Barbara Boxer

National Guard in the Cafeteria?, Blizzard Slams the Midwest, New York's Budget Is Busted: P.M. Links

|

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: EU to Charge Samsung with Antitrust Violations

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. Sen. Barbara Boxer wants to station National Guard troops in the nation’s schools to defend the kiddies.

    Please call her moron. She worked so hard for that title.

    1. I’m having trouble grasping the stupidity of this woman. Maybe Hugh can help me understand?

      1. Hugh only speaks French, he doesn’t speak imbecile.

        1. Barbara Boxer does not deserve a Better Off Dead comment thread.

          1. You’re not the president of this thread!

          2. Forgive me, for I hath sinned. I guess my brain must be frozen, it’s -14C. Cold weather has befallen Donets’k. Actively.-D

        2. Buck up little camper, we’ll beat that mental retardation…together.

          1. I’ve been going to this blog for seven and a half years. I’m no dummy. I know mental retardation.

            1. Episiarch: You’d make a fine little helper. What’s your name?

              Groovus: Groovus Maximus.

              Episiarch: Shut up, geek.

              1. So you tell me… Which is better, speaking no Episarch at all, or speaking Hugh Akston?

                1. The PM Links, dude. You make a gnarly run like that and girls will get sterile just looking at you.

                  1. PM Links is a bodaciously small post, Epi. A fly speck on the web; a rest stop on the way to the intertoobz. I can’t even get real drugs here!

                    1. Only because you moved away….

                    2. Do you have any idea what the street value of this thread is?

      2. one word:

        California

        1. I thought California girls knew how to party.

          1. Girls love a man in uniform?

    2. This is so rich. An armed government employee is thought to deter crime, and yet ARMED citizens are OMFG MENACE TO SOCIETY!!11!11

      Peak Retard, is that you?

      1. And she has decided to use very part-time government employees who already have full-time jobs or are students elsewhere.

        Ironically – If “civilians” were allowed to carry in a school, I could easily find the 20 or so Vets, off-duty Cops, Reservists, and/or accomplished target shooters to volunteer as a free guard our town school one day a month. I would do it. But no way would that idea fly.

    3. I wonder if Guardsman will be able to have assault weapons. The children could be hurt!

      1. Why would they need assault weapons? Apparently, we don’t need them…why do they? Might they possibly be outgunned by some criminal? THAT CAN’T HAPPEN. LOGIC FAIL.

    4. Will the NG be trained to monitor the students (potential mass murderders) for furtive gestures? Suspiciously heavy-looking backpacks? Overly enthusiastic children playing war?

      1. Hey, it worked at Kent State!

        1. There’s that and I know that at least once here in SC a SRO’s gun went missing during the school day. So, that could potentially cause some problems.

        2. Curses! Beaten to the punch!

    5. So Barbara Boxer wants to ban assault rifles, AND put assault rifles in our schools?

      I’m surprised the pitiful remnants of her brain hasn’t tried to crawl out her earholes out of sheer embarrassment.

      1. Wearing a uniform automatically makes you a superhuman marksman who is completely selfless and immune to mental illness.

    6. It worked out great at Kent State.

      1. They were probably not even unionized at the time hence the sub par performance on their part.

  2. Newt Gingrich, of all people, is on-board with state-sanctioned same-sex marriage.

    You had him at “state”.

    1. Judging by his affairs, I’d say it was “sex”.

  3. DECEMBER 20—A three-time U.S. Olympian whose illustrious running career has included a Nike TV commercial, a swimsuit calendar, and ongoing promotional work for Disney has spent the last year doubling as a $600-an-hour call girl, an astounding secret life that she now regretfully calls a “huge mistake.”

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/d…..ton-136952

    1. That’s going to put her in a high tax bracket. Definitely a huge mistake.

      1. Only if some IRS shmuck has read the story.

      2. Higher marginal rate maybe, but the real insult is that insufferable self-employment tax.

    2. “Suzy Favor Hamilton, 44”

      Who would pay that kind of money to fuck a 44 year old??

      1. She wasn’t always 44, you know.

        1. Yeah but it says she “spent the last year” doing it.

          I guess some rich older “Johns” prefer a middle aged mother to a tight 22 year old. Well, they’re certainly free to spend their money as they see fit (oh wait, technically no they’re not).

            1. A 44 year old with experience can make your head spin while that 22 year old mostly lays there just looking nice. It depends on what you’re paying for.

              1. ^^^ El esceptico has it right. Older women are where it’s at.

              2. Ding ding ding.

          1. How often is Olympic ***** available on the market? Besides, 44 or not…

            DAT ASS trumps all.

            1. Now I will have a Merry Merry Christmas!

            2. Is it bad I noticed she had on Loubitons as well?

              1. Depends on how you spin it. It could be good taste (like when James Bond buys clothes for Vesper Lynd), or teh ghey.

          2. Would an escort be tight if she was still 22?

            Maybe she had vaginal rejuvenation surgery?

            Maybe some people are just into long, toned legs?

            Maybe?

            1. Maybe she had vaginal rejuvenation surgery?

              Have you ever really been with a woman in her forties? You know the cervix bone doesn’t get loosy goosy with age, only through child birth, right?

              1. I never understood why so many women are afraid of a Caesarian scar, personally, I have aways been afraid of having my vagina wrecked.

                1. Somewhere in there is a joke at sloopy’s expense.

      2. Dude, she’s a former Olympian. An Olympian at 44 is like the rest of us at 25.

      3. Did you see the photos?

      4. A has-been celebrity 44 year old. That’s different.

        1. Hey…she’s no Hasselhoff!

      5. If she is in good shape, I don’t give a fuck about age.

    3. Wow. She was always just cute as a button, and it looks like she aged well.

      Still . . . .

      1. She meets my standards and then some. I’m only sad for her that she got caught.

    4. Favor Hamilton described the escort business as “exciting,” an illicit midlife diversion from her routine existence

      She said that only her husband Mark, 44, was aware of her escort work, but that, “He tried, he tried to get me to stop. He wasn’t supportive of this at all.” The couple lives in a $600,000 Madison home and appears to be in no financial distress based on a review of court and municipal records.

