Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

A.M. Links: This Terrorist Threat Is Real, for Real This Time, Everybody Wants NSA Data, Al Qaeda Making a Comeback?

Scott Shackford | 8.5.2013 9:00 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Large image on homepages | NSA logo
(NSA logo)
  • The government will resolve the privacy issues by declaring all crimes a form of terrorism.
    NSA logo

    The United States closed two dozen embassies over the weekend in North Africa and the Mideast. Sen. Saxby Chambliss says it's the most serious terrorist threat they've seen in the past few years. He compared the chatter with the planning for Sept. 11, so it's a good thing nobody has politically abused that terrorist attack for political gain, thus rendering the invocation meaningless, am I right?

  • The closures have also been extended for a week for most of them.
  • Of course the information the National Security Agency gathers won't stay at the NSA if other federal agencies have their way. But this was about fighting terrorism, guys!
  • Reports of al Qaeda's demise may have been greatly exaggerated.
  • Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe won re-election with 61 percent of the vote.
  • The US has gotten involved with mediation efforts in Egypt, sending an envoy to meet with a jailed Muslim Brotherhood leader.

Get Reason.com 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!

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Hand What's Left of Your Privacy Over to the NYPD, for Free!

Scott Shackford is a policy research editor at Reason Foundation.

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (433)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Fist of Etiquette   12 years ago

    Sen. Saxby Chambliss says it's the most serious terrorist threat they've seen in the past few years. He compared the chatter with the planning for Sept. 11...

    Someone's going to look like an idiot if we don't have another 9/11 now.

    1. Slammer   12 years ago

      Is he sure it wasn't all just in his mind?

    2. Night Elf Mohawk   12 years ago

      Or if we do. Since it was Bush's fault that the dots weren't connected on the first one, it must be Obama's fault if they aren't on the second one.

      1. Neoliberal Kochtopus   12 years ago

        Yeah right. The media will do some hard-hitting investigation and determine it was Bush's fault for the way the intelligence agencies coordinate and it's the Obstructionist Rethuglicans' fault for failing to fully fund school lunches.

      2. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

        I for one don't have any sympathy for Bush when people leveled this charge against him since he and his allies took the further step of trying to blame 9/11 on Clinton.

        1. Palin's Buttplug   12 years ago

          Hey, you can't criticize Bush here!

          1. DontShootMe   12 years ago

            If you want, the comment threads of one Jeffery Goldberg often devolve into people with ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) arguing with people with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). You might have a lot of fun there.

            Example

          2. EDG reppin' LBC   12 years ago

            No dipshit. You can criticize Bush here. However, using BOOOOOOSHHHH!!!!! as your every argument does get tiresome. It is your only argument, and has exposed you as the mendacious twat you are.

          3. John   12 years ago

            No fuckhead, You can't use Bush as a way to justify the fuckups of Obama. The problem is your constant sucking of Obama's cock, you lying little turd.

            1. tarran   12 years ago

              It's comical how racist Shriek is; he genuinely thinks Obama is so incapable of doing anything that every bad thing Obama orders must be blamed on Bush.

              It's gobsmacking how often when one scratches a progressive, one finds a racist piece of shit staring out at one through the flaps of skin.

            2. Palin's Buttplug   12 years ago

              Other than your preoccupation with cocksucking your primary issue is that you fail to see where every single problem we deal with today began with a series of missteps by Bush/Cheney.

              I cite small wonders like how the Bush deficit of $1.3 trillion has been cut in half. And don't try to LIE AND SAY NOT TRUE - Reason, Gillespie, de Rugny, and Stossel all quote the same numbers.

              1. Troglodyte Rex   12 years ago

                Every single problem? So Wilson in 1913 doesn't creep up, or Roosevelt and his expansion either?

                1. Palin's Buttplug   12 years ago

                  Every headline problem.

                  Privatizing the national parks isn't headline material.

                  Over spying, overspending, over committing, over involvement, over bureaucracy, etc.

                  Hell, NCLB still chaps my ass.

              2. John   12 years ago

                Every problem shreek. Obama hasn't created a single problem. You don't just suck Obama, you deep throat him.

                1. Palin's Buttplug   12 years ago

                  Keep sucking Bush and Cheney off, John. Which one gets to splatter your face first?

                  1. Smilin' Joe Fission   12 years ago

                    I haven't seen John defend Bush this morning, he is only pointing out your inability to make a point without invoking the BUSH'S FAULT!!!!! argument. It really is comical to the rest of us that you are so obsessed with Bush as your only means to defend Obama.

                    1. General Butt Naked   12 years ago

                      Dude, quit talking to it.

                      Jesus.

                      You know how every conversation will play out:

                      "Shrike only blames bush"

                      "I blame Bush of the Christfag Bushes!"

                      "See shrike only blames bush"

                      "I blame bush because it's his fault"

                      "Go suck obama's cock"

                      "go suck bush's cock"

                      ...ad infinitum

                      You never get that time back. Imagine being on your deathbed regretting the hours you could have spent with loved oned, but instead had the same, predictable argument with an obvious lunatic.

                    2. Palin's Buttplug   12 years ago

                      Obama only looks good compared to Bush.

                      On his own accord he is nothing special.

                    3. sgs   12 years ago

                      "every single problem we deal with today began with a series of missteps by Bush/Cheney."

                      Peak Derp, it finally quit trying and just said what it honestly thinks.

    3. Rich   12 years ago

      Relax, Fist -- we now have a decade's worth of dot-connecting technology to prevent that.

      1. JW   12 years ago

        All of that technology is useless, without color inside the lines technology!

      2. Jerryskids   12 years ago

        You might want to check where that technology comes from - It appears that if Xerox scanners can't read the pixels they just make shit up.

    4. Mike M.   12 years ago

      If nothing happens, that means the government neutralized the threat. 🙂

      1. robc   12 years ago

        I have a rock that prevents tiger attacks.

        1. Mike M.   12 years ago

          I want to buy your rock.

          1. robc   12 years ago

            Cant sell, I need it for my own protection.

            1. hamilton   12 years ago

              (robc's rock to be confiscated by the NSA in 3....2....1....)

            2. Bobarian   12 years ago

              I'm in Kentucky too, and will be glad to sell you as many tiger rocks as you like. I have a tiger rock mining operation in my back yard.

              disclaimer: tiger rocks may cease to function outside of the continental United States or in the presence of actual tigers. Common side effects of carrying a tiger rock may include, but are not limited to: weight gain, dirty hands, ridicule, and shame. Rare but more serious side effects may include carpal tunnel syndrome, calluses, and actual tiger attack. Contact a physician if any of these conditions occur.

    5. Ted S.   12 years ago

      If Saxby Chambliss wants to blow himself up on September 11, just make certain he does it away from other people.

    6. Jon Lester   12 years ago

      America will be a safer place once DiFi and Zaxby are both gone from the Senate Intelligence Committee.

  2. SugarFree   12 years ago

    But what about the historical evidence for Jesus? What? No one? Really? Ah, c'mon.

    1. Rich   12 years ago

      Too bad we didn't have the internet and cell phones 2000 years ago, huh?

      1. db   12 years ago

        Jesus probably would have been locked up in gitmo. Possibly droned.

      2. Art Vandelay   12 years ago

        Oooh, Mary Magdalene sexting pics.

  3. Auric Demonocles   12 years ago

    I actually find every one of the links today boring. Apparently I just don't care about the Middle East?

    1. SugarFree   12 years ago

      Zimbabwe is in the Middle East?

      1. robc   12 years ago

        Its east of here, but not so far east that I consider it west. So, yes, its middle east, just like Europe and Maryland.

        1. SugarFree   12 years ago

          I accept this argument. My apologies, Auric.

          1. robc   12 years ago

            Logic: I has it.

            1. Auric Demonocles   12 years ago

              Good job robc. Show that candyphobe!

        2. some guy   12 years ago

          Maryland and Europe are in the Far Left.

        3. JW   12 years ago

          just like Europe and Maryland.

          Yes, but we only adhere to the Oldbayist faction of Islam. We only wish to kill and eat the infidel shellfish.

          1. robc   12 years ago

            Soft-shell crab is the devil's sandwich.

            I love seafood, I love crab. But that particular item is just nasty.

            1. JW   12 years ago

              I never developed a taste for them either, but I'm in the minority in these parts.

            2. Rich   12 years ago

              "The sandwich that stares back at you."

              1. Raston Bot   12 years ago

                How can it stare back at you when you cut off its face before breading and frying?

                1. SugarFree   12 years ago

                  How can it stare back at you when you cut off its face before breading and frying?

                  Science

                  1. Auric Demonocles   12 years ago

                    I am not sure if this is a joke or a new level of SugarFreeing...

                    1. SugarFree   12 years ago

                      I assure you, sir, that Japanese butthole eyes are no "joke."

                  2. Raston Bot   12 years ago

                    That link was denied.

            3. mad libertarian guy   12 years ago

              Soft-shell crab is the devil's sandwich.

              You're fucking crazy. Too much beer or something.

      2. MP   12 years ago

        I thought Zimbabwe was a fictional country, like Parador?

        1. Brett L   12 years ago

          You still call it Rhodesia, eh?

          1. KDN   12 years ago

            I sat with a white Rhodesian at the last wedding I went to. The subject of Zimbabwe came up and he was understandably bitter.

            1. robc   12 years ago

              I went to college with a white girl born in Rhodesia.

              She was surprisingly casually racist (she was cute, but on the wrong side of the hot/racist line), but then again, maybe not that surprising.

              1. John   12 years ago

                If you grew up in Rhodesia, you might be a bit racist too.

                1. robc   12 years ago

                  She grew up in GA. Her parents fled quickly when things turned bad, I think.

                  But yeah, I get it. Like I said, maybe not that surprising.

                2. Drake   12 years ago

                  No way. Hasn't everything that has happened since proven the racists wrong?

                3. Zeb   12 years ago

                  Especially if you are black.

      3. sgs   12 years ago

        You're a fucking imbecile?

    2. Palin's Buttplug   12 years ago

      I didn't care about the Middle East until it became our military playground.

      1. John   12 years ago

        That is because you are retarded.

        1. Palin's Buttplug   12 years ago

          I don't worship dusty sepulchers.

          1. John   12 years ago

            As I said, you are retarded. Not being able to read much less read a map I am sure had something to do with your now caring about the middle east.

            1. Palin's Buttplug   12 years ago

              It is also why I don't get involved in Israel-Palestine piefights - I don't have a side or a crucifix jammed up my ass like you do.

              1. John   12 years ago

                You just jam things up your ass for pleasure not religion. NTTAWWT

                And you don't get involved in any issue that your handlers haven't told you to. You may be retarded but you do take orders provided they are given in very simple and easy to understand instructions.

