Colorado Mulls Compensating Innocent Prisoners, Berkeley City Council Member Proposes (Blank), Popeathon Starts Next Week: P.M. Links

|

  • "Introducing Pope Katniss the First"
    Photo by David Iliff. License: CC-BY-SA 3.0

    Lawmakers in Colorado are considering a bill to compensate inmates proven to be wrongly imprisoned to the tune of $70,000 per year spent behind bars. They would have to be fully exonerated, not released due to a technicality, to qualify.

  • A Berkeley City Council member has proposed a tax on e-mail to save post offices. The libertarian version of the Match Game would have a regular question that starts "A Berkley City Council member has proposed … ."
  • Of course the death of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez has led to conspiracy theories of CIA involvement.
  • A Town Hall in the Long Island area has banned booing, but not clapping. It is silent on yelling "Boooo-urns."
  • The Papal conclave begins next Tuesday. 115 cardinals are there to hash it out. Insert Hunger Games reference.
  • China would really appreciate it both Koreas would just chill out, just a bit.

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

Follow Reason 24/7 on Twitter: @reason247

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content

NEXT: Wealth Finds a Haven in Singapore

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. Lawmakers in Colorado are considering a bill to compensate inmates proven to be wrongly imprisoned to the tune of $70,000 per year spent behind bars.

    That sounds unmessy.

    1. They are also ramming through 7 victim disarmament bills.

      1. What does that mean in English?

        1. Uh… gun control.

          1. OK. For some reason I was thinking something more specific to victims of something or other.

  2. The Papal conclave begins next Tuesday. 115 cardinals are there to hash it out.

    The default is to give the hat to the oldest dude there.

      1. How about Pope Bean I:

        http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs7…..att_15.jpg

    1. One potato, two potato is God’s preferred method for choosing a new Pope. Or so I hear.

      1. Eenie meenie minie mo, catch a pontiff by his toe….

        1. Toe? You’ve never seen a cardinal without its human skin on have you?

    2. Cardinal Schonborn of Austria is probably the only hope the church both takes steps towards modernity and show they are serious about the sex abuse scandal.

      1. Peter Turkson for the prophetic win!

    3. Start a naked conga line, and the last dude to join obviously has the most self control, and gets to be the pope.

      1. In a more perverse ritual, release a school full of young boys into the conclave. Surely there’s got to be ONE cardinal that won’t…

    4. “The default is to give the hat to the oldest dude there.”

      No, it is given to the guy who came in second place at the last election, because it’s their turn.

      1. But Mitt’s not Catholic…

        1. He’d convert in a heartbeat.

  3. http://www.punditpress.com/201…..ve-or.html

    NY’s big gun control law bans possession of more then five firearms.

    Common sense!

    1. This is going to enrage upstaters. Plus, it can almost assuredly be challenged under Heller. However, that takes time and money. I’m so glad I got out of NY years ago. At the time I left I had something like 20 guns. Fuck you, Cuomo, you fucking sack of shit.

    2. That is blatantly unconstitutional.

      The states are the incubator of stupid laws (see also “mandatory vaginal ultrasounds”).

      1. It’s Thomas E. Dewey’s fault!!!

      2. See also: mandatory health “insurance”.

        Oh, wait…

    3. “such a person possesses 5 or more firearms”. I know I can’t hold 5 guns at once. If I lived in New York, I would be transferring ownership of my guns to my wife, kids, and dog right about now….

      1. If everyone in NY transferred a firearm to every clown who instituted this legislation ….

      2. I’d be moving out of New York right about now.

      3. The right thing to do would to be to sell them on the streets to needy up and coming gangsters.

    4. Reading the law, it appears to only outlaw having more than 5 firearms in your possession when you are outside the home. In other words, you can only take four guns with you to the range; although it would be difficult to shoot at the range since it seems to outlaw possessing a loaded firearm outside the home…

      However, the next law cited, which outlaws possessing more than ten firearms, doesn’t contain any exceptions.

      1. Sounds like a back-door way to outlaw gun shows.

      2. How does one hunt without having a loaded firearm outside their home or place of business? Them deer ain’t gonna come knockin’ on your back door.

        1. Somehow I doubt the legislatures spent a whole lot of time thinking over this law.

  4. Paging Barfman:

    The Suppression of the Powerful Feminine
    …The threat posed by the powerful feminine is central to Walsh’s contemporary ballet Camille Claudel. In spite of her creative success, as there was never a question of her genius, Claudel’s aspirations were repeatedly derailed by suppression and betrayals?by Rodin, by the French government, and most tragically by her family.
    Her story reflects her time. It also resonates strongly in contemporary America where women have achieved real gains but powerful women, still perceived as threats, are so often marginalized. In this presentation, Dominic Walsh will show film clips from the ballet’s production and discuss the paradox of creative expression as both a symbol of this suppression and an essential element in healing it. …

    1. One of the comments started so promisingly, “The phrase ‘give them a taste of their own medicine’ comes to mind…” yet ended so poorly “…for when the perps are found.”

      1. FTA (emphasis mine): The burglars made off with three “sporting guns,” two handguns and other items, French said.

        They inexplicably become “sporting guns” when they belong to a cop, yet they’re “high-powered rifles” or “assault-style rifles” when a “civilian” has them.

        The San Fran Chronicle is disgusting.

    2. The headline is in the active voice, even though we don’t know who poisoned the dogs. It could have been disgruntled neighbors.

    3. That’s fucking shitty. If you have to poison something, poison the cop, not the fucking dogs.

    4. Handlers consider police canines to be part of their families, she said.

      The implication here is that that they aren’t part of the family for the rest of us.

      1. So what if they are? “Civilian” humans are lower on the totem pole than “K-9 Officers” to the government. How much lower are pets of untermensch?

  5. China would really appreciate it both Koreas would just chill out, just a bit.

    Mostly North Korea, though, because crazy evil commies give normal evil commies a bad name.

    1. On the contrary, crazy evil commies take the heat off of normal evil commies, which is why China will continue to prop up these guys, press statements to the contrary notwithstanding.

      1. Then I guess they just don’t like noisy neighbors.

  6. March 2013 Beta Of The Month
    March 2013 BOTM Candidate #3 was submitted by reader Larry. Take some Tums, because this story is revolting. If you don’t feel a gag reflex, your stomach is stronger than mine.

    A Staten Island woman went the full EatPrayLove on her beta hubby, and was predictably killed by some swarthy roustabout in Turkey. Ho hum, right? Well, it gets worse. To appreciate the glorious soul-imploding banality of this particular beta male husband, you have to read his words. Reporters found a treasure trove of Instagram messages from the husband that were posted a few weeks before his wife left on her self-actualization sabbatical….

