Maine Doctor Stops Accepting Insurance, First French Gay Couple To Marry, Brazil To Cancel African Debt: P.M. Links


  • Credit: Hommen59/wikimedia

    A doctor in Maine has stopped accepting any form of insurance and now posts the prices of his practice's services online.

  • The first gay marriage in France will be performed tomorrow a little over a week after a man protested the recent legalization of gay marriage by shooting himself in Notre Dame.
  • The Brazilian government has announced that it will cancel or restructure roughly $900 million in debt affecting 12 African nations.
  • A judge has refused to delay the trial of George Zimmerman, who is charged with second-degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin.
  • Bureaucrats in California are looking into how to regulate driverless cars.

Get and Reason 24/7 content widgets for your websites.

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.  You can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up here. Have a news tip? Send it to us!

NEXT: China Building City in Belarus, the "Last Dictatorship in Europe"

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Brazilian government has announced that it will cancel or restructure roughly $900 million in debt affecting 12 African nations.

    Brazil looking for a break on its tax return.

    1. Do you hit refresh dozens of times to pull this off?

      1. You only need to hit refresh once if you own a watch. The real trick is reading the links and coming up with a HIGH-larious comment for one.

        1. As if you read them before you post.

          1. We should get the SEC involved in this – it looks like some insider trading is going on here.

      2. Hundreds.

        1. “Clicking the refresh button” is how FoE achieves completion of his selfish desire to finish first.

          1. My comments are something everyone can enjoy and take pride in.

            1. I disagree.

            2. I miss the old days of time travel in the comments.

              Ahh nostalgia

      3. The trick is to be on the main Reason page when it comes up, that way you can click on the link in the H&R box and you’ll have an immediate option of posting a comment without jumping an extra link if you were scrolling through the blog.

        1. The trick is to be on an internet connection that doesn’t employ significant caching and proxies. Cell phone connections are terrible for getting this done right.

    2. Shouldn’t this read, “Brazil transfers African debt to Brazil”?

      After all they paid this money out and now they don’t get paid back, they get the debt.

      1. It’s a write-off for them.

        1. So they add it to the overall Brazilian debt. It was an asset, but now its a liability.

            1. But they do, and they’re the ones writing it off.

    3. That’s nothing compared to the 6-billion-dollar “money laundering scheme” the feds shut down, aka “Liberty Reserve”.

      Apparently it’s a federal crime to allow privacy on financial transactions, because criminals might use your service.

  2. The first gay marriage in France will be performed tomorrow a little over a week after a man protested the recent legalization of gay marriage by shooting himself in Notre Dame.

    Do you hear the people sing? Singing the songs of angry men? It is the music of a people who will not be gay again!

    1. Why are there a bunch of oiled up dudes without shirts protesting gay marriage? Yeah, sure, bros. You’re totally not into that.

      1. Srsly,
        What was the thinking on this? We’re going to protest gay marriage in the most gay way possible.

      2. Maybe they’re hoping the gays will be too busy fapping to get married…

        Also a higher res version to facilitate that.

  3. The first gay marriage in France will be performed tomorrow…


    1. First officially recognized. But who really cares what the state government has to say about love and marriage, right?

      1. love and marriage

        [Moe Szyslak voice]
        Do those mix?

        1. They go together like a motherfuckin’ horse and carriage.

      2. It’s France. Isn’t their language regulated by the state?

        1. My Spanish teacher in high school loved the fact that Spanish has, according to her, an actual governing body that decides when a word is a word.

          1. In France they are known as the Immortals. No joke.

  4. A doctor in Maine has stopped accepting any form of insurance…

      1. …, as have I.

      2. … but he does accept penaltaxes.

    1. Notice his rates are 25-45% of what others who do accept insurance are charging. I’m sure the doctors’ guild will be on him for unfair pricing practices by tomorrow.

      1. You can rest assured that the government won’t allow this doctor to continue gouging his patients by charging them lower cash prices for long.

    2. As a professional in similar straits, I am strongly considering going this guy’s route. The thing that scares me is: why has no one else thought of it?

      1. Among doctors? Because their patients will be really pissed they have to pay something other than a copay. Because people flip out about shit like that. Because they’re stupid.

        Also, cartels mean not having to justify your prices.

      2. See Brett’s comment above.

        1. You’re an attorney, aren’t you?

          1. Possibly…

            1. I am seriously considering doing Discount Law. I’m talking like $40 an hour. See any pitfalls?

              1. Depends, how does your state treat fees and such from an ethics standpoint? Other than that you might piss off some other attorneys. I few weeks ago I was talking to some guys I went to school with and I suggested letting clients pay me whatever they though my services were worth. They looked at me like a just kicked a small child. But, I’ve never been one to think I should get paid a certain amount just because I have JD.

                1. A friend of mine was doing (basically) cash-only Immigration representation work for a few years. They literally had an office across the street from the courthouse, next to the bail-bonds places.

                  The down side was that you didn’t tend to get really organized clients, and they tended to think the impending deportation was their attorney’s fault.

              2. None, as long as you don’t have loans to pay off and don’t mind making $40/hr.

            2. Single-payer legal care. Because no lawyer does anything worth more than minimum wage.

              1. I drive my liberal lawyer girlfriend crazy by suggesting that the legal system should be single payer just like she wants the health care industry to be.

                The more I think about it, the more I may start a movement for this out of pure spite.

      3. Hasn’t the recent trend been either concierge medicine or Kaiser Permanente style industrial medicine?

        1. Hasn’t the recent trend been either concierge medicine or Kaiser Permanente style industrial medicine?

          Mostly, one of our chiropractors is looking at setting up a cash-only, boutique clinic to diversify us away from what we’re currently doing.

      4. Because as cool as I think this is, I won’t go to him. By company provides me insurance, so I can go to someone who accepts insurance much cheaper.

        Now, if I could forgo the insurance and get an equivalent raise, I would take it and go to this guy.

        1. But Congress has seen to it that your company is better off paying you in over-priced health insurance rather than money.

      5. Its been done in a number of places a number of times. Tennessee and Oklahoma are two I know of.

      6. I think what can happen in that situation is that the patient can still request reimbursement from his insurance company, assuming the procedure is covered, but then all the paperwork is between patient and insurer, and the doctor doesn’t have to deal with it.

    3. He also gets the benefit of completely bypassing Obamacare (which is really just a euphenism for regulated health insurance).

      1. But he still has to deal with Maine’s regulations, whatever they happen to be. I assume they focus on logging related injuries.

        1. Lobster pinches, unruly Canadian attacks, moose allergies?

          1. Frostbite from the ocean. . . .

            1. Maple syrup bandits.

              1. Thousands of French-speaking tourists. . . .

            2. Checkered lumberjack shirt-induced seizures…

              1. Zumba instructors with “private classes”…

            3. Having your ankles broken by crazy women.

              Eldritch abominations eating your face.

              Weird old gypsy curses.