      Sooo…

      She did it only for the kicks?

      Gloria Steinem must be shitting bricks.

      1. “The couple lives in a $600,000 Madison home and appears to be in no financial distress based on a review of court and municipal records.”

        This is the creepiest part. Why is it any of your goddamn business why she’s doing it? It should be her right, and I’m not sure why anyone cares if she’s doing it for reasons they approve of.

        1. This is the creepiest part. Why is it any of your goddamn business why she’s doing it?

          To say nothing of the fact that she’s doing the same thing a lot of porn stars that these reporters jerk off to do for extra cash.

          Still, privacy issues aside, her husband needs to retrieve his balls from her purse, re-attach them, and file for divorce. If your wife has to fuck other men to get off, the marraige is done.

          1. I’m not getting the whole “he didn’t like it but isn’t going anywhere” thing.

            Dude, your wife is banging other guys for money. It’s not like she asked you to join a swinger’s club where, at least, you could play, too.

          2. If prostitution were legal, the escort services could make their clients sign confidentiality agreements, thus avoiding this sort of situation.

      2. She did it only for the kicks?

        I bet she didn’t throw the money in a trashcan like Kathleen Turner in Crimes of Passion

      3. I think it’s pretty funny she’s surprised her husband wasn’t really on board with the whole “escort” thing.

    5. The comments are priceless. Oh, the outrage!

  4. The Weather Channel is now naming winter storms. The one currently in the midwest is named Draco. Here is the full list of names for this season…

    Athena
    Brutus
    Caesar
    Draco
    Euclid
    Freyr
    Gandolf
    Helen
    Iago
    Jove
    Khan
    Luna
    Magnus
    Nemo
    Orko
    Plato
    Q
    Rocky
    Saturn
    Triton
    Ukko
    Virgil
    Walda
    Xerxes
    Yogi
    Zeus

    1. I saw that and wasn’t sure if it was new or not. I don’t have much to worry about in the way of winter storms what with living in Florida (about 78 degrees Fahrenheit right now), but it seemed a little bit like overkill.

      How does something qualify as a named winter storm? Same as with hurricanes and the like?

      1. I think it’s just the Weather Channel trying to make themselves the story, like with that “Torcon” tornado index garbage they’ve been pimping the past few summers.

    2. Scissor me, Xerxes.

      1. OH YEAH DIKE FIGHT!

    3. Daenerys
      Tyrion
      Sandor

      1. Winter storm daenerys can blow me anytime.

      2. Theon.

      3. Winter storm Euron.

        The first storm and the last.

    4. Khaaannnn!

    5. Q? from Trek? Or from Bond?

      1. I assume Star Trek since a lot of these names seem to be pairs with some sort of realtionship.

      2. “Winter storm Wesley struck a limp blow this morning.”

        1. I can’t wait for Winter Storm Mudd.

          1. I wouldn’t mind being smothered by Winter Storm T’Pol.

            1. “The seventh of nine storms this year blew down a lot of poles.”

              1. *Slow clap*

              2. That was the storm that gave us Obama.

                1. That was the storm that gave us Obama.

                  3/29/04

                  Never forget.

    6. Well if you want to get mad at the weather…

      “I shall leave you as you left me…as you left her. Marooned for all eternity in the center of a dead planet snow storm. Buried alive! Buried alive!”

      KHAN!!! KHANNNNNNNN!

      1. Well if you want to get mad at the weather…

        Will this do?

    7. Draco? They cal a storm “Draco” less than a week after the Sandy Hook Massacre? How insensitive!

    8. As long as they pronounce “Caesar” “kay-sar” I’m cool.

  5. …the State Departments concedes that errors were made.

    They’re nothing if not diplomatic.

    1. Rocky! Rocky! Rocky! Rocky! Rocky! Rocky! Rocky! Rocky! Rocky! Rocky! Rocky! Rocky! Rocky! Rocky! Rocky! Rocky! Rocky! Rocky! Rocky! Rocky!

      1. This was supposed to be in the named winter storm thread. WTF?

    2. Well leaving our ambassador and other Americans to die, was perhaps a less than optimal outcome.

  6. New York’s budget is groaning under the weight of Medicaid expenditures, education and the cost of retirement benefits for public employees.

    The wealthy still not paying their fair share in the Empire State? Or maybe they need to start paying their fair share and the fair share of their fellow rich who jumped ship after the last tax soaking.

    1. Maybe those are groans of pleasure?

  7. From the ever-funny “Lowering the Bar” blog by Kevin Underhill: Official Homeland Security Advice: Run & Hide

    Via the Disinformation blog, here’s an instructional video produced by the Mayor’s Office of Public Safety and Homeland Security in Houston, described as a “Department of Homeland Security Grant Funded Project of the Regional Catastrophic Planning Initiative” intended to instruct citizens on “Surviving an Active Shooter Event.” This raises two questions right away: First, is the budget crisis so severe that the government can no longer afford even a single hyphen? I mean, Jesus Christ. Second, “active[-]shooter event.” Really? Are there “passive shooters”? I guess that would be somebody who’s just threatening to shoot and not actually shooting yet, but I would still say that person’s being fairly “active.”

    I’m actually surprised it wasn’t made into some sort of terrible acronym, like “Avoiding Certain Threats In Very Extraordinary Situations: How Officeworkers Ought To Escape Rampages” (ACTIVESHOOTER)

    Because the third and more important question is this: Do they really think we’re this defective? The video describes three options: (1) Run, (2) Hide, or (3) Fight. Thanks! These have been the standard human responses to danger for the last several million years.

  8. Your post (#3448019) has been marked as spam by a third-party spam filter. If this is a mistake, please email webmaster@reason.com.

    NOT spam.