    1. Staten Island, betamax, Turkey.

      Those are the only words I understood in the first sentence.

      1. You deserve a medal for trying to parse that sentence.

      2. Yeah, I didn’t understand that babble either, but I clicked on the link.

        It’s typical mangina marries feminazi cunt, turns out badly for mangina, type of stuff.

        1. God what a pathetic little bitch.

          The all time award goes to the guy who’s wife cheated on him with a black guy, had the black guy’s kid, and the worm is not only still married to the bitch, he’s raising the kid. The kid that everyone can tell at a glance isn’t is.

          Although I do have to say that some of these stories make me think cuckold fetish more then anything else. Surely no one is that stupid or meek? Right?

          1. There was a mentally disabled guy in my town whom experienced that same situation. He inherited a small fortune from his parents who were killed in the robbery of their shop. She moved in on him before anyone realized what was going on. An uncle challenged her claim in court but it went her way.

          2. Yeah, but those kids were pretty fucking smart. I can see why he wanted to raise them.

        2. I’m not sure who I dislike more: the kind of sod who puts up with that kind of nonsense in a relationship, or the kind of sod who is an aggressive dick about it and assumes that the key to a good relationship is to derive pleasure out forcing a woman to do what you want against her will.

          Both reveal some pretty fucked up mentalities IMO.

          1. Aw, Trouser, don’t you believe that “Hopefulness is cowardice and cowardice is beta”?

            1. The only thing I believe about that statement is that it belongs in a teenage boy’s Livejournal.

            2. Context is important here. Sorry, if your significant other, man or woman, wants to head off for a few weeks to another country by themselves for “self discovery” or “recharge my batteries”, then they’re getting some strange overseas.

              In this case it’s mocking the “hopefulness” that you and I call denial.

              1. That’s not the story that that came from, it was the one about the guy whose wife said she wanted a divorce and he was hoping she’d reconsider.

                1. Oh well….uh….*frantically glancing around*

                  RACIST!!!!!!!

                  Seriously though, from what I’ve read of this guy’s stuff, he thinks maintaining confidence, masculinity, assertiveness, etc. are extremely important in a long term relationship. Especially important, in his opinion, is to refrain from slipping into a sweet cuddly persona. I don’t think he’s wrong there, honestly. From what I’ve seen, men who act like men, and let their guard down from time to time with the women they love have a far better track record then guys who are emotional and sensitive 24/7.

                  1. IMO refraining from gushiness is just part of being a man, and should have nothing to do with dating strategy. Guys who are taught to be emotional and touchy-feely 24/7 aren’t going to be able to successfully pull off an alternate “manly” persona, and it’s stupid to tell them to do that to get dates. Their dads should be teaching them how to be men, and they themselves have to actually go out there and play a sport or do something hard to learn not to complain when life or your body won’t cooperate.

                    Telling nancies to be aggressive just creates bullies and dicks, not men.

          2. Nothing says beta like a blog whining about females being bitches.

            1. I looked at that site last week when someone else here linked to it. I still don’t understand it, but I got the same feeling. What’s Alpha about a bunch of dudes having an internet circle jerk over stories about “Betas”? In my household, I’m the Alpha male. In the rest of the world, I do just fine for myself.

              I definitely don’t spend any of my time considering other dudes, their love lifes, or their “status”. You either got it, or you don’t. And if you have to obsess over someone else, you don’t got it.

              1. A-yup. And what’s with the term “beta”? Kind of… sanitized compared to just calling a wuss a pussy.

                1. Beta isn’t a pussy. In fact, if you delve deeper into the manosphere, you’ll find that most of the people there will credit betas as being the true advanced man. Sadly though, chicks go for the pseudo bad boy alpha, not the civilization building beta provider.

                  1. I’ll take your word for it. I value my sanity too much to delve more deeply into something that refers to itself as the ‘manosphere.’

                    1. Ditto.

                    2. You’re actually missing out. There is some particularly good writing and analysis available there. I stumbled upon it all a few months back after my wife of barely a year informed me she wanted a separation. I found much of the content quite illuminating. I’d actually recommend giving some of the chateau heartiste posts a deeper look.

                    3. ^what Sudden said. Since I started reading and putting some of it into practice, the quantity and the quality of my pussy has gotten much better. To the point where I now have two good looking girls in the rotation. Which sounds scummy, but they both know about the other one, so I’m just enjoying the ride.

                    4. They know about each other? Dude, you have got to get that 3-way going.

                    5. I’m thinking about it. I have no idea how to approach that though.

                    6. The only way I have heard to really raise the subject is the Dual Induction Massage

                    7. As with everything else in this field, frame control is key. If you can control the frame, and both chicks are at least experimental enough, you may enjoy a success that we will all envy and require pics or GTFO.

                    8. I’m not gonna lie, I really didn’t delve deep into the PUA tricks. I just kind of made an effort to not take no for an answer (not in a rapey way) but in a confident way. Like, the younger of these girls I chatted her up, asked if she wanted to get a drink Friday. She demurred, so I just looked her straight in the eye and said “Then let’s go right now.” Smitten. Whereas old me would have said “Oh ok well that’s cool, some other time.”

                      The other one I can’t credit game for. She’s cute, if a little thick, but has kids, so it’s a pretty standard mutual FWB thing. So she doesn’t care at all about the younger girl. But younger girl, when I told her about older girl, started doing her damnedest to impress me.

                    9. I delved into the game stuff five years ago to break a oneitis I had been suffering from for a while. I ended up doing pretty well with it, had some nice little action, and then ultimately met a sweet girl that I thought was wifey material. Married, and over the last few years, kinda naturally betatized within the relationship.

                      Now I’m seperating in a week, filing for divorce, traveling to Europe in May, and just got offered a new job today which I accepted.

                      Fucking change comes in waves, but this is possibly the greatest change I’ve ever experienced in my life.

                    10. Alcohol helps to lower inhibitions. It worked for me in college. Once.

                    11. Part of my travel itinerary is going to Scotland, particularly Islay, for the last week in May. They hold a huge festival on Islay last week of May and all the distilleries are pouring whisky like no tomorrow. It will be grand.

    2. MOM, mangina of the month, has a better ring to it.

    3. “Men use arguments to win the crowd. Women use the crowd to win arguments.”