      2. You’re, like, aggressively stupid. You’re like the Kwisatz Haderach, except from a program of selectively breeding YouTube commenters.

    4. My doctor knows a few doctors in the area who have gone cash-only.

      1. Now we need a website that lists all doctors that have gone cash-only and gives their prices and customer reviews.

        1. I’m sure that’s coming. Along with underground medical services.

          1. Clinics in subway stations?


        I took my daughter here last Thursday. I called them at 8:00AM and they did the procedure later that day. Saved me $750 over what the hospital quoted as the “minimum”.

        1. I wonder how long we’ll have medical tourism to countries who offer cheaper care. Dental work, for example.

          1. Already have it – where I live people cross the border all the time for dental and medical care in Mexico.

            Not to mention people who go to south America for surgeries or Canada for cheap prescriptions and Lasik.

          2. My folks, who winter in India, get their major dental done there. It is cheaper even counting the plane fare and the quality and technique is excellent.

    5. Before the switch, Ciampi had about 2,000 patients. He lost several hundred, he said. Some patients with health coverage, faced with having to seek reimbursement themselves rather than through his office, bristled at the paperwork burden.

      I wonder how much medical costs would be on average if hospitals basically ended the process of filing insurance claims for their patients and said, “If you want others to cover the cost of your medical care, you’ll have to jump through the hoops yourself.”

      1. And the irony of losing all those other patients is that he and his staff have more time to work with the ones that are willing to pay out of pocket.

  5. Bureaucrats in California are looking into how to regulate driverless cars.

    With bureacracyless regulations, naturally.

    1. Of course, the GPS that California will require will definitely not be the basis for a use tax. Don’t be silly.

    2. I predict CARB will grow a new tentacle, consisting of hundreds of new bureaucrats tasked with reviewing the software operating the cars.

      1. Skynet went underregulated at the beginning, you know.

        1. How do you think it destroyed civilization? All it took was a little deregulation.

        2. In post-apocalyptic dystopia, Skynet regulate you!

  6. You know which other protesters won’t get their way?

    1. Those that protest too much?

  7. “A doctor in Maine has stopped accepting any form of insurance and now posts the prices of his practice’s services online.”

    I used to have a doctor who did that (except for the online prices). He said it saved him the equivalent cost of 4 full time positions in not having a billing department anymore.

    1. Medical billing is insane. Walls and walls of enormous, built-in shelves just for storing… file folders filled with forms of basic information that has all be reproduced 7 times by hand.

      Drives me bananas.

      1. But who’s going to save their phony-baloney jobs!?

        1. Have you seen the ICD-10 specification? Its basically an invitation to the lawyers to cream off 15% of the medical payment money in the system as payors and payees fight about which codes are and are not valid.

          1. Our billing department is bracing for the rollover.

            The doctor I go to joked he’d retire before they implemented ICD-10 and his staff at that point hadn’t even heard of it. I should probably go in a bit early for my annual check up just to avoid the nightmare of dealing with the office in flux.

    2. The practice in Tennessee that did it went from 5 full time to 1 part time employee in the billing department. So that sounds about right.

    3. Just think of the impact of medical spending on GDP, and what would happen if prices across the board went down 25-45% of what they are now. Last fiscal year, Medicare and Medicaid alone cost over $1 trillion; that doesn’t even include private sector spending.

      Imagine the hit to our GDP if that spending was $250-450 billion rather than $1 trillion, just in government spending. No wonder Obama signed off on a bill that increases the industry’s bureaucratic bloat rather than decease it–he doesn’t want to deal with the political impact a 2.5-5% drop in GDP from federal spending.

      1. Hopefully you are being sarcastic. If not, you know that money would be spent elsewhere, right?

        1. Oh, of course–he has to justify that $3.8 trillion price tag somehow.

      2. Of course this is a key problem of counting government action as positive GDP.

  8. Totally shocking, but America’s top colleges disproportionately select for the children of the rich.

    At the most selective schools in the country,* 70 percent of students come from the wealthiest quarter of U.S. families. Just 14 percent come from the poorest half. And while these statistics date back to 2006, I think it’s safe to say they haven’t changed greatly in the last few years.

    1. The solution obviously is free tuition and boarding and books, etc.

      That said as long as they are Team Blue rich kids is that a problem?

      1. Single payer college tuition.

    2. The wealthiest schools in the country could have more economic diversity if they wanted it. So why don’t they?

      Because economic diversity isn’t the kind of diversity they want.

      1. White male from a poor family here to say: very true.

        1. You were born a poor black child.

          1. Then why do I burn?

            1. I dunno, ask Steve Martin.

              1. You know I won’t!

                1. He was just in town, playing the banjo. I’d have asked him for you if I’d known your problem.

                  Perhaps you should watch The Jerk.

                  1. You’re nobody until your name’s in the phone book.

    3. This just in: even leftists want paid.

    4. Someone has to pay full price..

      I took my kids to Expo Park last week, where I encountered a USC admissions and financial aid officer at lunchtime. I chatted him up, and one of the things he told me, almost verbatim, was “We let in lots of stupid rich kids so that we can offer scholarships to smart poor kids”.

      I talked to him about the MBA program (which I am not seriously considering), and once he determined that I could afford to pay full price, he assured me that “my feet would never touch the ground”.

      1. As a current USC student, that actually makes a lot of sense. Not that it describes most people here, but there are definitely some people I encounter that leave me wondering how they got in

        1. I think that pretty much describes all “private” colleges/universities.

    5. IQ correlates with socioeconomic status, though.

  9. Mountain officials considering installing a ladder on Mount Everest to ease congestion as people climb down after reaching the summit.

    Kids these days, can’t even descend a mountain without these fancy conveniences.

    1. “Climbers will only be able to use the ladder for descents, no ascents.”

      The first guy to the step each day is going to be really tempted to climb the aluminum rather than the rock.

    2. Better would be a really, really long slide.

      1. How about an elevator?

      2. Right! Then they could use the ladder for the ascents and slide down!

      3. Better would be a really, really long slide.

        Already installed. It’s called “the cliff you die on if you fall down it”.

  10. When whisky failed to keep the Irish down, God resorted to blight. The potato famine pest explained.

  11. 100 points to whomever figures out what the hell this sign held at the March Against Monsanto is supposed to mean.

    1. Square pegs are carcinogens.

      1. Looks like they had a helluva turnout. How many people were there, fifty?

        If it was indeed that small, I never can understand why the “correct” demonstration, even if it is just a couple hippies and their dogs, will get major press, but 50,000 people assembling for a cause the opposite of the NY Times belief system will not even get a mention in any media outlet.

    2. Its the Monsanto Defense, modelled on the famous Chewbacca Defense. If a square is not a circle, it must give you cancer.

    3. I have no idea. Since you brought it up though. I saw some girl I went to high school with post that shit on her facebook page so I read the little description of the event on the webpage. Part of it was to encourage people to start their own gardens and feed poor people. Naturally I asked her if it would be ok if I used some GMO’s to increase my crop yield while cutting down on the amount of space I needed to grow the stuff and cut down on the amount of pesticides I would have to use.