          2. T   12 years ago

            You worship clean, tidy, well-kept sepulchers?

          3. The Last American Hero   12 years ago

            Nope, just the God-Emperor in the White House.

            1. John   12 years ago

              If Shreek needed to know about the Middle East, Obama would have told him about it.

  4. Fist of Etiquette   12 years ago

    Of course the information the National Security Agency gathers won't stay at the NSA if other federal agencies have their way.

    All armed bureaucrats have databases that hunger for citizen information.

  5. Fist of Etiquette   12 years ago

    The US has gotten involved with mediation efforts in Egypt, sending an envoy to meet with a jailed Muslim Brotherhood leader.

    Did they bring along any F-16's to bargain with?

    1. DontShootMe   12 years ago

      Yeah, we haven't screwed up enough countries over there, so we'll stick our noses into the unsolvable (by us, at least) mess that is Egypt and see how that works out for us.

    2. freeforall232   12 years ago

      Does this count as "boots on the ground"?

  6. Slammer   12 years ago

    BYU prof: Sand dunes engulfing 'Star Wars' set

    1. Brett L   12 years ago

      This is what sand does. Why is this surprising or interesting?

      1. robc   12 years ago

        The interesting part is they were only recently "found".

        I think people had assumed it had already happened. Or, you know, that they were deconstructed after filming.

        1. UnCivilServant   12 years ago

          Ir burned with sadistic glee by Lucas who wanted to replace them with CGI before he sold the brand.

    2. some guy   12 years ago

      Thousands of years from now the set will finally be unearthed and will make future archeologists go "WTF?"

    3. JW   12 years ago

      Time may be running short for hardcore "Star Wars" fans to see the real-life set used to portray Anakin Skywalker's childhood home of Mos Espa on the planet Tatooine.

      How can it engulf something that never existed?

      1. Agammamon   12 years ago

        Not just that, I don't think many fans, hardcore or not, are going to trek to the middle of nowhere Tunisia to see them.

        1. JW   12 years ago

          To see what? Some non-existent set of the mythical Episode 1?

    4. Agammamon   12 years ago

      They completely covered the first sets decades ago. I don't understand why the sand covering the sets from the prequels is such news. Sand moves, its what it does.

    5. Jon Lester   12 years ago

      In the novelization of "2010," there was a mention of a sensational discovery in Tunisia that soon proved to be a set used by a celebrated filmmaker four decades earlier.

      1. Gladstone   12 years ago

        2010 was a book first.

        1. Jon Lester   12 years ago

          I know I should have said "novel." I read it before I knew what Hollywood would do to it.

  7. Palin's Buttplug   12 years ago

    Reports of al Qaeda's demise may have been greatly exaggerated.

    They were greeted with flowers upon entering Iraq.

    See? Cheney got part of something right.

    1. sgs   12 years ago

      "See? Cheney"

      No, you're not irrationally obsessed at all.

  8. Fist of Etiquette   12 years ago

    The closures have also been extended for a week for most of them.

    Shelter in Place: It's the American Way

    1. Brett L   12 years ago

      "We're going to keep these embassies closed until they get attacked."

      1. Rich   12 years ago

        +911

      2. Bardas Phocas   12 years ago

        State Department VACATION
        Chevy Chase can play a dim-witted ambassador on his zany adventures through the middle east.

        1. Fist of Etiquette   12 years ago

          Spies Like Us already did it.

  9. a better weapon   12 years ago

    The US has gotten involved with mediation efforts in Egypt, sending an envoy to meet with a jailed Muslim Brotherhood leader.

    Ah, the pains of democracy.

  10. Brett L   12 years ago

    Saturday afternoon, my former roommate goes to Walmart and finds that instead of having about $2000 on his card (which he uses instead of an ATM card) he has $0. Turns out someone hit 3 Target stores in the NYC area with a fake card for all of his money. He gets in touch w/ the Target in the Bronx and they say "oh, you're the 3rd person to call about a Walmart card being used fraudulently here." He calls Walmart, they tell him they have to wait for the charges to clear before they can be disputed and to file a police report. He then spends 3 hours on the phone with various law enforcement agencies in Florida (where he lives) and NYC (where the crime "happened") and all of them have a reason why they can't file a report. Long story short, his conversion to libertarianism is complete and he now fully agrees with the idea that the cops don't give a fuck about crime, unless it is in their interest to stop it.

    1. Neoliberal Kochtopus   12 years ago

      Your roommate uses gift cards as regular currency?

      1. Auric Demonocles   12 years ago

        Walmart cards work at Target?

        1. SugarFree   12 years ago

          It might be a Walmart-brand pre-paid debit card, which works anywhere. Walmart acts like a bank for quite a few people, cashing checks, issuing credit cards, etc.

          1. Drake   12 years ago

            I've seen ads and always laughed at the idea of banking at Walmart.

          2. John   12 years ago

            So it is effectively cash. Does it have your name on it? If not, I don't see how you could ever find the person who stole it.

            1. Neoliberal Kochtopus   12 years ago

              If someone gives him his money back, it's going to be out of kindness, not obligation. Pre-paid debit cards are usually treated exactly like cash. You're usually SOL if you lose it or have it stolen.

            2. Brett L   12 years ago

              Well, he has HIS card in his possession, and can verify that he wasn't in the Bronx at 11:00pm on Friday. So, that should end his liability, same as if your debit card got cloned.

            3. thom   12 years ago

              So it is effectively cash. Does it have your name on it? If not, I don't see how you could ever find the person who stole it.

              1. Find out where it was used.

              2. Pull the surveillance tape.

              3. Old fashioned police work.

              4. Handcuffs. Jail. Restitution.

              1. John   12 years ago

                Yeah, because it is so obvious who a person is by looking at the surveillance tape. Maybe they would show back up in the same store. But even then, there is no guarantee you could positively identify someone on the basis of the tape. Those tapes are of pretty poor quality often.

                1. Neoliberal Kochtopus   12 years ago

                  And how are you going to prove that the friend in Florida isn't the fraudster?

                  1. Brett L   12 years ago

                    Pretty sure the people in the Bronx would remember a 6'3" 280lb white man with a South GA accent.

                2. thom   12 years ago

                  Yeah, because it is so obvious who a person is by looking at the surveillance tape.

                  Right.

                  Hence the actual police work involved. If somebody did this once they've probably done it a bunch of times, with several victims. Is the time and effort worth it to identify and arrest the person. It probably is.

              2. Agammamon   12 years ago

                Except if the recorders clock is off - then you can't match up a transaction time with what's on the tape.

                Seen this happen with ATM videos.

              3. Matrix   12 years ago

                Thom, see my reply below. The police won't do shit.

                1. thom   12 years ago

                  Yeah, I agree with you. That they could and should do something doesn't seem to matter, they won't do anything because doing actual police work and solving crimes is work.

                  Back in the days of dial up internet my apartment was burglarized and my laptop was stolen. Whoever stole my laptop started using it consistently to access my University dial up account (I had it set up to remember my password). I could see the records, every day, of them dialing in and using the internet using my laptop. It was infuriating.

                  I called the detective assigned to the case multiple times and explained to him exactly how he could find the person who burglarized my house because they kept using my laptop to call into the same place, over and over again, from an easily traceable telephone number. His response was that I should have the University "turn my computer off."

                  There had been a major rash of burglaries in my neighborhood at the time too.

                  1. Suellington   12 years ago

                    I went to a job the other day in SF and the girl there just had her cellphone snatched. She didn't get a good look at the guy, but she had his address come up on the iPhone tracker. She called the police and they said there was nothing they could do about it. She was surprised at their lack of concern. I was not.

      2. Brett L   12 years ago

        No, they're revolving Visa backed debit cards that you pay $3 for one time if you have direct deposit. As he said, "Its a great deal until you need a bank because someone just stole all your shit."

        I think he'll get all the money back, but the question of when is still up in the air as of yesterday.

        1. Brett L   12 years ago

          Here. This is the thing. It is backed by GE Capital Bank, but is not a bank because the banks have been actively lobbying to deny Walmart a banking license. So they don't have to pay interest and can't extend credit.

          1. Ted S.   12 years ago

            You mean people are using regulation as a barrier to entry for new participants?

            I'm shocked!

        2. some guy   12 years ago

          Tell him that credit cards with cash back are an even better deal if you have some amount of self-control.

          1. Auric Demonocles   12 years ago

            I've currently made about $700 off of cash back.

        3. Palin's Buttplug   12 years ago

          Nitpick - they are not revolving. They are cash loan/debit only.

          1. Palin's Buttplug   12 years ago

            cash LOAD/debit only.

            1. Brett L   12 years ago

              Yeah. Good point. That's the wrong word for it.

        4. Neoliberal Kochtopus   12 years ago

          Yeah, seriously, checking accounts are free nowadays. Come on son.

          1. Brett L   12 years ago

            He did it with good intention. Didn't want the TBTF to get his money and hates getting nickled and dimed by the small locals. I'm pretty sure he'll make alternate arrangements once he gets his money back from Visa.

            1. Neoliberal Kochtopus   12 years ago

              Pfft. It's nice and all to rail against the system, but I'm just trying to live my life.

              But in all seriousness, mid-size regionals usually offer the best of both worlds.

              1. Brett L   12 years ago

                BB&T is the way to go around here. Didn't take a bailout, didn't need a bailout, and would be a national bank if there weren't any bailouts. I've recommended them to him.

                1. Palin's Buttplug   12 years ago

                  $3.1 billion TARP loan - repaid with $160 million interest.

                  http://preview.tinyurl.com/qgl3ke4

                  1. Raston Bot   12 years ago

                    Allison said BB&T and other healthy banks were strong-armed into taking TARP.

                    1. Palin's Buttplug   12 years ago

                      Allison has been known to tell a stretcher.

                      Of the big nine banks in the Paulson meeting several of them were reluctant to take TARP but BB&T was not in the meeting. They are in the 20-30 rank in size.

                  2. Brett L   12 years ago

                    Huh. Interesting. I must be misremembering something I read. Thanks for the link.

                    1. datcv   12 years ago

                      They only took the loan because they had to. Treasury & the Feds forced a bunch of banks with no need to take them in order to hide which banks NEEDED the bailout loans.

    2. John   12 years ago

      Solving crime is hard. Shooting dogs and writing tickets is easy.

      1. Brett L   12 years ago

        His discussion with NYPD (after 25 minutes on hold/in the phone tree) was essentially:
        1) Do you pay our protection money
        2) No? Guess you're fucked
        3) Have a nice day

        The local cops were more pleasant but sadly unable to file a report.