      1. So that explains Jon Stewart and Bill Maher’s careers.

      2. Bravo, Sir! [Taps brim of tophat and winks non-monocled eye at the playa]

    4. Whose blog is that? John?

      1. Roissy. Who is some king of game or something. I like reading him for the comments. Which are a fever swamp to rival anything you will find on the Internet.

        1. I believe GBFM is the original [HERCULES].

          1. Haha yeah that guy is insane. Plus you’ve got the actual, no shit, Nazis.

  7. Somewhat appropriately, Brennan gets sworn in on a Constitutionwithout a Bill of Rights in it.

    1. They couldn’t get Holder’s taint-stench out of it.

    2. So he put his greasy palm on a 226 year old document? And the archives let him? WTF?

      1. Yeah, that makes no sense. It must be a replica.

  8. Of course the death of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez has led to conspiracy theories of CIA involvement.

    Someone should get fired if it took the CIA this long.

    1. Obviously, NOBODY dies unless the CIA was involved.

    2. Someone should get fired if it took the CIA this long

      They had to party for a while with the Venezuelan whores, before they got down to the business of giving comrade Hugey the cancer.

    3. My guess is that if the CIA was trying to kill Chavez he’d still be alive.

      1. But there would be a lot of unxplained Venezuelan weddings that mysteriously exploded.

      2. Maybe they never found someone they could put in behind him.

  9. Cop rear-ends motorcyclist then cusses him out. He must have suffered some form of PTSD from the interaction, because his department has awarded him with a paid vacation.

    My dad was a claims adjuster growing up, and I was always taught that in any rear-end collision, the person doing the rear-ending was always at fault. Is that not correct?

    1. Except when you’re a cop. Then the “civilian” is at fault. Because fuck you, that’s why.

      1. I was on my bike on the parkway a dew years ago. It was a beautiful day, so I was kind of swerving a bit left and right while my brain played music. It was perfect. Well. that is until some piece of shit cop hit me up from behind with some sort of loud, screechy, blast of sound. Nearly lost control of the bike. I was so shaken that when he came up to let me know why he decided to try to fucking kill me, that when he asked for my license, I reached into my wallet and handed him a fiver. Only an IDIOT would creep up behind a biker and do some shit like that. Fucking asshole.

        1. Did he play the “meow” game with you?

          1. WTF is that?

            1. You’ve never seen Super Troopers?

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

            2. “Supertrooper” go see it right now – we’ll wait until you get back.

    2. Outside of someone cutting you off and slamming on the brakes, it’s hard to think of an exception.

      1. Non-functioning brake lights maybe, although I have no idea how you’d prove they weren’t functioning before the collision.

        1. They could test the filament to see if it was burned out prior to the accident. IIRC, a non-functioning filament will develop a film on it that can be detected.

      2. Even if someone cuts the person you hit off, you should be leaving enough distance to stop in time.

        1. What?

          The person being hit is the cutter offer and the person doing the hitting is the cutter offee. The whole exception arises because the cutter offer is the one who created the unsafe situation. That is, there was enough distance to stop in time, until you were cut off and therefore didn’t have time to stop.

          1. Yeah I misread what you said.

        2. you should be leaving enough distance to stop in time.

          You try this at rush hour. 🙂

        3. Someone cutting you off and then hitting the breaks often happens as a form of insurance fraud. They’re TRYING to get you to rear-end them, and they usually set it up so you can’t avoid it.

    3. Pretty sure it is. I was driving a couple months ago and a combination of

      1. Me check the rear view moment at the exact wrong moment.
      2. Some asshole darting out to make a left across four lanes of traffic.
      3. Wet streets.

      So woman in front slams on the brakes, and so do I. I hit her at about five miles an hour. But I get out to check on her and shes bawling and screaming and crying. Then the cops show up.

      And actually, because I talked to him first and got my story in and went full bro on him, he talked her out of pursuing it in any way.

    4. In Virginia, according to the state’s Court of Appeals, it’s prima facie the rear-ender’s fault.

      1. Yep. Which is why I was so relieved when the cop walked back to my window and said “She’s calmed down and doesn’t want to press charges. You can go on.”

      2. Prima facie makes perfect sense unless it creates an irrebuttable presumption (basically strict liability).

      3. “In Virginia, according to the state’s Court of Appeals, it’s prima facie the rear-ender’s fault.”

        Virginia is for Lovers (but not the gay kind apparently)

    5. My cousin rear-ended a cop in Palos Verdes a few years ago. It was dark, PV didn’t have street lights on that stretch of the road, and the officer didn’t turn on his rear warning lights when he decided to block the lane.
      The city ended up paying for all of the repairs to both cars.

      1. Ha, I can’t think of a town in the area with deeper pockets to cover that sort of thing. I do like that PV takes a light touch with the street lights, it’s pleasant to drive through at night.

        1. PVE doesn’t have a single street light or stoplight in the city. Lunada Bay is the best spot for viewing meteor showers in the LA area because there is so little light pollution relative to the rest of the area…

          I forgot one important part of the story: My cousin was high as a kite when he hit the car, but they were too concerned about getting sued to notice…

          1. I used to do RAT beach, and tried El Segundo last time. I’ll have to try Lunada Bay next time. LA sucks for star gazing though.

            My cousin was high as a kite when he hit the car

            Awesome!

    6. I had some one put it in reverse and back into me while I sitting still at a light.

      That would be the one exception, pretty much.

  10. A Berkeley City Council member has proposed a tax on e-mail to save post offices.

    And what will they tax post offices to save?

    1. The House of Thurn und Taxis?

    2. The Pony Express could use a bailout.

      1. It’s savior taxes all the way down.

      2. They used to do a Pony Express race between my hometown and another one in the same county. They had to shut it down because Nevada DOT came through and put a wakeup strip down the center line of the highway, which the cars couldn’t handle at speed. Fucking killjoys.

    3. This is interesting. Not sure whether CA law allows localities to levy taxes on that interweb thingy, but the quasi-governmental USPS is a federal creature over which localities have no jurisdiction.

      1. I don’t even know how they can enforce the tax. There’s bound to be at least one person in Berkeley that won’t give the city unfettered access to his e-mails so they can tax them.

        Fuck these busybody assholes.

  11. Via Instapundit:

    Man Left in Solitary Confinement for 2 Horrific Years ? for Suspected DUI. “After Steven’s arrest on suspicion of DUI and driving a stolen car, he was placed in solitary confinement because because officers felt he might be ‘suicidal.’ There, he was essentially forgotten about by the legal system. He was given no health care. His toenails grew so long they curled around his feet. He developed bed sores. A fungus grew on his skin after being denied showers. He lost a ton of weight. His hair grew long and shaggy ? he looks like he just got off a desert island. He descended into madness. And his dental problems grew so severe that he was forced to pull out one of his rotting teeth by himself. Eventually, after 22 months, Steven was released after all charges against him were dismissed.”

