Supreme Court Rules for Book Reselling, Assault Weapons Ban Even More Doomed, Yoda Can Marry You Off in Scotland: P.M. Links

|

  • "Husband and wife, I declare you!"
    Credit: Lucasfilms

    The Supreme Court has ruled that you do actually own the books you buy and are allowed to resell them without violating copyright law.

  • Sen. Dianne Feinstein's proposed assault weapons ban has apparently gone down in flames.
  • Russia is claiming that Syrian rebels have used chemical weapons to kill 16 people. The White House is saying they have not.
  • A hacker apparently gained access to Hillary Clinton's e-mails connected to Benghazi and has distributed them to journalists.
  • Changes to marriage laws in Scotland will allow a Jedi to perform wedding ceremonies. Somebody is going to blame this on the gays any minute now.

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

Advertisement

NEXT: Cyprus Rejects Bank Account Grab

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. Cindy Hartig applies for unemployment after losing Osceola School Board office

    Fuck. This. CUNT.

    The district pays the state for unemployment, so unless the state Department of Economic Opportunity reverses its decision, Osceola taxpayers would have to pay Hartig after voting her out of office.

    In its appeal, the district argues that Hartig is not eligible for unemployment.

    “Cindy Hartig was not an employee of the school district of Osceola County, Florida,” the appeal states. “She was an elected official who was not re-elected by the voters of Osceola County.”
    Win Cirque du Soleil tickets!

    The appeal notes that the district did not have the ability to fire, discipline or supervise Hartig, as it would an employee. “Therefore, she is not entitled to unemployment compensation benefits.”

    I hate this idea that public employees are so noble, when their job can be done just as easily at the private level. Why do we have to extract tax dollars from everyone so that this bitch can make $35k a year for sitting on the school board?

    1. last I checked, being on a school board or any other elected office was a choice one made in order to serve the community, not leach from it. Not winning election is NOT the same as being unemployed. It’s not like this woman can find no other employment. I am so goddamn glad to have moved out of Florida.

      1. It’s not like this woman can find no other employment.

        I believe it may be.

    2. I really want to know about those tickets. Wife’s been bugging me to go for a while.

      1. Damn their viral marketing and/or my inability to proofread!

        As Auric Demonocles would say, “Edit button, reason!”

        1. Actually I’d have said “EDIT BUTTON!”

      2. Also, I got dragged to it with my girlfriend, and while it had some elements I liked, I absolutely, 100%, definitely DON’T LIKE CLOWNS, which was more than half the show. So I liked the trampolines, the BMX bikers, the curtain people (people that did tricks on curtains, not people made out of curtains), and the little Chinese girls that did the crazy yo-yo thing.

        I went to the one that’s at Downtown Disney in Orlando, La Nouba, so YMMV.

        1. I’m sure the clowns hate you too, GB. :-p

    3. I don’t know why, but I suddenly have the urge to see Cirque du Soleil.

      1. Cirque du Soleil at our house is called “The Ass Circus” because there is a lot of looking at peoples’ asses during the shows.

        1. No wild animals, not a circus. I won’t go see Cirque du Soleil in protest for their failure to include lions, tigers, horses and elephants.

          1. That was my biggest complaint when I went to the Britney Spears “Circus” album concert series, as well!

    4. Does anyone know if elected officials pay into the unemployment system? ie. do they pay unemployment tax?

      1. Only employers pay the unemployment tax so I assume no.

  2. [Florida mega-attorney] John Morgan could take medical marijuana mainstream

    On the one hand, this:

    In other words, he has the ear of a lot of people, as well as a compelling personal story: Morgan’s father suffered from emphysema and cancer, his appetite vanquished by the cocktail of prescription medicine he was on at the end of his life, and marijuana gave him some relief.

    On the other hand…

    Some have questioned what Morgan’s involvement with the issue could mean for Charlie Crist, who works for Morgan’s law firm and is widely seen as a Democratic challenger to Gov. Rick Scott.

    But Charlie is the ultimate populist, and if People United’s polling numbers are even close to accurate, then medical marijuana is a perfect populist issue for Crist ? and Morgan.

    I would almost rather medijuana die in Florida than allow the Orangeman to take the gubernatorial seat again.

    1. Dude. Don’t make me stop hating Morgan & Morgan. Although if they were to permanently destroy Crist’s career, I would have to hate them less.

      1. Trust me, this move has some evil, money-stealing motive behind it.

        1. Is there any other kind?

        2. I assume they’ll immediately get into the “suing docs who won’t write MMJ scrips” business.

          1. There’s a plan, rest assured. Morgan and Morgan: Fuck the People.”

    2. Morgan & Morgan

      Dexter and Debra?

      1. and harry!

    3. Crist has made many, many powerful enemies over the years, and by the texture of his skin, the Sun itself is one of them. I’m rooting for the Sun to kill him.

      1. In a fight for the last battle of tanning cream, who wins? Charlie Crist or John Boehner?

        1. Boehner is able to cry at will and therefore keep moist. Crist is a lizard in a human like form. I think Boehner has the advantage.

          1. Soo, I was going to youtube something from the original V miniseries, and then got totally distracted in the crazy that comes up when you search “v lizard people” on youtube.

            1. Anna is even sexier in Homeland.

      2. He has offended George Hamilton, who has withdrawn his gift of tanning power.

    4. Is not working for Morgan in the first place blighting Crist’s reputation, such as it is?

  3. Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s proposed assault weapons ban has apparently gone down in flames.

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

    1. We’ll see in 2014 if the bill took anybody’s career with it.

      1. “Kick ’em when they’re down!”

    2. Her legislation was torn to shreds by a hail of imploding bullets.

      1. Nope. Bazookas.

      2. I wonder if she stuck her fingers in the dismembered pieces or the holes?

  4. The story behind this comment is that it’s hopefully the first; but it may be the second, or even the third.

    1. Damn, dude. Fourth?

      1. To explain for our viewers at home, this guest is noting that my post came fourth, and, like myself and many of my fans, or Perd-verts as they are known, he is angered and saddened by this shocking new development in this story.

        1. *squints*

          Hmmm…I think I like you already, Perdly.

        2. Lets see if he survives hell week before we get to attached to him.

          I suspect that the initiation will be pretty gruesome this year as a result of recent events.

        3. At least I got a good laugh out of “Perd-verts”.

        4. Is someone going to set up this next clip?

          1. The next statement from this reporter comes in the form of a question: Is there some kind of video that is about to play on this news programs that I as a newscaster should be aware of? And if so, what key points does this video illustrate both to me, and to viewers at home?

    2. Ya Heard? With Perd.

      1. That is the name of my interview program, which is normally aired on Sunday mornings, just as the sun is rising in the sky, on Channel 4 Eyewitness News, but is sometimes rerun, and for those shows you should check your television guide. If you do not have a television guide subscription, you can buy a television guide at a local supermarket like Food and Stuff.

        1. I made a wine of dandelions and reconstituted golden raisins a few years back. Opened up for the evening meal. Quite delicious.

          The above is how you end a sentence when they start to get away from you.

          Be sure to remove the pith from the dandelions if you ever try making it.

        2. Oh my god this is hilarious.

          1. Then you should be watching one of the best sitcoms ever, Parks & Rec.

  5. A hacker apparently gained access to Hillary Clinton’s e-mails connected to Benghazi and has distributed them to journalists.

    Whatghazi?

    1. bengh-o-list

    2. We call that Christmas. Hopefully something good in there. And within a week of Climategate 3 and the DiFi AWB, too.

      However, don’t expect to ever read any of these since the administrator will go all Aaron Swarz on the hacker, and the lapdog media won’t say a thing.

      1. don’t expect to ever read any of these
        ————
        and that is the disgraceful takeaway.

      2. Yep, these will disappear down the memory hole. I hope he was smart enough to provide copies to someone…far away.

        1. Apparently they were sent to a few Russian media outlets.

      3. However, don’t expect to ever read any of these since the administrator will go all Aaron Swarz on the hacker, and the lapdog media won’t say a thing.

        If it was a Bradley Manning-type situation, where it was actually a State Department employee, that would be even sweeter. Hopefully the hacker kept plenty of backup copies in hard-to-access places.

    3. What difference does it make?

      1. -1 at this point

  6. The Supreme Court has ruled that you do actually own the books you buy and are allowed to resell them without violating copyright law.

    I didn’t even realize this was a thing.