      1. What was the response?

        1. Nothing. I assume her mind collapsed into itself.

          1. She probably didn’t even appreciate the difference between a GMO and a GEO (Genetically Engineered Organism), which is what most people mean when they erroneously use the term GMO.

    4. Square pegs not fitting in round holes give you cancer?

      I thought it only affected ones ability to fit into a career?

      This is why I didn’t go into medicine!

      1. I thought it also affected your ability to breathe during a trip back from the moon.

        1. Look, NASA fixed that problem with some duct tape. What are you complaining about?

          1. I didn’t say it couldn’t be solved. I said it affected it.

            1. So does looking at pornography during the flight.

              Okay, first man on Mars–private or public? I’m just about convinced that it actually will be private. And maybe not even that many years from now.

    5. “I have brain cancer.”

    6. Circle does not get the square for the block, therefore Cancer wins Hollywood Squares?

    7. I think he’s using wingdings. “Not perfect, I’m a cancer.” Stupid astrology.

    8. It seems to be a stupid way of saying that unnatural things cause cancer. Square = manmade, manufactured, circle = organic, natural, etc.

      I wonder; if I offered this guy a nice tea made out of hemlock, would the idiot drink it because it’s natural?

  12. A judge has refused to delay the trial of George Zimmerman, who is charged with second-degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin.

    They’re really itching to convict this guy.

    1. You know which other Southerners wanted a conviction to prevent riots?

      1. Bill Clinton, after the original Rodney King verdict?

        Hillary Clinton, after the Paula Jones verdict?

    2. George Zimmerman, Libertarian hero:

      Circuit Judge Debra Nelson, at a hearing on motions ahead of the trial, also ruled that lawyers can’t mention Trayvon’s school records, past fights, marijuana use, ownership of gold teeth, or any photos or text messages found on the teen’s phone.

      1. Can they mention that he bought Skittles?

      2. George Zimmerman, Libertarian hero

        What? What the fuck does that even mean?

        1. I’m a little confused. What’s libertarian about Zimmerman?

        2. With the possible exception of the past fights, how is any of that relevant to whether or not the shooting was a valid act of self defense? Everyone want to pretend Zimmerman is some sort of civil rights hero, but he was apparently going to argue that marijuana use means people should reasonably be afraid for their lives around you.

          1. Of course, what the defense actually wants to do is offset the media portrayal of the victim as a 10 year-old teddy bear, which was ridiculous.

            I’m not surprised by the ruling, because most of that stuff is irrelevant. They might be able to get some stuff in on any propensity to get into fights, though, depending on where the prosecution goes. What this may actually do–and what the defense may have intended–is to stop the prosecution from going down the road of portraying the kid as pure sunshine. They pretty much can’t do that now, unless they want that evidence to become admissible.

            1. Probably and since it’s a high profile case in Florida the prosecution will probably play right into the defense.

              1. Well, to be sure, there’s Florida and there’s Florida. The prosecutors are local, after all.

            2. Trayvon apparently had more than a “propensity to get into fights”: he was part of some sort of Fight Club group.

              I would say that some (but not all) of that is relevant. There are many, many signs that Trayvon was a gangsta wannabe. True, by itself smoking pot means nothing, as does having gold teeth or getting suspended from school or kicked out of the house by Mom or whatever. Add it all up, though, and it’s hard to ignore the big picture.

              1. There are many, many signs that Trayvon was a gangsta wannabe


              2. There’s a whole balancing act in evidence between what is probative and what is prejudicial. But when the defense is based on self-defense, at some point, whether the victim may have initiated force is a relevant question.

                1. Yeah, but his dental work has nothing todo with whether he initiated force, other than than prejudicing the jury.

              3. he was part of some sort of Fight Club group.

                So are all those little kids I see taking Tae Kwon Do classes next to the sandwhich shop.

                1. Aren’t you the least bit concerned that Zimmerman might have actually acted in self-defense? I mean, we’ll never know the total truth, but the evidence certainly doesn’t contradict that argument. Which is why the chances are very slim that Zimmerman will be convicted.

                  The race issue is clouding a lot of judgments, especially much of the media’s. The legal case is shitty, and the biased reporting was criminal. Zimmerman may well have used unnecessary force or even may have initiated the violence in the first place (which, incidentally, doesn’t waive the self-defense claim), but there’s no real way of knowing for sure, based on the evidence.

                  1. My feeling is he should go free, as there doesn’t seem to be enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn’t engaged in self defense. That said, I don’t think he’s a good person, so while I understand the need to make sure he gets a fair child, I am also repulsed by the lionization he seems to be getting from some quarters.

                    1. A fair “child”? What does that mean?

                    2. It means I meant “a fair trial” by the part of my brain that converts thoughts into typing sucks.

                    3. Actually, I think “a fair chance” and “a fair trial” tried to both come out at the same time and somehow got mangled into “a fair child”.

                    4. I’m pretty much agreeing entirely with Stormy’s take here. Which is strange, but there you go. I think Murder 2 was gross overcharging and I wouldn’t vote to convict on manslaughter. I would however, absent additional evidence, happily find him liable for wrongful death. It’d be nice if the Sanford PD bothered to do more than a cursory investigation and interview, but then again, there you are.

                      Not sure who has the burden of proof on an affirmative D, nor what the std of proof is. I ‘think’ that Z has to prove his D by a preponderance, but it could easily be something else (rebut-table presumption, etc…)

                      It’s going to be “interesting” seeing the State of Florida rape justice in this case to try and avoid a race riot. Didn’t think I’d see the Bonfire of the Vanities (-ish) brought to life.

          2. It is relevant if the prosecution wants to paint Treyvon as an angelic choir boy.

            1. And how is, say, having gold teeth contrary to that?

              1. I dont know, run the correlation numbers and let us know.

              2. I say let it all in and leave it up to the jury to make a judgement.

                Do you think the judge is going to exclude the prosecution from show what an ‘angel’ T was?

          3. Zimmerman’s attorneys got the information into the court of public opinion which is what I believe their goal was all along.

            1. He’s got the best fucking attorneys.

              1. No touching on certain subjects, though. NO TOUCHING.

          4. He’s the defendant in a criminal trial. It’s the job of the state to convict. If telling the truth about Martin derails the state’s case, then their case sucks.

            Since their case is entirely constructed around the theory that Zimmerman was the aggressor, then the defense is showing that Martin had a pattern of criminal behavior that supports their theory that Martin was the aggressor.

            Martin was no saint. That doesn’t mean he attacked Zimmerman. But his pattern of criminal behavior, IMO, means that you can’t convict Zimmerman for murder. Now, if they had charged him with manslaughter or some other lesser crime…but they didn’t. They went for murder, and there is no way in hell you can make a murder conviction stand up.