    1. Bet he needs a drink.

      1. He needs more than that. Lung cancer gives him a year to enjoy his multi-million dollar settlement.

    2. That’s why even if I’m just being stopped for jaywalking I’m shooting my way out of the situation. They care not one absolute fuck about the appropriate level of response when dealing with you so it is suicidal for you to do so on your end.

      1. Stop resisting.

        1. There will be plenty of time for passivity when I’m dead.

          I’ll practically be a democrat at that point and still voting.

          1. Do you live in a swing state? Don’t give Barry a reason to drone you.

            1. Thanks for the warning. We went for him in ’08, against him in ’12. So, yeah, we’re practically a 70’s movie about middle class couples exploring their sexuality at key parties.

    3. Day late and a dollar short.

      https://reason.com/blog/2013/03…..estic-assa

  12. Hell hath no fury like a feminist scorned.

    Jane “Roe v Wade” Roe, or Norma McCorvey, was the plaintiff in the landmark Supreme Court Case which, 40 years ago today, legalized abortion in the United States. A former lesbian and pro-choice icon, McCorvey is now a straight, born-again, Catholic, anti-choice activist. What the fuck happened? Since McCorvey was born-again, and has struggled with addiction, I present to you a 12-step program and how-to guide of Norma’s transformation.

    Apparently slut-shaming is OK if you’re doing it in the service of The Matriarchy.

    1. How dare this woman have an independent thought outside the Hive?

      1. I don’t think very much of McCorvey’s story involves having independent thoughts.

        1. What on earth does that mean? Have you read her account of her choicer-to-pro-life conversion? She gave it a lot of thought, she simply didn’t reach the “right” conclusion.

          1. I’m referring to being “born again” twice, into two different religions. After growing up in a super intense religion and then running off as a teenager with an older man.

            1. When he was young, Murray Rothbard supported Strom Thurmond. What’s the point?

            2. The fact that she’s changed her mind a few times would demonstrate a willingness to question what she is doing.

              1. Eduard, I know you’re Catholic so you think she finally found the right charismatic man to replace her missing father, but does her life really seem remotely well thought out to you? Does leaving your sick lover seem like a noble thing? Will you still think that when if converts to Islam next?

                1. I am not in on the details of her life; all I know is that if she’d stayed on the choicer side they would have come up with defenses for whatever she did.

                  I don’t know the situation with her ex-lover except that a feminist web site accused her of abandoning her. If this is true, it’s a Bad Thing. But I would need a more impartial source.

                  1. all I know is that if she’d stayed on the choicer side they would have come up with defenses for whatever she did

                    I agree

                2. I’m peacing out so I just want to be clear: I don’t give a fuck that she has switched over to being prolife. But I think it’s absurd to act like she’s some kind of model for an intelligent, independent-thinking life?which I think at least some of you are doing just because she switched over to being prolife.

                  1. I won’t make global judgments on her character, but I expect that the decisions she made later in life, after she’d had considerable experience in the choicer movement, were better thought-out than the decisions she made as a teenager when she got pregnant and blamed imaginary Mexican rapists.

                    1. The choicers were willing to cover for her false rape charges as long as she was on their side.

                3. nicole or Nikki or whatever she’s calling herself this week probably has this one right. She’s got serious daddy issues, from what I can tell.

                  1. Agreed. When you spent the most productive years of your life wrecking yourself and anyone with whom you come into proximity, that kind of thing tends to stick with you.

                    1. But it didn’t stick with her when she was a choicer. The choicers were proud to put her forward as a representative of their cause.

                      It is hard to exaggerate what a blow it was to the choicers when the lead platiffs in the 1973 Roe and Doe decisions – Norma McCorvey and Sandra Cano – became prolife. This is a *big* deal. For those who compare the Roe decision to Brown v. Board of Education, it’s as if Linda Brown joined the Ku Klux Klan. Of course, the key difference between Brown v. Board and Roe v. Wade is that Linda Brown would never consider joining the Klan, since racial justice is in no way comparable to the right to kill one’s own children.

                    2. Well I think you are exaggerating. I fail to see what setbacks the pro-Roe crowd has had. Roe is the standing law, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. I doubt more then 10% of the population knows that the famous Roe changed her mind. Nor should they care, any more then Jim Brady or Gabby Giffords should influence the debate on guns.

                      The merits of a policy should be shown with reason, evidence, and argument, not by anecdote and mascots.

                    3. “I fail to see what setbacks the pro-Roe crowd has had.”

                      I’ve had the privilege of reading articles and fundraising letters from the choicers about how the prolifers have passed laws limiting abortions and reducing the number of abortion clinics, and how their peaceful protesters are dissuading women from having abortions. The choicers, at least, think they have experienced setbacks.

                    4. “The choicers were proud to put her forward as a representative of their cause.”

                      Really? I never heard her real name once before she came out against abortion. The only reference to her I ever heard before that was the name Roe when someone talked about Roe v. Wade.

                    5. Let’s see, there was the made-for-TV movie:

                      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00….._=tt_ov_pl

                      And the book:

                      http://www.amazon.com/Am-Roe-L…..Descending

                      I know I read a breathless account of the case which discussed her “rape” and subsequent litigation.

              2. True, but so many radical course changes don’t speak well to her stability. It’s her right to go through life fucked up, but to either demonize of canonize a fucked-up person is just plain crazy. She’s just a woman who happened to stumble into being a test case. If not her, then someone else would have come along.

                1. The problem is that McCorvey isn’t the only choicer who switched sides in a manner highly inconvenient to the choicers.

                  Dr. Bernard Nathanson was an ob/gyn who was a founder of NARAL and set up the first freestanding abortion clinic in New York. He was a big deal. Then he began reconsidering his views and ended up prolife. That made him an un-person.

                  Did he, too, make bad choices by entering the medical field and becoming an ob/gyn? Why weren’t his character flaws apparent to his fellow NARAL cofounders?

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Nathanson

                  Basically, these converts are only found to have character flaws *after* they leave the reservation, not before.

                  1. So the short version is that partisans whitewash the public personas of people they like and attack people they don’t like, and that changing from friend to foe can lead people to go from being nice to you to being mean to you?