    1. Wasn’t it, generic? Wasn’t it?

      1. Not a one of my comments are of the canned variety. Can we say the same of yours, FoE?

  9. From the ever-funny “Lowering the Bar” blog by Kevin Underhill: Official Homeland Security Advice: Run & Hide

    Via the Disinformation blog, here’s an instructional video produced by the Mayor’s Office of Public Safety and Homeland Security in Houston, described as a “Department of Homeland Security Grant Funded Project of the Regional Catastrophic Planning Initiative” intended to instruct citizens on “Surviving an Active Shooter Event.” This raises two questions right away: First, is the budget crisis so severe that the government can no longer afford even a single hyphen? I mean, Jesus Christ. Second, “active[-]shooter event.” Really? Are there “passive shooters”? I guess that would be somebody who’s just threatening to shoot and not actually shooting yet, but I would still say that person’s being fairly “active.”

    I’m actually surprised it wasn’t made into some sort of terrible acronym, like “Avoiding Certain Threats In Very Extraordinary Situations: How Officeworkers Ought To Escape Rampages” (ACTIVESHOOTER)

    Because the third and more important question is this: Do they really think we’re this defective? The video describes three options: (1) Run, (2) Hide, or (3) Fight. Thanks! These have been the standard human responses to danger for the last several million years.

    1. Why would anybody expect anything coming out of the Houston Mayor’s Office to be remotely competent? Look at the illustrious list of occupants.


    2. I guess that would be somebody who’s just threatening to shoot and not actually shooting yet..

      No, those are passive-pointers.

    3. gB, that is possibly the best acronym I have ever seen.

      Use your gift wisely, my friend.

    4. “Lowering the bar?”

      Cue James Cameron……

    5. Really? Are there “passive shooters”?

      The police. Look at all those police reports that simply state that “the gun discharged” and the victim was killed.

      1. Let’s not forget the news stories covering such incidents which are obviously a direct copy-paste from the police reports.

  10. From the ever-funny “Lowering the Bar” blog by Kevin Underhill: Official Homeland Security Advice: Run & Hide

    Via the Disinformation blog, here’s an instructional video produced by the Mayor’s Office of Public Safety and Homeland Security in Houston, described as a “Department of Homeland Security Grant Funded Project of the Regional Catastrophic Planning Initiative” intended to instruct citizens on “Surviving an Active Shooter Event.” This raises two questions right away: First, is the budget crisis so severe that the government can no longer afford even a single hyphen? I mean, Jesus Christ. Second, “active[-]shooter event.” Really? Are there “passive shooters”? I guess that would be somebody who’s just threatening to shoot and not actually shooting yet, but I would still say that person’s being fairly “active.”

    I’m actually surprised it wasn’t made into some sort of terrible acronym, like “Avoiding Certain Threats In Very Extraordinary Situations: How Officeworkers Ought To Escape Rampages” (ACTIVESHOOTER)

    Because the third and more important question is this: Do they really think we’re this defective? The video describes three options: (1) Run, (2) Hide, or (3) Fight. Thanks! These have been the standard human responses to danger for the last several million years.

  11. The Reason squirrels are restless today…

    1. I retract that statement! I’m sorry squirrels; please don’t take away our ampersands again!!!

      1. God damn you generic. Why did you have to antagonise them? Fuck off Die

  12. Sen. Barbara Boxer wants to station National Guard troops in the nation’s schools to defend the kiddies. Ummm … How about just letting people defend themselves?

    Unless you are willing to arm those soldiers, something that the leadership would be loath to do, what would be the point beyond creating another target? And if you do arm them, good luck when some board guardsman accidentally discharges his weapon or uses it to drive home and kill his wife.

    I know Boxer is stupid. But good God.

    1. You’re right John. Arm the kiddies.

      You prove that you are dumber than a Congressman every day.

      1. Funny, I don’t see where he says Arm the kiddies.

        1. Dude, seriously, just ignore it. Responses are what it craves, like plants crave Brawndo. Starve it.

          1. I know, I know. You’re right…
            *hangs head in shame*

          2. Ah the thirst mutilator

        2. Ummm … How about just letting people defend themselves?

          1. I assume he means teachers.

        3. Restoras, do not upset the Aspy.

      2. Clearly kids are the only individuals inside of schools.

      3. I would trust my 7 year old with a weapon. If you can’t, maybe you need to reevaluate your parenting skills.

    2. Good point. When I was in the Guard, I never got carry a weapon in public (even unloaded) except when on Federal Active Duty. The state was absolutely paranoid we were going to go on a killing spree.

      1. Most guys in the Gaurd are also cognizant of the fact that ammo is on sale at Wal Mart. Telling them to walk around with no bullets ain’t gonna fly.

        1. Shhh. Most officers aren’t.

    3. If implemented–which I doubt is going to happen–I imagine it would be one of those hilarious situations where the NG are carrying near-useless clubs with the bolts removed/no ammo/etc. because the fear that one of them will intentionally or unintentionally do something is so great.

      1. Hey, it worked out so well for us in Beirut in ’83. A soldier with a rifle and bullets might HURT someone.

        1. Or a Marine, as was the case in Beirut.

    4. I think that having armed faculty and staff is a superior idea. The shooter has no way of knowing who’s armed.

      If a wingnut goes on a rampage at a school where there’s a armed uniform at the entrance, doesn’t he just know who to shoot first? After that, it’s just a whole school full of unarmed people.

  13. Ken at Popehat and a whole bunch of other people believe it is perfectly OK to try and get a private sector employee fired for speech not related to his job but that it “contributes to a culture of censorship” to do the same thing to a public sector employee.

    I don’t understand why I should be bound to someone elses professional code of ethics or to a contract I’m not a party of.

    1. Yeah there is definitely some hypocrisy there. Just because the employer is the state, doesn’t mean asking for him to be fired is censorship. If it was a “private” Twitter account then he wouldn’t be dealing with so much backlash. He clearly lashed out in a public forum and should be responsible for those actions.

      If University of Rhode Island doesn’t see fit to fire him, so be it. But that doesn’t mean calling for his resignation or firing is somehow censoring him.