    1. I haven’t heard a word about this case or followed the link, but isn’t that well-established law? First-sale doctrine and all of that?

      1. Yeah, it’s a very poor representation even of the 24/7 story, which runs thus:

        The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that textbooks and other goods made and sold abroad can be re-sold online and in discount stores without violating U.S. copyright law. The outcome was a huge relief to eBay, Costco and other businesses that trade in products made outside the U.S.

        It also has to do with whether first sale counts if the first sale was outside the US and therefore you never bought the copyrighted work, or however you want to think of that.

        1. Ohhhh yeah, this thing.

          Thanks, reason, for adding to my confusion. And sincere thanks to Nikki for dispelling it.

        2. How that even is debatable is beyond me. If I buy something, I can resell it. Copyright can cloud that a bit when it comes to reproductions, of course (esp. digital), but that’s generally true, and it’s most especially true with books.

          1. How that even is debatable is beyond me.

            Nixon’s Head: But I know a place where the Constitution doesn’t mean squat.

            [Scene: Supreme Court.]

          2. With the rise of ebay and Amazon, there is a huge market for buying textbooks at 1/4th the US price new in India and selling them at 1/3rd the US price. It will, hopefully, help to kill the rapacious profiteers of the textbook industry.

          3. It seems at least debatable. After all, who is to say you aren’t running a giant ripoff machine in China and “reselling” “used” textbooks in the United States?

            That’s how the street DVDs work.

            1. That’s not the same, of course. If you’re doing any duplication, you’re not in first-sale doctrine territory.

        3. I tend to be very pro grey market, but doesn’t this decision essentially mean section 602 of the copyright law no longer exists?

          1. Kagan and Alito address this in their concurrence, saying that the problem here is the previous Quality King decision, and that if Congress wants to do so, they can amend 602 to overcome that decision.

  7. Changes to marriage laws in Scotland will allow a Jedi to perform wedding ceremonies. Somebody is going to blame this on the gays any minute now.

    They are a deviant lot. Don’t tell me that the Jedi did not go all Sparta on the padawans by promoting pederasty.

    1. Huh, ya, never thought of that. Especially since they are supposedly all “celibate” and stuff, aren’t they?

      1. That was the gooniest part of the Jedi code, that you weren’t allowed to marry and had to supress their sexual urges. They’re like Quakers with cooler outfits and toys.

        The more any normal person finds out about the Jedi, the more they cheer for Darth Vader to wipe them out.

        1. I think you mean Shakers. Quakers can and do procreate.

        2. Actually, Lucas clarified they could fuck all they wanted, they just couldn’t form committed relationships. I imagine the Jedi Mind Trick would make it pretty easy to indulge and satisfy their sexual urges.

          1. I think you mean Shakers. Quakers can and do procreate.

            Crap. That’s right.

            Actually, Lucas clarified they could fuck all they wanted, they just couldn’t form committed relationships.

            :facepalm:

            1. Actually, Lucas clarified they could fuck all they wanted, they just couldn’t form committed relationships.

              :facepalm:

              Yes, well. He actually said that.

    2. Wow, no one linked this?

      http://www.comedycentral.com/v…..ex-scandal

    3. There is no liberty until a Sith may perform wedding ceremonies as well.

      1. Sith preside over the divorces. They can get messy.

  8. Changes to marriage laws in Scotland will allow a Jedi to perform wedding ceremonies.

    These are not the grooms you’re settling for.

    1. Damn it!

      1. Give in to your hate, gB.

  9. Changes to marriage laws in Scotland will allow a Jedi to perform wedding ceremonies. Somebody is going to blame this on the gays any minute now.

    “These aren’t the scapegoats you’re looking for.”

  10. Goddammit. Why is my pleasure lessened?

    Lululemon has yanked its popular black yoga pants from store shelves after it found that the sheer material used was revealing too much of its loyal customers.

    1. No pictures in the article for me to judge for myself if they are too revealing??

      1. No pictures in the article for me to judge for myself if they are too revealing??

        Here, you big baby.

        1. H&R link appears to have crashed the site.

    2. Feature, not a bug.

        1. Damn you! Maybe they could only reinforce the larger sizes.

        2. DO NOT click on that link!

        3. Coming soon: Lululemon rags on a stick!

        4. Cereal Killer: Spandex: it’s a privilege, not a right.

          1. At least the pool on the roof doesn’t seem to be leaking..

    3. There are still plenty of other yoga pants brands, and of course girls will continue to exercise in pants that are a size too small.

      1. and wear them on the bus.

    4. The dog in that pic looks like he’s about to squat to take a crap.

  11. Not content with just raising taxes…
    California is retroactively cancelling tax breaks for businesses

    So, all those tax breaks that were legal… well, Cali says they are now not legal and are making business pay back that money with interest.

    If you still live in the People’s Republik of Kalifornia, I suggest you pack up now.

    1. They should video traffic and then retroactively make the speed limits lower.

      1. with retroactive due dates, so they can haul all those people in front of a judge and make them pay steep penalties on top of their fines as well as throwing people in jail.

        1. They should do it right now, without any notice or opportunity to pay.

    2. Temporarily ignoring FYTW clause, isn’t this blatantly unconstitutional? Something about not being allowed to make retroactive laws.

      1. Sadly, I believe that tax laws aren’t included.

      2. Their reasoning is that since finding a law unconstitutional vacates any punishment you may have received for violating it also means that you can’t claim any protections for following laws that were deemed unconstitutional.

        Therefore pay up bitches.

        The best part is the fines and late fees for not paying the taxes you didn’t know you owed.

    3. What’s most LOL is that they’re actually punishing businesses that kept at least 80% of their employees in California.

      Yo, fuck that state. An earthquake can’t destroy it soon enough. sloopy and banjos should get out while they can.

  12. Cyrpus Lawmakers Reject Bank Tax

    Yet another twist in a story that won’t stop unfolding as a new event.

    1. The most idiotic part of this whole thing is that the only reason the Cypriot banks are in financial trouble in the first place is because they were forced to make serious concessions on the debt that the Greek government owed them.

      1. That, and every damn story has some hint that Russian gangsters keep deposits there.
        So the EU gangsters want their cut!

        1. It better to have everybody be punished than to let a single gangster’s assets go unconfiscated.

          Seroiusly, anyone who hints darkly about Russian gangsters while defending this theft needs a good swift kick.

          1. Why not just let the Russian gangsters take care of it? A few Eurocrats disappear under mysterious circumstances, the fiscal conversation improves, it’s a win-win.

    2. Has anyone noticed how Cyprus looks like a rotated and squashed West Virginia? It explains a lot.

  13. Alt-text typo.

    Also: I’m back from Europe. It was fun, but has reassured me that America is way better. I’ll provide a recap later if anyone’s interested, but for now I’ve got to leave early to give a friend a ride cause she got towed due to the snow. Anyone what to fill me in on what I missed the last 3.5 weeks (both in America and in HnR)?

    1. there is this Senator named Paul who caused a bit of a ruckus on the hill.

    2. Oh yeah: I’m disappointed (but unsurprised) to see that Reason still has the shittiest site ever for mobiles, and no edit button.

    3. Europeans do some things better.
      Like bakerys and restaurants.

      1. “and restaurants.”{
        Personally, I was glad to leave Italy for SF so I could get some decent Italian food.

        1. What do they call Italian food in Italy?

          1. What do they call Italian food in Italy?

            Gobblegoul?

          2. Peasant fare.

          3. Something to sell to i turisti.

          4. Royale with cheese.

      2. Bakeries, OK, but restaurants? Better? Really? The USA leads the rest of the world in waitering by a long shot.

        1. This was my exact thought. I hated all but 2 waiters I had while I was there. And I couldn’t even punish them with a shitty tip.

    4. Welcome back!

      There was a filibuster. And a couple of budget proposals. Which will be changed soon because of this nifty idea the EU came up with to take people’s money from banks.

      And we lost Welker. Which may not be all that bad, but it made Zolak explode. Like, literally, explode.

      1. Yeah, I managed to follow free agency just a bit. I wasn’t surprised to see him go, but I was surprised that it was for so little money. Happy that his replacement is Danny though. Just wish we could have kept the other Danny.

    5. she got towed due to the snow.

      Current temperature in Houston: 82.

    6. but for now I’ve got to leave early to give a friend a ride cause she got towed due to the snow.

      Nobody rides for free.