                    1. Sure – and I’m quite grateful to the choicers for making McCorvey a celebrity, even when they knew the embarrassing facts about her background. With her celebrity status, the put her in an abortion clinic as a staff member. Inconveniently, when some prolifers moved in next door to the clinic, they persuaded McCorvey to switch sides. Oops.

                      It was the choicers who made McCorvey a celebrity, including sponsoring a book and movie. Then she switched, and the blame for the resulting publicity is on the choicers.

                    2. Eduard, I’m familiar with the story because I was raised in a very evangelical family. I don’t think that she’s that important to people who aren’t already deeply entrenched in their position on the topic. As such I don’t think her story is swinging people from one side to the other.

                    3. Maybe so, but that would be because the legacy media has buried the story. Evangelicals and prolife Catholics who already are convinced of the prolife case are the people most likely to have heard about this.

                      Certainly, when I was taught about the Roe and Doe cases in school, they said nothing about the plaintiffs changing their minds, and nothing about the court petitions they both filed to get their respective decisions overruled. I suspect that, if Bakke had changed his mind about affirmative action and petitioned the court to change its mind, this fact would have earned some mention in media reports and school curricula.

                  2. Yeah, this is true of how all partisans act. Someone’s on your side, you say good things about them and pretend they have no flaws. Someone leaves your side and they’re a heretic who must be stopped.

                    This all sounds like fairly basic politics to me.

                    Not only that, but a woman who radically changes her viewpoint this many times during life almost certainly isn’t thinking her positions through. It sounds to me like she just goes wherever the wind is blowing.

                    1. The thing is, the choicers built up McCorvey as a celebrity. The prolifers didn’t. It was the choicers who put out a book and movie about McCorvey’s life, and made her a Big Deal. Then when she switched, it was suddenly like the Soviet Encyclopedia cutting Trotsky out of their publication, or when they mentioned her at all mentioned the flaws which they had already known about when they were building her up.

                      This is not a question of moral equivalence. McCorvey was built up by the choicers, and now they’re desperately trying to put her down the Memory Hole.

                      Again, how many plaintiffs in precedent-making Supreme Court cases end up on the other side? Linda Brown didn’t switch from supporting racial equality to supporting Jim Crow. Yet *both* the plaintiffs in the historic 1973 abortion decisions – Norma McCorvey and Sandra Cano – have quit the choicers and joined our side. So did Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who can’t exactly be dismissed as a lesbian single mother like they’re dismissing McCorvey.

                      Converions in the other direction do happen, as with Jesse Jackson and Al Gore, but these conversions generally involve a desire to seek the Presidential nomination of the Democratic Party and realizing that a prolife position precludes such a nomination.

                    2. See also Edward Kennedy.

                    3. For more on this topic, see this thread:

                      https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_3598789

          2. I would say she’s as thoughtful as the average “yes, we’re all individuals” H&R commenter.

            1. STFU, Eddie.

              1. Tell your mom I said hi.

        2. Perhaps but I’d bet you a good amount of money that had she remained pro-choice, McCorvey would be treated as a victim and the very model of the modern femme general.

          The article is the definition of slut-shaming.

    2. She cites a lot of slutty stuff that McCorvey did while she was pro-choice. So I imagine all that misbehavior is on the choicers. After becoming a prolifer she didn’t do that stuff any more. The choicers need to own that they’re the slutty faction.

      1. The choicers need to own that they’re the slutty faction

        That’s why they’re so hard to stay mad at.

    3. Everything is OK if you’re doing it in the service of the matriarchy. I once very easily got a radfem to admit that she didn’t see the point of not being a moralizing hypocrite.

    4. A born-again…Catholic?!

      1. Yes, some confusion of terminology.

        I found nothing under “born again” in the online Catholic Catechism, but I found this when I looked up “reborn:”

        “1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and *reborn* as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water and in the word.””

        1. [emphasis added]

  13. Narcissist physics professer starts on online relationship with a “supermodel”, flies to South America to meet her, and gets arrested for cocaine trafficking.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03…..ouble.html

    1. Yet another life ruined by drug prohibition.

      1. I agree, but OTOH, it seems to me that the professor should have recognized not one, but two of the oldest dating scams ever.

        1. He, as a 68 year old man, calculated his odds of marrying a supermodel as 99.99994%. I think he was too far detached from reality to recognize anything…

          If you tell a malignant narcissist what they want to hear, they’ll believe you!

  14. Cop not satisfied with sexual assault. He’s decided that stalking his alleged victim is a pretty good idea.

    1. Why wouldn’t he? He’s a cop.

      He’s probably only following procedures, and besides, she was probably resisting anyway.

      1. troll-o-meter:.01

        1. You’re right. That cop trolling that woman by stalking her to the school she taught at wasn’t deserving of a very high core.

      2. He’s probably only following procedures, and besides, she was probably resisting anyway.

        Well I would hope so. It’s not very much fun if she doesn’t resist.

  15. Colorado Mulls Compensating Innocent Prisoners

    Does that mean everyone arrested for anything related to the WOD is getting paid?

    1. They would have to be fully exonerated, not released due to a technicality, to qualify.

      The 4th Amendment is a technicality.

  16. Laredo cop found guilty for violating a person’s civil rights by climbing in the back of his cruiser and beating the shit out of them.

    And although there was dashcam video and audio of the attack, he somehow wasn’t charged when his coworkers did their internal investigation.

  17. Your Hospital Might Be Catholic, and That Might Be a Problem

    Around one in eight Americans seeks treatment at a Catholic hospital, whether they realize it or not. In the Northwest, the percentage of Catholic hospitals is 44 percent and growing. The Stranger has a great piece on Catholics who are taking over and potentially imposing their faith on your health care. Here’s a real-life nearly-worst-case scenario from a woman who got scarily close to being the next Savita Halappanavar:

    All of the Protestant, Teutonic rage of the Know-Nothing Party; none of the subtlety.

    1. The “Catholic Church,” huh? Must’ve sprung up over night.

  18. A Berkeley City Council member has proposed a tax on email…

    As long as they don’t tax… thingy

      1. No, no, no… thingy.

        1. Oh! Thank God for that. Excuse me for a moment…

        2. The thingy with the lights or the thingy with the picture?

  19. South Dakota Allows Teachers To Be Armed

    Personally, I doubt it will have much impact one way or the other but good for SD.

    1. When I was a kid Mr. Thurmond was armed with a paddle with holes drilled in it. That was one teacher no one fucked with.

