children imprisoned who had been forced to make Christmas decorations.

    The children, as young as 8 years old, were kept in rooms approximately six feet by six feet and had been forced to work up to 19-hour days making the decorations, which advocates believe may have been intended to be sold on the cheap in the United States.

    1. i am offended by your suggestion that I would force small foreign children to make Christmas decorations. I’m a libertarian, not a monster. I employ small foreign children to test cosmetics on their bare skin – money and a makeover. I’m like Mother Teresa, except not a mean bullying old bitch. And taller. And I can accessorise

      1. I am offended by his suggestion that my bribes to the local police aren’t large enough to prevent this sort of raid.

      2. That’s because you, being a libertarian, don’t believe in Christianity. You’d force them to make “holiday” decorations.

        1. Ha! This libertarian atheist would gladly profit from Christmas Tree ornaments. No manger scenes, though.

      3. I employ small foreign children to test cosmetics on their bare skin

        What, you waste a good Draize test? Don’t these kids have eyes?!

    2. 19-hour days? That’s not capitalist enough. We need 53.56 hour days (the workers usually die around then and then we just kidnap more children).

    3. So you’re saying the cost of Christmas decorations is about to go up.

    4. Damnit, now what am I supposed to use to decorate my orphan-burning factories here in the States?

      1. What? How did you sneak that by? The Marianas Islands territiory is as close as I’m able to get to CONUS.

  22. More Google Street View pics.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci…..world.html

    1. With all those drives through the streets of Japanese hot springs, they were bound to see macaque at some point. Sure, I took steps to cover everything up when I could, but the power of macaque is that it will pop up when you least expect it.

  23. Once again, Reason, you disappoint me. This is the only acceptable picture to use of Tax Cheat Timmeh.

    1. She’s only a week old dude! Chill the fuck out!

      1. Turn in your monocle to the nearest yacht club.

        1. I hope she eventually marries someone named Postrel.

  24. Woman kills boyfriend because his dick smelled like another woman.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..x-him.html

    1. The prosecution opened the trial on Tuesday by painting a picture of Kozloff as a jealous lover who wanted revenge on Henry because he had decided to end their eight-week relationship.

      The crazy, you can’t let it hang around that long.

    2. Based on the sheer volume of scents and perfumes the women in my office are constantly spraying, I could be in trouble here as well.

    3. So did it smell like Salmon? Rockfish? Seabass? Manta Ray? Coral?

      What? The misogyny levels in this thread are drastically low.

      1. Rotten trouser trout.

      2. I’m guessing he didn’t get all the santorum off. Dead giveaway. I’m told.

    4. A primitive organism.

  25. A new study shows that young doctors have minimal interest in going into primary care, even as the physician shortage is likely to get critical under Obamacare. You mean they don’t want to get nickel-and-dimed by Medicaid? Bastards.

    Draft those unpatriotic wreckers into primary care then!

  26. Apple stock selling off big again pre-market. The heard mentality of Wall St is amazing since Apple did nothing wrong.

    Wait till the heard turns on gold.

    1. Fuckers should have been burned for their vexatious litigation against Samsung.

      What will happen when the saw and smelled turn on gold?

    2. I heard what the herd heard, but the herd ain’t heard what I heard away from the herd.

      Do try to get your homophones straight.

      1. can I get a free homophone?

    3. You predicted that at the end of last year and it didn’t happen, you illiterate dunce.

      And you can keep on predicting it over and over and over again at the end of each year, and it still won’t happen as long as your beloved Bernanke’s Easy Money Forever policy is going on.

    4. Agreed.

      From what I’ve read, the plunge is due to some analysts having said that the iPad MIGHT lose its virtual monopoly on tablets. In 2016.

      Besides that, they’re making hand over fist in profit, and are selling record numbers of iDevices every quarter.

      The selloff is insanity run amok and has no basis in reality.

      1. Of course, the sell off is right after Apple announced that is was going to try and make a line of Macs made completely in the US. Given the power of unions and the degraded state of American manufacturing, it’s probably a great time to sell.

      2. Trees don’t grow to the sky.

        1. Yggdrasil does. BOOM

    5. Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter so that I can make fun of it.

    6. Wait till the heard turns on gold.

      Gold enjoys bear raids about every other day or so. Problem is, central banks now have buy orders of truly enormous size sitting under this market setting a floor that no bear can get through.

      No, the hedgie herd is already on the bear side. When they turn to the bull side, that’s when gold will break out of its 2012 range trade. (To the upside.)

    7. Apple and gold, exactly the same!

  27. Let the retard win!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..match.html

    1. I’m thinking someone had money on the TRID.

      1. Throw the match for the cerebral palsy kid and you’re a hero. Throw it for your bookie and you’re a felon.

    2. I’m a little conflicted on this. I applaud the kid for being a good sport but if the cerebral palsy kid is the physical equivalent of a six month old then he really has no business out there on the mat.

