A.M. Links: Poll Show Most Americans Believe Too Many Rely on Government, John Lewis Says Edward Snowden Actions "Civil Disobedience," Military Spent Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars Reading, Analyzing Bradley Manning Leaks

|

  • john lewis says snowden has to be "willing to pay the price"
    Maddox

    A new poll shows 74 percent of Americans, including 87 percent of Republicans and 58 percent of Democrats, believe people rely on government too much.

  • Congressman John Lewis, who worked with Martin Luther King during the civil rights movement, compared Edward Snowden's actions to the civil disobedience of his generation.  What does that make Barack Obama?
  • A retired Colonel testifying in the Bradley Manning sentencing hearing said the military spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to assess the damage done by the private's leaks. They even wrote a program to sift through the disclosures.
  • Senator Obama supported substantive restrictions on mass data collection by the NSA. He hoped, he changed.
  • The FBI connected a bomb threat to a flight from Ireland to Philadelphia. Where's Peter King?
  • Governor Jerry Brown is dealing with problems in California he helped create when he was governor in the 70s.
  • The Syrian government denies rebel claims that they were able to hit Bashar Assad's convoy.
  • Bill Clinton says he's staying away from the New York City mayor's race because he and his wife know of five of the candidates, including the Republican. Before Bloomberg changed the law to be allowed to pursue a third term, Clinton's name was floated as a mayoral candidate for the 2009 election.
  • Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like California.

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!

Advertisement

NEXT: At Least Three Winners Reported in $448M Powerball Jackpot

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A new poll shows 74 percent of Americans, including 87 percent of Republicans and 58 percent of Democrats, believe people rely on government too much.

    The only way to solve that problem is to create an agency to combat it.

    1. Department of Irony

          1. That makes me feel like unabashedly bawling my eyes out.

    2. OMG CONSENSUS!!!!

    3. That’s the exact sentence that caught my eye. What I don’t get is, why then did Obama get reelected? It seems the polls show Americans are aware of the problem yet keep voting in the same boobs who make them dependent on the state. Look at Massachusetts for example in all its moobattery. I don’t get the seeming contradiction. Someone has to contextualize this for me. Are Americans drunk?

      1. Fat, drunk and stupid may be no way to go through life, son, but it’s the condition of most people I see in a day’s time. At least the fat and stupid parts. They may or may not be drunk while voting.

      2. Other people rely on it too much. I rely on it just the right amount.”

        1. People want government cut until it’s their ox that’s being gored.

        2. Greedy geezers are entitled to everything they get, but you young punks really do rely on government too much.

          Veterans, policemen, firefighters, and first responders have served their county. You owe us, pay up, deadbeats.

          Young people are entitled to affordable education, health care, and housing. It’s part of the social contract. Fulfill your end of the bargain, deadbeats, and cut my interest rate.

          etc, etc

          1. There was this hashtag on twitter trending last night #confessyourunpopularopinion

            I was going through some tweets with that hashtag and came upon one woman who claimed that teachers, firefighters, cops, and some other professions should get payed as much as pro sports players or movie stars.

            Most of the replies were all “HELL YEAH!!!” sorta bs, but finally someone said “Well than none of us could afford to put our kids in school or go to the doctor. I was unhappy to see no one commented regarding paying police that much.

            1. teachers, firefighters, cops, and some other professions should get payed as much as pro sports players or movie stars.

              But pro-sports players, kind of by definition, play at about the 99% percentile of human athletic ability. Does Joe Cop patrol at the 99% percentile of human policing ability?

              1. Only if he is married to Morgan Fairchild

              2. Well I was thinking that teachers, firefighters, cops, et. al. DO get paid as much as pro athletes if you look at lifetime numbers. The average pro athlete plays for what, 2-3 years? A teacher makes in 20 years what an athlete makes in 2, and doesn’t subject herself to the lifetime damage and injury. Oh, and her healthcare is covered and she gets a pension. The pro athlete doesn’t.

            2. I would like to see ‘people who play kids games’ and ‘people who play pretend’ get payed no more than teachers, too.

            3. You can’t hope to combat that mil-spec level of craven imbecility. Better to duck and cover.

      3. And Republicans reduce government while in power?

        Certainly you don’t believe that.

        1. BUSHPIG!!111!!!CHRISTFAG!!111!!

        2. This is really your only argument huh plug?

        3. That’s an effective argument because libertarians are well known for their blind adoration of everything Republicans do.

          1. Do you ever read the comments here?

            All the lamentations and crying when a GOPer loses a Senate seat to a Dem?

            The dumb fuckers here wanted Akin over McCaskill in the MO Senate race, for example. And the Indiana idiot over Joe Donnelly.

            1. Because nobody ever heard the term “lesser of 2 evils”.

              RETARD.

      4. They realize that the Kochs and Halliburton execs rely on the government too much. They on the other hand, ask what they can do for their country, not what their country can do for them. Let’s face it. They’re budding civil servants. They live in servitude and think only of service and serving.

      5. Many Americans are still laboring (or not) under the delusion that Obama listens to them, cares about their opinions, and will implement their wishes. He is still a blank slate to them, even after all he has done. It’s the only explanation I can think of.