      Part of me hopes they fire him just because they shouldn’t be employing someone in the role of “Professor” who so obviously fails to understand how the world works. But part of me hopes they stick to their guns and embrace the full meaning of the First Amendment.

    2. The public sector’s employer is the government. When the government stifles free speech, that’s censorship. Or so the argument goes. It has nothing to do with professional standards.

      1. If I ask URI to fire him and they do that is not the same as me asking the government to arrest, fine, or take down his Twitter account.

        1. I don’t think so either, but there’s an argument to be had about what constitutes “the government.” Is it okay for public schools to require Christian indoctrination? If not, why not, if they aren’t “the government?”

  14. Might as well put this here.

    County District Attorney charges man for making joke on facebook:

    http://blog.al.com/spotnews/20…..after.html

    1. The guy should be kicked in the nuts for making a distasteful joke, but arrested and possibly prosecuted? He obviously was not serious. But I guess we have to go apeshit over anything, nowadays.

    2. Damn, sorry Warty. Looks like your taxes are about to go up when this guy wins a huge first amendment lawsuit.

      As someone who has suffered severe backlash on Facebook for comparing police officers to common whores, but then retracting that (because it was offensive to prostitutes), I can kind of understand where he’s coming from. I wasn’t arrested, though, so he’s got me there.

      1. Cleveland, Alabama. Warty will be fine, but wareagle may see a tax increase.

    3. P.S. Do not read the comments on that article. You have been warned.

      1. He better be a pubsec employee if he wants to claim his freedom of speech was violated.

    4. So we’ve basically become Canada and the UK now?

      Great–can China or Russia just get the invasion over with already, because if we’re going to live under totalitarian rule, I’d rather it be done by the best.

  15. Is heaven real?

    Skeptical neurosurgeon undergoes his own NDE and has changed his mind.

    I dunno if I buy it, though. Yeah, he explained away other people’s claims until he had one of his own.

    I have my own doubts about life after death and such. I try to be a little more rational and look at things with a bit a skepticism, though I was not always that way. I’m not even 100% convinced that having my own experience would change my mind.

    1. He did the properly skeptical thing. Rather simply being one of the cool kids and poo-pooing the notion of an afterlife, he went and collected his own evidence.

      Rock on, real man of science. Rock on.

      1. Er, I don’t think he meant to.

      2. Or, he’s just a guy who probably never did any serious drugs in his life, who had an experience roughly equivalent to an intense, prolonged acid trip, and now believes that God was talking to him.

        This is the exact opposite of skepticism.

        Also, he was never actually dead, so how the hell did he experience the “afterlife” (key words here being “after” and “life”)?

      3. He did the properly skeptical thing. Rather simply being one of the cool kids and poo-pooing the notion of an afterlife, he went and collected his own evidence.

        You’re thinking of these guys.

    2. I wonder if anyone’s has organized these anecdotes in such a way as to determine whether they were in line with their culture’s idea of what you experience right after death.

  16. Guy arrested for testing school security

    Walks around with a 2X4 with the words “High Powered Rifle” written on it.

    lolz ensue

    1. The principal, Stephanie Jacobs, will be following up with her staff to evaluate actions taken, as well as sending a letter home to Converse parents on security issues.

      Sounds like he helped her out.

    2. I knew someone would beat me to this. I’ll be interested to see how the criminal charges turn out. What’s the max on disorderly conduct?

  17. For those of you in the College Bowl Pick ‘Em, I thought I’d release my special formula for making my picks … for every game, I select the team that’s favored. (I call it the ‘anti-libertarian formula).

  18. Ok, I just have to say Reason needs to change their ad providers because the new Bad Idea T-Shirts girl is making it very hard for me to get any work done and while I wouldn’t knowingly do anything that would send me to jail for her I’d sure come close to that line.

    1. MEh.

    2. Ads? I see no ads.

  19. Not normally one to send on things like this, but this one got to me:

    Surrender (With apologies to Cheap Trick)

    Obama told me, yes, he told me we need to tax the rich
    He also told me, “vote for me, and you’ll get your fair share
    “And just the other day I heard Jay Carney sounding off
    George Bush is still the one we have to blame

    Obama’s alright, Biden’s alright; they just seem a little weird
    Surrender, surrender, and give all your money away

    Obama says, “Michelle is right, she’s really up on things
    Before we married, she went to Harvard by pulling a few strings
    But now she is more worried about what you’ll eat in school,
    No French fries, pizza or soda pop, pretty soon it’ll just be gruel

    Barack is alright, Michelle is alright they just seem a little weird
    Surrender, surrender, and give all your choices away

    1. Whatever happened to all our freedoms, we lose more every year?
      Every time I turn around though more people start to cheer
      One day they’ll wake up and they’ll ask what happened to our land,
      The Feds’ll be ruling all our lives so forget about making a stand

      Obama’s alright, The Dems are alright, they just seem a little weird
      Surrender, surrender, and give all your freedoms away

      Why is it wrong to earn more money, I just don’t understand,
      I pay my taxes, give to charity and even lend a helping hand
      But now I am the bad and rich guy just ask the government
      I need to share my wealth from hard work and pay someone else’s rent

      Obama’s alright, The Dems are alright, they just seem a little weird
      Surrender, surrender, and give all your money away

      Why do liberals feel it’s their job to try and run our lives,
      I guess they feel we all are stupid and only they are wise
      No Happy Meal toys or Big Gulp sodas don’t make any sense to me,
      No work for welfare, nor health care, if you’re illegal everything is free

      Obama’s alright, The Dems are alright, they just seem a little weird
      Surrender, surrender, and give all your money away

      1. Now it’s all the rage to come out and be against all guns,
        No matter all the laws they vote for the crazies still make their runs
        It’s tragic, sad and terrible I’d like to just wish it away
        But more gun laws ain’t gonna work, I don’t know what else to say