        1. Ass, grass, or cash…

          That’s ass, grass or gas, nobody rides for free. Cash does not rhyme with “ass”.

          1. It’s close enough. You need to loosen up a bit, man.

            1. I don’t think you realize how important the distinction is. Ass, grass or gas will get you through times of no cash, but times when you have cash are no guarantee you will have ass, grass or even gas (if you are a long way from a station).

              I think you’re just one of these young whippersnappers who always has plenty of all four, and doesn’t know what it was like to be back in the days when there were shortages of such things.

      1. Her payment is that she gives me a ride to work on days I want to take the train to a game at the end of the day.

  14. Some levity.
    Funny church signs

    I love “Forgiveness is to swallow when you want to spit”. Remember that, ladies and some of you gents.

    1. I have a t-shirt that says “Jesus is coming” on the front, and on the back it says “Are you going to spit or swallow?”

      Good for getting LOTS of stink-eye.

  15. In just a year, Bieber will be turning tricks in park bathrooms.

    The European leg of Justin Bieber’s world tour, Believe, hasn’t got off to the best of starts.

    And on Monday things seemed to take a turn for the worse after the troubled star was reportedly kicked out of the most prestigious hotel in Paris because of bad behaviour

      1. Because there’s a market for what he offers, hater.

        FELLOW BELIEBERS, ASSEMBLE!

        1. If the Beliebers could assemble like Voltron-style (the cool 15 piece Voltron not the lions crap) then – THEN – I would concede he’s pretty good.

          1. If the Beliebers could assemble like Voltron-style (the cool 15 piece Voltron not the lions crap) then – THEN – I would concede he’s pretty good.

            Of course, Beiber is more like the supremely sucky Voltron II series.

        2. I’m not sure you’ve answered my question.

          1. Like you didn’t run out and get every Leif Garrett victrola cylinder back in your day or whatever.

            1. I couldn’t figure out why all the girls were so excited about a guy who looked like a girl. A wimpy girl.

            2. The Keane Brothers, bitches!

              And they kind of looked like girls too.

            3. Victrolas played discs, not cylinders.

              (My uncle collected vintage grammophones, and I inherited one of the victrolas after he died. I don’t know who got all the old-fashioned stereoscopic images, though.)

              1. Covered under “or whatever.”

      2. The answer to your question seems obvious, but your tone leads me to think that you are asking it in a sarcastic and/or humorous fashion.

    1. He has enough money at this point that he’ll be able to stay home with a series of hot women until he dies.

      1. I’m predicting he goes out Leif Garrett style.

        1. I see Dr. Drew in his near future.

      2. In other words, the Tiger Woods of the music world.

      3. And yet he will still be broke and turning tricks in park restrooms inside of a decade.

  16. Wow: Ohio teen killer wears ‘killer shirt’ at sentencing, curses and mocks families of his victims.

    1. It’s “people” like that who make me seriously question my opposition to the death penalty. And to prison rape jokes.

    2. My entry in the some-people-are-just-evil stakes.

      1. It’s not abortion if they are delivered alive. It’s murder, plain and simple.

        We can all quibble over whether abortion is or is not murder. But you cannot quibble over this.

        1. We have a President who disagrees with you on that.

    3. He’s a mentally disturbed little twat. Yawn.

    4. Kid just got his conviction overturned –the fact that his teenage brain hasn’t developed was on full display.

        1. I really meant the 3 life sentences could be overturned. But that conviction could fall based on ineffective assistance of counsel or lack of competency to stand trial. Who the hell pleads to the max sentence? That’s crazy. The impulsive twerp torpedoed any chance he had of leniency at the sentencing phrase but also demonstrated why he wasn’t competent to aid in his own defense in the first place.

    5. The hand that pulls the trigger that killed your sons now masturbates to the memory…

      I bet episiarch fed him that line.

  17. For Warty. 13 year old Russian girl benches 240. Although, I don’t approve of the arched technique which halves your ROM. Still. I couldn’t push that weight at any part of my motion, no matter how much I arched up.

    1. My max bench press was about 235 when I was in high school. I was 17 and weighted 150 lbs. I can’t imagine any 13 year old lifting that much, much less a 13 year old girl. Holy smokes.

      1. When I was in HS I had a female classmate who benched 500lbs – granted she was built like Warhammer dwarf.

        1. No. No, you didn’t.

        2. That would be in excess of the female world record without a cheater shirt.

    2. I approve wholeheartedly, although I prefer to see benches done without trickery. I bench almost the same as Konstantinovs‘ (technique-wise, not weight-wise).

      1. Why is there an apostrophe there?

        1. You called?

  18. More about Zerlina Maxwell and her 15 minutes of fame.

    Her crimes were being a black woman in public and believing that women can’t be called upon to stop everything and believing that men are more than feral animals and can and should be taught not to rape. All unforgivable, of course.

    I wonder if they read about this before they put her on that cross.

    The verdict in the Steubenville rape case came out Sunday morning and the Black Pontifrocracy swung into gear with ton’s of tweets about rape culture, and “consent,” well color me shocked because for YEARS this same group of Black people have been champions of Genarlow Wilson, a convicted rapist who had sex with one child who could not consent and gang raped another young woman who was unconscious. I was quite frankly shocked at how vocal these Black pundits were.

    1. Wait, are we really considering people saying shit on Facebook and Twitter to be “death threats”?

      Jesus, I’d be offended if I went on TV and someone on youtube or twitter DIDN’T want to skull fuck me to death.

      1. STEVE SMITH DON’T NEED TO WAIT TILL YOU GO ON TV!

      2. Wait, are we really considering people saying shit on Facebook and Twitter to be “death threats”?

        I thought the buzzword for it was “cyberbullying”.

    2. I was quite frankly shocked at how vocal these Black pundits were.

      He isn’t paying much attention then.

    3. I’d like to point out that Reason covered Wilson extensively back then and was thoroughly of the opinion that he was railroaded. Still enjoy some feminist on feminist hate though.

      1. Exactly. By their logic she’s a flaming hypocrite.

    4. Well, I think that the entire conversation is wrong. I don’t want anybody to be telling women anything. I don’t want women?I don’t want men to be telling me what to wear, how to act, not to drink. And I don’t, honestly, want you to tell me that I needed a gun in order to prevent my rape. And in my case?

      First, I wouldn’t trade a bucket of my premium, high-grade piss for what someone named after a Don Giovanni character thinks. Second, humans are neither good nor perfectable and no amount “training” or law will make them so. Women were still raped when rape carried a death penalty. It is then clear that the threat of state-sanctioned death isn’t enough to make a possible rapist reconsider their actions. Third, most people are pretty sufficiently trained to not violate the law, to say nothing of not violating the rights of others.

      In my case, don’t tell me if I had only had a gun, I wouldn’t have been raped, because it’s still putting it on me to prevent the rape.

      In a world in which men are not angels nor are they ruled by angels, if you bear no responsibility whatsoever for your own personal safety, then who does?

      1. Eh, we can always improve our efforts at understanding consent and transmitting that understanding to others.

        That said, violent self-defense is the only real recourse we have when encountering those in society who are less conscientious about other people’s rights.

      2. According to my liberal friends, somebody called “Everyone.” By the way, Everyone’s last name is Else.

      3. FTA:
        society has failed to keep them safe by accepting a culture that refuses to hold rapists accountable and to make prevention a priority.

        Society. It’s society’s responsibility to keep them safe. Someone should call society and find out what went wrong.

  19. Folk singer Michelle Shocked lived up to her surname Sunday night as she launched into an anti-gay rant at an San Fransisco concert, leading many audience members to walk out in disbelief.

    1. Nice comeuppance for both her and her proggie fans. Unfortunately, she’s going to profit from the publicity resulting from this.

      1. Really? You think she’ll gain more fans than she’ll lose?

  20. Eric Posner wants judges to stop worrying about what the Constitution actually means because it doesn’t matter.

    1. “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” -Lysander Spooner

      “What difference, at this point, does it make? -Hillary Clinton

      1. Are murder laws unfit to exist?

        1. Just saying he’s not alone in that belief.

          1. No, but the same “logic” applies to statutes passed by a legislature. If it doesn’t matter what the Constitution actually means then it doesn’t matter what statutes really mean, and judges are the be-all, end-all. Why would a judge argue for something like tha…. never mind.