        His strategy has explicitly been to blame others for not being able to implement his plans, and people evidently believe this.

    4. Of course, for most of these people, “relying on government” means “people who don’t look like me are using programs that I don’t personally use.” As for spending that goes to them? SOCIAL CONTRACT!

      1. You signed it with that baby footprint on your birth certificate at birth, bitch!

    5. 72% of people over 65 believe that people rely on government too much.

      So of course they’ll be shredding their Social Security checks.

      1. Of all the government reliance, the one with which I have the least problem is people recouping the SS money taken out of their checks. I don’t care that it wasn’t set aside in their names.

        1. If the government wants to give you some of your money back, you’d be a fool not to take it.

          1. And, if anything, shredding your SS checks will help keep it going for longer. Certainly won’t do anything to get rid of it.

          2. The problem is most people (a majority) receive payments from social security in excess to the amount they paid in. This is particularly true for Medicare, unemployment and disability benefits. And demographics won’t support pay-as-you-go much longer.

        2. No fuck them. Year after year after year they have let this ponzi scheme continue. They own it, and should properly take responsibility for their own mistakes.

          1. I disagree.

            Cash out everyone for what they paid in adjusted for inflation, maybe with Treasury-like returns, pay it out of general revenue, and abolish it.

            1. ^This

            2. What inflation? I swear that I’d read there is no inflation. That is crazy talk!

              1. Maybe not today, but there certainly has been over the last 45+ years that a 65 year old was paying into SS

                1. What I was getting at is ow the dollar trades against other currencies? Is it pwning them?

      2. If the government didn’t want to lead people to believe they had separate accounts with Social Security, it shouldn’t have issued them account numbers and annual statements.

        1. The government is all of us. Where have you been?

          1. Shut up Fester!

            1. Writing comments is a very silent activity. The first ammendment protects free speech unless of course it is hateful. Mine wasn’t hateful, but yours kinda was a little bit hateful except you didn’t know if I were a minority, and since I am not considered such you will not be subject to prosecution.

    6. “When you give a bear a cookie . . .”

    7. BuSab -Frank Herbert

  2. Woman brutally beaten for contempt of cop
    She probably had it coming.
    No charges filed against the HERO in blue.

    1. Since that link seems to be video-only and no text, is it the woman whose husband teaches the cops sensitivity training? If so, we discussed that one here several days ago. If not, then Iowa has a lot of problems with its cops.

      Of course, most states have lots of problems with their cops.

      1. She only got beaten because her husband was a poor trainer.

      2. She was being held at a store for suspected shoplifting. She seemed to be on her cellphone and seated when the cop got angry and came at her. She leans to the side and tries to cover up, but gets brutally attacked.

        Still, she probably deserved it for possibly mouthing off to this hero. He deserves a medal for putting this defenless woman in her place.

  3. Erotic Vomiting: You’re So Hot You Make Me Barf

    “Erotic” and “vomiting” are not words that appear together often?and fortunately so, for most of us. Orgasms and barfing are strange bedfellows, even natural enemies, you might say. Yet when it comes to human sexuality, subjectivity is the most critical ingredient in the alchemy of arousal, and there are rare individuals, believe it or not, whose most intense desires involve the gratuitous expunging of their own or others’ intestines. And it’s not just a sort of one-off, dubiously kinky act (what’s known in the circus world of extreme porn as?and apologies in advance to Romans?”Roman showers”). To the contrary, emetophilia seems to be a very unusual, but also very real, paraphilia. At least, that’s according to the psychiatrist Robert Stoller, whose 1982 article on the subject remains the only published scientific account on record.

    1. Vomiting has nothing to do with the intestines. How low has Scientific American fallen?

      1. Pretty low actually. And it is a damn shame.

        1. I felt like I was reading the Daily Mail on a slow day.

    2. People have kinky and bizarre fetishes. Why is this news?

      1. Because Scientific American thinks it’s science.

    3. I remember when Scientific American required some real thought to comprehend an article. Now, apparently, it’s gone the way of Psychology Today and Cosmo.

  4. There is no God-given right to bear arms, says Sen. Murphy (Douchebag-Conn.).
    I suppose so if you don’t believe in god.
    But there is a natural right to defend yourself. And the best means currently available is to be armed.

    1. Can he be certain their is no “God given right” to bear arms? Could we get a citation Senator Murphy?

    2. Who cares what God thinks. The Constitution is supposed to be the law of the land.

    3. So he wants to replace the Constitution with the Bible?

      1. It’s theocracy only when the other side appeals to God.

    4. http://dailycaller.com/2013/08…..andy-hook/

      Considering gun purchases have doubled in Connecticut since the Newtown massaacre, there are now a lot more voting citizens looking to protect their investment. Not a wise move by Sen. Murphy.

      Even in one of the bluest states with one of the lowest crime rates you have people scrambling to get guns because a once in a lifetime event happened close to home.

      Feel free to continue fighting against the most basic instincts of man though.