    3. a better weapon   12 years ago

      You'd have thought the revenue generating and dog killing would have done the trick.

      Good for him though. You can only keep up the "yeah, but most cops are good guys and just want to help" defense for so long.

    4. T   12 years ago

      This is where having a bank with an active fraud protection unit comes in handy. This happened to me when I was still with Bank of America. They called me to ask if I had spent 5K at three different Targets. BofA had the money back in my account the next business day.

      Whatever faults BoFA has, their fraud protection people are top-notch.

      1. Palin's Buttplug   12 years ago

        Same experience here. BoA called me out of the blue to ask if I used by card in North Carolina that day. They cut the card off, reversed the transaction, and sent me a new number.

      2. db   12 years ago

        I've had good experiences with Discover's fraud protection people. Very professional, and willing to help.

        1. Rhywun   12 years ago

          Same here with Chase.

      3. Xenocles   12 years ago

        The day we arrived to the new house my wife dropped $500 at Target for setup items. I got a text from Chase (credit card) about it, which I replied to confirming things. Then she spent $400 at the grocery store for pantry items, which prompted an actual phone call to me. I do appreciate the attention.

        I hardly ever use debit. Credit cards are much better about fraud protection and fraud reimbursement. Being defrauded via debit's almost like losing cash.

    5. Matrix   12 years ago

      My friends' mother's debit card was stolen when their house was burgled. The thieves used the card at convenience stores and gas stations. The exact time and place of these transactions are recorded. So she calls the police and tells them she has all these records. They could easily go to the stores and request the video surveillance to help with the investigation and find the thieves. They got back "Oh, we don't do that." The fuck good are you anyway?!

    6. TheTreeOfLiberty   12 years ago

      I've been in that Target a few times and its not at all surprising that's where it was used.

      I've also delt with the NYPD, and it's even less surprising they told your friend to fuck off. They treat other NYers with complete disdain, I'm surprised they didn't just immediately hang up when some guy from Florida called.

  11. Bee Tagger   12 years ago

    Of course the information the National Security Agency gathers won't stay at the NSA if other federal agencies have their way

    Eventually, it won't matter what agency you make a FOIA request from since they'll all have the same set of data that they'll refuse to tell you about.

    1. Bardas Phocas   12 years ago

      Thank god, one of their low-level contractors will release it ALL onto the internet, so we (and the Moldovian mafia) can have access to it.

  12. Rich   12 years ago

    Third Woman's Burned Body Found On Detroit's West Side

    Detroit police are wondering if they have a serial attacker on their hands

    Nah, probably just a ritual suicide cult inspired by Buddhist monks.

    1. UnCivilServant   12 years ago

      There are still people in detroit?

  13. John   12 years ago

    What good does it do to close the embassies? We are going to have to re-open them eventually. Do they think the terrorists will get bored and go home? And of course now, Al Quada knows they can close American embassies world wide and cause major strategic disruption just by putting out a lot of chatter that the dopes at the NSA and State will believe. No need to actually bomb anything. This administration is appallingly incompetent.

    1. Rich   12 years ago

      This.

      Another angle is: If we can close embassies indefinitely, why do we have them in the first place?

      "Nothing can be cut."

      1. John   12 years ago

        They do serve a real purpose. A lot of people no doubt are getting totally fucked by this. You can't get a VISA unless the embassy is closed. Thing of all the travel and business we just totally fucked up.

        1. Rich   12 years ago

          Why does anyone *need* a visa?

          1. John   12 years ago

            Because you traveling to the US to do business or go to school or go to a conference or see your dying mother. This action totally fucked a lot of people.

            1. Rich   12 years ago

              Why does anyone *need* to do those things?

              1. John   12 years ago

                Because there are a few people out there you really don't want to meet and don't want them coming in your country no matter how much you believe in the transnational peace unicorn.

                1. EDG reppin' LBC   12 years ago

                  Relax John. They were using sarcasm.

                2. Rich   12 years ago

                  Let me try a less snarky approach: If getting a visa to see your dying mother is so important why is there a single point of failure?

                  1. Night Elf Mohawk   12 years ago

                    It's much more important to the seeker than the grantor. They grantor sets up the system.

                    1. Rich   12 years ago

                      Bingo, NEM.

                      Now, why does anyone *need* a firearm?

                  2. grrizzly   12 years ago

                    I'm annoyed by Rich's obtuseness.

                    1. Rich   12 years ago

                      Me, too. Why can't he just get to the point?

              2. DontShootMe   12 years ago

                Your mother is already dead, what difference, at this point, does your visiting her make?

                1. Bobarian   12 years ago

                  ^^Official State department response

        2. CampingInYourPark   12 years ago

          You can't get a VISA unless the embassy is closed. Thing of all the travel

          Drink some coffee, man

          1. T   12 years ago

            It won't help.

    2. tarran   12 years ago

      This administration is appallingly incompetent

      I would say the rot goes deeper than just the administration. It's not like there was huge turnover in the civil service when Bush the Lesser turned over the Football of Power to Barack the Lightbringer.

      The incompetence goes to some pretty low numbers appended to the letters 'GS'.

      1. John   12 years ago

        It wasn't the GS employees who decided to close the embassy or decided this threat was real. That was done all by the political appointees.

    3. VG Zaytsev   12 years ago

      What good does it do to close the embassies? We are going to have to re-open them eventually. Do they think the terrorists will get bored and go home?

      No, They think the American public is incredibly stupid.

      1. Scruffy Nerfherder   12 years ago

        Ding Ding! And anyone who actually listens to Peter King and believes him is stupid.

  14. Citizen Nothing   12 years ago

    Of course they reelected Mugabe. He turned every citizen into a trillionaire!

  15. Bee Tagger   12 years ago

    Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe won re-election with 61 percent of the vote.

    I think I'll wait for Jimmy Carter to sign-off on these results.

    1. Citizen Nothing   12 years ago

      Given his record, I'm surprised he didn't get 2.5 trillion percent.

      1. robc   12 years ago

        Clap. Clap. Clap.

  16. JW   12 years ago

    Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe won re-election with 61 percent of the vote.

    Whoo! A real squeaker!

    1. Drake   12 years ago

      Not official until Jimmy Carter certifies it.

    2. DontShootMe   12 years ago

      yah, I wonder why they picked that number to "win" by?

      1. UnCivilServant   12 years ago

        99% was too suspicious with a loud and organized opposition party.

        1. DontShootMe   12 years ago

          Nobody likes the '70s. I mean, nobody.

    3. a better weapon   12 years ago

      61%? Sounds like he has a mandate to me.

  17. John   12 years ago

    http://mobile.reuters.com/arti.....S&irpc=932

    - A secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.

    Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.

    The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don't know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.

    It is an iron law of government. All information government collects will eventually be used for every possible purpose. The idea that we should allow the NSA to collect everything because it is needed to stop terrorism but won't be used for anything else is preposterous. What is used for some horrible crime one day will eventually be used to go after some guy who didn't fill out his forms properly.

    1. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

      Well said. Mission creep is the norm, not the exception, with government agencies.

      1. mad libertarian guy   12 years ago

        Mission creep is the norm, not the exception, with government agencies.

        It's more than just the norm. It is certain to happen. Mission creep is the only path with government agencies. Saying it is the norm implies that it may not happen. Mission creep will always happen.

    2. VG Zaytsev   12 years ago

      Yep, and the most important word in that quote is trained. It means that lying and perjury are official policy of US federal enforcement agencies.

  18. Rich   12 years ago

    Tamerlan Tsarnaev had right-wing extremist literature

    *Please* don't let him turn out to have been a frequenter of H&R.

    1. Auric Demonocles   12 years ago

      RC Dean did come back, didn't he?

      1. R C Dean   12 years ago

        Yes, he did. I haven't lived in Boston for over 20 years, BTW.

    2. Brett L   12 years ago

      Reading material he had about white supremacy commented that "Hitler had a point".

      Stormfront needs to stop using "Caucasian" when they mean "White Protestant European".

    3. John   12 years ago

      So he was a "white Muslim"?

    4. some guy   12 years ago

      This isn't a right-wing website, so we should be okay.

      1. Rich   12 years ago

        *** rising intonation ***

        Pretty sure I can find "documentation" of it being a right-wing website.

        And even if I can't, it's widely known that libertarian sites are even worse.

        1. some guy   12 years ago

          I know it happens all the time, but I hate it when people refer to Libertarians as "extreme right-wing". It's as if they have no understanding of Libertarianism...

      2. Palin's Buttplug   12 years ago

        This isn't a right-wing website

        Tell John that please.

        1. Rich   12 years ago

          NO!! I was going to use John for the documentation!

          1. Bobarian   12 years ago

            I thought you were going to use PB, the only pure Libertarian to post here.

    5. a better weapon   12 years ago

      In related news, Rolling Stone suddenly believes their recent Tamerlan cover issue was in poor taste.

      1. Brett L   12 years ago

        Who?

        1. Rich   12 years ago

          Rolling Stone -- you know, that rock and roll magazine.

          1. Brett L   12 years ago

            I thought they went out of business years ago.

            1. Rich   12 years ago

              Tamerlan went out of business just months ago.

      2. a better weapon   12 years ago

        Damn just realized I mixed up my domestic terrorists! The Dzhokhar kid was on Rolling stone, not Tamerlan.

    6. EDG reppin' LBC   12 years ago

      That article seems to have been written by a twelve year old. Dismissible.

      1. Neoliberal Kochtopus   12 years ago

        Yup.

    7. Neoliberal Kochtopus   12 years ago

      Oh here we go. Color me shocked that there *had* to be a "right wing" connection.

  19. a better weapon   12 years ago

    I'll have a Google burger please.

    This has been news for a little while, but I still can't get over how cool it is. As transformative as mass produced meat is, I imagine that somewhere out there is a large number of militant vegans who don't think this kind of technological progress is nearly as fun as banning shit I like.

    1. John   12 years ago

      If they could get mass produced fish, that would be a miracle. It tastes like ass right now. But the first versions of things usually do. In 20 years maybe?

      1. a better weapon   12 years ago

        We are just 10 years away!!!

        ducks and covers

      2. Zeb   12 years ago

        You mean farmed fish or lab grown?

        1. John   12 years ago

          Lab grown. A lot of ocean fish are really hard to grow in a farm.

    2. Brett L   12 years ago

      "This tastes like something familiar..."
      "Chicken? Chicken would be okay"
      "No, it tastes like sadness and despair"

      1. UnCivilServant   12 years ago

        "Try our new Schadenfrueude burger! Taste the sadness and despair!*"

        *Note: said sadness and despair might be your own, and you may not experience the same schadenfreude that we do.