    3. Fuck the ADA.

      During the incredible video, Justin shakes hands with Jared and then helps Jared pull his arm over his own body so he can be pinned on the floor.

      It sucks that some people are born with disabilities (and for all the jokes that I make I’m sure I’ll have my fair share of disabled kids). But I think faking a win in a sporting event is far worse. I don’t know; maybe I’m alone in my heartlessness.

      1. Not alone, I agree.

      2. I’m with you.

      3. I agree completely. Trying to make people feel good about themselves for fake reasons seems like a bad thing. Sorry, kid, no you can’t wrestle. I’m all for trying to include disabled people where possible, but pretending that they can do anything is lame and they will be really disappointed when they become adults and realize that most of the world doesn’t give a fuck and that they have to spend the rest of their lives being taken care of by someone getting paid $10 an hour who would rather be somewhere else.

        1. A coworker of mine has a Down’s kid.
          The other day he’s talking of how the kid flirts with anything with tits, and how everyone thinks it’s so cute.

          I quietly thought to myself “Not going to be cute once Down’s kid turns into a creepy Down’s adult. Better nip that behavior in the bud.”

          Oh well. Not my problem.

          1. well, not your problem until you develop moobs

          2. Eh, most small kids flirt with anything with tits. Tits are compelling! How old is the kid? If he’s above 5 or so, then I agree, some proper socialization needs to begin.

            1. He’s a teenager, though he doesn’t look older than nine.

              1. Oh then yeah, I would not think that was “cute” AT ALL. I am willing to bet that anyone who said it was was trying to spare the parent and themselves embarrassment (although it sounds as if the parent is pretty oblivious).

            2. Yeah, but the ones with severe mental disabilities tend to keep doing it as adults.

          3. Oh well. Not my problem.

            What if one of your tit-equipped loved ones encounters him in the future?

        2. being taken care of by someone getting paid $10 an hour who would rather be somewhere else

          The who provide professional “custodial” (ie, unskilled) care are often not the best and the brightest so it beats working fast food or in a warehouse.

          1. Oh yeah. I’m not trying to make a point about wages. Just the sort of life such people can, sadly, expect and who will likely be caring for them.

          2. I didn’t take it as a point about wedgies, Zeb. And I should have better stated my point, which was that custodian is probably one of the best jobs, in terms of working conditions, that these people can get given the skills required.

      4. The kid probably realized that he’d be castigated for pinning a helpless opponent and took what he saw as the path of least resistance.

        I agree that there is nothing in this story that we should be proud of, but he is still just a kid; maybe he just caved into the pressure.

      5. I dunno. This just doesn’t bother me. Personally, I think giving a disabled kid a break is a perfectly decent thing to do.

        The next thing that needs to happen is his parents need to gently let him know his wrestling days are done.

        1. You mean the CP kid or the kid who threw the match?

      6. I had a friend in high school that set a record for fastest pin. It was about 6 seconds, against a blind girl.

        1. I presume y’all relentlessly mocked him for winning a tough match against a blind girl? Because I sure as shit would have.

        2. Now this is a truly great American success story.

    4. I see this as a lose-lose situation for the normal kid. He may have been scared shitless about hurting the CP kid. We don’t know whether he got pressured by his school’s ADA advocate (or whoever) about this. This was an unfair situation for both kids.

      1. Good point. It is a pretty crappy situation to put the kid in. “Here kid, beat up this cripple.”

  28. I need a dog chauffeur.

    Because the world can’t get strange enough, an animal training school in New Zealand has set out to prove that dogs have enough smarts to drive cars at low speeds, given weeks of instruction and a special set of paw controls. This video suggests they’ve succeeded, finally answering the question of what dogs would do if they ever caught a car they were chasing.

    1. I wouldn’t be surprised if they are better than most human drivers.

      1. in New Zealand, almost certainly

        1. Oh sure, you would say that about the Kiwis, you, you Ozzian!

          1. It’s the only country that can make a local version of Cops that goes full retard

              1. Sweet!

            1. Wow, that cop only threatened to spray the dogs. Those two ankle biters would have been dead the moment American cops opened the door.

    2. It’s not the intelligence or dexterity I’m concerned with. It’s the attention span and the possibility of SQUIRREL!

      1. But, the fact that they don’t have smartphones probably evens that out.

  29. Chris Ponder puts his last year as a starter in the NFL to good use.

    1. So he was banging Erin Andrews and this one too?

      All-pro QB no doubt.