    5. He challenged the claim that the Founding Fathers wanted U.S. citizens armed so they could repel a tyrannical government, claiming that it was “insane.” In effect, Senator Murphy attempted to discredit the legality of the Second Amendment by stating, “The Second Amendment is not an absolute right, not a God-given right. It has always had conditions upon it like the First Amendment has.”

      Conditions placed on constitutionally protected rights? “Fuck off, slaver” is appropriate here.

      1. See we need reasonable restrictions on speech. You said something that might hurt this guy’s feelings. Common sense speech laws are needed. You shouldn’t be allowed to say things like that. Why do you NEED those kinds of words?

        1. That’s why there’s a 140 word limit on twitter, right?

          1. No, that’s the short term memory capacity of twitter users.

      2. I didn’t read the article, but I’m betting Murphy said, you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater. Because if you can’t do that, then they can put any restriction they want on any constitutional right.

        1. Ever since the “yell fire in a crowded theater” restriction, I don’t go to movies on opening weekend anymore. They gag everyone before they let you in and I don’t show up early enough to eat my popcorn.

          1. I wait for them to show up in second run at the $2.50 theater, where I can also see them as real film prints.

            1. Do you yell ‘FIRE’?

              1. Sometimes I’ll think it to myself…

      3. You know, why many of the Founders thought we should be armed isn’t something we have to parse and sift through the Second Amendment to discover. They explained why on multiple occasions. Trust no one.

    6. I am only casually familiar with the Bible. Does God grant the right to bear arms in it? It certainly is not in the 10 Commandments.

      1. CHRISTFAGBUTTPLUGINVESTOPEDIABUSHPIGS!!

      2. CHRISTFAGS!!11!!!!!

      3. Luke 22:36

        “He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”

        So spaketh the Jesus.

      4. The ten commandments was for lightweights that couldn’t handle shit like ‘Love thy brother as thyself’. If you get the big picture, Jesus was saying you had a right to do whatever the fuck you wanted as long as you don’t hurt someone else. Me owning a gun doesn’t hurt anyone. If you owning a gun hurts someone, then don’t own one. It’s really that simple.

      5. The “10 Commandments” weren’t the end-all be-all of the Torah. Numerous times the Torah allows or actually commands someone to kill to protect their homes and families. Even in Rabbinic literature it states that if you know someone is coming to kill you, get up earlier and kill them first.

        1. That’s because there is no commandment that prohibits killing.

          There’s one that prohibits murder.

    7. I shot a grizzly once and kept the bear arms as a trophy. Of course I had a right to them. I did the shootin’.

    8. There is no God-given right to bear arms, says Sen. Murphy

      Just lie back and enjoy it.

  5. Slate to stop referring to Redskins as “Redskins”.

    How dumb is this. When people say “redskins” these days everyone immediately thinks of the terrible football team. Most people only know it used to be an insult because groups like Slate are so keen on bringing it up.

    1. I’ll admit I think the name should be changed. Probably comes from one of my good friends being Native American, but it’s an awful name, and given its history (and the complete racist ahole that started the team and named it), it’s time for a change.

      1. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The only person who has any control over whether you will be offended is you. Don’t blame others for something only you can control.

        If enough fans rise up and demand a name change the team would be stupid not to comply. But trying to force a name change through legislation, as certain groups have, is evil.

        1. No one but douche bag sports writers and a few Indian race hustlers cares. I spent a decent chunk of law school interning for a real no kidding Indian rights legal aid society. And I don’t recall any Indian ever mentioning or caring about football mascots.

          1. Why would someone from India give a shit about football mascots? Native-Americans on the other hand…

            1. I’m a native American and I don’t give a shit.

              1. *pssst* it was a joke

              2. I always use the term Indian, much to the shock of the occasional white liberal, because the Indians I know call themselves that. The only place I know where Indian is pejorative is among white liberals who have never actually met an Indian in their lives.

                1. I try to identify by tribe whenever possible.

                2. I always use the term Indian, much to the shock of the occasional white liberal, because the Indians I know call themselves that.

                  And yet I am ostracized if I call my ghetto neighbors nigger. How is this not a double-standard?

              3. I’m a native American and I don’t give a shit.

                That’s because you suffer from false consciousness……you really give a shit….you just don’t know you do.

                /progtard

                1. Maybe Native Americans don’t care because we now name impressive stuff after them to aid in inspiring awe or fear. We gave tomahawk missiles and blackhawk helicopters those names to sound scary and cool – because Native Americans in their mythology were scary and cool.

                  Stealing and slobbering over their mythology is another issue altogether.

            2. That is another thing. Indians, I mean real ones, call themselves Indians. And they like to be called that. I never once heard an “Indian” refer to himself as a Native American.

              1. The ones I’ve known referred to themselves by the name of their tribe.

                1. That too sarcasmic. But they call themselves Indians too.

              2. Native American, to me, implies only that one was born in America. Didn’t they (being the PC police) try to shift over to “First Americans” at one point? It really is all about identity politics for some people.

                1. In Canada it’s “first nations”. I usually just go with Indians, or American Indians if there is a possibility of confusion with Indian Indians.