      2. SugarFree   12 years ago

        "Could it be that it just needs salt?"

      3. mr simple   12 years ago

        "We're not calling it Blobby anymore, on account of Chester. You know, the carrot."

    3. robc   12 years ago

      So how many breeds of cattle go extinct if this catches on?

      1. John   12 years ago

        Not extinct. There will always be a market for the real thing. It will just be smaller.

        1. robc   12 years ago

          Not that I care, but I would think some breeds of beef cattle would go away.

          The top ones wouldnt. The money breeds.

      2. db   12 years ago

        Ultimate Soviet Cow: Everything the Body Needs

    4. thom   12 years ago

      As someone who abstains from meat primarily for ethical reasons, I've been tits up excited about guilt-free-meat since it was first announced years ago. I'm actually worried that the militants will try to ban this stuff, the same way anti-tobacco zealots are trying to ban those vaporizer things.

      1. a better weapon   12 years ago

        I don't see how it ever gets allowed. I can't imagine it being any different than the GMO crusade.

        1. a better weapon   12 years ago

          Ok, so never getting allowed is a bit of hyperbole, but there will be significant pressure against it since progressive food purists hate things that could help solve world hunger.

          1. Emmerson Biggins   12 years ago

            yep. Baptists = anti-gmo-vegans. Bootleggers = cattle farmers. It's a winning combination.

        2. Sy   12 years ago

          The anti-GMO crowd is right up there with anti-vaccine crusaders. It won't matter how many lives are saved from being able to produce animal protein that's parasite- or disease-free as long as they get their way.

      2. R C Dean   12 years ago

        What's the feedstock?

        1. Brett L   12 years ago

          People. Obviously

    5. Xenocles   12 years ago

      The PETArds are generally in favor of synthetic meat.

      1. mad libertarian guy   12 years ago

        The PETArds are generally in favor of synthetic meat.

        Now. Just wait until it's a viable technology that is ready for market. Then it will be evil. See the argument about fracking.

  20. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

    -Jenny Hatch, a 29-year-old woman with Down syndrome, prevails over parents in custody battle

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/.....y/2614587/

    This story was reported as a great milestone for the rights of the mentally disabled. But when I clicked on the Washington Post story it linked to it seems it is more complicated. Her parents wanted to take care of her, but her 'friends' and employers argued that they combined with various social services should do.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....story.html

    1. John   12 years ago

      Did she win or did the state win? It looks to me like this is more "the state now owns your children".

      1. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

        They gave guardian to these friends whom employed her part time and let her move in.

        That it wasn't just about her 'independence' can be seen in the following excerpt from the Post story:

        -But for national experts on the rights of people with disabilities, several of whom testified on Hatch's behalf, the case was about much more. It was about an individual's right to choose how to live and the government's progress in providing the help needed to integrate even those with the most profound needs into the community.

        It takes a village I guess.

        1. John   12 years ago

          That sounds real good, except that these cases are a lot more complex than that. What happens when the new "guardian" is just some pervert who is sexually abusing her? It is an article of faith among many people in the field that there is no such thing as mental disability and that any person has the capacity to make major life decisions for themselves. I am not kidding. Many social workers are that fucking delusional. They think someone with an IQ of 65 and the maturity of an 8 year old child is perfectly competent to live like anyone else.

          It would be like thinking Shreek is competent to live on his own. They really are that stupid.

          1. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

            I don't even think it sounds good.

            I can sympathize with the young woman wanting to live on her own. But that's not what they've done here, they've granted guardianship to some 'friends/employers' and a bunch of government agencies when her parents were willing to do it. Absent a showing there is a serious problem with the parents that makes little sense to me. I agree with you about the potential problems.

            1. Bardas Phocas   12 years ago

              As a monocle wearer, I'm intrigued by this idea of getting "Guardianship" for my employees/orphans/friends who slave away in my sweatshops.

              But seriously, when her "friends/employers" get tired of her or just hit hard times, are they going to keep her high on their priorities? Her family (or most families) will, if no other reason, to avoid public shaming.

              1. John   12 years ago

                That is an excellent point. More importantly, either she needs a guardian or she doesn't. If she does, then she is not competent enough to choose her own. And if she can choose, then she doesn't need the guardian. And if she can't choose, then the family should always be the first choice.

                This is just another example of the state's efforts to destroy the family.

            2. Zeb   12 years ago

              I don't know. As John points out, you can't treat a seriously disabled person like they are a fully functioning adult, but on the other hand, their wishes should carry some weight.

        2. Neoliberal Kochtopus   12 years ago

          Why is it so hard to accept that society just isn't going to bend over backwards to accommodate the mentally disabled? Just live at home, be thankful you have a wonderful life here in America and be happy. not everything has to be a fucking crusade.

          1. Zeb   12 years ago

            Wrong. What we need is affirmative action for the severely disabled. People with Down Syndrome are not nearly well enough represented at the top universities and on corporate boards.

            1. John   12 years ago

              Well, there is the President and VP. And last I looked Slate and the Washington Post employed Matthew Yglesias, who is clearly some kind of special needs case.

              1. Zeb   12 years ago

                True, they will always have a place in politics or political commentary.

  21. Ted S.   12 years ago

    If I handcuffed you and forced you to climb a fence, would I get off scot-free? Well, I'm not a cop.

    New Zealand police handcuffed a man and forced him to climb over a fence; he fell off the fence and was paralyzed from the nexk down. Cops claim they did nothing wrong, because any idiot can climb a fence with their hands tied behind their back.

    1. Andrew S.   12 years ago

      That article doesn't explain it and I still can't figure it out. Why in heck did they force him to climb a fence? Just for shits and giggles?

      1. Ted S.   12 years ago

        I think they needed to get him on the other side of the fence for whatever reason. It says "wire fence", which I don't know whether it's Antipodean for chain-link or something like a barbed-wire fence. Where's IFH?

        1. JW   12 years ago

          I'm guessing that "climbing the wire fence" is an Kiwi sexual euphemism.

  22. BigT   12 years ago

    No more background checks. First case of child rape will get this repealed.

    Under the ordinance, approved by the City Council in a 6-1 vote and set to take effect in September, private companies that have city contracts and that employ more than nine people won't be able to ask anything about an applicant's criminal record; otherwise they would lose their city contracts. The ordinance is one of the nation's strictest "ban-the-box" laws, which are so called because many job applications contain a box to check if one has a criminal record.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....z2b6GwiTNM

    1. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

      If this is just the city saying it won't do business with companies that do this I don't have a problem with it.

      1. Spoonman.   12 years ago

        Missed that.

      2. Brett L   12 years ago

        Sure voluntary association is a key plank of the libertarian platform, I just think the city council are idiots.

        1. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

          The government has created problems by recognizing 'third party negligence.' This seems like an attempt to mitigate the negative consequences of this (which should have been foreseeable), but of course it is a poor one given the legal doctrine will still stand.

      3. robc   12 years ago

        If cities were private companies, I wouldnt have a problem with it.

        But they arent.

        I dont have a probably with private companies racially discriminating (well, I have a problem, but you know what I mean). But the city cant.

      4. Night Elf Mohawk   12 years ago

        I wonder who will handle their banking and investments.

        Does this mean that the city itself, police department included, can't ask?

      5. Neoliberal Kochtopus   12 years ago

        If this is just the city saying it won't do business with companies that do this I don't have a problem with it.

        Why don't you have a problem with it?

        1. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

          I think one way governments can (usually) unobjectionably foster certain social goals by choosing who to do business with and who not to or conditioning their business.

          1. Neoliberal Kochtopus   12 years ago

            I am asking you why you think this is a worthy social goal.

            1. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

              I think it is as John said below, people deserve a fresh start or a second chance without a scarlet letter attached to them for life. Remember this only 'kicks in' for those who are trying to employ themselves, which means they are less likely to be moving towards being wards of the state.

              1. Neoliberal Kochtopus   12 years ago

                If the people of Richmond want to be serviced by companies that cannot check whether their employees are child molesters or bar brawlers, that's fine. I think this makes them stupid.

            2. Zeb   12 years ago

              Well, for one thing, lots of people with criminal records either never did anything wrong or are not bad or dangerous people.

              1. Neoliberal Kochtopus   12 years ago

                Yes, well, a lot of people with criminal records did do something wrong and ARE bad or dangerous people.

                1. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

                  A lot of people with no record are dangerous. Everyone that has one at one time did not. With the explosion of offenses, many of them bizarrely technical and not malum in se, it seems wrong to hang that scarlet letter for life.

              2. Night Elf Mohawk   12 years ago

                It seems like the employer is better positioned to make that choice, rather than being blackmailed into not using all the facts he would otherwise consider relevant.

                1. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

                  I don't find conditioning work to be blackmail, and I imagine in other instances you don't either.

                  1. Night Elf Mohawk   12 years ago

                    "Do what we say or you will lose this contract, where 'what we say' doesn't relate to the quality of the work for that contract" looks pretty blackmaily to me.

                    Do you have some examples where you believe I wouldn't consider imposing requirements not related to the work wouldn't be blackmail (de facto, not necessarily de jure), because I can't think of any.

                    1. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

                      If your employer asks you to take a drug test is he 'blackmailing' you?

                      If I hire you to cut my grass but tell you have to cut it in some organic friendly way or I will not am I blackmailing you?

                    2. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

                      If I say I will not give any contracts to Planned Parenthood as long as they perform abortion am I 'blackmailing' them?

                      If I say I will not do business with the Boy Scouts of America as long as they do not allow gays, am I 'blackmailing' them?

                    3. Night Elf Mohawk   12 years ago

                      If I say I will not give any contracts to Planned Parenthood as long as they perform abortion am I 'blackmailing' them?

                      Yeah, I think boycotts are a kind of blackmail, though I wouldn't use that pejorative in all cases.

                      I think there's a distinction, though, between wielding the power of the state and what happens between private parties. I think this is yet another illegitimate intrusion of the state into a private situation.

                      If you won't sell office supplies to Planned Parenthood because they do abortions that's one thing. If the state denies doctors some contract because they do abortions and are otherwise qualified, I think that's different.

                    4. Night Elf Mohawk   12 years ago

                      If your employer asks you to take a drug test is he 'blackmailing' you?

                      The argument is that that has a relation to job performance or reliability.

                      If I hire you to cut my grass but tell you have to cut it in some organic friendly way or I will not am I blackmailing you?

                      Again, that has to do with the work itself. I think you can prescribe just about any rules you want for the performance of the work itself. Whether a company asks about criminal backgrounds isn't the same.

                    5. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

                      See my further examples.