        Biden’s alright, his gun taskforce’s alright, they just seem a little weird,
        Surrender, Surrender, and give all your guns away,

        ay Let’s fast forward 4 more years now it’s two-thousand sixteen
        Obamacare, high taxes, food stamps, they make me want to scream
        Now it’s time for Hill and Bill to return to the White House
        $20 Trillion’s no big deal we’ll just keep printing money out

        Hillary’s alright, Bubba’s alright, they just seem a little weird,
        Surrender, surrender, and give all your votes away,

        ay If we don’t change the way we’re going it’s gonna get real bad,
        I look around at all I see and it makes me very sad
        No morals, standards, or respect, they no longer exist
        What happened to the “American Dream” now we’re turning Socialist

        Obama’s alright, the left is alright, they just seem a little weird,
        Surrender, Surrender and give all your rights away, ay

        1. And ever since I got this, I been whistling the tune (fucking brain worm)

    2. I don’t think apologies are necessary to Cheap Trick since those lyrics are better than the originals.

      1. I still think it’s funny that their biggest hit was a stereotypical 80s ballad.

  20. So feinstein gets all the attention… Why not RAND PAUL? Oh, because he’s team RED.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/pol…..nt/266498/

    1. And not only is he a Republican, he’s an evil Teabagger.

  21. Brad Pitt Commends Obama’s ‘More Sensible’ Drug Policy

    Pitt released a joint statement along with fellow The House I Live In executive producers Danny Glover, John Legend and Russell Simmons, stating, “President Obama should be commended for expressing the will of the people in Colorado and Washington. Our jails are overburdened with nonviolent drug users in this country, too often serving harsher sentences than violent criminals. This defies all common and economic sense. The President’s statement reflects a saner and more sensible drug policy, and a step away from the decades long failed war on drugs.”

    http://www.etonline.com/news/1…..ug_Policy/

    1. So…the point of this link is to show that Brad Pitt is functionally retarded?

      1. That’s what I got.

        1. Angela Jolie fucked him retarded. That’s my guess.

          1. It’s a completely valid theory.

            1. Was it worth it?

      2. He is still waiting for some beer…and cleaning products.

    2. “expressing the will of the people…”

      Like expressing milk. Just pump it out and dump it down the drain.

    3. Going to just copy my comment I just made on the Biden story:

      One of the things that really stand out to me about the W. Bush years, particularly in retrospect, was the sheer omnipresence of criticism–books, movies, TV shows, music, even video games all railing against him and (supposedly) his policies. Sometimes it would be just a minor little thing and sometimes it would be the central focus, but oh boy, there was a lot of it. And, don’t get me wrong, this criticism was usually wholly deserved.

      Meanwhile, most of the time I try to bring up, say, the drug war expansion under Obama, the person I’m speaking with will outright deny it’s happening/say they’ve never heard of it despite it not exactly being a secret. Or there’ll be some horseshit answer about how he’s forced to do it by the Republicans, because otherwise they’d say bad things about him, and we couldn’t have that, could we?

      I blame this in part on palace guard news organs. The legacy media with its false pretense of objectivity can’t die off fast enough.

      1. Great comment except for when you blamed it on the legacy media.

        Have you seen huge portions of ‘New Media?’ Are you really telling me that people who get their news from the Gawker verse and the Daily Show would be less stupid if ABC News died off?

        1. “In part”. Most of the “New Media” stuff is open about the slant of its coverage at least. You’re right though; I should have laid the blame on public education. The combination of the CT shooting plus dealing with relatives whose sole source of information (literally) is MSNBC has made me cranky.

          Ultimately, you have a culture in which members value the rule of law and the concept that government should be limited in its powers, or you don’t and the answer is angels in the form of kings to rule man.

          Or, as another dead white male once said, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

          1. I should have laid the blame on public education.

            Yes. Critical thinking, and logic are no longer being taught in schools. It’s about feelings, acceptance, consensus, and a good dose of relativism. Basically, we fucked.

          2. plus dealing with relatives whose sole source of information (literally) is MSNBC has made me cranky.

            I used to think my mom was “non-political”. I would have called her a “Kennedy Dem” cause she was a poor Appalachian Catholic who was five months too young to vote for him in 1960- and she had “lapsed” in her Catholicism by 1970.

            I went home for Thanksgiving in 2010, (thus, after the 2010 elections) and she said, “Do you know who I really like? That Elizabeth Warren.” Even worse, her favorite talking head was Dylan Ratigan.

            Paging Barfman…

      2. It’s all cultural. Republicans are old, white, racist theocrats, and Democrats are hip, young, black, gay, caring guys and gals. Republicans look like the guys who puff cigars lit with $100 bills; a Democrat takes that $100 and gives it to a teacher.

        1. Wondering if I’m still going to hear “Romney is rich” jokes in 2016-17 like I’m still hearing Palin jokes.

          1. Why not? Obama successfully used Bush to make Romney the incumbent. Nothing that places the blame on Republicans is beyond the pale.

            I still see Mitt Romney mentioned as some sort of Leftist shibboleth for everything that’s wrong in America.

            I mean, look at this shit.

            1. Ugh, Christ, the “top two” comments:

              rkref Did I miss the Issa investigation of Mitt Romney’s fast and furious spending of at least $9M of taxpayers money on “pretransition services”?

              Double ugh.

              daveweigel Thanks you guys! MT @HotlineReid Mitt Romney’s transition team-in-waiting had 500 staff, cost $8.9m.

              Why the fuck was Weigel ever allowed to associate with Reason in any way whatsoever?

              1. Republicans, no matter how moderate or normal or whatever, instantly become perverse leftist sigils. It’s how a sitting President was able to run as an outsider. It’s how a Massachusetts moderate was transformed into a weird mix of John McCain, Barry Goldwater and Pat Robertson.

                Bush was a deregulator. Reagan killed gays (by not funding, because giving and not-giving are both ‘actions’). The NRA killed children through advocacy.

                The whole fucking country goes insane when it comes to Republicans. I saw someone calling themselves a ‘libertarian’ the other day say it was the Republican dream to cut all social welfare spending. I mean, the Republicans who passed Medicare Part D? Those Republicans?