                  1. Note Zeb,

                    It is the National Museum of the American Indian at the Smithsonian. Funny, how they used the term in their own museum, but Native American is what they really are.

                    1. My problem with “Indian” as a term for aboriginal Americans is that it’s confusing, and based entirely on Christopher Columbus being an idiot.

                    2. We celebrate ignorance everywhere else in this country, why stop there?

                    3. Thou shalt not speak ill of our eponymous Founder, Citizen.

                2. The ethnic group as a whole still isn’t “native”. They just immigrated a lot earlier than everyone else.

                  1. Wait. That makes me an African-American!

                  2. The ethnic group as a whole

                    And it isn’t one ethnic group either.

              3. I use the term “Native American” because I’ve met very few Native Americans/American Indians in my life, while I know a lot of East Indians. If someone preferred to be called that, I wouldn’t have a problem calling that, but as someone else said, the only reason the term is even used is because Columbus was a moron. And it’s already used to refer to a group of people who are actually, you know, from India. Although “Indigenous” or “Aboriginal” American would actually be more accurate than “Native”

            3. “Why would someone from India give a shit about football mascots? Native-Americans on the other hand…”

              The Lakota prefer the term Indian. Take it up with them. Also, I thought the team name “Redskins” was to honer some great Indian guy in the organization that everyone on the team loved.

          2. No one but douche bag sports writers and a few Indian race hustlers cares.

            I don’t know if this is true. At my office, there seems to be a general consensus among all the normal dudes who like football, many of whom are Redskins fans, that the name is offensive and should be changed.

            1. I would guarantee that none of them are actually offended, they just think maybe it offends somebody. And even if it does, who cares? Like some guy said, unless the fans a really protesting the name, there is no good reason to change it.

          3. And I don’t recall any Indian ever mentioning or caring about football mascots.

            They almost entirely don’t.

      2. Come on. It’s not like they’re the New England Niggers or the Kansas Kikes. Sheesh.

        1. I hate myself for laughing out loud at this.

          1. Sarcasmic would certainly make an audacious pro sports team owner.

            1. I’d settle for being a stand-up comedian, but I get crippling stage fright.

          2. “I hate myself for laughing out loud at this.”

            Then get ready to laugh some more (I knew this Indian artist, BTW)

        2. Oh come on; as if there are black people in Massachusetts.

          1. That’s why he said New England. Ever been to Bridgeport?

            1. Maine is 96.9% white.

              1. So the naming of the team is actually describing the team? Since most of the blacks in New England play for the Patsies?

        3. Washington 4skins. Would that work?

          1. Given the owner (and the fan base) it would certainly fit better.

        4. The Peoria Honkies.
          The Cleveland Crackers, letting down the speech police one last time.

          1. The Notre Dame Papists.
            The Washington Grand Wizards.
            The Milwaukee Stumbling Drunks.
            The San Francisco Rent Boys.

            1. Enough with your Papal smears & c
              The Notre Dame Cathedral
              The Washington Village
              The Milwaukee Everyman
              The San Francisco Bathhouse

              Why do you hate community? And hence children?

    2. It is amazing how stupid they are. If women can own the word “slut” and blacks the nigger, why can’t Indians own the word Redskin? It is only pejorative if you let it be. Language is made in practice not the theory.

      They really don’t think. They just emote and feel.

      1. While driving through the Mescalero Rez in New Mexico, I stopped at a cafe. It was filled with ranchers and good old boys, all Apache. I saw more Redskins tshirts, hats and bandannas there than in a sports bar in the DC area.

        1. I would have assumed widespread ambivalence about the name, but that’s cool to hear natives wear the logo as a badge of pride. Glad they can accept the name and logo without assuming they’re being slighted as the PC police would like them to believe.

      2. Yeah. The people who freak out about the use of words like that are the ones who give the words power. And while “nigger” and a few other epithets have retained some significance (when used by the wrong people anyway), a lot of racial epithets (such as “redskin”) just sound silly and old timey now. If someone actually tried to use it as an insult it would just sound goofy.

        1. You realize that the name of the Oldsquaw was changed to Long-tailed Duck because squaw means…well, just look it up.

          1. From what I can find, squaw really is just an Algonquian word for woman, despite the common idea that it means vagina. Another case of people looking for things to be outraged about.

            1. Exactly my point.

      3. Wait, women own “slut?” “Honey, I’m meaning my slut friends for lunch. I’ll pick up the kids a little later.”

          1. Black feminists have accused Slutwalk of being exclusionary to women of color, saying “As Black women, we do not have the privilege or the space to call ourselves “slut” without validating the already historically entrenched ideology and recurring messages about what and who the Black woman is.”

            SPLITTERS…………!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            1. THus… Sluts n Hos.

        1. Have you heard of “slutshaming”? Apparently it’s horrible to have a view on other people’s sex lives (unless they have vanilla sex with one person, then you can rip on them).

    3. Never, ever, in my entire life, have I thought of the term “Redskins” as racist.

      Way to make an issue out of nothing, Slate.