                2. Zeb   12 years ago

                  Putting conditions on a contract is not blackmail.

                  1. Night Elf Mohawk   12 years ago

                    Not (necessarily) in a legal sense, but it could be.

                    I'm not saying the city can't legally do it, just that I think it is an illegitimate restriction that serves even less of a purpose than asking about crimes while screening employees.

                    Is the city going to indemnify the employers for losses caused by employees who would have been disqualified because of their convictions?

                    1. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

                      It will be up to each business to weigh the risks with the benefits of doing business with the city. That's how freedom works.

          2. Invisible Finger   12 years ago

            Governments shouldn't be fostering certain social goals.

            1. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

              That the government is doing anything at all is fostering certain goals.

              If the government hires police to protect property and life from force and fraud it is promoting that goal. If it delivers mail it is promoting the idea that government should facilitate communications. I don't see anything wrong with it further fostering certain goals when it does business to further other goals anyway. For instance, if the government is going to buy cars for its police to ride around in I don't see anything wrong with saying they won't buy cars from businesses who, say, do business with Iran or whatever.

              For me the problem only comes in when the government says 'you can't do business with Iran if you want.'

            2. R C Dean   12 years ago

              The only "social goals" the government should be fostering are the prevention and punishment of force and fraud. I would say that once you get beyond the night watchman state you are engage in social engineering, but the protection of property rights and the prevention of violent crime don't really fit that definition, in my mind.

            3. sgs   12 years ago

              How about this then, as the initiator and prosecutor of the charges, the government gets to decide when revealing those charges/convictions is relevant.

              There's something about the fact that government is responsible for the charges in the first place that makes me ok with telling people not to consider them.

    2. Spoonman.   12 years ago

      I hope they don't expect any bank offices to stay open in their municipality.

    3. Brett L   12 years ago

      So anyone large enough to have a lawyer on retainer who can explain liability case law will no longer contract with the city?

      1. John   12 years ago

        I hired a convicted rapist, didn't tell anyone about his past, and left him alone with a female customer whom he attacked. Yeah, no liability there.

        1. Andrew S.   12 years ago

          Per the article, they can still ask about murder/voluntary manslaughter/sex offenses requiring registration.

          1. John   12 years ago

            If you extended that to theft convictions, then I don't see the problem. Thieves and perverts are a problem. But everyone else should be able to get a fresh start.

          2. Neoliberal Kochtopus   12 years ago

            So what about domestic violence? Child abuse? Bar fights?

          3. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

            Ironically, aren't murderers and those who commit manslaughter very unlikely to commit another such offense?

            1. John   12 years ago

              What Bo said. I don't see how manslaughter especially should matter. Mostly that means the person probably drank and drove and killed someone. A crime for sure. But it doesn't mean they are dangerous when they get out or even dishonest.

        2. Brett L   12 years ago

          I think it would actually be: I hired a convicted rapist, didn't do any diligence about his past, and left him alone with a female customer whom he attacked.

        3. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

          I think that should be on the rapist alone, unless there is some custodial type duty to care such as a day care or such. Third party negligence claims strike me as unfair. Why can't the employer hire someone who has served their sentence and been released, after all the government seems to have 'certified' the person not a threat anymore by releasing them. And the doctrine makes it extremely difficult for the ever growing number of people convicted to gain employment, housing and other necessaries of life.

          1. John   12 years ago

            It depends on the facts. But if you have a business that requires your employees to be alone with members of the public. Say it is a cable company or something who sends its people into homes, I think there is a duty to make sure your employees are not dangerous.

            Same with banks. If a bank never checks people's backgrounds and hires a known thief and he empties your account, isn't that the bank's fault?

            1. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

              If the person is such a threat why did the government release them? I realize that as a practical matter this is not that simple though.

              What if the city said it would only do business with those who limit background checks to the last seven years or something?

              1. Neoliberal Kochtopus   12 years ago

                The government cannot keep people indefinitely, whether they are still "threatening" or not.

              2. John   12 years ago

                Because just because you are free to live in society, doesn't mean you should be trusted to go into strange people's homes.

                If someone is a convicted child molester, would you want them working in a grade school or coaching little league? If not, why not? They did pay their debt after all.

                1. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

                  I think that might be somewhat different because we tend to think of molesters as having 'a problem' with their 'orientation' that leads them to be compelled in that direction. I don't see the same for people who were in a bar fight.

                  But you have an excellent overall point, I should have stuck with my argument that only when there is a special duty of care or custody should this be a concern. That covers day cares and schools.

                  1. Neoliberal Kochtopus   12 years ago

                    Getting into bar fights evinces poor judgment. If you can't control yourself in a relaxed social setting, why should I trust you to control yourself at work?

                    1. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

                      I think you have far too much faith in the justice system to determine who is a bad person for life from a bar fight conviction.

                    2. Night Elf Mohawk   12 years ago

                      Because they are two separate settings, the behavior at which are not necessarily expected to be the same.

                      I've been in bar fights. I've never been in a fight at work.

                    3. Bobarian   12 years ago

                      Do you work in a bar?

                    4. sgs   12 years ago

                      "If you can't control yourself in a relaxed social setting, why should I trust you to control yourself at work?"

                      You're stupid right?

                      Because this question is stupid, and you asking it is stupid.

        4. R C Dean   12 years ago

          Here's the deal, though:

          There is such a thing as "negligent hiring" these days, such that the failure to perform a background check is sufficient grounds for liability.

    4. Ted S.   12 years ago

      They ought to get rid of the check boxes for race, too.

      1. mr simple   12 years ago

        But then how will they be recognized for being an EOE? Aren't there tax incentives for that?

    5. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

      It's really a bad idea. For instance, if a job has a fiduciary responsibility and the company hires someone with a fraud conviction, could be a little problematic.

      A company could easily get sued for not taking reasonable steps to protect consumers, other employees, whatever. That usually only comes up with sensitive positions, but who is liable now? Looks to me like the company remains on the hook.

      1. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

        Don't do business with the city council then.

        It's not that hard to do business while not taking work from a given municipality. Ideally municipalities would not contract much work period.

        1. Neoliberal Kochtopus   12 years ago

          You're making a lot of blanket statements.

          Why would the city "ideally" not be contracting much work?

          1. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

            Because it would have limited functions and duties.

            1. mr simple   12 years ago

              Ok, so you're saying the total amount of work it has to do would be small. I can agree to that. I was thinking, "Of course they should contract a lot of work. I would say most of it, like 90%"

              1. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

                There are some potential problems with contracting out government services, you can get regimes rife with kickbacks and government-services-as-patronage-favors. Where something can be done better via private contractor I think government should probably just get out of the business altogether.

                But yes, I was referring to a government that does very little in the first place.

        2. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

          I don't care much for government doing this sort of thing. Let the businesses run their business in a legal manner.

        3. R C Dean   12 years ago

          The city is essentially taking the position here that it will only do business with people who violate a recognized legal duty to perform background checks.

          You don't think that's a problem? Sure, we can say that "negligent hiring" is a bullshit ground for liability, but its there. Given that, how do you justify one branch of government penalizing you if you don't do X, and another branch of government penalizing you if you do?

          1. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

            "Fuck you, that's why?"

    6. Agammamon   12 years ago

      Uhm yeah, because background checks are so good at finding child-rapists.

      1. Bobarian   12 years ago

        I find trolling with a child as bait to be the best method.

        If you do it right, you can even reuse the bait.

    7. Eduard van Haalen   12 years ago

      Does anyone know what happened to the EEOC "guidance" about not checking criminal backgrounds? They basically claimed that the criminal justice system was racist, but rather than try to reform it, they're placing the burden of the allegedly unfair system on the private sector.

      1. tarran   12 years ago

        The EEOC has wrought indescribable damage to society. Pretty much the entire college debt issue can be laid at their feet.

        The Supreme Court had a very complicated definition of what constituted "Direct Business Necessity", one that was difficult to meet and gave considerable deference to the employee of the Equal Opportunity Commission who was deciding whether or not to accuse a company of illegal discrimination. Only the simplest tests, such as requiring a prospective driver to pass a driving test could reasonably pass muster. Other tests, which businessmen clearly felt were useful to reducing the risk of hiring the wrong person for the job, now could get them sued.

        Companies began casting about for a way to screen out the-incompetent or unfit in a way that would not result in them being sued. The simplest solution is to demand a college degree. Any racial discrimination demonstrated in the pool of degreed people would be the colleges' liability, and the business could get on with the business of hiring new employees without being worried about lawsuits.

        1. KDN   12 years ago

          This is also why the diversity bureaucracy is increasing at an exponential rate. The schools have to protect their meal ticket.

      2. Thane of Whiterun   12 years ago

        As of July 1, it is apparently still a thing.

        1. Eduard van Haalen   12 years ago

          So according the the link, criminal background is irrelevant to working for Dollar General or BMW.

          But try to get hired by the feds if you got busted for pot.

          1. Eduard van Haalen   12 years ago

            Heck, according to this story, the feds won't even let a retired veteran buy a .22 rifle because of a 1971 pot conviction.

            Yet they want to force businesses to hire convicted criminals to run cash registers and handle cars (which are deadlier than .22s, I understand).

            1. Eduard van Haalen   12 years ago

              Forgot the link:

              http://www.nationalreview.com/.....-grudnicki

        2. Eduard van Haalen   12 years ago

          The Althouse article says the EEOC is throwing out statistics about how blacks and Latinos are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. And they don't seem to have specifically mentioned this, but this situation obtains in the federal justice system as well.

          But instead of doing anything to address this alleged problem - I mean, if they *really* think blacks are unfairly hassled by the criminal justice system, why not stop hassling them? But, no, they don't actually believe their own propaganda; they think the justice system is hunky-dory, they simply don't want the private sector to rely on it.

          If you think your precious criminal justice is screwing with people, why not just *stop screwing with them,* you benighted feds?

          1. Eduard van Haalen   12 years ago

            Oh, and let a business try to defend itself in a negligent-hiring lawsuit by citing EEOC guidance.

            "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you've seen how the defendant's employee almost beat my client to death, and now they're blaming the EEOC? What kind of evasion of responsibility are they trying to get away with here? I mean, look at these photos of my client's injuries!"

      3. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

        If I recall the EEOC's position was that background checks should only be used when relevance to the job itself made it reasonable, not 'in general.' I actually think that is a good way to think about, but it should not be forced on employers by an entity like the EEOC. Instead, government should make the standard by which employers could be liable in government courts. That way no one is forced to adopt it, but government incentives not to are removed.

        1. Night Elf Mohawk   12 years ago

          Hiring someone without a record of theft could reasonably be relevant to every job.