            1. Didn’t the include manslaughter as a lesser charge? I thought that was pretty standard – to include possible lesser charges and let the jury decide which he’s guilty of.

            2. As far as a pattern of criminal behavior, how about we ring up the guy who actually has a documented history of violent behavior, admittedly minor? Z’s the one with the assaulting the LEO charge history, not Martin. Yes, it’s bullshit. Then again, if Martin were involved in some sort of Fight Club, wouldn’t he have a juvenile criminal history by now?

              Their case is centered around the fact that Z put a bullet into Martin’s chest, as he was getting his ass kicked. It’s up to Z to prove that he had a legal reason to do so, by showing that Martin started the fight. It also helps Z to show some supporting evidence for his claim that Martin came out of nowhere and attacked him. Nothing says the jury has to believe anything that comes out of Z’s mouth. And if they don’t believe his story, his defense doesn’t work. So, some supporting evidence would be nice.

              Me, I don’t know what happened on that street, and ties go to the defendant. I have a high standard before I vote to stick someone in a cage for the nest 20 years. What I “think” happened is the PD applicant decided to get hands on with the kid, the kid reacted as a 17 year old hot head and decided to spar, and died for it. But I can’t prove that.

              Zimmerman’s a horrible poster child for CHL laws. I don’t know why so many people are defending him. And yet, IMHO, he should walk. Guess the saying’s true about shooting until the only people left are those who’ll support your story.

      3. How dare he try to defend himself against charges! He should shut up and obey the state like a good libertarian.


    3. They can itch all they want, it’s not likely. This is going to be a very difficult case for the prosecution.

  13. Tony award winning actor and gay rights activist doesn’t believe in freedom of association or understand the concept of free speech.

    And thirdly, when we excuse homophobia as a matter of opinion instead of treating it as a destructive social illness, we invite fear to explode into violence. How often are the perpetrators of hate-crimes discovered to be self-loathing? Valued individuals do not strike out against strangers.

    These continuing acts of violence, physical and rhetorical, terrify me. If we are ever to scrape the black rot of prejudice from the heart of our nation, we must stop excusing those who give it expression and even excuse. The next time someone dares to say, “Just because I don’t approve of homosexuality doesn’t make me a bigot,” we must all answer back, “Yes, it does. Not only does it make you a bigot, it makes you a criminal, a danger to me, my family, my community, my city, and my country.”

    Intolerance is not a matter of opinion. It is a call to violence.

    1. Well, he did win a Tony award, so what did you expect.

    2. This guy is basically a non-entity, thank galt.

      1. He just wants to be loved, is that so wrong?!?

    3. It’s violent intolerance all the way down.

    4. Intolerance is not a matter of opinion. It is a call to violence.

      What is indifference a call to? Cattiness?

      1. It, too, is a call to violence. Really, anything but total and absolute political conformity is a call to violence.

        1. Well, that sucks. I had a really cutting comment about his shoes at the ready.

          Is the violence mandatory? I had other plans this week.

    5. Intolerance is not a matter of opinion. It is a call to violence.

      What, exactly, is he tolerating here?

    6. Harvey won’t tolerate intolerance. He also hates hate and is violently opposed to violence.

    7. The ad behind it was about a Loreal award for a star from Glee. Could it get any gayer?

    8. And water is wet.

  14. The comments here are about a hundred times more tolerable since Weigel the scumbag went on vacation a few days ago. If we’re really lucky, maybe it’ll turn into a permanent vacation.

      1. He thinks Shrike/PB is Weigel.

        1. Interesting.

        2. Well PB has shown up in this thread, so that makes Ol’ Yokely even dumber than before.

          1. And he makes his first post in days like a minute after I mention him. He’s obviously still obsessively monitoring the blog even while he’s on vacation.

            1. Yes, I waited to post until the same time you posted your silly theory just to annoy you.

              1. hmmm. Weigel does get angry like Stalin’s Buttplug. Weigel has pretended to be libertarian like Stalin’s Buttplug. you got zits Buttplug?

                1. You cruise for backfillers, Buttplug?

        3. I think he meant John. John posts innocuous drivel and links to irrelevant youtube videos all day.

          1. And you class the joint up, right?

      2. Time warp! He’s come back to a universe where Dave Weigel married Harvey Fierstein.

    1. They look like that and they’ll still get stolen. Damn.

    2. The New York Post reports that a thief grabbed one of the bikes as it was being delivered to a Manhattan docking station, and rode away before anyone realized what was happening.

      Emphasis mine. But how do they know it was actually stolen? Maybe the dude just, like, needed a bike for a while.

    3. Stolen? No, no, no, they’re calling it “sharing” now, the guy just didn’t understand the rules.

      1. In Amsterdam it is high art to own several bikes which are simultaneously sufficiently crappy to prevent theft and still functional.

        1. Amsterdam tried a free bike share thing back in the late ’60s (IIRC) and it was abandoned because bikes were stolen or trashed.

    4. He didn’t steal it — he borrowed it. They said it was okay to share.

    5. How can it be stolen? They’re available for public use, maybe the guy was just on a really long ride.

  15. Walmart detains father for ‘kidnapping’ his own kids. Kids are biracial. I’ll give you one guess what dad’s race is.

    1. I guessed incorrectly.

      1. If this was an Indiana Jones movie you’d be looking pretty rough about now!

      2. Its a trick. No one would stop a black man with two little white girls. That would be racist.

    2. ‘Hey, I was sent here by Walmart security. I just need to make sure that the children that you have are your own,’

      and then, I just needs to check inside your asshole.

      1. Of course I have to wonder why the cop wanted to see ID.

    3. Weird. My kids identify me in public by calling me “Dad”. Even my 1 year old can do it.

      1. “The ol’ Jim Jones ploy, eh, Sir?”

    4. It’s not because of his race, it’s because he’s a creepy looking dude.

      1. No kidding.

    5. Man, so many of the comments on that story make me so angry. I only started reading them because I figured that wouldn’t be the case, but the “if you’re not doing anything wrong then what’s the big deal if someone sends the cops after you?” crowd seems to be growing every day.

    6. What’s sad is the guy assumes racism when its obviously not. Its just overly fearful people assuming that child-abduction is ridiculously common over-reacting to the situation.

      The sad thing here is that the first thought of the person who reported the situation was abduction and not that it was a mixed race family or that he was taking care of a friend’s kids for a bit – both orders of magnitude more likely than a kidnapping.

  16. Now bureaucrats in state government are playing catch-up, writing a whole new set of rules of the road.

    Fuck, dude. Why do you need bureaucrats shitting in the ice cream every single time?

    Why can’t you just wait to see if any problems actually crop up and then handle them with Ye Olde Common Law? It’s what Coke would’ve wanted.

  17. Liberty Reserve Founder Arrested, Site Shuttered

    From the comments on the HN thread comes this gem:

    Libertarian anarchist theory is based on non-aggression, that is, the idea that capitalism can be a system where people deal only by consent. But the kind of consent it uses is “affirmative consent” – you said “yes”, or you signed a contract agreeing ahead of time.