      Then again, what else did I expect…

      1. Identity politics are evil; that is why we have to practice identity politics.

      2. It’s not Slate. This has been a hobby horse of national sportswriters for at least a decade.

        1. Whereas if sportswriters really gave a shit about the state of Washington football, they’d be calling for Dan Snyder’s scalp.

        2. Didn’t this all get going when the Braves and Twins were in the World Series? Of course, Minneapolis is the same city where people protested to have Hooters removed from the Mall of America.

    4. I am most offended by the hideous uniform colors. It is tough watching them on tv running around in burgundy tops and yellow pants.

    5. So where is the outrage over the Boston Celtics, Minnesotta Vikings, USC Trojans, etc.?

      Why is it that only team names based on native american stereotypes are offensive but ones with European cultural group stereotypes are not?

      1. Mostly because Celtic, Viking and Trojan are used pervasively even in modern revisionist histories. Although there is still some cloud over whether the Troy of Homer and his contemporaries ever really existed the way it was portrayed in the Homeric hymns.

    6. I propose the name be changed to the…Reservationists.

  6. Congressman John Lewis, who worked with Martin Luther King during the civil rights movement, compared Edward Snowden’s actions to the civil disobedience of his generation. What does that make Barack Obama?

    James Earl Ray?

    1. Bull Connor.

      1. “You don’t scare me, Bull Connor and all his dogs didn’t scare me!”

    2. The Second Coming of Nixon

      1. sans Kissinger

      2. Maybe Johnson is a better analogy.

        Ah, who cares, they all sucked.

        1. He’s really more like Nixon. Nixon was a hardworking, insecure little jerk whose psychology was a delightful stew of inferiority/superiority, paranoia, and self-righteousness. Johnson was a sociopathic bully, definitely not an intellectual, and had a kind of vulgar masculinity.

          I can see Obama alternately pitying himself and praising himself. I can see him wiretapping anyone and everyone for paranoid reasons. I just can’t see him whipping his dick out and telling reporters that he called it “Jumbo”, or see him showing up in the dead of night in his secretary’s bedroom and telling her “Move over, this is your President!”

          Definitely Nixon.

          1. Funny, we really haven’t heard much of anything about Obama’s schlang. And with him being the first Black prez. I suppose we will have to wait for the second or third. Marshall’s unit was undescribed, but we know more about Thomas’s John Thomas (AKA Justice Silver).

            1. Remind me, which of them were Democrats and which were Republicans?

      3. No, the White House explicitly stated that Obama isn’t Nixon.

        http://livewire.talkingpointsm…..-not-nixon

        So, if Obama’s not Nixon, and Nixon’s not a crook, what exactly is Obama?

    3. So John Lewis worked with MLK in a different way than the Reverend Jackson worked with MLK?

  7. A retired Colonel testifying in the Bradley Manning sentencing hearing said the military spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to assess the damage done by the private’s leaks.

    The total monetary damage done by the leaks is the effort to assess the monetary damage. Definitely a Pentagon thing.

    1. I notice that he does not say that he found anything that damaged the US, only that they spent money looking.

      1. And then printed some more to replace it.

    2. That is legit. One of the sentencing factors is the effect on the unit. If the crime caused the unit to have to do a bunch of shit they wouldn’t have had to do otherwise, rather than do the mission, that is a legitimate thing to consider in sentencing.

      Think about it, who should be punished more, someone whose fuck up affected one or two people or someone whose crime caused an entire unit to have to do a bunch of work it didn’t have to and in Iraq put themselves in more danger?

      1. I don’t buy that argument. If someone in a unit gets a DUI it’s not his fault that the CO decides that everyone needs more DUI training to prevent another one.

        It should be easy to determine the damage done by releasing classified information. By definition you classify it because it poses a certain level of risk to national security. The assessment should be done on the front end when you assign a level of classification to it. If, after it’s released, you aren’t sure what the impact is, why was it classified in the first place?

        1. I don’t buy that argument. If someone in a unit gets a DUI it’s not his fault that the CO decides that everyone needs more DUI training to prevent another one.

          I don’t buy that either. But that is not how this works. The effect on the unit has to be a direct and foreseeable result of the crime. The CO being a jackass is not a foreseeable or direct result of getting a DUI.

          Causing the unit to spend thousands of man hours trying to figure out what got leaked and how to fix it is certainly a foreseeable result of leaking classified information and is absolutely relevant to sentencing.

          1. “Causing the unit to spend thousands of man hours trying to figure out what got leaked and how to fix it is certainly a foreseeable result of leaking classified information and is absolutely relevant to sentencing.”

            Which I addressed in the second paragraph. If you don’t already have a good idea of what the damage will be, you had no business declaring that the information posed a risk of “serious damage” (for secret classification) to national security in the first place. Like I said, the definition of those levels implies a prior assessment of damage risk.

          2. I think it is entirely relevant to sentencing. I can hear the judge now: “What, you had to spend thousands of man-hours to determine if any damage was actually done? If the damage was so small you had to look for it with an electron microscope, the sentence will be the same way.”

            Unfortunately, I don’t think it will work out like that.