        2. Not really an apt comparison.

    2. He’s not wrong about it not mattering.

    3. Seriously… who cares about rule of law anyway. People should be punished at the whims of whatever group is in power. No justification necessary.

    4. Every time he makes the news I remember the time he waltzed out into traffic in front of my car and I successfully stopped short…

      1. So you didn’t even have to deal with the time travel issues of “what if you went back in time and killed X” and still didn’t follow through? WTF.

        1. I know. I am the worst.

          1. Way to Britta up that moment in your life, nicole.

    5. glad to see him taken to task in the comments.

    6. Members of Congress, like kindergarteners, get recesses. But unlike kindergartners, they get to decide when these recesses occur.

      I’m glad to see that logical fallacies were taught as persuasive techiniques when Posner was in law school.

      But here’s the point. It defies belief that the founders intended to constrain recess appointments by using the word the rather than a, or by using the word happen rather than exist.

      So the intent of the authors of the Constitution doesn’t matter, but they would agree with his[Posner’s] interpretation of the recess appointment clause?

      Does Posner offer this disingenuous bullshit by the ounce or just in bulk?

    7. Poser is saying that when you can’t figure out what the Constitution means feel free to make your own rules.

      In other words, if you have really shitty reading comprehension you get to make up more rules.

  21. Everyone relax. The mortal danger from blowing out candles on a birthday cake has been identified and can now be stopped.

    1. A shot of everclear along with your cake will probably have enough disinfectant properties to allow kids to still blow out candles. Wouldn’t it?

      1. Human flame thrower!

  22. Yet another reason to avoid malls

    1. Most of the comments are not intelligent.

    2. A couple bloggers there are “gun nuts” while some of them are full on “grabbers.” If you want to see a full on crazy but stupid blogger who is obsessed with banning guns, try out Greg Laden on Science Blogs. And don’t forget to call him Mr. Laden (not Dr. Laden).

      1. He looks a lot like the oracle on Vikings. He emotes on guns like a standard issue moron.

    3. FTB does skew pretty proggie, but cheers to them for hosting Kagin’s blog even though he doesn’t tow their lion.

  23. Our discussion last week about anarchism got me thinking: technically libertarian philosophy is built upon logically fallacious reasoning.

    To wit: “Action X is always wrong. G does X more than anyone else. Therefore G is always wrong.”

    “Coercion/theft is always wrong. Government coerces/steals more than anyone else. Therefore government is always wrong.”

    I realize both premises are technically debatable. Perhaps coercion has a legitimate use (for instance, coercing criminals into jail), and perhaps other forces coerce/steal more than government in some cases. But the final conclusion requires an unexplained leap of logic that does not inherently follow the premises.

    Thoughts?

    1. “Coercion/theft is always wrong. Government coerces/steals more than anyone else. Therefore government is always wrong.”

      How many people actually make that argument?

      1. Many anarchists on the other forum seem to follow this logic. But even miniarchists like myself tack “usually” on to each premise and the conclusion, but that’s technically still fallacious if more nuanced.

        Am I missing a step? That’s why I’m putting it out there for criticism/debate.

        1. anarchist != libertarian

          And I dont think that is the form of the anarchists argument anyway.

    2. It’s not stealing when the government does it!

      /Proglodyte

    3. I’ll quibble: “Theft and coercion are wrong. Government depends inherently on being able to commit coercion and theft, therefore government is wrong.”

      1. Yeah. It doesn’t have anything to do with government doing this more or less than anyone else. It’s more like this:

        Most people say, “Theft and coercion are wrong,” but make exceptions for the government, sometimes for explained but typically for unexplained or unexamined reasons. I don’t accept any reason I’ve yet seen as being a valid way to legitimate theft or coercion.

        1. Are we talking about governments as they’re currently constituted or a more philosophical conception of governments within a socio-political philosophical framework? I find it hard to believe that most (or even many) libertarians are so willing to give a pass to today’s governments.

          1. When I said “most people” I wasn’t referring to libertarians. Minarchist libertarians also make exceptions for the government’s actions on these dimensions, but I don’t think they are very often unexplained or unexamined–they are libertarians to begin with, after all.

            1. Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying.

      2. If the alternative to government causes even more theft and coercion, is government still inherently wrong?

        1. You’re using a utilitarian argument that government is a greater good. We can discuss the truth or falsity of that, but even if government were successfully able to eliminate all other agents of rights violations and still required violations of life, liberty and property to do so, an anarchist would argue (successfully IMO) that you’ve only changed the distribution of rights violations which is a poor argument for government. Might as well form a large roving band that is only going to steal your gasoline, but let you walk away otherwise unharmed if you do so.

          1. My premise presumes there can never exist a large-scale society without any form of coercion. My question is if there exists an equilibrium point that would minimize total overall coercion and theft in all of society, but this still required some level of coercion/theft that the government inherently depends upon for existence/enforcement, how can government be inherently wrong if it minimizes the injustice that makes it inherently wrong?

            1. How can an immoral agent be right? Would you be okay with packs of vigilantes if they got the rights violators most of the time, but dropped an innocent every now and again? Even if it lessened the amount of force, theft, and wrongful death?

              Let me further ask you what constitutes a government? Having a minority fight a successful revolution, then write a document approved by all of the sub-units of government? A minority fighting a revolution and winning in a geographic area where they rule by whim? When can you say that coercion and theft are legitimized?

            2. The short answer is: because not everyone is a utilitarian.

              Even so, there remain questions. If your premise is true, it sounds like large-scale societies are a problem. Presumably, you would want to look into a utility calculation that shows having a large-scale society has benefits that outweigh the injustices of even the smallest, least coercive government necessary to run it. But you’d still have people making the argument that it was more moral to not have large-scale societies.

              Also, may I suggest (and I’ve probably said this so many times now that it’s a joke, but I swear it’s not) Michael Huemer’s book The Problem of Political Authority? It is excellent. I can’t recommend anything better about anarchism, especially for non-anarchist libertarians.

              1. Everything I’ve read on the book seems to indicate that the ideal audience (and really the only audience) the book is non-anarchist libertarians.

                Indeed @ $30 for the ebook, I doubt many anarchists will buy a book to convince them of an idea they already fervently believe.

      3. Anarchists commit a fallacy when they claim that NAP implies that anarchy is the most optimal or NAP-compliant form of human organization. They compare governments as they are currently constituted to governments as they operate on the Platonic ideals that miniarchists prefer — which is bad form, since anarchists compare to their own Platonic ideals rather than real-world applications of anarchy. There is nothing about force, persay, that is against NAP: there is legitimate force and illegitimate force which can be evaluated by the NAP. There is nothing about a monopoly on violence which philosophically necessitates illegitimate use of force. In practice, however, no government has been entirely free of illegitimate force, but the same is of course true of anarchy.

        1. Personally, as an anarchist, I think the NAP is incomplete and can go hang. The problem with the NAP is that it defines every activity in terms of force. Once you define every activity in terms of force you then need to define the appropriate levels of retributive force. I’ve seen it argued here by some that disproportionate retribution is acceptable under the NAP while others say it’s not.

          1. It is more correct to say that the NAP is agnostic when it comes to non-binary answers about legitimate use of force. NAP cannot answer questions about proportionality.

            I think it’s helpful to think of NAP as being similar to the complementary solution to a non-homogeneous ODE: it is necessary, and sometimes required to find the other part of your solution, but not sufficient.

            What outside of NAP would you say justifies anarchy from a libertarian perspective?

            1. What outside of NAP would you say justifies anarchy from a libertarian perspective?

              I haven’t a clue. I’m not a libertarian so I’ve never looked for such justification. I believe in “pure” freedom. I’m not sure how to properly put it into words.

              1. Fair enough; thanks for the honest reply.

                FWIW, I’m not much of a libertarian either (though I’m simpatico).

                1. There are many points that I agree with libertarians on, but in practical terms their ideal society is just as likely to happen as mine, IMO.

    4. I can pick apart this in a couple of ways. First, the construction shoudl be (for many):

      Coercion/theft is wrong. Government engages in coercion/theft. To the extent that government engages in coercion/theft, government is wrong.

      Alternately:

      Action X is wrong, even when committed by agents of the state for ostensibly ‘good’ purposes. The state has no higher claim to moral legitimacy than an individual. If it’s wrong for an individual, it’s wrong for the state.

      I think either of these propositions is closer to general libertarian thought than your construct.