          1. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

            Granted, but it is still context specific.

    8. thom   12 years ago

      No more background checks. First case of child rape will get this repealed.

      Right in the article:

      "Murder, voluntary manslaughter and sex offenses requiring registry can be inquired about no matter how much time has passed."

  23. Andrew S.   12 years ago

    I have to hand it to Mugabe. He's smarter than the other dictators. None of that 99% of the vote or 100% of the vote stuff. 61%. Just close enough to make it believable.

  24. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

    -The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that video game manufacturer EA Sports could not use the First Amendment to toss out a lawsuit against its use of the names, images, and likenesses of college athletes without compensation when it produced its line of NCAA football video games.

    http://thinkprogress.org/sport.....ea-sports/

    1. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

      Pretty standard right of publicity, etc., especially in California.

    2. KDN   12 years ago

      The NCAA really needs to go away. They exist only to give sportswriters something else to be sanctimonious about.

      1. Ted S.   12 years ago

        Johnny Manziel should be allowed to sell his own signature.

        1. John   12 years ago

          Sure. But he is not. And he knew the rules. And he didn't even need the money. If he did that, it just shows he is too stupid to play quarterback in the NFL.

          1. Ted S.   12 years ago

            The law, sir, is an ass.

            1. John   12 years ago

              It is not the law. If he doesn't like it, don't play college football. Go play baseball or basketball in Europe where you don't have to go to college. No one made him go to Texas A&M or play NCAA sports. It is their organization and they can make whatever rules they want. If Manziel is too stupid to live by them, that is his problem. There is no injustice in enforcing rules that someone agreed to and knew about.

              1. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

                The NCAA is a bit of a monopoly and a state actor led one to boot.

                1. Neoliberal Kochtopus   12 years ago

                  the NCAA's status as a so-called "monopoly" is irrelevant.

                  The simple involvement of state universities does not mean it is "state actor led", whatever that means.

                  1. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

                    State schools are either the majority or substantial (and most influential) number of members of the NCAA, so under current state actor doctrine I have no problem finding them to be one.

                    And their monopoly is not irrelevant: John's entire point rests on there being choices for someone like Manziel.

                    1. Neoliberal Kochtopus   12 years ago

                      There are choices. No one says you have to play college ball in the NCAA.

                      Now, if you mean that generally in order to play in the NFL you have to go through the NCAA, well, yeah, but that doesn't mean you lack "choice". You aren't entitled to get a shot at pro ball.

                    2. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

                      Do you feel the same way about union shop agreements? 'No one is entitled to have job X outside of union membership?'

                    3. General Butt Naked   12 years ago

                      John's entire point rests on there being choices for someone like Manziel.

                      They do have options. They could go work at Burger King, or wash cars, or dig ditches. Going to college is just another paying gig for these guys, and it's the best one they're offered. At my school, 4 years of tuition, books, meal plans, the best campus housing, tutoring, and all the free gear/clothing could cost $200k+. That's pretty good for an 18 year old playing a kid's game.

              2. Timon 19   12 years ago

                "Go play baseball...in Europe"

                I'm sorry, what?

        2. Brett L   12 years ago

          As a Texas Ex, I have to say that this guy may be dumber than Vince Young.

          1. John   12 years ago

            He is just a cock. The success went right to his head. He couldn't handle it. I bet he either gets suspended or has a terrible year this coming year and ends up not even making the NFL.

            1. KDN   12 years ago

              It's plenty possible that he wouldn't make the NFL as anything but a backup or package QB anyway.

              The scouting report on Manziel is currently, "see also: Doug Flutie." He'll make a great Stampeder.

              1. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

                Don't they open against Alabama this year or something? Not good for A&M if he's suspended.

      2. Brett L   12 years ago

        This is EA, the NCAA lawsuit is separate. Everybody in the business of making the NCAA video game is apparently a scumbag.

        1. Ted S.   12 years ago

          Amazingly enough, I don't think Curt Schilling is involved.

          1. Brett L   12 years ago

            I didn't say all the scumbags in the sports world were involved. Just many of them.

          2. John   12 years ago

            Shilling was on ESPN bitching about ARod this morning. Last I looked, ARod never stole any money from the taxpayers.

            1. Ted S.   12 years ago

              The only good thing about the Rodriguez story is that it took all the air time away from the Riley Cooper story.

              1. John   12 years ago

                Contrast the fainting fit over that to the one day and out story over the jackass twins wearing the "Free Aaron Hernandez" hats. Which is worse, throwing out a racial slur that is used by both races daily or publicly supporting a guy who is most likely guilty of at least one premeditated murder?

        2. KDN   12 years ago

          It wouldn't be an issue if the NCAA wasn't the way they are. If there was an NCAAPA, EA would have paid them a license fee and it would have been divvied up by whatever way the PA membership agreed.

    3. UnCivilServant   12 years ago

      I'm so torn, I hate both EA and the NCAA.

      But, the players themselves should at least be able to control the use of their own names and likenesses.

      1. Neoliberal Kochtopus   12 years ago

        Why? Do you own your name?

        1. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

          For some purposes, yes. That's why commercials get releases/licenses from people whose images they use.

        2. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

          I think it is important that he said 'name and likeness.' Another term is 'personality rights.'

  25. JW   12 years ago

    Ah, Monday morning in Bal'mer. Nothing better than the fresh smell of the weekend's accumulation of public urination.

    1. creech   12 years ago

      I rode the light rail from Hunt Valley to Cromwell and back on Friday. Balto
      seemed very much unlike what I had feared. What did I miss?

      1. JW   12 years ago

        I only work here, I live elsewhere, but there's a special brand of widespread and hard-core poverty in Bal'mer that I never saw working in DC.

    2. thom   12 years ago

      It was a beautiful morning in Baltimore. Perfect weather. People seem to be in a good mood.

      1. JW   12 years ago

        Why do you hate Art Donovan and why aren't you in at least superficial mourning?

  26. Thane of Whiterun   12 years ago

    101 Everyday Ways for Men to Be Allies to Women

    6. Be conscious of where your eyes wander as a woman walks by. Change that behavior.

    18. Be pro-choice.

    21. Read websites like Feministing, Colorlines, Jezebel, etc. for your news sources.

    41. Recognize that you contribute to women's oppression by NOT acting.

    70. Learn and use appropriate vocabulary.

    Go back to #25 and check out those books. Familiarize yourself. Here are some keywords you should know: feminism, patriarchy, oppression, privilege, resistance, intersectionality, LGBTQQIAA (and what each letter stands for), double consciousness, masculinity, femininity, differences between sex and gender, gender spectrum, sexism (and all of the -isms), glass ceiling, glass escalator, whiteness, etc. That's a good starter list. Believe me, there's a lot more.

    76. Seek out children's books for your kids that challenge traditional gender roles.

    93. Buy your books at local, independent bookstores.

    My favorite:

    98. Turn magazines that promote sexism and unhealthy body image backwards at your local supermarkets and newsstands.

    1. Neoliberal Kochtopus   12 years ago

      "Welcome to my blog! I'm a Sociology and Women's and Gender Studies Double Major. "

      So you're not only a pussy but you're an unemployable pussy.

      1. JW   12 years ago

        Yes, but he's on the fast track to high-volume cuckolding.

    2. Rich   12 years ago

      What *is* he doing in that photograph?

      1. Neoliberal Kochtopus   12 years ago

        Dude...that's Ryan Gosling. Get it together, man.

      2. JW   12 years ago

        That's Ryan Gosling. Appropriating his image is big in the lefty circles.

    3. Ted S.   12 years ago

      I presume marrying a woman and being faithful to her aren't on the list?

      1. John   12 years ago

        That is not being sex positive Ted. And if you marry a woman, you are totally supposed to let her flirt and maybe even sleep with other men. You in contrast, need to keep your eyes to the floor.

    4. John   12 years ago

      6. Be conscious of where your eyes wander as a woman walks by. Change that behavior.

      Go fuck yourself lady. If you don't want men looking at you, dress conservatively. Go ask an Amish or an Orthodox Muslim or Jewish woman about this. They will all tell you that they never have men checking them out. In fact, many of them will point this out as an advantage to their lifestyle. And if you are so damned concerned about men looking at you, why are you dressing any way but totally conservatively? What is the point of doing otherwise? Stop feeding the patriarchy by dressing like a whore. How about that?

      1. Thane of Whiterun   12 years ago

        It's a man.

        1. John   12 years ago

          Then why isn't he telling women to stop feeding the patriarchy by dressing like whores?

          1. Thane of Whiterun   12 years ago

            Women should be able to strut around almost naked without anyone judging them or ogling them, because patriarchy.

            Like many modern feminist ideas, there's a grain of truth to that but it's been taken too far.

            1. John   12 years ago

              You shouldn't judge them. But they shouldn't be able to complain about people looking at them. The whole point of dressing that way is to be noticed.

              Really what they are bitching about is the wrong people noticing them. Feminists live in this fantasy world where only men they are interested in dare to look at them. They really never got passed the 8th grade when they were telling their b/fs "that nerd looked at me". It is the same bullshit.

            2. R C Dean   12 years ago

              The whole "don't judge me" thing drives me nuts. Because it is universally used by people who want your approval (which is to say, a positive judgment), without quite realizing that judgment must necessarily be able to swing both ways.

              "Accept me as I am" requires a judgment, that you are acceptable. There's just no way around it.

              Typical PC mush-heads wanting it both ways. Or just narcissists. Either way.

        2. JW   12 years ago

          Genetically.

        3. Neoliberal Kochtopus   12 years ago

          I really hope he either recovers or commits suicide. The way he is now is just no way to go through life. What a miserable, miserable existence.

          1. Neoliberal Kochtopus   12 years ago

            There are very few people or ideas in this world I find reflexively repulsive. Michael Urbina just gives me a gut reflex of nausea and disgust.

      2. Ted S.   12 years ago

        I think "Michael Urbina" is a man.

        1. VG Zaytsev   12 years ago

          Male? yes
          Man? no.

      3. Night Elf Mohawk   12 years ago

        I am very conscious. And they don't wander, they are directed.

        1. Zeb   12 years ago

          Yeah, I'll look at what I want to look at. Attractive women are one of the great things in the world. I try to avoid staring open mouthed for long periods.
          And if some woman or gay dude wants to check me out, I invite them to have at it.

          1. Scruffy Nerfherder   12 years ago

            My wife is always carrying on about me walking around the house in my underwear with the curtains open. She claims that I'm an exhibitionist, when actually I just don't care if the neighbors see me or not. That's their problem.

      4. Zeb   12 years ago

        I think that was written by a male person.