                It’s all cultural. It’s all symbolic.

              2. He fit right in at the time. Most of the TEAM BLUE HampersandR commenters have left and Cato ended the “liberaltarian” project.

            2. So what? Bush was the worst POTUS ever. get some mileage out of that shit.

              Of course you are GOP so don’t like it at all.

              1. Fine, I’ll stipulate that he was the worst President ever.

                That still doesn’t mean an incumbent President should get to still run on being an outsider after four years in office and still blaming his predecessor.

                But he did it. Successfully. Because people like you don’t want to believe that cool hip black gay guys and gals could possibly do anything regressive, reactionary, or Statist. So you create an Emmanuel Goldstein to deal with your cognitive dissonance.

                1. Romney fell into the trap.

                  How would Romney help the economy? More Bush tax cuts.

                  No one bought it.

                  He had a fastball down the middle and whiffed it.

                  1. Tax and spending cuts are precisely what is needed.

                    Your brain is broken and you broke it by choice. Because Democrats are cool and Republicans aren’t.

                    And you want to be cool, don’t you?

    4. “Pitt released a joint statement”

      WTF? He’s a fucking actor. An actor.

    5. He said that the federal government would stop doing something it pretty much never does anyway (prosecute people for possession) but left the door wide open for continuing the war on medical marijuana providers. You and Brad Pitt are literally too stupid to live.

    6. I like that Shrike apparently thinks that Brad Pitt’s opinion on Barack Obama’s drug policy is in any way relevant.

    7. Equality between the sexes. Women are just as eager to bang airheads as men.

  22. Pizzaception!

    why doesn’t America ever have these crazy-cool ideas?

    1. THAT’S NOT PIZZA.

      1. What, the dish not deep enough for you?

        1. YOU SHUT YOUR DIRTY WHORE MOUTH.

      2. Looks like monkey poop to me.

  23. Have a consorce instead of a divorce

    Interesting concept. May work for some couples, but definitely not for all.

    1. Probably describes half the marriages out there. The Onion beat this guy to it.

      http://www.theonion.com/video/…..don,14401/

    2. The woman’s jealousy would kill it instantly. The father of her kids comes home smelling like sex? Yeah, that would go over well.

      1. If a woman agrees to it initially, she’ll probably be fine with it. It’s guys that are gonna have a problem with the kids’ mom out fucking around and then coming home.

        1. Gender has nothing to do with it. Many people would have a hard time with such an arrangement; because of human nature being what it is. To find two people who could handle it and who were in the relationship together in the first place would probably be very rare.

          1. And what kind of third party would want to wade into that hot mess? “I had a nice time, love to invite you upstairs, but… my ex is inside watching TV soooo…”

            1. Dagny, I think you underestimate the number of people who knowingly participate in affairs.

              1. Ha, you might be right there. But even for the kind of person who gets off on all the sneaking around, this would still be the worst, most boring kind of affair ever.

            2. “Uh, we can go to my place but the kids are still awake and my wife is doing her Sweating to the Oldies in the living room and her mom is watching her DVR’d stories in the basement so…maybe we go to your place?”

              Ye gods.

              1. Meh. If I was 40 or 50 and shit went south, I could see participating in something like this. “Power” couples do it all the time. You think the Clintons are having sex? Pfft.

                1. You think the Clintons are having sex? Pfft.

                  Sure they are. Just not with each other.

      2. How would you explain to the new lady in your life that you can’t go back to your place because your Platonic wife wouldn’t like it? One of the benefits to getting a divorce is getting some strange. This “consorce” would make that much more difficult.

    3. “Why not just stay in the same house, continue to work together financially for the good of the family, and, perhaps, even sleep in the same room (without sexual contact expected by either individual)?”

      Because the bitch was bat-shit crazy, that’s why.

      1. Seriously. I mean, I always figure people get divorced because they can’t fucking stand each other anymore, not because they just don’t want to fuck. Christ, I wouldn’t want to live with anybody I wasn’t sleeping with–it’s living with them that’s the harder part!

        1. Christ, I wouldn’t want to live with anybody I wasn’t sleeping with–it’s living with them that’s the harder part!

          Amen, sister. Amen.

    4. The idea of married couples deciding on a “consorce,” rather than a divorce, is this: Why should a couple split up the family funds, maintain two dwellings, involve the courts in their lives, hire attorneys and cause each other months or years of suffering when they could simply agree that the romantic part of their marriage has ended and that they will remain married and live together as friends and partners, in order to maintain a level of consistency for their children?

      I’m thinking that the people who this would work for are the ones who are ending the marriage amicably already. In the divorces where the kids become most fucked up (because the parents both try to use the children to further their own ends) this wouldn’t even be an option.

      1. It’s still expensive to end a divorce even amicably.

        Guys, please, trust me on this: you do not want a divorce except in the most extreme circumstances.

        1. So we should stay married with … extreme prejudice?

          1. Pretty much, especially if you have kids. Courts absolutely ruin men in general and fathers in particular. School Shooter’s mom got $250,000 a year in alimony. Think about that.

            1. She gave up her similar career and the Murder-Ass-Burger’s Dad makes a $Million a year. The divorce was portrayed as amicable too. Maybe his new honey is independently wealthy.

        2. So if you haven’t had sex in four years, your spouse thinks you’re a loser and should be making more money, said spouse isn’t working and can’t freakin’ get the laundry or grocery shopping done, and is at best a borderline parent, and only seems concerned with training for triathlons, does that count?

          1. Sounds like a beautiful marriage you’ve got there!

            /envious

          2. Should have done some better pre-screening.

            Women who become useless sex-hating irresponsible shitheads always have exhibit warning signs.

            If this describes your marriage, I will lay odds that you have friends who called it before you even got engaged.