      1. Coercion/theft is wrong. Government engages in coercion/theft. To the extent that government engages in coercion/theft, government is wrong.

        I agree that is a much more logical phrasing. It is debatable, but not fallacious.

    5. Government is a leash. The less government there is, the longer the leash gets. Proponents of all levels of government, from minarchists to authoritarians, like to point out the area you have to roam around in and call that freedom. Anarchy is a world with no leashes.

      1. Unless you’re into that in a consesnual manner, of course.

      2. Anarchy is a world with no leashes.

        Except contracts. Which you might contract with 3rd parties to enforce should you feel they were violated.

        1. Which you enter into voluntarily.

      3. How does anarchy differ from “pure” communism as far as relying on people to act in ways contrary to have they’ve always acted?

        1. None at all.

        2. I believe this was argued previously as a non-event because every form of government in existence also relies on people acting in ways contrary to the way they always have. That is to say, it’s a poor argument against anarchy.

          1. Not necessarily. Plenty of governments operate on no more complex an assumption that people would rather pay Danegeld than fend for themselves or liberate themselves of that government’s yoke. Such assumptions appears to be empirically borne out in most cases.

            1. It’s also an assumption to call any voluntary gathering of people to accomplish a task government. If you believe that a group of people who voluntarily setup a neighborhood watch strictly for the defense of the neighborhood is a government then we’re arguing different terms.

              1. It is a government if it claims the exclusive right to use force against rights-violators whether they are or are not a part of that voluntary gathering.

                1. It is a government if it claims the exclusive right to use force against rights-violators whether they are or are not a part of that voluntary gathering.

                  I understand that’s your definition. And if the neighborhood watch didn’t stop others from defending themselves and offered help upon request, then it’s not government.

      4. Anarchy is a world with no leashes.

        Including no leashes on criminal behavior, one assumes.

        1. Do you avoid murdering people because murder is wrong or because the government says it’s bad?

          1. People who don’t want to murder are, generally speaking, not the problem when it comes to murder.

            1. Of course. The point I’m making is that having a government define what is criminal behavior doesn’t stop people from engaging in that behavior. In that case, government is not necessary.

              1. The distinguishing feature of a government is not definition of criminal behavior (which any court/defense/security agency in an anarchistic world would also have to do in the contracts it signs with its clients).

                1. The distinguishing feature of a government is not definition of criminal behavior

                  Then hopefully Randian will agree with this and not try to use it as a lever against anarchy.

                  1. I think you’re missing the point, Sparky. The defining function of government is to operate as a monopoly on legitimate use of force. Miniarchists desire to use this force against rights-violators, and would argue that, if there was a Perfect Miniarchist State, then it would by definition not violate the NAP in its affairs and that any person desiring to employ violence outside its auspices would be doing so in opposition to the NAP to compete with the Perfect Miniarchist State.

                    Of course, this is all abstract nonsense but so is the discussion of anarchy in the current context.

                    1. I think you’re missing the point, Sparky.

                      I understand the point. I think you’re failing to understand mine, which is likely in part due to my inability to properly explain something that I only know as a feeling. You keep saying “exclusive” and “monopoly,” my point is that these words don’t need to be used in an anarchist society. You could have an entirely voluntary group of people who would provide defense while not stopping anyone else from also providing their own defense.

              2. You’ve got a little amphiboly going on there with “people.”

                The fact that it doesn’t stop all people doesn’t mean that it doesn’t stop some people.

                Are you trying to make the argument that no people are dissuaded from crime by the prospect of punishment? If not, then it does stop people from engaging in that behavior. If so, I’m skeptical.

                1. Are you trying to make the argument that no people are dissuaded from crime by the prospect of punishment?

                  The point I’m trying to make, and I’m not sure how much better I can say it, is this:

                  Sure, people may be dissuaded from crime by the prospect of punishment. The question is, is it necessary that government be the one that defines and carries out said punishment?

                  I agree with Randian’s statement that there should be no leashes on criminal behavior. It’s not my duty to tell people how to live their lives, it is only my duty to tend to mine. If someone tries to commit a criminal act against me then I have the right to defend myself. I am in no way beholden to anyone else. I could aid in another person’s defense if I chose to, but I could not be forced to do so. I would probably kill someone whom I saw committing rape out of sheer self-interest, the “you today, me tomorrow” rule if you will.

                  1. Sure, people may be dissuaded from crime by the prospect of punishment. The question is, is it necessary that government be the one that defines and carries out said punishment?

                    The question is, is it necessary to label whoever defines and carries out said punishment as something other than “government”?

                    Is there a functional difference if crime is defined and punished by a “citizens militia,” or whatever, instead of a “government”?

                    1. is it necessary to label whoever defines and carries out said punishment as something other than “government”?

                      Would you call an individual “government?”

                    2. That’s the point. In this context, does it really matter? You have agents with presumed moral authority to punish others. What is the practical difference if it is you, a neighborhood watch, or the government?

                      If someone murders your family, how is that addressed? Do you do the investigation yourself? Hire people to do it? Once a suspect is identified, how is he judged? Judged against what standard? Is there some law? Who passed the law? Did the murderer assent to the law? How is he punished?

                    3. See below.

                    4. You only covered the first couple of questions.

                      What happens after a suspect is caught? Is there a judge and jury? Do you select them? Are you the judge and jury? Is he adjudged against some law? How was it passed? Did he vote for it? Can he appeal? Does he have any due process rights? Does anything like the 4th or 5th apply or can you search wherever you want and force him to testify?

                    5. Guys, I admit I haven’t read as much as I should have on NAP and the deep principles of libertarianism. That was a good symposium on the topic. Thanks.

                    6. I will give you my answers which others might not agree with.

                      What happens after a suspect is caught?

                      Whatever the aggrieved feels is appropriate.

                      Is there a judge and jury? Do you select them? Are you the judge and jury? Is he adjudged against some law? How was it passed? Did he vote for it?

                      None of these are necessary but may exist in a contractual form.

                      Can he appeal?

                      He can appeal immediately to the aggrieved.

                      Does he have any due process rights? Does anything like the 4th or 5th apply or can you search wherever you want and force him to testify?

                      He has all the natural rights that we probably both agree everyone has. We could choose to respect those rights, or choose not to (much like the world today).

        2. Always consequences

      5. Except the leashes that non-government groups and people impose on others through use of violence, which many libertarians and miniarchists have rightly noted is no less than that of some governments.

      6. In anarchy, someone kills your family and burns down your house while you are away.

        How is this addressed?

        1. Same way it’s addressed now except you would be the investigator, or you could contract someone that performs those duties regularly. You could ask your neighbors for help and some could volunteer their help. But, as in real life, not every story has a happy ending. You can’t expect a resolution for every problem that might come up, sometimes you have to take what you’re dealt and move on.

        2. This has been thoroughly addressed in Gladiator. You take everything he has, slowly, then fuck his sister and kill him.

      7. “Anarchy is a world with no leashes.”

        And the world therefore belongs to the most vicious dog.

    6. I think you’ve formulated the logic not quite right. It’s more like.

      “Government, BY DEFINITION, encompasses the use of force in all aspects of its function form and existence, therefore, everything government does is bad”

      That’s a more accurate way of putting it.

      1. That’s still not right.

        NAP is a principle for what constitutes *legitimate* force — the implication being that there is a use of force that is legitimate. Much of what government does with that force is illegitimate by NAP, but not all of it.

        1. So there’s a government that will let me not pay my taxes? Point me the way.

          1. There have been governments in antiquity and the Middle Ages which didn’t claim authority to tax.

            In practice most governments violate NAP frequently; but since we’re talking about Platonic utopia-land (which is almost always the level at which anarchists want to discuss the issue), there’s nothing philosophically which requires a monopoly on violence to engage in anti-NAP violence anymore than is the case with a free, competitive market in violence.

            1. Actually, David Friedman lays out a consequentialist anarchic world in Machinery of Freedom and has multiple lectures featuring lengthy Q&A on his website.

    7. Libertarianism =/= NAP; it is a governing philosophy. NAP is one of many possible justifications for libertarianism.

      You are correct, however: NAP does not imply your quoted statement.

    8. Coercion is legitimate under certain circumstances. To use coercion, the user must prove that the circumstances hold. The state fails this test in much of what it does, including its defining traits of taxation and shutting down competitors in its territory.

    9. Compare with the corresponding statist’s arguments.

      To wit: “Action X is always wrong. Individuals should do no wrong. Therefore we need G to commit action X.”