    2. Pretty well done, but not quite as well done as Tannehill.

      1. Tannehill actually has a future. Ponder’s number have “journeyman backup” written all over them.

        1. Ah, so you’re saying him getting Lauren is more justified? I can see that.

      2. I realize we are disagreeing over two hot blonde women, but I like Ponder’s woman better.

        1. She looks like she’s got a really fake tan to me (and just sort of fake in general). Granted, I’m only going off of this one picture, but she also looks a older than this.

          1. Eh. Mrs. Tannehill is cute as basket of kittens, but I think Mrs. Ponder might be more fun. Choosing between them is a problem I’d like to have.

            1. Why not both?

              1. Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. Knowing what is enough is important.

                1. Sounds like your swimming pool of gold is running low.

  30. Biological mom seeks relationship with son she gave up as a teenager.

    Ms Russo has been following her son’s growing celebrity status from the stands at football matches but longs for a deeper relationship with him now that he’s rich and often comments on his Twitter profile.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..ve-up.html

      1. John would.

    1. from the stands at football matches

      1. SQUIRRELSSSSS!!!

      2. Your post (#3417758) has been marked as spam by a third-party spam filter. If this is a mistake, please email webmaster@reason.com.

        Any reference to squirrels gets flagged? Well played, sqwerlz, well played.

  31. A horse is a horse, of course, of course…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..chair.html

  32. Canada’s Gun Control Feminists Remember

    1. What the fuck? The men just left? Not cool, bros.

  33. did anyone post the winning entry from the Literary Review’s Bad Sex Award? If not, the winner was Nancy Huston for Infrared (Atlantic Books).

    Sentences from the novel such as ‘Kamal and I are totally immersed in flesh, that archaic kingdom that brings forth tears and terrors, nightmares, babies and bedazzlements’ caught the judges’ attention. One long passage in particular stood out:

    He runs his tongue and lips over my breasts, the back of my neck, my toes, my stomach, the countless treasures between my legs, oh the sheer ecstasy of lips and tongues on genitals, either simultaneously or in alternation, never will I tire of that silvery fluidity, my sex swimming in joy like a fish in water, my self freed of both self and other, the quivering sensation, the carnal pink palpitation that detaches you from all colour and all flesh, making you see only stars, constellations, milky ways, propelling you bodiless and soulless into undulating space where the undulating skies make your non-body undulate…

    1. If he took out all the caps and punctuation he’d be called a Joycean genius.

      1. Nancy Huston is a he?

    2. propelling you bodiless and soulless into undulating space where the undulating skies make your non-body undulate…

      HAWT! REDUNDANTLY HAWT!

      1. all that undulating would make me vomit.

        1. “It was like riding on a cosmic waterbed with the baffles of love knocked out…”

      2. Admit it, you gave her writing pointers for this section, didn’t you?!!

        1. I employ clean, journeyman-like prose for my degraded filth, thank you very much.

    3. Countless treasures between my legs? Just how big is her snatch?

        1. Silver and gold, silver and gold!

    4. This is what happens when bad writers have aspirations beyond genre fiction. “Hey, how many tricks can I throw at this sentence?”

      Ugh. Hopefully that was self-edited. Or the editor’s brain quit in protest well before that.

      1. “Or the editor’s brain quit in protest well before that.”

        Quit AND walked out.

    5. If not, the winner was Nancy Huston for Infrared (Atlantic Books).

      So Atlantic Books will publish anything, huh?

  34. DoD Spends $100,000 Studying Whether Jesus Died for Klingons
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G…..s-Klingons

    1. That’s it, we’re done. Pack it up, go home. If the world doesn’t end now, it certainly should. Sweet Klingon Saving Jesus.

    2. Or they could have spent a few hundred and had them read A Case of Conscience.

  35. The Physics of a [pint of] Guinness
    http://www.geeksaresexy.net/20…..nce-video/

  36. 5 Of Physics’s Greatest Sex Scandals
    http://www.popsci.com/science/…..s?cmpid=tw

    Frampton isn’t the only physicist to get caught up in a love scandal. Though most of them haven’t ended up in an Argentine prison, some did have awkward run-ins with the media. Check out these physicists who probably wish their sex lives were as invisible as dark matter.

  37. Detroit councilwoman to Obama: We voted for you, now bail us out
    http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/st…..support-us

    City Council member JoAnn Watson said Tuesday the citizens support of Obama in last month’s election was enough reason for the president to bailout the struggling the city. (Click the video player to listen)

    “Our people in an overwhelming way supported the re-election of this president and there ought to be a quid pro quo and you ought to exercise leadership on that,” said Watson. “Of course, not just that, but why not?”

    1. fail. this was discussed yesterday.