    5. Mike M.   12 years ago

      Be conscious of where your eyes wander as a woman walks by. Change that behavior.

      You may as well ask me to stop breathing.

      1. Rich   12 years ago

        I took it to mean "just let your eyes wander automatically".

    6. Eduard van Haalen   12 years ago

      "18. Be pro-choice."

      Most aborted "fetuses" are female, you castrato.

      "70. Learn and use appropriate vocabulary."

      Like "dame," "chick," "babe," and "hubba hubba?"

      "98. Turn magazines that promote sexism and unhealthy body image backwards at your local supermarkets and newsstands."

      Yes, mess with someone else's property like you own it - accepting that principle can't possibly backfire on women.

    7. Zeb   12 years ago

      Good god, that guy needs some help.

      I agree with two of the 101 points, though. Catcalling is stupid and obnoxious. And the "remember that not only men have orgasms" is good advice if you want a rewarding sexual relationship.

      1. Scruffy Nerfherder   12 years ago

        I hereby revoke your patriarchy card. Please report to your nearest men's center (aka sports bar) and turn it in to the bartender.

        1. Fist of Etiquette   12 years ago

          He's practically a vagina at this point.

          1. Zeb   12 years ago

            And I'd rather watch paint dry than go to a sports bar. Assuming that cocktails are available at the paint drying event.

            1. Bobarian   12 years ago

              The two points you identify with could be summed up in one:

              "Remember that it isn't 1950"

    8. Gbob   12 years ago

      19. Let yourself cry and be emotional.

      Men are taught that showing emotion (especially in public) is frowned upon and not masculine. Screw that?Crying, being emotional, and being true to how you really feel despite cultural expectations is a MUST.

      Here's what women have a hard time understanding. We're trained not to cry and to restrain our emotions for no other reason than simple survival. In an emergency you need to be able to keep a clear head. There's no way to train for this other than learning control throughout your life. If my son get's in a bike accident, I sure as hell trained him not to cry. Instead he needs to assess the situation, walk it off and determine how big a deal it was. I taught my son not to have tantrums when he was young. Losing control could result in someone getting seriously hurt when you're older. Emotional people do things they regret.

      If anything, the opposite should be true. We should raise daughters to learn how to control their emotions. We should look down on those who cry and get emotional in public. If we say that there must be equality, then it's fair to demand that the kind of restraint and discipline men exhibit every day be learned by women as well.

      Emotions are well and good, but it must be at the right time and place. As I mentioned to my son, it's alright to cry. Just do it in private, away from prying eyes, and long after the crisis has passed.

  27. Thane of Whiterun   12 years ago

    Don't Worry Government, I Got This Porn Filter Sorted (maybe NSFW -- has MS Paint cartoon dicks)

  28. The Late P Brooks   12 years ago

    Read websites like Feministing, Colorlines, Jezebel, etc. for your news sources.

    I find chicken entrails to be more reliable, and much less disgusting.

  29. Bo Cara Esq.   12 years ago

    -According to FBI data, Islamic Terrorism attacks less common in recent US history than Latino, left-wing and Jewish inspired terrorism

    http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/.....e-muslims/

    1. Eduard van Haalen   12 years ago

      Jewish mothers are trying to guilt-trip people to death?

      Latinos are force-feeding chimichungas? (sp?) What a way to die!

      1. tarran   12 years ago

        Actually, the Jewish Defense League's bombing campaign in the 1970's in NYC was pretty nasty. It even killed a couple of clerks at a department store.

        1. Eduard van Haalen   12 years ago

          If the 70s is "recent," then OK. I didn't RT*A.

    2. Irish   12 years ago

      Extreme left wing groups - 24%. Extreme right wing groups - nowhere on the list. And that's with them separating 'extreme left wing groups' and 'communists.'

      I feel like this doesn't fit certain narratives that I've been fed.

      I do feel like this is a bit disingenuous though. It starts in 1980 and goes until 2005. Muslim terrorists were not a threat at all until 2001. No one really even thought about them. Since 2001 though, the two worst terrorist attacks carried out on American soil (three if you count Benghazi) have all been carried out by radical Muslims.

      This would be like making a chart of modern warlike countries and including Germany because of shit they did between 1880 and 1945.

      The chart also includes things like 'kidnappings,' 'arson,' 'shootings,' 'robberies,' and 'hostile takeovers.' Those have far fewer fatalities and injuries than the types of attacks favored by radical Islam. A better thing to do would be to say 'how many people have been killed by each type of terrorist group.' That would be more accurate in telling you how much of a threat a group is.

      The answer to that question is undoubtedly radial Muslims given that 9/11 killed more people than every other terrorist attack over that period combined.

      1. Xenocles   12 years ago

        "...hostile takeovers..."

        Those Wall Street types have been getting into the terror game, too?

      2. Clich? Bandit   12 years ago

        radial Muslims

        So...are they steel belted? Cause that would explain a lot.

        1. John   12 years ago

          They are lot less docile than the old bias ply Muslims our parents used to have to deal with.

  30. Irish   12 years ago

    How did a wealthy state like Connecticut become one of the country's worst performing economies?

    I believe the answer starts with a 'D' and ends with an 'emocrats.'

    1. Xenocles   12 years ago

      That's not how you spell Bush!

  31. sloopyinca   12 years ago

    Today is my birthday. I sent a card to someone else (deceased) that shares it with me, but I doubt the USPS was able to deliver it.

    1. sloopyinca   12 years ago

      By the way, aside from the GMT Master II and a new set of irons from Banjos and the kids, this is a quick photo of the haul from Banjos and the kids.

      1. db   12 years ago

        M*A*S*H?

        And what is that CD?

        1. sloopyinca   12 years ago

          Peter Schilling...Different Story (World of Lust and Crime)

          Why? Because "Major Tom" isn't available on fucking iTunes, that's why. But I don't have the heart to tell Banjos that my laptop doesn't have a DVD drive.

          1. db   12 years ago

            I thought I recognized the cover image. "Major Tom" is available on Amazon mp3.

            1. sloopyinca   12 years ago

              Are you serious? Can I buy it and load it into iTunes?

              1. T   12 years ago

                I can, but your technical competence may not be up to the task.

                1. sloopyinca   12 years ago

                  My technical competence is pretty shitty. I'll just enjoy the cd. Ooh, can I load the song onto a zip drive and upload that to iTunes on my laptop?

        2. sloopyinca   12 years ago

          And WTF is wrong with M*A*S*H? That show as fucking great if you can put aside your strong desire to punch Pierce in the face when he gets preachy. I already have the movie and Kara wants me to stop clogging up the DVR with Hogan's Heroes and M*A*S*H episodes I never get around to watching.

          1. db   12 years ago

            I guess there's nothing wrong with it other than Alan Alda. I remember watching it weekly witg my parents throughout my childhood but got tired of it well before it ended.

          2. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

            It was great the first few seasons.

          3. Zeb   12 years ago

            I'm with you. MASH is great. Alda has his annoyingly preachy moments, but I even like him when he is just being funny.

          4. Xenocles   12 years ago

            I guess Sloopy watches MASH... Alda time!

            1. sloopyinca   12 years ago

              I suddenly know what I want for my next birthday. It involves you, some formaldehyde a length of rope and a tree.

              1. db   12 years ago

                Kinky!

              2. Xenocles   12 years ago

                Zing!

      2. db   12 years ago

        Happy Birthday, BTW, from another August baby.

      3. Clich? Bandit   12 years ago

        Well done. The haul AND not being killed by Banjos yet.

      4. mr simple   12 years ago

        I'd like to see a pic of the GMT Master II. I think you've got a keeper there.

        1. sloopyinca   12 years ago

          Stainless with the Coke Bezel. About as basic as you could get.

          1. db   12 years ago

            Nice. I love fine watches, but I'm more of an Omega man, myself.

            1. sloopyinca   12 years ago

              Omega's are too rich for my blood.

              I'm pretty sure my next will be a Breitling Chronomat.

  32. CatoTheElder   12 years ago

    "the information the National Security Agency gathers won't stay at the NSA if other federal agencies have their way."

    Why would anyone think that other federal agencies don't already get NSA's data?

    They already do: http://news.yahoo.com/exclusiv.....43729.html

    This Reuters report resembles the musings of Alex Jones. I used to write that guy off as a raving lunatic, but the facts reported Reuters are as bad as (or worse than) a paranoid wingnut's delusions.

    Weren't Patriot Act provisions used to bust hookers and strip clubs in Vegas from the outset? Now the DEA et al recreate evidence to match the evidence that they obtain illegally from intelligence sources. Can there be any doubt that the US is a police state?

    1. Raston Bot   12 years ago

      this revelation is starting to flow now. the leaker of this one should flee!

  33. Matrix   12 years ago

    Sheriff's deputy charged for secretly pepper spraying a teen's pizza

    Wow, they are actually charging this asshole? Probably get dropped, given paid leave, and probably an award from Michelle Obama because she stopped those kids from being able to eat that 'pizza pie of heart disease'.

  34. Matrix   12 years ago

    Childless women are supposedly being discriminated against

    I mean, seriously? Yeah, although I'm a man, people have sometimes given me a little grief over the fact that I don't want to get married and have kids. But shit, it's not like I'm getting harrassed about it. But then again, some people take a small comment from folks to be a damned inquisition.

    1. Neoliberal Kochtopus   12 years ago

      My experience is the chidless get grief from the childed (?) and vice-versa. Each obnoxious group deserves the other.

    2. db   12 years ago

      I have worked in situations in which unmarried/childless men were definitely discriminated against. Preferential choices in overtime callouts are often given to "family men" over others because evidently their time with the family is more important than a single man's free time.

      1. Matrix   12 years ago

        I would imagine the same would probably apply in situations with a layoff. The family men might be safer than the single/childless guys.

    3. mr simple   12 years ago

      The comments on that site always read to me as histrionic yelling.

    4. itsnotmeitsyou   12 years ago

      This, like everything they touch, is a kinda sorta problem that they want to blow up into a fullscale war.

      Being a childfree couple, my wife and I get our share of disdain and dismissal pointed our way. We stopped getting invited to parties/outings that couples with children have. We get constant barrages of "how could you not want children. They're the bestest most amazingest wonderfullest thing ever and your life is not complete until you are a parent" comments. We've even had people actively try to expose us to children so we would "catch the baby bug".

      Mostly, it's just an annoyance that we brush off. I have had jobs where I am the one who gets all the assignments that send me out of town or make me work late because I don't have a "familY". Again, it's annoying, but as long as I'm being paid for the work, it's fine. I've got the entire evening and the whole weekend to do whatever I want, I'll give up a little time so my co-worker can spend time with his kid. That's an important part of growing up.