            1. If this describes your marriage, I will lay odds that you have friends who called it before you even got engaged.

              When I got divorced I’d found out that most of our mutual friends had figured we were doomed from jump because she had some… issues… they knew about which I never knew since I didn’t meet her until after that whole “episode”. Of course 5 years later I’m surprised by what has happened when, if I’d gotten a “hey man, do you know…” conversation I might not have been as surprised. I’d still have probably gone through with the marriage because she had great boobs and I was dumb, but I’d still have appreciated the heads-up.

        3. The bitch was bat-shit crazy.

        4. Guys, please, trust me on this: you do not want a divorce marriage except in the most extreme circumstances.

          FIFY

    5. I have a better idea and it is called Don’t Get Married, Idiot. Do you want to pay more in taxes? Are you stupid enough to think a piece of paper has anything to do with your relationship? Do you want a lot of hassles if you ever need to break up for any reason? Marriage is for chumps.

      1. Are you stupid enough to think a piece of paper has anything to do with your relationship?

        No stupider than thinking someone’s ‘love’ for you does.

        Marriage really isn’t just a piece of paper.

        1. Legal marriage is. People will do what people will do. If I don’t trust someone to treat me well, no amount of legal status is likely to change that. If you have some personal definition between you and your partner involving commitment and fidelity and whatever the hell else you want, that’s just as easily accomplished by hashing out a gentleman’s agreement, as it were. (NO HOMO)

          The only reason I can think of for legal marriage is financial/practical (better mortgage rate, or inheritance tax concerns, etc), or if one party plans on fleecing the other party at some point.

          1. That’s a nice thought, but I bet in rocky times, the legal status of the marriage has provided a rational-if-cynical calculation to stay in the marriage and try to work it out.

            1. Why is that a positive? Sounds like psychological manipulation (of one’s self) to me.

              1. Sure it is. But we do that every day.

                1. Yes, many people do, that doesn’t mean it’s good or particularly “healthy”. If I have to “trick” myself into doing something, that means I did something wrong here.

                  1. If I have to “trick” myself into doing something, that means I did something wrong here.

                    I don’t think so. I ‘trick’ myself in matters of health all the time.

                    1. How odd. I have zero need to trick myself into doing or not doing things at all, because I am honest with myself. I know what I want and what I don’t want. It’s incredibly simple.

                    2. OK.

                      Wait until your metabolism slows to a crawl and get back to me.

                    3. I’m pretty sure I’m older than you, so I don’t know what metabolic problems you have. But I like to be in shape more than I like to eat. See how simple that is? I like to look good more than I dislike lifting weights. Also very simple. I really, really enjoy playing tennis, which also happens to be excellent exercise, while I fucking detest straight up running. So…I play tennis, and that works out great.

                      Again, I don’t see any need for trickery. Honesty with yourself is far more important. Because if you’re fat and out of shape, you prefer eating to looking good and you hate exercise enough to deal with being fat. It’s really simple.

                    4. We’re talking past each other.

                      You are right on that level. However, on a day-to-day basis, you can ‘trick’ yourself into achieving your honestly-conceived goals.

                      “I don’t really want that donut”. I mean, you do, but you don’t, and I don’t necessarily believe in psychological egoism. Dig?

                    5. I hear what you’re saying, though I control myself relentlessly about stuff like that. First of all, I hate donuts. Secondly, when I think “I’m fucking hungry, do I want the super-sized doner?” but then I realize I totally don’t need it. I’m not tricking myself, I’m being rational about how I’ll feel as soon as I’m done eating. If I get the large even though I think I want it, I’ll feel gross after. I’m heading those desires off at the pass, not telling myself I don’t want it. I’m saying to myself “you don’t need that or even truly want that, don’t be stupid”. And I’m correct.

                    6. I think that’s good and I admire your ability. If I were honest with myself, I could talk myself into either thing at any time.

                    7. But I like to be in shape more than I like to eat. See how simple that is? I like to look good more than I dislike lifting weights.

                      Gotta go with TAO on this one. Try that shit with arthritis. Mind games help a lot.

                    8. Dude, I had a snapped femur and a shattered and reconstructed heel. I know pain, believe me. I know it well. I have to limp sometimes it can get so bad.

                      I don’t care; I push through it, because being in shape is more important to me than not experiencing pain.

                      “Pain can be controlled; you just disconnect it.”

                    9. I don’t care; I push through it, because being in shape is more important to me than not experiencing pain.

                      Everybody does this. Or almost everybody. Ask yourself, when you do reps, do you count the total, or do you reset every set? Knowing you’ve just got to get to 6 makes it easier to get those last couple in the set. If you know you’re going to, say 24, the incentive to push on 5 is just less.

            2. Maybe, but those people sound stupid to me too. If the rift was big enough to warrant a divorce, they are probably pretty unhappy if they stayed together. And if they were thinking about breaking up over something minor, they are probably pretty emotionally immature or just don’t like each other much anymore. Both those things would be true whether or not Uncle Sam and/or Jesus thinks you’re married.

              Also, you spoke to the fleecing above re. the $250k alimony. For the assholes who think they might want to steal from their partner if they ever break up, legal marriage is the best thing EVAR.

              1. Maybe, but those people sound stupid to me too.

                It’s a lifetime commitment. It certainly isn’t for everybody.

                If the rift was big enough to warrant a divorce, they are probably pretty unhappy if they stayed together.

                With a divorce rate at 50%, I would say people are divorcing over much smaller ‘rifts’ than you would think.

                And things get better.

                1. Randian, are you a closet traditionalist on this one? Lifetime commitments can exist without any authority figure’s stamp of approval. It is your word and the word of your partner at the end of the day anyways. I actually find that a much more romantic concept, anyways, if you’re into that sort of thing.

                  1. Randian, are you a closet traditionalist on this one?

                    Probably.

                    Lifetime commitments can exist without any authority figure’s stamp of approval.

                    They can, but the symbolism of the ‘officialness’ still does something for most people. I mean, you can have a celebratory dinner any time you want, but I bet you still have one on your birthday, right? That’s just as arbitrary.

                    1. Ah so. We have gotten to the squishy emotional core of why people really get married, and it is kind of nice, but no less stupid. Unless you are religious, there is no (good, logical, defensible) reason to get married.