  8. Governor Jerry Brown is dealing with problems in California he helped create when he was governor in the 70s.

    This guy is a forward thinker.

    1. That’s job security.

  9. Man ordered out of bed by 18 armed police for having a television remote

    He added: ‘I had only been sat in bed and dozed off. The next thing I know I’m being ordered out of bed at gunpoint.’

    His partner, Michelle Malone, 46, had earlier suffered a panic attack and had called for a paramedic. While treating her, he mistakenly thought he had seen Mr Abrahams, 44, holding a firearm.

    1. He’s lucky they didn’t shoot him.

      1. In the US, they would have. And then charged her with assault on a police officer, resisting arrest, and maybe felony murder if they thought they could get away with it.

      2. The cops are lucky he did not change the channel.

      3. He’s lucky that he doesn’t sleep with his dog.

    2. Man ordered out of bed by 18 armed police for having a television remote.

      Nobody needs more than 10 channels.

    3. Is that a remote under the covers or are you just happy to see me?

    4. Why the fuck are there 18 armed cops at a scene where a woman called for a paramedic?

      1. Why the fuck are there 18 armed cops at a scene where a woman called for a paramedic?

        One to shoot the dog, if any, one to plant the evidence, one to find it, and fifteen to stand around collecting overtime.

    5. Has anyone noticed this comment in that link by LH?

      “We DO NOT TOLERATE GUNS IN UK HOMES. A mistake was made sorry. Hope US residents see this.”

      And this is a good thing? Not sure if he’s proud of this fact.

  10. Senator Obama supported substantive restrictions on mass data collection by the NSA.

    You got that out of “present”?

    1. If he actually showed up for the vote, then … yes?

  11. Ten year old boy bites cop’s hand, cop strikes him in the face. Nothing else happens.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-hand.html
    As far as I know, if a peasant under any circumstances strikes a ten year old boy in the face, they’re going up for assault on a minor. Period.
    But there’s no double standard. That’s just a myth.

    1. I thought everyone admits to the double standard, it’s just a question of who is held to the higher one.

      1. Dunphy is a lot of things, but he is not nobody

    2. Years ago my mother, a first grade teacher, had a very troublesome little boy in her class. If disciplined, taken to the principal’s office or whatever, this kid would BITE. One day this kid bit my mom’s hand, and she bit him right back. He never bit again, but I still wonder how she got away with that.

      Kid’s lucky he didn’t get charged with assaulting an officer.

    3. Look, I hate the cops as much as anyone, but there is this part to consider “bites cop’s hand”.

  12. Man who had his Amazon package stolen from his front porch by brazen blonde goes on hilarious crusade to catch the culprit

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..lprit.html

    1. This guy reads too much Elmore Leanord

  13. Phil Collins’ daughter is good enough to eat. Oh my.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..rance.html

    1. Why is she wearing a black garbage bag for a skirt in the photos second from the bottom?

      1. I don’t know, but that black garbage bag would look great on the floor next to my bed.

      2. Keisha pee wear? (saving it for later consumption)

        1. She is selling pee-pee jewelery.

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…..-days.html

    2. The question is, can she drum like her dad?

      1. My condolences to her if she drums like her dad. 😉

        1. That’s what I was thinking.

          1. Why? Phil Collins is a good drummer.

            1. Bonham was a good drummer. Moon was a good drummer. Pert is a good drummer.

              Collins is in the same class as Ringo Starr and Charlie Watts. Mediocre drummers who got lucky and fell into a good band.

              1. Bonham, Moon and Peart are “good” drummers? Just curious, who do you consider a “great” drummer?

        2. Are you seriously bagging on Phil Collins as a drummer? ‘Cause that’s just retarded.

          1. Jimmy Page says he sucks. I’m not going to disagree with Jimmy Page.

            1. If Jimmy Page said he sucked, I would tell Jimmy Page he was retarded to his face. He didn’t day he sucked, he basically said he didn’t learn the songs for Live Aid, which is rich considering how much Jimmy Page sucked playing his OWN songs at Live Aid. And I love Jimmy Page. He said the same thing about Tony Thompson, who’s also a great fucking drummer.

    3. her only drawback is her massive eyebrows.

      1. Hear hear. She risks starting a wildfire with those bad boys.

      2. Fuck that. She should let the unibrow grow out and own it like Anthony Davis.

        They should mate in an attempt to recreate Neanderthals.

      3. Not quite Martin Scorsese level – two dead caterpillars stuck on with glue – but close.

      4. That isn’t her only drawback. How about the fact that she looks like she’s 14?

        1. Drawback?

        2. Too old for you?

        3. These were the two things that went through my head immediately upon viewing the first image.

  14. UPD: Man charged in buttered toast attack on SUV

    A 54-year-old woman told police that she saw Brannon, who is her neighbor, wiping something on the back window of her SUV. She said she did not confront Brannon because she was “not properly dressed at the time.”

    She said when she got in her SUV several hours later, she found a greasy film on the glass and a pieces of buttered toast on the ground nearby.

    Damage to the SUV was estimated at $1.