      “Murder is always wrong. Individuals should not murder. Therefore we need government to wage war.”

      “Lying is always wrong. Human beings should not lie. Therefore we need politicians.”

      “Evil is always wrong. It’s impossible to eradicate evil. Therefore we need government as a necessary evil.”

      “Theft is always wrong. Individuals should not steal. Therefore we need government to steal and call it tax collection.”

      1. Technically the miniarchist/utilitarian version is “Action X is usually wrong. However, the minimalization of overall X could justify some limited use of X.”

        In essence, I’ll support whichever system (anarchism or miniarchism) that maximizes individual rights and minimizes coercion and theft. But I have not been convinced that anarchism will do either, nor that it even can exist. I believe government is the most powerful coercive force at any one moment, be it the jackbooted secret police or the crazy homeless dude with a knife to my neck, and there will always be a most coercive force through human nature.

        Thus I’d prefer the most coercive force in my life to be as benevolent as humanly possible. In anarchism, you have little to no say in the matter, unless you are fortunate enough to be the most coercive force in your own life.

  24. In a dissent for herself and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    Scalia and Ginsburg sitting in a tree…

    1. Nothing new there.

      They vote together WAY more than people realize.

    1. That entire article looked like English, yet was oddly incomprehensible.

      1. It was a really dumb article about shoes. That’s really all you need to know.

  25. Set phasers to “KILL”.

    Because laser is an acronym for “light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation,” these new contraptions ? which exploit particles of sound called phonons ? should properly be called phasers. Such devices could one day be used in ultrasound medical imaging, computer parts, high-precision measurements, and many other places.

    1. Phonon Torpedoes?

      1. mmmm… PhoNaan Torpedoes…

        1. I prefer Garlic-Naan torpedoes.

    2. That’s cute, but I’m not sure how they justify the final “r”.

    3. One of the commenters there has it right, it’s not a phaser it is a weirding module.

  26. This is what you get for being young and drunk.

    Police say Caleb was fatally shot early Sunday after entering a neighbor’s home through a back window.

    Shawn Gordley says his son snuck out of the house Saturday night and went drinking with friends. They walked home from the party. Caleb went in through a back window, mistaking the neighbor’s house for his own. Caleb had lived in his home for less than a year, and the houses look similar.

  27. Is this a cat or a chicken?

    1. You mean this girl is mean and bitter? WHO WOULD HAVE EVER THOUGHT?

      1. Sesali Bowen is the training director for United States Student Association, a progressive non-profit that fights for and organizes students across the country.

        I’d feel marginalized too, if I was totally useless.

    2. And it’s also a little awkward when you say that you wish you could have hair like mine.

      Can’t even take a compliment.

      Understand that your intentions do not change the way you made someone feel, or make your actions any less triggering or oppressive.

      Disclaimer: I’M OPPRESSED AND YOU CAN’T CHANGE YOUR OPPRESSION, NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO, EVER, REALLY…

      What a self-pitying, pathetic excuse for a human. Who in their right mind would ever want to be around someone like that, whatever color or sex they are?

    3. I need a list for how I can be more oppressive when encountering someone who claims to be triggered and othered and marginalized by my white, patriarchical male gaze.

    4. and because you are not seeing bodies that look like yours being exploited

      Excuse me???

      1. Yeah, judging by the fact this chick is at least a deuce-and-a-half, she has exploitation to spare.

        1. Well, I was thinking more that she was saying white girls’ bodies necessarily look too different from black girls’ bodies for a white girl to feel exploited if she thought she was seeing a black girl exploited. Which is absurd, because there is obviously a wide range of body types possible for both white and black girls and most of them are shared.

          I mean, she is othering my booty, and fuck that.

          1. I hadn’t even considered that she was that stupid. White girl bodies and black girls bodies are not *that* different. The reason I made the fat joke is because if anything her body is so far outside the range of those bodies which are generally exploited that she is engaging in special pleading based solely on her skin color, which is nonsense. The “exploitation” is of hot women, not her.

            1. The reason I made the fat joke is because if anything her body is so far outside the range of those bodies which are generally exploited

              Maybe not…

              (yes, I know you said generally.)

            2. I think her point is that White girls shouldn’t judge hip-hop as sexist or misogynistic in it’s portrayals of Black girls. She wants to reassure White feminists that Black girls uniquely understand hip-hop, and will fight that battle on their own.

            3. Yeah, I actually couldn’t really get any other reading.

              [D]on’t critique hip hop for objectifying women…because you are not seeing bodies that look like yours being exploited. We got this.

              Especially the “we got this” part–only “we” can criticize hip hop for objectifying women, because those women look like “us” and not like “you.”

              But you’re also entirely right. Her body looks much less like those bodies than mine does, except for the color of my skin. So, again, WTF? Ugh.

              1. Yeah, I have seen plenty of white girls in music videos. I have not seen any fat ones (exempting Coeus’s link, which I’ll assume is cruel parody:)

    5. “…don’t expect me to know all the hip hop songs.”

      It’s almost as though there were something wrong with treating individuals with incidental group membership as nothing more than interchangeable parts. If only the author realized this when writing her title.

      The hair thing is creepy though. Same goes for touching pregnant strangers.

      In addition to this, spending must be cut.

      1. Creepy? No. That phrase is used to marginalize people who don’t fit a certain social mold.

        Rude? OK, but it just requires a simple admonishment. She’s miserable.

        1. I’m not married to my word choice, but it’s absolutely objectionable for someone I don’t know to touch me out of curiosity without even asking me. As a stranger in a strange land I’d probably grant some leeway but in my home culture I would consider a forceful objection and I would readily excuse anyone who carried one out.

          In addition to this spending must be cut.

        2. Yeah but if that rudeness happened often I’d be pretty pissed about it too. Touching a strangers hair is a pretty large boundary crossing. That said this isn’t something restricted to black american females. I’ve had it happen to me in China and I can’t imagine how often it would happen to my wife with her red hair there. Hell I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens in Africa to. Some people and cultures have different boundaries and are more likely to touch hair that is different or rare to them.

          1. I concede that it’s rude.

            That said, it does not come with the kind of racist baggage to warrant that level of anger. Just one man’s opinion.

        3. Creepy? No. That phrase is used to marginalize people who don’t fit a certain social mold.

          What? Some creepy fuck touches the General’s hair and said creepy fuck will be stabbed in the neck with a screwdriver.

          There are creepy motherfuckers out there, and they want to touch your hair.

          1. There are creepy motherfuckers out there, and they want to touch your hair.

            They’re trying to steal your strength.

        4. That phrase is used to marginalize people who don’t fit a certain social mold.

          Creeps, you mean.

      2. The hair thing is creepy though.

        In this context, the implication is that white people are checking to see the quality of her weave.

    6. 7. You can hop down from your little fucking throne of martyrdom and admit that people can be idiots.

      8. Fuck off, slaver.

    7. Understand that your intentions do not change the way you made someone feel, or make your actions any less triggering or oppressive.

      I love when unself-aware sentences like this completely miss the filter.

      1. Would you care to predict the response to comments that claim offense at this article?

        In addition to this, spending must be cut.

      2. You can almost taste the narcissism.

      3. Understand that your intentions do not change the way you made someone feel

        FUCK. YOUR. FEELINGS.

        make your actions any less triggering or oppressive.

        Wash the taste of oppression out of your mouth with a nice, refreshing Bleach-tini.

    8. Understand that your intentions do not change the way you made someone feel, or make your actions any less triggering or oppressive

      This is the only time when intentions matter less than results.

    9. Headline: A short list of ways white people can be less oppressive

      Item 2: Please do not […] ask me how to help you be a better ally to people of color.

      In other words, one of the ways whitey can be less oppressive is to not ask sista how to be less oppressive, and I know this because sista writed it on her blog.

  28. British hairdresser being sued for reportedly only hiring fat, gay, or lesbian hairdressers because they don’t take maternity leave.

    1. Wow, the commenters almost sound libertarian!

    2. Fat hairdressers can’t get pregnant?

      1. Fat chicks need love too. But they gotta pay.

    3. There are straight hairstylists??

  29. Seems that using non-lead fishing tackle leads to clean water:
    “Anglers trade in lead fishing tackle to keep lakes clean”
    http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/20…..kes-clean/
    Except you can read the entire damn thing and find there isn’t one shred of evidence that it does any thing at all besides making greenies feel good.
    I feel like taking the floor sweepings from a good body shop and dumping it in the lake

    1. Jesus fuck. At the rate lead leaches, you’d have to fill the lake with weight and leave it… never mind. They don’t understand math, physics, or chemistry, so why even bother.