      1. Paddling the school canoe… that’s a paddlin’.

        1. You better believe that’s a paddlin’.

      2. And I bet Mr. Thurmond had a lot of “after-school conferences” with the maid.

    2. So does Utah.

  20. I’ve found the perfect book for Warty (and many others, I’m sure):

    Broken Glass Waltzes is a crime thriller set in the heavy metal club scene of the Midwest of the late 80s/early 90s. It’s a story of lust, violence and madness with a heavy metal beat. Jim Thompson meets Alice Cooper. Metallica reading James M. Cain.

    1. Ok, that sounds fun. I may blow the $3 on it.

  21. Um, how does a city council member have any more of a role in deciding how to fund the post office than, say, me?

    1. When I lived there, the Berkeley City Council kept trying to do things in the realm of foreign policy. The funny part was that they though that what they said and did actually mattered…

      1. Yes Berkley is a nuclear (or nucular) free zone.

        1. Don’t bring any C-14 into the city limits!

      2. It’s pretty common for central cities and lefty suburbs on the East Coast to play foreign policy.

        1. Yep. A lot of the people on City Council in places like Berkley or other SWPL enclaves really loved being in student government or model UN in high school or college, and they don’t have the sheer charisma or ruthlessness to actually get elected to positions of real power.

        2. It still amazes me how so many of the groups that believe they can do better than the “top men” in charge, are so supportive of having top men in charge with unlimited power in the first place.

          Personally I’m all for decentralizing policy-making to the lowest possible level. We may make fun of place like Berkely for the foreign policy they try to set (quite rightly), I just don’t think that those who believe in a minimal state should be poking fun at them for trying to set those policies.

  22. Huh. I guess in some instances there really is a difference between the mob and the police. This chief just found that out the hard way.

    It went on for five months before the FBI got involved. I guess his officers did a good job of just following orders. Or perhaps they just weren’t trained to not steal from people they had pulled over.

    1. Barlow? That doesn’t sound Mexican.

  23. Of course the death of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez has led to conspiracy theories of CIA involvement.

    I hate to break it to you, but the CIA is neither that competent nor that benevolent.

  24. “We don’t want any booing that’s disruptive,” he said.

    Just cough “blowjob”. That’s always good for a laugh.

    1. Or just go straight to the derisive laughter and cut out the middleman.

    2. Or cough ‘bullshit’ after every statement.

    3. I was saying “Boo-urns”.

  25. Cop runs into car and kills woman while not paying attention.

    There’s been a civil suit filed, but the cop will face no criminal charges. You know, because negligence resulting in death is never prosecuted, right?

    1. Depends on the facts and circumstances of each individual case. Kneejerkers assume a double standard because it fits their metanarrative, not the case facts.

      1. The case facts:
        1. Women had right of way.
        2. Women said their light was green
        3. Cop says he was distracted on the phone.
        4. Cop does not know what color his light was due to inattention.
        5. Cop was exceeding speed limit.

        Yeah, you’re right. There’s no way that would typically result in a negligent vehicular manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter case. What the hell was I thinking.

      2. Kneejerkers assume a double standard due to copious examples of same.

      3. It’s not a kneejerk when it’s what actually fucking happens.

    1. Well, of course. The American public is rationally ignorant, not mentally unbalanced.

  26. OJ’s ex-GF sentenced for purse snatching:

    http://www.ajc.com/news/ap/cri…..ery/nWg9Y/

  27. Based on something that came up in an earlier article thread:

    A Riparian water rights (as used in most Eastern US states) or Prior Appropriation water rights (as used in most Western US states) more libertarian?

    1. Prior Appropriation rights come closer to homesteading than Riparian.

      From a pragmatic viewpoint, PA is also less prone to the Tragedy of the Commons situations that Riparian tends to fall into.

      1. On the other hand, PA allows downstream users to restrict what upstream users are allowed to do with their property. At the extreme you get thing like rain barrel bans because some farmer in California “owns” the rain falling over Colorado.

        1. On the other hand, PA allows downstream users to restrict what upstream users are allowed to do with their property.

          Not really, the river is not the property here (it is still public, neither is really libertarian). The property is the right to withdraw water up to a certain amount.

          1. I still say that while the water is on my property, it’s mine. Fortunately, I live in the East, so it is.

            1. That’s not entirely true. You’re entitled to the water in proportion to the portion of it that’s on your property. That is, if your property covers 25% of an aquifer, you’re entitled to 25% of the water in it. You can’t drill a well and start sucking out water until the well goes dry.

              1. I just use groundwater, but I see your point. I suppose its mostly that my needs are small enough that I might as well own it completely.

      2. PA also requires a centralized beuracracy to track who started using what water when so that the order of claim can be determined.

        1. That complaint can be made about homesteading, as well.

          Good point about upstream rights v downstream, but I’ll point out that pragmatically speaking, there’s an economically efficient Coasean solution to that problem.

    2. I don’t think one is more “libertarian” than the other. Both systems were established due to the unique climate and geographic features of their respective regions, and either way you’d need some form of bureaucratic management to keep track of who gets what in times of scarcity. Complex systems have to be managed.

      Things like the Colorado River Compact are only loosely based on prior appropriation, incidentally. It’s really a fucked-up combination of both systems. The only reason it’s organized in its current form is because California held out until they were able to get a guaranteed appropriation every year. Since the annual stream flow was based on faulty measurements (basically, one wet year happened to yield 15 million acre feet, so it was presumed that an even split between upper and lower basins was fair), dry years end up causing a whole bunch of heartburn.

      Ironically, when McCain suggested in 2008 that it might be time to rework the Colorado River Compact, a bunch of shitlibs in Colorado started crying that he was trying to get more water for California and the lower basin, and that the compact was “sacrosanct.” Meanwhile, a whole raft of left-wing academics and journalists had spent the previous 30 years arguing the exact same thing McCain was proposing.

      1. IANAL, but east coast riparian law was mostly established during colonial times, whereas western laws were established much later and was responsive to the needs of the emerging west.

  28. (Unwanted) Sex, Lies and Videotape. The Markham, IL Police department has them all.

  29. Another question for Borderlands 2 fans: Any of the DLC worth playing? I’ve pretty much run out of shit to do. Got level 50 commando and siren, tons of legendary gear (full sets of inifinity, bitch, conference call, white death, pitchfork, a couple bees, legendary class mods etc etc). With the game breaking inifinity / evil smasher glitch I almost doubt the dlc would even be worth playing. Worth it?

    1. The Pirate one is pretty good, The Torgue one is great, I haven’t done Hammerlock yet. But if you’re capped all you can get is more gear. I’d suggest waiting to see if they raise the level cap in an as-yet-unannounced fourth DLC.