    Feminism introduced me to the stricter idea of “enthusiastic consent” – you ongoingly and genuinely want to. From this improved perspective, contract is unacceptable (it’s there to allow you to be forced despite no longer wanting to), and putting someone in an arm twisted position of “say yes or starve” is clearly not consensual. But this is precisely what capitalism does.

    Honestly as things are now, I don’t agree with the existence of money systems at all. I am not pro-tax, I’m against the whole of the money/paying/salary/finance system in its entirety. But tax is a weak hack to at least claw back a little economic equality. And breaking it without replacing it is harmful.

    1. As much as we make fun of “enthusiastic consent,” this is actually the most depressing feminist thingy I’ve ever read here (today). I mean, I’m always hoping they’ll discover that the consent they discovered was so important was…actually fucking important. But somehow they still found a way to turn it all inside out.

      1. Yup. The nature and limits of consent is a very important philosophical conversation to have in libertarianism, but feminism gets one part of it so very right and the rest of it so very wrong (just like their stance on self-ownsership.)

        1. I mean…

          From this improved perspective, the social contract is impossible (you never agreed to begin with, and it’s there to allow you to be forced despite no longer wanting to or never having wanted to), and putting someone in an arm-twisted position of “say yes or go to prison” is clearly not consensual. But this is precisely what the state does.

          It’s too obvious, right? How is it not obvious?

          1. Maybe this is Poe’s Law situation. Because that is right on the parody line.

          2. Yeah, and you also have the problem that “enthusiastic consent” is bolted on to mental contortions justifying why something or other is rape.

            Obviously, you can change your mind during sex; if you tell your partner something along the lines of “stop, I don’t want to do this anymore”, if he or she understands and does not comply, it’s raped.

            But then it is brought up in ludicrous arguments about how, for instance, “emotional coercion” — e.g., guilt-tripping someone into sex (which is douchey, of course) — is rape.

            1. Maybe we need to just take the bull by the horns and start explicitly calling everything the state does rape.

                1. Of course it is.

                  I partly think it will be fun because of all the cries about how you’re not supposed to say “rape” unless it’s really “rape,” e.g., rape jokes are always bad, etc. Because if anyone complains that whatever you’re complaining about isn’t really rapey enough, just slam the whole enthusiastic consent thing right in their face.

                  I’m not saying it will work. But I do think it’s actually a closer argument than slavery is, under the terms people are already using.

              1. My attempts to do that with slavery havent worked.

                1. That’s because being angry over slavery is sooooo 90’s.

                  I bet you still wear your pants and baseball jersey backwards too, right?

    2. While you’re all worried about how some moron feels about taxes, why is no one worried that the feds can call a financial services firm a “money laundering scheme” just because they dare protect the privacy of their customers?

    3. Well, it’s basically a variant of consent more likely to be popular with people that are capricious, dishonest, irresponsible, and/or conniving, so obviously that’s what feminists are going to go with.

  18. Vatican issues a clarification: Atheists and other non-Christians are still going to hell.

    Now I was able to understand the Pope’s meaning the first time I heard it, he was basically saying that everyone can be saved by Christ, including atheists, if they choose to accept it.

    So I find it amusing that critics of the Catholic Church are gnashing their teeth over long established Catholic doctrine when they wouldn’t even care anyway.

    1. Does this mean that Protestants aren’t? Tell me what I’ve won, Alex.

      1. You’ve won an indeterminite time in purgatory.

        1. Beats hell, I suppose.

      2. Don’t worry Pro Lib. Given how old you are, it’s clear that you immortal. Thus you shouldn’t be worried about going to hell.

        Unless you count the hell on earth that will result from just existing, unable to move or eat or do anything at the end of the universe.

        1. So it’s like working in telemarketing, then?

          1. But forever.

            1. So it’s exactly like telemarketing.

        2. That’s where you’re wrong, again, Auric, because I have an entropy insurance policy.

          1. Bad news, Obama decided that doesn’t count as “real” insurance.

            1. Well, that don’t confront me none, because I didn’t vote for his reality.

              1. Social contract!

                1. Didn’t sign one of them, neither.

                  1. Silly, you don’t sign the social contract. You just obey.

                    1. And I thought the law made no sense.

                    2. The Social Contract is a pre-existing condition and you can’t be insured against or excused from it because that would be unfair to all the other folks who believe in the Social Contract who would be deprived of the fruits of your labor.

                    3. What I need is a government policy to go with my entropy policy.

                    4. Government is exactly like entropy–it is a waste of energy that you can never get back, produces nothing useful, and continuously increases.

                    5. Oh, good, maybe my entropy policy covers Leviathan, then.

                    6. “Silly, you don’t sign the social contract. You just obey.”

                      This is why Superman is one of the worst superheroes ever.

                      He’s effectively invulnerable to anything we can throw at him and yet he still kow-tows to “top men” to the point of fightin wars for the American government.

    2. Oh, I very much approve when religious leaders condemn others. It’s one of the few times when they are absolutely honest about their belief systems.

      1. I know, it was so lame when the pope and patriarch un-excommunicated each other.

    3. Oh, they’ll be gnashing their teeth all right. Wailing and gnashing as they burn in the fiery pit.

  19. I’m against the whole of the money/paying/salary/finance system in its entirety.

    WTF does that even mean?

    1. “Wage slavery waaaaah!”

      1. So pardon my ignorance but what exactly is the alternative to wage slavery?

        1. Well, you could be an entrepreneur, or independently wealthy.

          1. But don’t entrepeneurs and independently wealthy people have employees?

            1. Wage *slavery* is bad, wage *slave-owning* is ok.

        2. Communes where every decision is enthusiastically consented to.

        3. We, like, use barter, man. Like I trade you some groovy earrings I made from trash for an organic tofu wrap, man. And you get to keep love as a tip, dude.

          1. There is nothing inherently wrong with barter; it’s just that in our type of economy, transactions with money are more convenient.

            1. There’s nothing convenient about capitalist oppression, man. I read that in some book in some class I took at Dartmouth, man.

              1. Speaking of Dartmouth, I still wish there was a Peter Christian’s in Hanover.

                Good times.

                1. A quick Google search reveals that Everything But Anchovies is still there.

          2. And like, if it turns out you don’t want earrings, man, then maybe I’ll trade you some seashells for that organic tofu wrap, man. And then you can like, trade those shells with somebody else for a hemp manthong, man.

          3. CW Swappigans is still not taking hotel soaps.

            1. Which is hilarious, because soap is what the people working there desperately need.

              1. “How much butter?”

                “I don’t know, a Star Trek chess set’s worth?”

        4. A magical world where no one has to work unless they really want to yet they still have all their needs met and there is no scarcity?