  30. I fail to see how this is good news

    1. Didn’t realize it had gone away.

      VEGEMITE!!

    1. Will he dress as Gandalf? Richard III? Magneto?

    2. He’s marrying someone 40 years younger?

        1. “I am about to marry this man and this woman. If anyone here has any objection they should say so now, it’ll be noted in my log.”

          1. Gandalf: “One ring to rule them…”
            Picard: THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!
            Magneto: I will bring you hope, old friend, and I ask only one thing in return – don’t get in my way.
            Prof. Charles Francis Xavier: Why do you ask questions to which you already know the answer?

            1. “With this One Ring I thee wed.”

        2. It’s good to be the captain. Or the professor. Or Mary Ann.

      1. He’s Patrick Stewart.

      2. “He’s marrying someone 40 years younger?”

        I knew a chick in LA that took an acting seminar he was teaching. At one point during the seminar somebody asked him, “How do you manage to stay so fit at your age”?

        He responded, “Plenty of fucking”.

        1. He responded, “Plenty of fucking”.

          Damn it, Ken! This is why there are no libertarian women! Why didn’t you just say that he called the women a cunt afterwards???

          1. Far as I know, he’s not a libertarian.

            Still, saying stupid shit about women on a libertarian website really is stupid. …if we want to appeal to women.

            Hell, even the Republicans are trying to appear softer and gentler to immigrants and gay people, now. Even the Mormons are trying to reach out to gay people now!

            http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/n…..n.html.csp

            We have no excuse. If saying stupid shit that alienates women from the movement is too stupid for Republicans and Mormons–but seems really smart to us? Then we’ve got bigger problems than I thought–Mormons and Republicans smarter than us?

            Say it ain’t so!

      3. Is he still fully functional at his age?

        1. that’s what the pills are for

      4. He dined with her at my restaurant, she is very impressive in person.

    3. Marrying a 35 year old singer. Fuck you Gurney Halleck.

      1. You know, that movie sucked, but it had some good moments. He was one of them.

        1. That was the first time I had seen him as an actor. All I could think was if I had to go bald, that’s not a bad way to go.

          That and “Mood? What has mood to do with it? You fight when the necessity arises ? no matter the mood! Mood’s a thing for cattle or making love or playing the baliset!”

          1. For a little while, I thought that movie might be good. Then it started sucking and didn’t stop.

            1. In retrospect, some of the casting choices were questionable. **cough**Sting**cough**

              1. Agreed, though I liked many. Stewart, Prochnow, von Sydow, et al.

            2. They made a movie out of Dune?

              1. Shut the fuck up, Brandon.

          2. The sound of the baliset is actually the Chapman Stick. TRUE FACT.

    4. Battle of the Voices!

  31. I’ve been thinking a bit and while the “No, fuck you, cut spending” approach is certainly to the point, it runs into certain limitations against bringing it mainstream. I think I’ll try taking a page from Cato the Elder and ending all my future posts with “In addition to this, spending must be cut.”

    1. It doesn’t have the same je ne sais quoi.

    2. I’ve offered up FCC-regulated media alternatives:

      * “No, screw you, cut spending.”
      * “It’s the spending, stupid.”

      1. Fuck the FCC.

        Also, if you say it on air, isnt it the STATION responsible for the fine?

        1. I’m more interested in massive spending cuts than in the airwaves at the moment, though killing two birds with one spoken “fuck” has its advantages.

        2. It’s not just the FCC, it’s the fact that using the word in public policy discourse creates a sensation that wipes out the actual message.

          In addition to this, spending must be cut.

          1. According to Google Translate, this is the Latin version of “No, fuck you, cut spending”: “Non, te pedicabo, incide sumptibus.

            1. That means, “Not, I shall fuck you, cut by means of spending.”

    3. “Ceterum censeo Washington esse delendam”

    1. Mein gott, the possibilities.

    2. Mayor Bloomberg drafts a ban as we write.

      “The second-place finisher was The Bad Joke, a corn dog covered in cheese with two strips of duck bacon on a bun.”

  32. Behind the scenes at a naked yoga class. Alas, I’m at work, so I have not vetted this yet.

    1. its’ dudes, dude.
      dudes!

      1. Dude! Sick!

      2. whew. thanks, almost clicked that one.

      3. Perhaps Jordan was posting that link as a public service mesage for Jesse, Nicole, and Kristen.

    2. google sara jean underwood naked yoga and thank me later

      a preview.

      1. Thank you, good sir.

    3. That whole room must smell like ass and despair.

      1. Don’t forget the patchouli.

    4. IT’S A TRAP!

    1. Fucking serious? What the fucking fuck?

    2. It should also be a verb.

    3. That everything, and it seems literally to be everything, gets their twats in a knot, perhaps their lifestyle choice of always challenging men and being angry at men is not what nature intended for their biology.

  33. Jezebel once again demonstrates that it doesn’t really know what words mean.

    So, why does the US need to import labor for this lower-skilled work? Matloff says it has to do with wages and immobility. He argues that since employers sponsor H-1Bs visas, foreigners have a limited ability to negotiate higher salaries or switch jobs. If they do manage to change employers, it means they must restart any green card applications. Matloff says these realities “handcuff” H-1B visa holders to their employers.

    Ahh, the grim realities of our beloved free market system!

    Gotta love that “free market”.

    1. I have studiously avoided Gawker Media for a while now. I suggest you do the same.

      1. lifehacker is the least offensive.

        1. Lifehacker had an article about this the other day.

          Triple the fat loss in half the time ? that’s pretty amazing. But why does interval exercise burn off more fat?

          “It significantly elevates a hormone called catecholamines and these are important messengers to tell the cells to burn fat,” says Professor Boutcher.

          Catecholamines are produced in the adrenal gland ? the hormones which circulate though the body. When you sprint, the catecholamines stimulate beta receptors in fat cells, the fat cells release free fatty acids to be used by other cells ? this burns fat.

          But it’s not as easy as just jumping on the bike and sprinting away. You have to time the intervals precisely. To do that, you’ll need to know the magic formula.

          The secret is to sprint for eight seconds almost flat out and then slow pedal for 12 seconds. Build up to doing this for 20 minutes, three times a week and you’ll go from slug to slim.

    2. From The Progtard Dictionary:

      free market, n. phr. whatever I don’t like.

    3. When I don’t know what a word means, I often find it is helpful to consult the dictionary, or sometimes; the thesaurus, which I think many viewers will be surprised to learn is not a kind of dinosaur.

    4. I hate to defend Jezebel, but that “free market” comment seems to be fairly obviously sarcastic,

      1. It is sarcastic, but not in the way you’re thinking. The word “beloved” is sarcastic. If you don’t believe me, read a few of his other articles.

      2. I’m pretty sure the only sarcasm applies to the word “beloved”

        1. Jinx.

  34. A hacker apparently gained access to Hillary Clinton’s e-mails connected to Benghazi and has distributed them to journalists.

    Prediction = no matter how dirty the laundry is, no media organization will draw the slightest attention to it.

    1. How bad does it have to be now for the media to turn on a Democrat?

      1. If there is anything racist in there, then there is a chance. Otherwise, forget about it.

      2. They already have ignored murder of a child (by drone). What’s worse?

      3. The Democrat either has to be in a big sexy scandal which brings ratings (see Bill Clinton and Zippergate), or resign from office, thus giving a safe opportunity to distance themselves from him (see Bill Clinton and Pardongate).

        1. Correction – leave office, not resign.

      4. Pro Libertate|3.19.13 @ 5:21PM|#

        How bad does it have to be now for the
        media to turn on a Democrat?

        betrayal of israel?

        Short of that, I think most Democrats could be revealed as keeping a Harem of pre-teen african boys, who are executed before the age of 12 and whose livers are ground into pate and served to their Colombian Druglord best friends, and most papers would still say, “How much worse was Bush?”

        1. Since they’re Democrats, you need to concentrate on the good things that they’ve done. Also, I [somehow] know that they’re secretly against keeping harems of pre-teen African boys …, and I’m sure they’d have stopped doing so a long time ago but for the Rethuglican teatards.