      1. And being able to run around one-shotting everything doing 300k-500k damage per shot with the infinity has sort of elimated the fun of more gear…

    2. That reminds me, thanks everyone for raising my consciousness of Borderlands 2. There’s nothing better than getting in a sweet headshot with an explosive sniper rifle.

      Using the hologram thingy to sneak up on someone and shoot them in the back of the head is pretty close though.

      Also killing things by running over them.

  30. Yeah Brian, about that whole ‘Rand Paul changing the GOP for the better’…Republicans outraged over Obama decision to try Al-Qaeda suspects in civilian courts.

    1. Fuck these people, seriously. I am so sick of trying to explain to these fascistic little chickenhawks that in this country, we don’t throw people in prison for conspiracy to commit a crime until after we prove it in court. After. Not before.

      Fucking hell, what the hell happened to this country?

      1. Uh, actually, we do that. Which is a problem.

      2. Which is not to speak out against pretrial detention after a proper hearing which establishes probable guilt or flight risk.

    2. I’ve been hearing about that all day, and it’s goddamn insane. I actually heard someone on the radio say ‘He’ll get a lawyer, get read his Miranda Rights and then he probably won’t talk to us! In Guantanamo Bay we’d get more information!’

      In other words, why are we trying him in a court of law when torture exists?

      1. Yeah, and he must be a terrorist because the government said he was. You can trust them on who’s a terrorist, and about the drugs, and how we need more military spending, but not on any of that liberal stuff.

        You know, leftists are truly deeply stupid, so much so that I sometimes forget just how dumb righties get when you say terrorist.

        1. Based on Dick “What about 9/11 and Osama Bin Laden, Senator Paul?” Durbin, I think it’s safe to say all politicians get incredibly dumb when terrorism is mentioned.

          1. We don’t negotiate with terrorists! Or their lawyers!

          2. There’s a difference between cowardice and stupidity.

          3. I was speaking more about the rank and file. You know, the people who think that if we don’t spend more money then everyone else in the world combined on military stuff, then we’ll be overrun by somebody next week. The people who think having a fleet bigger than the next four navies combined isn’t enough.

            1. Something about kids and foreigners makes people go crazy for some reason.

            2. Like when Mitt Romney claimed that it was a serious issue that our navy in 2012 has fewer physical boats than it did in 1980? That was probably the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. It was like he wanted to lose the election.

              1. I agreed with him on that. If we’re going to commit to be Team America: World Police, then those poor bastards we’re sending to Uganda and other places better have the fleet close enough to come help. Few things piss me off more then the bipartisan foreign policy consensus that signs treaty after treaty committing the US to defend huge swathes of the planet and then cancels the hulls and boots that are needed to do it.

                If you want an Empire, you need to fund the goddamn legions. If you don’t want to raise the legions, then you can’t have an Empire.

              2. Because Joe sixpack loves him some military channel and knows that it’s not the number of boats but what they can do.

            3. You know, the people who think that if we don’t spend more money then everyone else in the world combined on military stuff, then we’ll be overrun by somebody next week

              We have already been overrun by a bunch of leftist idiots, so I guess it didn’t work.

              1. Now, Hyper, there are some idiots on the right who also believe that.

                1. If you’re speaking of Team Red, then yeah, most of them believe that. But I wasn’t talking about whether or not anyone believes it, I’m just saying that it doesn’t work. The enemy is already inside the gate, and it’s us.

                  1. We have met the enemy and he is us?

                    1. It’s our proglotards, neocons, socons, and useful idiots. That’s about 85% of us. So, yes, it’s us.

          4. Or childins. That’s when they really go full retard.

            Just vote yes on this bill, you don’t need to read it first, it’s for the children! That seems to automatically guarantee a majority vote, no matter what is in the bill.

  31. Excellent Simpsons shout-out there, also.

    1. I came here looking for a comment that also recognize the glory of the boo-urns reference.

      Shackford constantly impresses me.

  32. She is suppose to be the smart one:

    The California Democrat also made the bizarre claim that the “advent of PTSD” is a “new phenomenon” and a “product of the Iraq war.”

    Here’s exactly what she said in context: “The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this.”

    Diane, sweetie, please at least try not to embarrass yourself.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Razor‘s_Edge

    1. I find it funny that you SF’d the link just enough to send me to a wikipedia page about Gillette Stadium.

      1. I actually tried it out when I noticed in preview, and decided, you know what, it is funny.

    2. I love P syndromes. Women really love em. Isn’t it about time that men got some of them? I mean so that we can’t be held responsible for anything, like the wimins folk?

      Ok, well I stabbed my husband 43 times and then threw the baby out of our apartment window on the 34th floor. But I had PPD! I’m the victim!

    3. PTSD has risen for the simple fact that your veterans “benefits” get larger if you have it. Just like if you go by the Social Security records, back pain is the biggest health problem in America.

      1. I knew a back pain sufferer. He hurt his back while driving a truck. After that, no doctor could find anything wrong with him, but he started receiving disability anyway. I think it’s impossible to prove whether or not anyone is suffering from pain.

        When out in public, the guy would walk with a cane, all stooped over and hobbling around. Then he would go down to the park with some us guys and throw around some football. He was like Lynn Swann when he was out there, going after a long bomb. Amazing what football therapy can do to temporarily heal all your afflictions.

    4. Maybe she’s just so old she only remembers it as shell shock.

    5. I usually go for stupidity over actively trying to rewrite history, but sometimes it’s hard to believe that anyone can really be that stupid.

  33. Not all liberals are team players.

    Yet instead of expressing outrage, Democrats continued to acquiesce to the White House’s radical expansion of executive power. And they turned on Rand Paul, even though his objections should have been shared not just by liberals, but by everyone with even a passing respect for the rule of law.

    So where’s the problem for progressives? Apparently, Paul’s question about killing Americans on American soil is deemed such a singular Tea Party-ish position that only two Democrats (Patrick Leahy and Jeff Merkley) and Independent Bernie Sanders joined Republican forces in challenging Brennan’s nomination.

    Rather than challenge a Democratic administration in defense of constitutional principles that all citizens should insist be guaranteed, Democrats embraced party tribalism. As Kevin Gosztola pointed out, so-called progressives from Lawrence O’Donnell to Chris Matthews vilified the only politician who was asserting a ? limited, mild, patriotic ? challenge to the White House’s imperious expansion of unilateral authority. It was a challenge that every single Democrat, conservative, liberal or progressive should have been pushing for the last four years. Even those few, such as Sen. Ron Wyden, who exhibited some backbone, did so tepidly. After all, Wyden clearly stated that he would vote to confirm Brennan.