  38. Ulysses S. Grant’s greatest regret
    His anti-Semitic order haunted ? and drove ? him
    http://bostonglobe.com/opinion…..story.html

    The region commanded by Grant was home to several thousand Jews (including men in uniform serving under him). Fortunately, General Orders No. 11 had little direct impact on most of them. Jews were driven out of Paducah, Ky., and some towns in Mississippi and Tennessee, and there were accounts of Jewish travelers being imprisoned and roughed up. But a breakdown in military communications slowed the spread of Grant’s directive, and at least some officers had qualms about enforcing it. Brigadier General Jeremiah C. Sullivan, the Union commander of Jackson, Tenn., commented tartly that “he thought he was an officer of the Army and not of a church.”

    1. There is just NO WAY that Grant, protector of the universe, wasn’t a peachy guy.

      1. Does anyone really think that about Grant? It seems to me the he is pretty universally recognized as an effective general, but a personally pretty uncouth and nasty person.

        1. He’s the guy who makes a cameo appearance in Spielberg’s *Lincoln.*

          The linked article summarizes a book about Grant and the Jews. The proximate cause of Grant’s order was probably some seedy Jewish traders who tried to use Grant’s father to arrange some dubious trading arrangement with the South.

          Soon after Grant issued his ban on Jews than Pres. Lincoln countermanded it. When Grant himself became President, he took up the cause of oppressed Jews in Europe, earning the appreciation of Jewish leaders.

          So he pretty much managed to overcome the legacy of his infamous order, as did the country.

  39. http://youtu.be/5f6FZGjF8OA

    Critique of union tax the rich video narrated by Ed asner

  40. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says the White House is ready and willing to plunge over the fiscal cliff if the president doesn’t get his way.

    Deal, book it.

  41. Does anyone else hate the fiscal cliff meme as much as I do? Why the fuck does reason keep repeating that term.

    Stop using it, it isnt a cliff, its an agreed upon spending deal as part of the debt ceiling. Call it that instead.

    1. Stop using it, it isnt a cliff, its an agreed upon spending deal as part of the debt ceiling. Call it that instead.

      Yeah, I’m sure Google is blowing up with searches on those keywords. Should bring lots of traffic to Reason.com.

      1. Dont let your enemy choose the names.

        1. I don’t think Reason is letting the enemy choose the names. It is optimizing its content so that it can be found by the most users searching for it in order to ensure that their material is read by the widest audience possible.

    2. Remember that time when Olivia Munn went cliff diving? Immediately afterward, she admitted that it was great fun until the force of impact sent a column of seawater up her bum.

      Fiscal saltwater enema?

      1. That’s why you dive head first. All your holes point the other direction.

    3. Not to mention there are at least four different components that could have been or could be handled as separate issues instead of this all or nothing approach. But that would harm their brinksmanship abilities.

  42. James Hansen on climate change:
    …””Why do you want big banks in this problem?” Hansen asked. “Why should they be making money? Every cent they make is coming out of the public’s hide.”…
    He said that.
    http://blog.sfgate.com/energy/…..and-trade/

    1. Every cent they make is coming out of the public’s hide.”…

      Says a man who’s been working for the government for decades.

  43. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says the White House is ready and willing to plunge over the fiscal cliff break the debt ceiling deal if the president doesn’t get his way.

    Changes the whole picture, doesn’t it?

    Too bad the brainless idiots in the media will never give up their brainless meme.

  44. Apple stock selling off big again pre-market. The heard mentality of Wall St is amazing since Apple did nothing wrong.

    Maybe the herd heard about the impending jump in the capital gains tax rate.

  45. “Any of the above depress you? Marijuana and gay marriage are legal in Washington, today! So, if you’re in the neighborhood, go and get some of whichever you prefer.”

    Gay sex is NOT a commodity.

    1. No, they said marriage, which we all know doesn’t involve sex. rimshot.

    2. Of course gay sex isn’t a commodity.

      Its a service. Duh.

  46. Tanks are now on the streets of Cairo, but only to keep the battling factions apart. Right.

    These are the opening shots of a civil war.

    The Islamists aren’t going to back down. (Why would they? They have the upper hand.) And Egypt is not Iran. The secularists aren’t going to just disappear under a theocratic government. And the military – we may recall was aligned with Mubarak. There are plenty of generals who will be happy to launch a coup against Morsi if the are people in the streets demanding it.

    There is going to be blood in the streets.

    1. Morsi fucked up precisely for the same reason Mubarak did–because he didn’t realize that it’s the military which runs Egypt, not its titular head of state.

  47. Jim Demint has resigned from the Senate to head up the Heritage Foundation. Is this a “fuck you” to the GOP leadership which is attempting to purge conservatives?

  48. In Australia, old and young alike upset that young people care more about self-preservation than environment. Not that these are mutually exclusive, but the fact that they answered a poll saying they worry more about it puts people off. I’d say the brain washing is nearing completion if these kids feel bad about this.

    1. Yeah, we must put TEH ENVIEROMENTZ ahead of our natural instinct to survive and procreate… because tigers and elephants.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.