      1. John   12 years ago

        People are so annoying. It never occurs to them that perhaps a couple can't have children. Yeah, maybe they hate children. Or maybe the woman has had five miscarriages and finally gave up trying for her own sanity. You have no idea which it is. But that doesn't stop parents from doing the stupid shit you describe. But really the worst is the sniping about taking vacations and such and doing things that are hard to do once you have children. It drives me nuts when parents pull the martyr card on that. "Oh you went to Paris last December. We can't do that kind of stuff anymore. We have kids". "Oh, you slept in on Sunday. I haven't slept past six a.m. in five years."

        You choose to have the kids and lord it over everyone. What the hell are you bitching about?

        1. Clich? Bandit   12 years ago

          I call bullshit on that. We have kid (no s yet) and it hasn't stopped us traveling or basically doing anything we used to do. It is all about focus. My little one has been to more countries before 4 that a lot of Americans ever will. Is it hard? The first couple of trips but she has been raised to be a good traveler. Now she trudges along with the rest of us sods with her backpack and stuffed animal. (as a matter of fact, she has IMPROVED our traveling. Not just because she is a delight but she is tiny...my wife and I are both over 6' and i have very wide shoulders. We can't stand flying next to each other, but with her in the middle it is all comfort.

          1. John   12 years ago

            Sure you can do it. But it requires effort and actually making your child behave. And that is beyond most parents. Easier to let your child ruin your life and then tell everyone about how many sacrifices you made as a parent. It is a symbiotic relationship. The kid gets to run amuck and the parent gets to play look at me I am such a martyr.

            1. Clich? Bandit   12 years ago

              We had one quasi-private meltdown and one "DEAR GOD SHOOT ME" public airplane meltdown (I felt like I should have given every passenger 5$ on their way out the door). Other than that the two dozen trips or so have been great. I guess being an older parent helps because I find manipulating children to be not only easy but most of the time hilarious.

              And it seems to continue into later life, was playing golf with a buddy and his dad. His dad walks up holding the flag after sinking his putt on 13 and says "Hey, you know how much this weighs?" I said "No." His reply: "Well, you fucking would if you would pick it up once in a while."

              Tada, I voluntarily became the new flag bitch.

              1. Clich? Bandit   12 years ago

                P.S. I never have nor ever will use the Martyr crap. But I don't appreciate when childless folk complain or make a specific point about not visiting or doing something because we have a short person living in the house. I would understand if the child was insane (hell, I don't hang out with those parents and their kids). Sure there are times and places for NO CHILDREN but if you want to continue being acquaintances then understand that at 9:00 there is a possibility that a 3 year old will dress you down for being too loud (which is funny it its own right).

                1. Zeb   12 years ago

                  The only thing I have a problem with is when the parents go insane after they have kids.

                  I made the mistake of getting into a conversation with a friend who is a new mother about vaccination. Apparently she has gone all Jenny McCarthy. It was all I could do not to be really unpleasant.

                  1. itsnotmeitsyou   12 years ago

                    I made the mistake of getting into a conversation with a friend who is a new mother about vaccination. Apparently she has gone all Jenny McCarthy. It was all I could do not to be really unpleasant.

                    This is also why I excuse myself from topics regarding proper child rearing. First, as a non-parent, I don't think I have any real expertise outside of "this is how my parents raised me and I turned out alright". Second, many parents think they are doing the exact right thing with their children and telling them otherwise (even if supported by science like in the case of vaccinations) will send them into a fit.

                    1. Zeb   12 years ago

                      As soon as "well I have a child and you don't" is used as an argument, it is time to walk away if you want to keep your friends.

                    2. Clich? Bandit   12 years ago

                      I have gotten the "I have two and you have one" argument before...Not friends anymore.

                    3. itsnotmeitsyou   12 years ago

                      Really?? Is that parental equivalent of "no true scotsman"?

          2. itsnotmeitsyou   12 years ago

            CB, John was not saying that every parent is like that. I have several friends with children that never pull that card. Either their situation is like yours where the child isn't restricting their activities, or they just suffer in silence.

            The annoying part is when people try to make it seem like I'm soooo fucking lucky that I can sleep in till noon on weekends or that their dashed hopes and dreams make them some sort of noble victim. I CHOSE not to have children so I could do the things I want to without having to worry about a helpless being all the time. Luck or nobleness have nothing to do with it.

            It'd like someone choosing to live 30 miles from the nearest town and bitching about how city folk don't have to drive very far just to get groceries.

            1. Clich? Bandit   12 years ago

              I agree, and we make a point to tell other "martyrs" how we have no trouble. We have another couple with kids who are like us and they have 2. The only thing I sacrificed was short notice drinking. I can't just pick up and go to the bar at every whim. Although with an average of 24hrs notice I am usually fine. And we take turns on weekends...I sleep in EVERY Saturday.

              1. itsnotmeitsyou   12 years ago

                You're the type of parent I like to hang out with. I don't hate children. I just like them when they're well behaved and someone else's. Also, you seem to have a life that is separate from your being a father. One of my friends and I used to be inseparable. Until he had children. I fully understand that his family has to come first. They are the most important people in his life. But I haven't seen him in 3 years because if it isn't a child-centric activity, he won't even consider it. He didn't even come to my wedding because we didn't want young children present. He said we were being disrespectful.

                These are the types of parents that annoy me. Breeding does not make one more noble or important or enlightened.

                1. Clich? Bandit   12 years ago

                  We are going to an out of state wedding where no kids are allowed. We have a grandma who will stay with her. I don't see it as disrespectful. Quite the contrary, they want to get fucked up with us and we can't all get plowed with a 3 year old around. Makes sense to me. OHH and the weeding thing, it's their gig so it is my choice to go. Not really disrespectful, they invited me to come drink and eat (and drink some more).

                  1. John   12 years ago

                    We put our foot down on small children at our wedding. They just don't belong there. They have no fun and they ruin it for the adults. One of the worst things about the last 30 years has been the total breakdown between adult activities and children activities. Children don't belong at every event or every place.

                    1. trshmnstr   12 years ago

                      I felt the exact same way, however we had a situation where the younger kids were more mature/well behaved than some of the older kids. It was impossible to set an age limit that invited the people we wanted and excluded those we didn't, so we just did the next best thing. We brought a ton of yard games, had an indoor/outdoor wedding, and enticed the kids to stay outside while putting all the stuff that was attractive to the adults (read: 30+ different varieties of beer and wine) inside.

                      It's hard to say no to the perfectly well behaved 10 year old cousin and her family coming from 500 miles away because the 12 year old local cousin was the one we're worried about going face-first into the cake.

        2. itsnotmeitsyou   12 years ago

          John, I couldn't agree with you more. I think it's fantastic when people are giddy with excitement over having a child. I think it's great that people are happy to be parents. Neither my wife or I have ever had the desire to be a parent, we like living life for each other and having things exactly our way.

          I do get extremely annoyed when parents pull the "martyr" card as well. If you're jealous because I can sleep till noon on Saturday, or go out the the bar whenever the hell I want to, tough shit. You made the choice to have children, live with it.

          1. John   12 years ago

            Life is about choices. They get to have kids and all of the rewards that go with it, which are many. You don't get to have that. So, why are they begrudging you the fairly insignificant advantages you get? It just drives me nuts.

            1. trshmnstr   12 years ago

              I think it especially funny when the parents who are hardly there have a martyr complex.

              "The one hour I have to see them each evening before they go to bed, and the 2 hours of little league on Saturday is _sooo_ hard!"

              Don't get me wrong, how one raises their children is their own choice. However, it's hard to be sympathetic to a parent who acts constantly overwhelmed by actively parenting their child for a grand total of 10 hours per week.

      2. Zeb   12 years ago

        I also have no children. I really like kids. They are great. And the really great thing about other people's children is that their parents usually take them away when they stop being fun.

        1. itsnotmeitsyou   12 years ago

          And the really great thing about other people's children is that their parents usually take them away when they stop being fun.

          Couldn't have said it better myself. That's the greatest thing about being an uncle. I get to visit with the little buggers, have all the fun of playing with them, then give them back when they aren't fun anymore. (incidentally, this attitude is exactly why I chose not to be a parent)

  35. Mike M.   12 years ago

    Got to hand it to Drudge, the picture he has up now on the top of the site is priceless.

    1. db   12 years ago

      There was a headline on Google News earlier, something like, "America Still on Edge after Terror Threats." Really? I haven't talked to anyone yet who has even commented on it, much less been "on edge" about it.

  36. Matrix   12 years ago

    Lab grown meat tastes awful

    But I'm sure vegans would still love it.

    1. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

      Look, these things take time. In the meantime, add some Soylent powder. And no, I'm not making that up.

    2. Brett L   12 years ago

      We covered this! And if youtube had the Better Off Ted clip (I mean one that wasn't done by filming a TV) of the epidsode, I'd post that, too.

  37. Matrix   12 years ago

    If Obama had 3 sons, they'd look a lot like these kids...
    3 teens on a bus brutally assault 13 year old. Bus Driver does not intervene

    And, honestly, I can't blame the bus driver for not intervening, given today's climate. He'd probably be arrested and charged. And the parents would be suing because their 'precious snowflakes' were harmed. Sure it might have been the 'right' thing to do. But the right thing will get you sued and put in jail.

    1. John   12 years ago

      I can't either. It would have been child abuse. Either he would have gotten his ass kicked or he would have kicked their asses and he would be the next George Zimmerman.

      The sad fact is that the animals who did that will be charged as juveniles and are not doubt back on the street. The day someone finally shoots one of the worthless bastards, we will have to hear about how they were just boys with skittles.

    2. db   12 years ago

      I wouldn't be surprised in bus drivers are trained never to intervene in physical conflicts between students. Way too much liability for them and the transport company and the school disteict.

    3. Zeb   12 years ago

      I blame the war on drugs. The kid snitched. I'm certainly not saying that that justifies a beating, but it is a somewhat natural result when your small business venture can be so easily threatened.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Medicaid Work Requirements Are a Short-Term Fix to a Long-Term Problem

Tosin Akintola | 7.1.2025 4:18 PM

The U.S. Is Closing Every Door on Afghan Allies

Beth Bailey | 7.1.2025 4:00 PM

Trump's Travel Ban Will Not Make Americans Safer

Benjamin Powell | 7.1.2025 3:15 PM

California Enacts Sweeping Exemption to Development-Killing Environmental Law

Christian Britschgi | 7.1.2025 1:10 PM

Senate Votes 99–1 To Remove AI Moratorium from 'Big, Beautiful Bill' 

Jack Nicastro | 7.1.2025 12:27 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!