    (cont)

    1. Despite the White House’s defiant disregard of procedure, transparency or accountability, the Democrats disassociated themselves from an important strategic ally ? a libertarian who is the only one asking the questions that progressives . . . want an answer to: Will the president claim and exercise the power to kill one of us at his and his advisers’ discretion?

      Democrats should have participated in Paul’s filibuster until the answer they received was an unconditional “no” to the question of targeted killings of Americans on American soil. There’s much more to be demanded of this administration, but support for Paul’s filibuster could have been a good place to start. And it should have been a no-brainer. But rather than forming a tactical alliance ? no one was asking Democrats to convert to Tea Partyism ? Democrats relinquished yet another chance to do their jobs: to question, challenge and push back on the Obama administration’s unceasing quest for power.

      And in Salon too.

      1. even though his objections should have been shared not just by liberals, but by everyone with even a passing respect for the rule of law.

        His objections were shared by all liberals. There are not any liberals in this country, except for Libertarians. Progessives are not liberals.

  34. Drones talked about more by Paul in his filibuster than in every session of congress ever.

    Over the course of his filibuster yesterday, Rand Paul used the word “drone” in a military context more than any two-year Congressional term in history ? and more than it had been used in the Congressional Record prior to the 112th Congress, combined.

    While he was speaking, some of those following along on Twitter wondered if this was the lengthiest discussion of drones that had ever occurred in Congress. Searching the official transcript of Congressional business reveals that it was, by far.

    In total, Paul (and, to a lesser extent, other Senate speakers) said the word 489 times ? 22 percent more than the term had been used on the record in the preceding twelve years.

    Discussion of drones has only occurred in earnest over the past two years. The most recent Congress mentioned drones 241 times, a figure Paul surpassed before suppertime.

  35. You’re the only one that gets me, the only one I trust. It’s just you and me from here on out, old pal. You’re my best friend in the whole world.

    Truly spectacular.

    1. Captain Dronebot

  36. Even Reid is showing respect for Paul’s filibuster, despite the former being a shitbag.

    My Republican colleagues love to extol the virtues of regular order. If only we could get back to regular order, they say, and the Senate would function again. Yesterday we saw both sides of that. On the one hand, my colleagues did practice regular order. On the other, they didn’t. Let’s take the one they didn’t. They demanded a 60-vote threshold for confirmation of a very qualified nominee, Caitlin Halligan. The Republicans once again hid behind a cloture vote, a filibuster by another term, to prevent a simple up-or-down vote on this important nomination. They took the easy way out.

    (cont)

    1. On the other hand, one Republican senator did return to regular order and as his right he spoke for as long as he was able to speak. And, Mr. President, that is a filibuster. After 12 hours standing and talking, this is how Senator Paul ended his filibuster, and I quote, “I would go for another 12 hours to try to break Strom Thurmond’s record, but I have discovered there are some limits to filibustering, and I am going to have to take care of one of those in a few moments here.” I have been involved in a few filibusters, as Rand Paul did yesterday. And what I have learned from my experiences in talking filibusters is this: To succeed, you need strong convictions but also a strong bladder. It’s obvious Senator Paul has both. Mr. President, we should all reflect on what happened yesterday as we proceed with other nominations, including a lot of judicial nominations. This can be a Senate where ideas are debating in full public view and obstruction happens in full public view as well, or it can be a Senate where a couple senators, obstruction from behind closed doors without ever coming to the Senate floor.

      (cont)

      1. And HuffPo agrees!

        What Paul did yesterday fittingly articulated Merkley’s point [concerning the appropriateness of the different kinds of filibusters]. Paul sought to put his contention on trial, in public. He did his homework. He brought a sheaf of supporting materials to make his case. It required the willingness, on Paul’s to put his nose to the grindstone and do some real, intellectual work, but more importantly, it required Paul to be willing to risk the possibility of losing the argument — with his colleagues, and with citizens.

        And that “hero versus bum” meter that Merkley mentioned could be observed in real time during the filibuster — when Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) glommed on to Paul’s filibuster to attempt to make some completely off-topic remarks about the deficit, observers took to Twitter with calls to give Johnson the hook. On the other hand, Sen. Dick Durbin’s decision to join the debate, and argue a different point of view, yielded the product that the Beltway media claims to want most of all — respectful, polite debate. This is important to mention, by the way — the talking filibuster isn’t intrinsically obstructive. It invites debate. But you have to come to play.

        1. Except that Durbin’s point was unbelievably stupid. The argument was about the ability to drone strike an American citizen on American soil. So what example does he come up with? Osama Bin Laden, a man who:

          A) Wasn’t hit by a drone.
          B) Isn’t an American citizen and
          C) Was in Pakistan.

          He asked a question about something utterly irrelevant to what was actually at issue. If that’s ‘coming to play’ then I’d like to see what a fucking idiot Durbin is in his daily life.

  37. But it’s a win-win for the cowardly and calculating left. Paul is going to ask those questions and filibuster regardless of their participation. Which gives them cover to publicly distance themselves from him. Until there are hearings at which they will declare themselves shocked, shocked do you hear, that these things were going on under their very noses.

  38. Data companies are scooping up enormous amounts of information about almost every American. They sell information about whether you’re pregnant or divorced or trying to lose weight, about how rich you are and what kinds of cars you have.

    Privacy issues. How much control should the individual exert, and whose responsible for seeing that he/she has the wherewithal to exert it? Some regulation seems in order – perhaps notification of each sale of your info, or of the fact/details of your info. Reminds me of South Park’s human centipede episode.

    http://www.propublica.org/arti…..-about-you

    1. It’s reaching crazy levels. I recently moved the domain of my biz to a new host and I suddenly started getting all of this mail addressed to the business, at my home address, that’s not even in the same state as the business home.

      Now I know that my new webhost did not give this information out to anyone, so all I can figure out is that somehow, just from the registrar info, which is of course, public, that from my email address as the admin for the site, all of these companies suddenly know my home address? Sort of creepy.

      1. Now I know that my new webhost did not give this information out to anyone

        Do you actually know this?

        1. Of course not, but I am pretty sure of it. It’s like saying that I am sure my father is really my father, without a paternity test. I am about the same amount of sure.

          Especially since nothing changed(the web host don’t even know what my home address is, all the billing information is the same, not my home address.

          The only thing that changed is the registrar admin email. That’s how I know it has to be that.

  39. That really ticks me off man, Not cool at all dude.

    http://www.PrivateWeb.da.bz

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.