          1. I know, I know! Star Trek!

            1. No, Nikki, the Culture. Do try to keep up.

              1. Apparently no one needs a Micro Armament System, Rifle, the bastards.

            2. There was an episode of TNG where they find some 20th century humans frozen in a space ship a la Space Seed. One of them was a drug addict who is still addicted and Data tells him that the replicators can create the same drugs minus the harmful physical effects.

              Which raises the question: just how man smackhounds and junkies must their be in the 24th century if you can get high all the time and not suffer any ill-effects?

              1. Haven. It featured this speech from Picard.


              2. The same episode where Data presents the Federation as a junkie’s paradise is also the episode where Riker wanted to punch out some old fat dude just because he was a successful stockbroker.

                1. They had an entire race of villains where the original pitch was “capitalists”.

                  (Though they did later add “sexist”, and change them from villains to kind of neutral).

                  1. Indeed. Roddenberry dying was the best thing to happen to Star Trek.

                    1. Probably the best thing was getting kicked upstairs after TMP so Harve Bennett could make Wrath of Khan.

              3. I think they consider the “harmful physical effects” to include the part that makes you high.

                1. Nah, they got “synthehol” which gets you drunk, no hangover and somehow you can sober up immediately if you want.

                  1. It was mentioned in an episode with the Irish gypsy stereotypes who didn’t like it because apparently the pain after the pleasure makes the pleasure more pleasurable or something.

              4. Comparing that episode with “Space Seed” is an instructive contrast between what was right about TOS and what was wrong about TNG.

              5. With the Holodeck, who needs drugs?

                1. I found it really weird that they don’t even mention the holodeck when the 20th revived hick wants to watch TV and they say they don’t have that any more.

                  1. Come on, we primitives can’t handle the temptations of the holodeck. Addictive personalities and compulsive consumption, you know.

    2. The speaker wishes to work for free, clearly. Perhaps in some sort of unpaid internship?

      1. Unpaid interns are the only people who are not being exploited for their labor.

        Well, them and people working on the internet for $89 an hour.

        1. I don’t know why this popped in my head after reading your comment, but is there such a thing as intern prostitutes? Or, if the illegality is an issue, intern strippers?

          1. I thought girlfriends were intern prostitutes?

            1. You’d think so, but apparently most of them do not go on to the time-honored profession.

            2. Clearly you’ve never had a girlfriend. Or we left out the “unpaid” portion.

              1. It’s true that I have never had a girlfriend.

            3. I thought girlfriends were intern prostitutes?

              Only in jewelry commercials

              1. Only in jewelry commercials

                Brett gets it.

              2. I thought girlfriends were intern prostitutes?

                Only the ones who want to be strippers, hookers, or wives.

          2. Hooters is like a paid internship.

          3. First off, that’s pretty reasonable. I make most people start thinking about sex.

            Second, according to the most realiable source that I know of, Game of Thrones, yes there is. They spend several years training before they actually have sex with a customer.

            1. Auric actually learned this from Memoirs of a Geisha, but he’s too embarrassed to admit it.

              1. I think this is supposed to be an insult, but I’m too lost to be sure.

                1. I figured it was a “girlier” book/franchise than GoT, but mostly I was amused because I thought that kind of training-to-be-a-courtesan was generally well known.

                  1. Perhaps it is, in the industry. What are you trying to say, nicole?

                    1. What nikki is trying to say is “Hos up and Pimps down, bitch!”

                      But in White girl-speak.

                    2. Some people take whoring seriously, okay?

                    3. I bet Geishas are actually pretty boring in bed if you don’t have a taste for mannerist displays.

                    4. Who doesn’t have a taste for mannerist displays?

                  2. To be a *courtesan* yes, to be a prostitute only requires that you can bend over.

          4. I am reminded (and so may have some of it wrong) of an old Norm MacDonald Weekend Update “The survey on the worst jobs in America has come out and the old worst job, assistant crack whore, has been superseded. The new low? Trainee crack whore.”

          5. if your occupation doesn’t require any training, it doesn’t need interns, so newbies can dive right in.

    3. They have a degree in Grievance Studies and are having a hard time paying back their loans with what gets left in the Starbucks tip jar?

    4. WTF does that even mean?

      Take care of me mommy!

    5. WTF does that even mean?

      It means that because I have no marketable skills or intrinsic value, you should just give me shit.

    6. It means that person resents capitalism requiring a person to make a quantifiable contribution to society rather than just BSing their way through life.

    7. Give me free shit.

  20. It was funny watching Jason Brennan get beat up over his post about cartoon libertarians at BHL.

    I especially enjoyed this:

    You [might be a cartoon libertarian if you] think the term “social justice” has no definite meaning in philosophy today. Perhaps the term was too loosely used in Hayek’s time. I’m not criticizing him. But the term has a real meaning now. The question is no longer whether the idea of social justice is coherent, but whether any such principles of social justice are true.

    For anybody well-read in Austrian economics, I also wonder what the difference between behavior and human action is (or if he’s just attacking a straw man):

    If you think you can describe how actual economies work just by manipulating definitions. You think you can refute behavioral economists by saying, “Oh, that’s behavior, not human action.”

    1. So what does “social justice” mean?

      1. Re: Goldwyn Smith,

        So what does “social justice” mean?

        Thomas Sowell defined it as justice for certain groups of individuals by virtue of belonging to any of those groups.

        1. Thomas Sowell defined it as justice for certain groups of individuals by virtue of belonging to any of those groups.

          Isn’t it usually expressed as money and special privileges granted because you look like others that had bad things happen to them?

          1. I believe I (or rather, Sowell) said the same thing.

      2. It’s delightfully emotional

        Social Injustice: A social injustice obtains when an institutional arrangement generates a distribution of goods [broadly construed] that is unfair [broadly construed], independently of the deliberate design of individuals comprising the institutions.

        An example of Social Injustice from a Rothbardian standpoint:

        Say, for instance, that David lives next door to a public park where people are allowed to smoke (call it Smoker’s Park). The smoke produced by any one smoker would normally dissipate quickly, and have no noticeable impact on David’s person and property. But since so many people smoke in Smoker’s Park, David’s home and possessions begin to reek of smoke. And on some afternoons, he and his family choke from smoke inhalation. Arguably David’s person and property have been aggressed against in the sense that people together have imposed a cost on him that they could only do so fairly with his consent. But no one person caused the rights violation. In that case, I think it is fair to say that a Rothbardian social injustice has occurred.

        It’s a cathedral of rationalization of the sort that produces the idea that a federal ban on distributing pornography does not violate the 1st ammendment.

        1. “Arguably David’s person and property have been aggressed against in the sense that people together have imposed a cost on him that they could only do so fairly with his consent. But no one person caused the rights violation.”

          Arguably, the owner of the park caused the rights violation, which has been complicated by making it a public park in the example.

        2. Or you mean *externalities*? Something Pigou figured out how to deal with a long time ago.

        3. “I take it that an institution is racist insofar as it reliably outputs states of affairs where a racial group fails to receive its due based solely on the racial properties of its members.”