        2. Sure, they got caught doing those things, but you know the Republicans are doing worse.

      5. Showing your cock on Twitter seems to qualify, as Anthony Weiner can attest.

        1. He became a late night television joke, and not having Clinton’s power, he had to go. Plus, he was hurting his sleeper agent wife’s career in the State Department. So, again, he had to go.

        2. I do think there’s some magical point where the story becomes too juicy to resist. But it seems to only happen with sex scandals or similar situations. . .not with stuff like corruption, abuse of power, or minor shit like that.

    2. Benghazi is just some bullshit conspiracy made up by right wingers. The place doesn’t even exist.

    3. Unless it involves calling for the hacker’s public execution for exposing government secrets unfairly harassing Hilary.

  35. This has some potential for comedy if it goes to a larger audience.

    1. “We feel that the term ‘First Thanksgiving’ is an extremely biased one. The ‘pot luck’ meal that is remembered today, whether it was truly a ‘thanksgiving’ or not, whether it really happened or not, may have been the first European ‘harvest home’ or fall festival on this continent. But for centuries ? for thousands of years in fact ? Indigenous communities here had been celebrating thanks many time a year for what Mother Earth gave them. They still do today.”

      For the record, CREATE Wisconsin operates on about $890,000 in taxpayer funding per year, according to the EAG expose.

      Christ, I need in on this social justice racket.

      1. Ye gods. Instead of all of this hand-wringing, why not just have a holiday thanking the natives for this big piece of land they were kind enough to lose to us?

        1. Or, ever realize anything close to the full potential of in the first place.

    2. I wonder how, exactly, these aggrieved people want stuff taught with more cultural emphasis.

      “Our Thanksgiving tradition traces its roots back to this feast between the white invaders and the noble natives. Many other cultures have traditions of thanksgiving so, even if they aren’t related to the one we’re discussing, we’re going to mention them anyway.”

  36. North Dakota Looks To Outlawing All Abortions

    Because pissing off the socially tolerant eugenecists is what GOP lawmakers do.

    1. This should work out almost as well as it has in the past….

      The Women’s Health and Human Life Protection Act was a state law passed by the South Dakota State Legislature in early 2006. It emerged as an effort to overturn Roe v. Wade via enacting a ban on abortion in the state of South Dakota. The law was repealed by voter referendum on November 7, 2006

      politicians have short memories.

  37. Russia is claiming that Syrian rebels have used chemical weapons to kill 16 people. The White House is saying they have not.

    “Colonel Mustard, with the knife, in the ballroom!”
    “Na-hah! It wasn’t him!”
    “You lie! You lie!”

  38. Dear Lord! Researchers publish full Neanderthal genome.

    Some dude is breeding a Neanderthal in his basement, right now.

    1. Some dude Warty is breeding a Neanderthal in his basement, right now.

      1. He can do that the old-fashioned way, because that’s his genome they’re publishing.

      2. That’s what he wanted my buttcrack for yesterday. An incubator!

  39. This makes no sense.

    LANSING ? Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings III said he won’t file criminal charges after reviewing unedited video showing events that led to a Fox News contributor being punched during December’s right-to-work demonstrations.

    Crowder said on Twitter later day that he suffered a minor cut to the forehead and a chipped tooth after being “sucker-punched” four times.However, unedited footage shows that the union member who apparently punched Crowder appeared to have been pushed to the ground seconds before the brawl.

    It’s unclear who pushed the union member. Crowder was standing nearby and appears to throw his hands up in the air in a gesture of innocence after the man fell, the video shows.

    How is attacking someone after someone else pushed you self defense?

    1. He was standing his ground.

      1. Then he should have punched the guy who pushed him, instead of the guy who hurt his feelings.

  40. “I don’t want to pretend to be something that I’m not. Anton Rodgers, the actor, said ‘you’re the third sex’. And I thought that’s quite nice. I quite like that position.

    1. And the other 30% is iron!

  41. Mother Jones questions why anyone would need/want a ‘silencer’ (ie. supressor) for their gun.

    1. It’s quite hard to isolate Mother Jones editors in wooded areas because they never leave the confines of a few streets in the most crowded areas of San Fransisco, so what else are you going to do? Use a crossbow?

      1. what else are you going to do? Use a crossbow?

        I personally dig a punjee pit filled with sharpened bamboo spikes covered in the dung of diseased cattle, and carefully place a copy of People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn on top of a camoflagued lattice of twigs and leaves.

        darn thing caught me a whole mess of em once. they kept jumping in after it until the thing was full! i just covered it up and dug a fresh one.

        Naomi Klein i think would work too.

    2. Someone should tell him that they’re Standard Safety Equipment in Sweden.

      Since the Mother Jones sort reflexively worship everything Europe does – and especially the Nordic countries – this should effectively, er, disarm their criticism.

      Pun intended.

      (Someone should also point them at Mythbusters and point out that a suppressor doesn’t make a gun go “pfft!” like in a movie – and that the original impetus for bringing them under NFA regulation in 1934 was “to prevent poaching”, not “to prevent a tide of assassination murders with magical silent guns”.)

      1. Someone should also point them at Mythbusters and point out that a suppressor doesn’t make a gun go “pfft!” like in a movie

        I honestly wonder how much of anti-gun lawmakers and politician’s gun knowledge comes from popular perceptions of guns in the movies and other fictitious accounts.

        1. I honestly wonder how much of anti-gun lawmakers and politician’s gun knowledge comes from popular perceptions of guns in the movies and other fictitious accounts.

          Not a goddamn thing. Remember “cop killer” bullets? Legislation based on “Lethal Weapon 3”.

          1. should read: “There’s not a goddamn thing but that informing their perceptions. Also, see “glock” plastic guns.

      2. How can you expect people that get their political education from Hollywood to not get their firearms knowledge from the same place?

    3. A Serious Man|3.19.13 @ 6:12PM |#

      Mother Jones questions why anyone would need/want a ‘silencer’ (ie. supressor) for their gun.

      WHAT? SPEAK UP. IN THE GOOD EAR.

    4. Why would anyone want a muffler for their car, unless their goal is to stealthily run over pedestrians? Fucking video games, teaching people to commit mass murder with these tools of mayhem.

  42. And Obama’s sad, Charlie Brown-like gun control tree loses another branch: sources are saying the ammo-capacity limits is DOA as well.

    Delve into the comments to savor some yummy progtard tears.

    1. SENSIBLE/NECESSARY GUN CONTROL This is about gun “control” not the elimination/confiscation of guns.

      HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

    2. When a person feels so completely insecure that they feel the need to carry a weapon as the only way they can deal with the world, then I, for my own safety, want to know who is carrying a loaded weapon so I can avoid them at all costs. And I can also warn others that there is an armed person in the vicinity. Concealed carry is an infringement on my safety both because the person is probably emotionally imbalanced, and because I am deprived…

      Pearls, consider yourself clutched.

    3. I find it horrible that little kids have to die because you can’t stand the fact that a black man is in the whitehouse!

      HuffPo comments…just don’t do it.

    4. This is not good. It makes the passage of universal background checks and a registry more likely. Time to buy a 3d printer.

      1. Even if Reid gets the bill through the Senate it likely won’t pass the House.

        The GOP simply has nothing to lose on this issue, hence Obama actually paying people to protest outside different lawmaker’s offices and creating spambots on Twitter to create the illusion of broad popular support.

      2. Wouldn’t it be better to stock up on barrels, powder, and primers? The things you can make on a 3d printer are the easy parts…

        1. Wouldn’t it be better to stock up on barrels, powder, and primers? The things you can make on a 3d printer are the easy parts…

          Those things aren’t on the registry they’re proposing. The lower receiver DD printed out will be.

  43. Two IP addresses connected to Guccifer’s recent online maneuvers trace him to Russia.

    There are many Tor exit nodes operating in Russia. That’s as far as they will get.

  44. The Supreme Court has ruled that you do actually own the books you buy and are allowed to resell them without violating copyright law.

    No, that was already settled law and not under question in Kirtsaeng.

    What it ruled is that you can import them to resell, which was not settled because of conflicting provisions in the US Code.

    Kirtsaeng was in legal trouble for importing the books for resale, not for the act of reselling his property. The distinction is meaningful, in that it never affected the First Sale doctrine.

  45. That makes a ll kinds of sense dude.

    http://www.PC-Privacy.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.