    1. Wheatever she did to sour the relationship with her neighbor?

  15. Bill Clinton says he’s staying away from the New York City mayor’s race because he and his wife know…

    …a no-win situation when they see it.

    1. Neither Bill nor Hill will touch Weiner now……..

      1. Neither of them touched Weiner before.

    2. Bill likes cigars too much. Those are likely to be banned outright in a place like NYC.

  16. http://dailycaller.com/2013/08…..012-audio/

    Bill Clinton endorsed Filner for mayor. Of course he did.

  17. Europa Universalis IV demo is out:

    http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/…..escription

    1. The pertinent question: how much of a pain in the ass is Burgundy?

      I wish my home PC didn’t blow up last week. I’m pretty excited for this.

      1. Heh, it’s truly the question on everyone’s mind.

        Makes you viciously glad for the Burgundian Inheritance, that’s for sure…

    2. The question is can you continue the game on after the full version comes out. If not I’ll just wait till Tuesday.

  18. Obama to ‘Let freedom ring’ at March on Washington

    President Obama will speak at the “Let Freedom Ring” ceremony at the Lincoln Memorial on Aug. 28. That will mark the 50th anniversary celebration of the 1963 March on Washington where Rev. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech grabbed hold of the nation and never let go. Now, this probably doesn’t come as a surprise to anyone that he would make this address. After all, Obama is the first African American president. To not be there would have been an inexplicable and incredible slight. But given what he has been saying of late, there is no question that he felt compelled to be there.

    1. What is that old line about history repeating itself as comedy? Obama up there strutting and race hustling is going to be comedy. If you don’t laugh, you will have to cry.

      1. The question for me, is will he or won’t he repeat the line about people being judged by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin.

        1. Of course he will, right after he spends 20 minutes talking about how typical white people are the problem.

          1. And then go on to promote affirmative action and other race-based agendas. And no one will call him out on the hypocrisy.

            1. And that is why I will not listen to his speech. I can’t stand the constant stream of garbage that the man propagates when he opens his mouth.

    2. Should he attend? Of course. Should he speak? Considering all his past words and actions indicating his contempt for the idea that all men are created equal, no he should not.

    3. Think Trayvon’s parents will be there?

      God, there’s so much potential fodder for prog-news to strip the meaning from MLK’s words and bastardize the work he did.

      1. They either don’t care what the words mean or are too moronic to understand what they mean. Either way they hear his words and only get out of them affirmative action and other race based politics.

  19. World’s First Hemp Scooter Made In Amsterdam

    The Be.e might look like just another electric scooter, but it’s far from it. Unlike traditional scooters, the Be.e is made from a hemp fiber composite that is stronger than fiberglass yet far more sustainable. Top that off with a 2000-cycle battery that charges in less than 4 hours from any standard wall outlet, the Be.e scooter is an all-around green innovation.

    1. Yeah, but can you smoke it?

    2. Wow, I could get a vespa that can have its fuel tank fully charged from empty in a couple of minutes.

      They’re only a century behind the gasoline engine!

    3. The be-dot-e? How the hell are you supposed to pronounce it?

    4. So instead of glass fibers they use hemp fibers in the resin?

      And sure, hemp is so mich more sustainable than sand.

  20. Senator Pryor: Obamacare ‘An Amazing Success Story So Far’

    “I would say if you want a good opinion about ObamaCare, go right here to Mercy Hospital and ask them how they feel about it. It’s been an amazing success story so far.”

    1. Mercy is either full of sarcastic medical practitioners or the government has one hell of a propaganda minister on staff there.

    2. Hey asshole, if I have to go all the way to Potemkin Care Center to get a good opinion of Obamacare, I’d say that’s a pretty good sign that your program is failing.

    3. Richard Pryor could have delivered a far better line.

    4. Fuck that shit. It’s one of the worst places to be during the zombie outbreak. Bill, a Special Forces Vietnam vet, and I barely made it out alive!

  21. wait, wasn’t this used for an episode of Bullshit?

    Water Menu At Ray’s & Stark Bar Is The Work Of Martin Riese, ‘Water Sommelier’

    Ladies and gents, set your eye roll to its highest setting. Los Angeles restaurant Ray’s & Stark Bar has a new water menu with more than 20 different “varietals of water from around the world,” according to a press release. Oh, and there’s a water tasting menu for $12.

    The restaurant’s general manager, Martin Riese, doubles as a “water sommelier.” And yes, such a thing supposedly exists. In the release, he claims to be certified by the German Mineral Water Association, which the L.A. Times says offers a week-long course and is one of the few schools in the world to offer a certification for water specialists.

    1. Yes, it was among my favorite pieces they did.

      It’s sad when yesteryear’s parody is todays reality.

    2. PT Barnum lives!

    3. What’s next, “This can is for lightly soiled toilet paper”?

    4. I am just too smart to ever get rich. I would never think of such a stupid idea and thus will never create such a brilliant way to make money.

      1. To get rich in that manner requires a hatred for your fellow man. You have to look down on them and be willing to snooker them out of money while providing no product of value.

        1. You don’t have to hate all your fellow men. Just the idiots. (I don’t believe in fleecing idiots, but I can see the attraction.)