          The question begging here is how one determines what is “due” to a group. The disparate outcome may be each group receiving the dues that they have earned and the differences in outcome are therefore just. Brennan seems to go forth with the idea that any disparities in outcome that make him uncomfortable are “unjust”, while they may be just reflections of reality that he does not like.

    2. Guess I’m not very libertarian….I’m forced to ask who the fuck is Jason Brennan?

      1. I’m forced to ask who the fuck is Jason Brennan?

        Jason Brennan is a dude I went to school with, but he was two years behind. I regret not beating the living shit out of him when I had the chance.

        1. If you had cornered him, I bet he would have tried reasoning his way out of it with something approximating the NAP.

    3. “social” as used in phrases like “social justice” or “social science” is a Latin prefix meaning “the opposite of”, right?

      1. Pretty much.

      2. It’s kind of like “Library Science” or “Political Science.”

    4. 11. You believe there are no involuntary positive duties to others.

      That is a conclusion concerning the validity of that belief, not a premise. It presupposes a theory of the illegitimacy of self ownership that libertarians dispute.

      1. That one really threw me, and it doesn’t seem to be supported at all anywhere in the post or whatever. WTF?

        1. When the premise of your post is that everyone else lacks your exquisite level of sophistication but what you produce to back that opinion up are squiggles of conjecture that would embarrass a Neanderthal cave painter, well don’t be surprise if no one takes you very seriously thereon after.

          1. I should expect a glib response. Seriously, though, what involuntary positive duties to others would gain any nonminimal level of agreement among libertarians? The only thing I can think of is positive duties toward children among prolife libertarians (among prochoice libertarians such duties would be voluntary).

            1. what involuntary positive duties to others would gain any nonminimal level of agreement among libertarians?

              Oral sex.

            2. Wouldn’t pro-choicers agree with us that you have positive duties to children (post-birth/whatever your line is)? I mean you can put them up for adoption but at least while they are in your care.

            3. Just to be clear, I was saying that that wasn’t the only statement on that list that threw me off and I wasn’t trying to brush you off with a glib reply (the usual strategy, of course). Most of the list read that way. Some of it was self serving, 14. Reading this post made you angry. Much of it plain wrong 1. You think the term “social justice” has no definite meaning in philosophy today. Perhaps the term was too loosely used in Hayek’s time. I’m not criticizing him. But the term has a real meaning now. The question is no longer whether the idea of social justice is coherent, but whether any such principles of social justice are true. Social justice as a term is no where near as well defined or recognized as a singular instance of meaning as say the NAP. David Friedman covers this one here.

                1. Killaz, no, I didn’t think you were, and I saw the Friedman piece. I just don’t think much other than a glib answer would actually fit my question.

                  Apatheist, if pro-choice libertarians believe you have positive duties toward children you choose to bear, I would say they still think those duties are voluntary, as you only accrue them if you choose to bear children.

                  1. Yes but pro-life libertarians would also say the same thing – if you choose to have children then you have a duty to care for them.

                    The difference between the two is at what point you can choose not to have children (ie once conception happens you have to live with the consequences vice being able to abort before a specific time).

  21. Australian PM Julia Gillard aligns with House Targaryen.

    And as Risk has taught us, Australia is the key to the whole game.

    1. Australia is a nice asset, but the key to the game is really turning in your Risk cards at the right time.

      1. Also holding Europe, taking turns with Afghanistan like it’s Epi’s mom as a free card with your “ally” until you are ready to destroy him.

        1. Holding Europe is damn hard. Only time I’ve seen someone do it( before the game was already over) was when there were two people holding Africa and (attempting) Asia. Neither wanted to enter Europe even though the borderlands only had 1 guy because there was a massive army stacked in Northern Europe and no one wanted to unleash it.

      2. I’ve never lost with control of Australia. Which is why I’ve conquered it already. Yes, that’s right, I rule Australia. And Greenland.

        1. So you were the bastard who sold out Superman to General Zod in exchange for control of Australia!

        2. Australia will guarantee you are one of the final 2 (or 3 if you start with a ton) players. From that point on it’s about turning in your cards at the right point.

        3. What about Ukraine? Ukraine is STRONG!

        4. Take Australia, and you at least make the Risk World Finals, but you don’t always win.

          1. Well, the key is Australia and my lust for global dominion.

    2. Re: A Serious Man,

      Australian PM Julia Gillard aligns with House Targaryen.

      When she decides to align with House Harkonnen, then we’ll know that something’s afoot.

      1. Yeah, something wrong with someone who backs the Targaryens.

        1. Maybe she just wants some of that sweet blonde ass?

          1. Probably the dragons.

            1. No, I prefer redheads.

              1. So *you’re* into the Harkonnens?

                1. Giedi Prime is a perfect vacation destination.

        2. Yeah, she backs the one group that has a small infantry army, is marching the across a desert with damn near no logistical support, and then plans to cram them into boats like slave-traders to sail across the ocean and *finally* start an invasion with no logistic supply, no siege engines, and an army that’s mostly dead.

          Her ace in the hole are a couple of immature dragons.

          On the one hand its nice to see her character develop from the mousy girl she was to the self-assured woman she is but she’s bug-shit insane.

          And if her was succeeds (or even if its not put down immediately upon landing) then I will refuse to watch the damn show anymore.

          Well, except for the Tyrion Lannister scenes – he’s the guy who should be king.

          1. “On the one hand its nice to see her character develop from the mousy girl she was to the self-assured woman she is but she’s bug-shit insane.”

            She’s a Targaryen, insane is their hat. Her actual problem is losing focus on what her real goal is.

            1. Her actual problem is not being content with easily ruling a continent that is the equivalent of a large Australia in Risk, instead of going after an insanely competed over throne elsewhere.

              1. A throne she has an actual claim to, while trying to rule over a land and a culture that neither wants her or her values.

      2. So a politician favors the side with the weapons of mass destruction and a penchant for eating people?

        That does not surprise me.

  22. OT: Ummm, when is Reason going to write article after article about the “immigrant” riots in Sweden?…..r-fifth-da

    1. Reason is pro-immigrant.

      If you are not that is some serious demerits on the LP Purity Test.

      1. Again with the test!?

      2. Reason is pro-immigrant.

        You can still acknowledge that immigrant riots are occurring and then argue that immigration is still a good idea.

        Ignoring something because it conflicts with your biases is weak sauce. Acknowledge something that conflicts with your beliefs, then explain why your beliefs are still right.

        If you are not that is some serious demerits on the LP Purity Test.

        Is that the same one you scored a 92 on?

        1. 94.

          I got docked two points for the Fed and four for regs against industrial pollution spilling into public waterways.

          Still beat Ron Paul though.

    2. Never. The subject of violent radical Muslims has been declared strictly off limits by the so-called “mainstream” media.