                    2. And I actually think that attitude reflects a troubling kind of statism. Do we need higher powers to name, classify, and bless every aspect of our personal lives? I hope not.

                    3. I’m always dancing on the line of anarchism and I am a committed atheist, so I don’t see how.

                    4. I’m always dancing on the line of anarchism and I am a committed atheist, so I don’t see how.

                      And yet you crave the government’s official recognition of your relationship… why exactly?

                    5. Then don’t get married Dagny. The anti-marriage people are almost as tiresome as the anti-baby making people.

                    6. Just curious if anyone had a reason that passed logical muster that I hadn’t thought of, RBS. It is no skin off my nose, but I still think on balance there are more liabilities than assets in many cases.

                    7. This is worse than a nicole personal thread.

                    8. Meh, SIV, I think it is perfectly valid to question institutions to see if they still serve a valid purpose. But cool, you do your OH NOES GIRLS TALKING ABOUT WEDDINGS!!1! thing if it floats your boat.

                    9. SIV’s just upset that no one has asked to marry him yet, even though he caught the bouquet at that wedding five years ago. His biological clock is ticking!

                    10. Eh, I’m just kind of grumpy I’m not sure there is much of a logical reason. I’m married but I, like you, did not feel like we needed some higher power to define what our relationship was. My wife and her mother and my parents felt otherwise.

                    11. Unless you are religious, there is no (good, logical, defensible) reason to get married.

                      I can think of only one: you want kids, and you want to make sure you keep the kids if the wife/husband dies. That’s not certain by any means if you’re not married.

                    12. There is that too, Family Court is a horrible place and should be avoided at all costs. Seriously, FC judges have a state sanctioned license to do whatever the fuck they want.

                    13. Warty, that is a fair point. There ought to be a better, simpler way to do that, but until there is, it makes sense.

                      But just think of that sweet, juicy Head of Household return claiming the brat(s) and the lower earner filing as Single. Mmmm… delicious tax savings.

                    14. And this is the only reason the state should be involved in marriage. Children in general do turn out more well adjusted in a stable two parent home.

                      This is not to be read as a ding on gay marriage, as a gay couple who adopts and raises children should have the same rights/protections of that child rearing partnership.

                      Alimony is a crock of shit!

                    15. Dagny,
                      There is one reason, and it’s the reason I got legally married, and the most compelling reason why gay marriage should be legalized at the federal level: immigration. If my wife wasn’t an immigrant or if she could have stayed in America ad infinitum without officially immigrating, I would have kept it to a private contract about shared property.

                    16. Yes, Proprietist, I was thinking about that too, and I agree with you 100% re. the gay marriage issue. I am intimately familiar with the fuckery of our immigration system.

          2. If I don’t trust someone to treat me well, no amount of legal status is likely to change that

            If you don’t trust someone to treat you well, you likely wouldn’t end up in a serious relationship leading to marraige to begin with.

            1. Circular logic is circular. If I do trust the person, why would I need a government-granted security blanket? If I don’t, what the hell am I doing in the relationship at all?

              1. If I do trust the person, why would I need a government-granted security blanket?

                How does this refute what I said? I’m not dragging you and your signficant other down to the courthouse and forcing you to sign a marraige certificate, so don’t be so sensitive.

                1. o don’t be so sensitive.

                  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I will be laughing for days.

                  R-Squared, you are starting from the premise that “serious” must “lead to marriage.” That is the part I am questioning, as well as the commonly cited reason that legal marriage offers “security.”

                  1. Durr, I can haz a math. I guess I meant R-Cubed.

                    1. [Insert the stereotype about women being lousy at math] :-p

        2. Marriage is an anachronism. In ye olde tymes, a man might desire to be legally bound to a woman to reasonably insure (or at least hedge his bets) that the children/inheritors she produced were his offspring.

    6. Chris Rock has already solved this problem: “I ain’t moving in with my mama ‘cos you ain’t “in love” no more. You gonna have to die.”

    7. I have a feeling that a marriage that makes you want an affair would not survive one – certainly not one so open.

    8. The whole article is fucking retarded. Yeah, it’s possible to have a sham marraige just to stay together for the kids (this happened to a dude I knew in high school, whose parents filed for divorce the day after the youngest graduated), but it’s a lot more likely that you’re going to be at each others throats for the same petty shit you split up over, and it’s going to get worse if one person is fucking someone else and the other isn’t. And what happens if the secondary relationship becomes serious? How on earth would that be any better for the kids emotionally?

      As someone who was raised by a single mom, I know how crappy things can be between two parents fighting over child support and custody and all that shit. I know how ruinous it can be financially, especially for men who basically get left destitute by the courts. And you’d be hard-pressed to convince me that the cultural acceptance of easy divorce is socially healthy.

      But the fact of that matter is that kids can still grow up to be emotionally stable individuals as long as the parents agree to be civil to each other. The biggest problem is that we live in an emotionally stunted society that doesn’t consider the impacts and responsibilities that being a couple, being parents, and getting divorced entails.

    9. Shit. My parents started doing this in 1971 (I was 6). My “assumption” (never ASS U ME) was that dad was the cheater, but by the time I was 10, I pretty much knew they both had “significant others”.

      Seriously, they did not ever share the same bed for the rest of their marriage- Dad worked third shift (which helped), and one or the other ALWAYS slept on the couch on weekends. (They stayed together for the children)

      Mom finally moved out in 1978- yet was still married to my dad when he died in 1982.

  24. Checking in to see if the world has ended yet.

    1. If no one replies, will you assume the worst?

      1. I always assume the worst.

        1. I’m still here and about to hit the sack. It’s 12-21-12 and 01.56 in Donets’k.

    2. Well, it’s my anniversary tomorrow. Soooo, yes?

  25. See, I never thought about it like that before. It makes pretty good sense dude.

    http://www.usa-privacy.tk

    1. Shouldn’t Pedobot be posting that?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.