  23. 9 Worst Recession Ghost Towns in America

    One condo owner is the loneliest number, especially when you’re the last remaining resident in a 32-story tower. Victor Vangelakos paid $430,000 for his downtown Fort Myers condo in 2008, but when the building couldn’t sell the rest of the units, they hashed out deals with the buyers, except for Vangelakos, who says his lenders wouldn’t agree to a swap. He now uses the apartment as a vacation home, but he says it’s eerie at night and birds have built nests in nearby apartments. The lone light in the building pictured here belongs to Vangelakos.

    One condo sold in a 32-story tower.…..px?index=8

  24. Mother who let her daughter ride in the cage with her dog in bed of a pick up truck insists her daughter wanted to ride with the dog.

    Poor judgment? Probably. Felony child endangerment charges and losing custody of the child? Definite overreach in my opinion.

    1. It’s only poor judgment from the modern overprotective parent standpoint.

      State police were notified about the girl in the cage and told the Millvale Police to be on the lookout.

      Fuck that person or persons.

    2. I positively begged my father to ride home from the beach at Santa Cruz in the trunk of his 1964 Chrysler 300.

      He let me. I guess this means I was abused! Where’s my “social justice”?

    3. But riding in the cage is less dangerous than sitting on the wheel well in the back of the pickup.

    4. It could be worse; the parent could have used one of these (safe for work).

  25. Bureaucrats in California are looking into how to regulate driverless cars.

    The very same way they regulate cars with drivers inside. The way Californians drive, those vehicles might was well be driverless for all intents and purposes.

  26. Justin Bieber ‘ran away like a scared little child’ after being chased home by former NFL player Keyshawn Johnson, reports claim.

    1. I don’t know why. He should be able to outrun Johnson.

      1. Keyshawn’s so fast, he just Flinstoned his Prius to catch that Ferrari. Also, if you can’t outrun a Prius in a Ferrari, just sell your Ferrari.

        1. You don’t watch football, do you?

          1. It was meant to be ironic.

    2. He must not be doing too well; judging from the photo’s in your link, it looks like he can’t afford to pay for both sleeves when he buys a jacket.

  27. Fannie Mae common closed at $4.11 on massive volume. It was 70 cent wallpaper a month ago before they announced record earnings.

    Someone thinks the Obama administration will return it to its shareholders (Bush nationalized in 2008).

    1. QE lifts all stocks.

      1. Silly comment.

        Dow component and giant cyclical Alcoa (AA) should be the first to benefit.…..undefined;

        Dead as a door nail.

    2. It was $87 back in Dec 2000 (using the same chart), when the dollar was worth more. That means the whole fucking house of cards crumbled to nothing not long ago (2007) and is still pretty close to nothing despite the massive injection of FRNs.

      Someone thinks the Obama administration will return it to its shareholders

      There are people that still believe in pixies and fairies, PB.

      1. Nope, buyers think there is a legal case for the common since FNMA never went through a formal chapter 11.

        Now, I’d like to tell you I bought it but I haven’t. The common should be worthless.

        1. Re: Palin’s Buttwipe,

          Nope, buyers think there is a legal case for the common since FNMA never went through a formal chapter 11.

          So what? You’re saying that “someone” thinks Obama will return the common stock to the shareholders. What makes you think the Obama administration will do crap? Ever?

  28. From the newsfeed:
    Obama to Confront Chinese President over Cyberattacks

    See what happens when you lend money to someone? You instantaneously become the bad guy!

    Hundreds of hours of Judge Judy taught me that lesson:

    “What’s your defense? Why don’t you pay the money back?”
    “Because he’s been harrasing me with cyberattacks, Judge Judy!”

  29. Wells Fargo forecloses on homeowner for making his mortgage payments too early:…

    1. Computer systems get confused by weird payment schedule, Wells Fargo humans arent smart enough to correct for it.

      1. I’ve been getting the same letters from Wells Fargo offering me a loan modification even though I’ve never missed a payment and I’ve always been leery of responding because I’ve heard too many horror stories like this.

    2. Every mortgage contract I’ve ever had specifies existence of pre-payment consequences. Notice that his loan was in a Federal modification program. This is not as straightforward crazy as it might look at first glance.

      1. What’s the logic behind penalties for prepaying? They just want the interest more?

        1. Pretty much. When you’re offering 3.5% on a 30-year mortgage and the house costs $200K, you’re going to want to soak every penny of interest you can out of the loan. It’s one reason I haven’t bought a house and why I always make sure there’s no penalties for prepayment on any other loans I take out.

          1. If they were using prepayment as a basis for applying penalties or something like that, I could buy it. I don’t see how you can legitimately claim it as a basis for foreclosure.

            1. If you signed a contract that says you will pay $X for y months, it doesn’t matter if you pay $(x+z)*n which adds up to x*y. The contract has both a cost and duration which you failed to meet. And is exactly the kind of shitty thing you’d expect to be foisted on a restructured home loan.

        2. Pre-paying reduces their earnings.

  30. Hey, Feeney, this isn’t the Norwegian Times. Here in ‘murika we say “the hospital” not some stupid shite, such as “has left hospital.”

    1. Or “graduated university”. It’s “went to college.”

  31. House panel subpoenas State Department over Benghazi…..index.html

    comments are of the usual brain-dead liberal variety

  32. This is pretty awesome =…..YN20130528

    U.S. Embassy workers hurt in Venezuela strip club shooting

    (Reuters) – Two U.S. Embassy employees in Venezuela were injured on Tuesday in a shooting at a well-known Caracas strip club, police said.

    Officers heard shots around 4:25 a.m. at the Antonella 2012 club, better known as “Angelus” in the upscale Chacao district, a police source told Reuters.

    One of the embassy employees, military attach? Roberto Ezequiel Rosas, was shot in the leg after a fight between club patrons, according to a police report seen by Reuters and the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

    The second embassy official was shot in the stomach but did not notice the injury until arriving home, the source said.

    OK. Partying at strip club till 4:30AM? Understandable.


    Also, dude. So drunk you didn’t notice you had a bullet hole in your tummy? Also, funny they didn’t name that guy. He’s referred to as an “Official” which may mean…”someone more than just a low-level employee”?

    Someone will blame this on The Sequester.

    1. OK. Partying at strip club till 4:30AM? Understandable.

      ON A MONDAY??

      I can say from personal experience that in the Thailand club scene Monday was the day when they nightclubs where most active.

      Nothing like going to a club on a Monday night, finding an after-club when the other clubs close at 1:30, partying till 4:30, coming home to get 3 hours of sleep before stumbling into work on Tuesday.

      1. Thursday is always the best day. The best employees can make money any day of the week, and they want weekends off to hang out with their boyfriends.

    2. “It was not a significant bullet.”

  33. Shares of Tesla leaped to a new high of $110.75 late Tuesday afternoon, settling back only slightly to close up $13.25, or 13.7 percent, at $110.33. Tesla shares are trading at more than three times the Jan. 2 opening price of $35.…..28725.html

    1. Sell now. Elon can pull the ripcord and exit at any time now that he’s paid back the DOE.

  34. Lets roll that beautiful bean footage!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.