        2. Yeah. I just have too much shame. I couldn’t do it with a straight face.

    5. It’s where Matt Damon sends his kids for lunch.

  22. Swimming Pigs Rule Small Bahamas Island

    There are many legends and theories surrounding the swimming pigs: “[They’re said] to have been dropped off on Big Major Cay by a group of sailors…The sailors, though, never returned; the pigs survived on excess food dumped from passing ships. One other legend has it that the pigs were survivors of a shipwreck and managed to swim to shore, while another claims that the pigs had escaped from a nearby islet.”

    1. I’m sad this isn’t a story about a Coast Guard unit turned pirate.

  23. Obama administration using housing department to compel diversity in neighborhoods

    HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan unveiled the federal rule at the NAACP convention in July.

    “Unfortunately, in too many of our hardest hit communities, no matter how hard a child or her parents work, the life chances of that child, even her lifespan, is determined by the zip code she grows up in. This is simply wrong,” he said.

    Data from this discrimination database would be used with zoning laws, housing finance policy, infrastructure planning and transportation to alleviate alleged discrimination and segregation.

    I don’t live in a gated community, but generally the riff-raff is kept out by the very high housing prices.

    1. The problem is not with the zoning, the housing stock, the infrastructure, the transportation, the problem is with the people. Many of today’s worse neighborhoods use to be some of the best neighborhoods, what changed was the people.

      1. They found that out when they closed down the old high rise housing projects. They moved all the people in those projects out to better neighborhoods. And guess what, the crime and dysfunction moved with them. But liberals will forever be convinced that any social problems can be solved by just putting that poor person next to a middle class white person.

        1. The worse ones are among the architects and the politicians who fund it who think and promise that they can effect major changes on behavior by using their designs. So they tried high rises, low rises, multifamily, single family all with big promises of changing people when in fact such things will only have minor effects on people behavior and people with the right behavior can turn any of these places into something nice and people with the wrong behavior will turn even the best building into a slum.

          1. If architecture mattered, neighborhoods would never gentrify. The hipsters and gays who first moved there would turn into poor people and suffer from the same dysfunctions.

        2. crap. I was just watching something about that, and I’d link it if I could remember. it was focused on Memphis and researchers were shocked that moving people out of the projects decreased crime there and increased in the new locations. that, and criminals now had more areas to hide out, as their friends were spread all over town

          1. Memphis is exactly the city I was thinking of.

        3. And this thinking is the root of the idiotic CRA which led to the real estate bubble and collapse. Liberals noted that people who own houses are responsible, employed, have good credit, manageable debt, have stabile families, tend to be engaged in the community, etc. So in typical liberal fashion they assumed that the ownership of a house resulted in those desireable behaviors, rather than realizing that those good behaviors resulted in home ownership, so let’s make sure people who are not credit worthy get houses so they too will become responsible as a result. Fucking idiots.

          1. It is like banning tonic water because people who drink a lot of gin and tonics tend to get liver disease. Causality, how does it work?

          2. And in fact tying people who are not economically stable to a house hurts that person since they no longer have the ability to move to find a better job.

            1. Yeah, but their intentions were good, and that’s what really matters.

          3. Leftism is just another word for a Cargo cult.

          4. And this thinking is the root of the idiotic CRA which led to the real estate bubble and collapse.

            This lie has been debunked thousands of times – including by Sheila Bair (R).

            http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2…..ot-guilty/

            Quit listening to Rush (King of the Rednecks) Limbaugh.

            1. What do you expect the FDIC chairman to say, they are part of the problem and why does it matter if a Republican says it, they lie just like the Democrats.

              1. It is a lie – plain and simple.

                CRA area loans were a puny single digit per cent of all mortgage defaults.

                  1. Complete propaganda to support the Big Lie.

                    My favorite part:

                    Weren’t the majority of the subprime loans made by mortgage service companies not subject to the CRA?

                    This is true. But it is largely beside the point.

                    How about 97%? Not relevant to this idiot.

                    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com…..z2bO8lBXcO

                    1. You really are too fucking stupid to breathe.

                1. CRA area loans were a puny single digit per cent of all mortgage defaults.

                  I’ll just leave this here…

            2. BUSHPIG!!11!!!!CHRISTFAG!!11!!!!!

            3. You are correct, the CRA did not lead to the housing bubble.

              More precisely the bubble was created by loose monetary policy on the part of the fed, the CRA along with a handful of other government initiatives (which some progressive economists like Krugman specifically admitted were designed to create a housing bubble which they claimed was a good thing at the time) directed the bulk of that cheap inflationary money into housing and away from other sectors of the economy

          5. The phenomenon you describe was not just a phony liberal program, and it wasn’t just the CRA that launched it.

            GWB, Rove, and the “compassionate conservatives” pack supported it just as much Barney Frank. They thought home ownership would bring about an “ownership society” that would create a “permanent Republican majority”.

            Idiotic reasoning regarding the virtues of homeownership is completely bipartisan.

            1. Moreso. Bush launched a program that gave $10,000 as a downpayment for needy borrowers.

              American Dream Downpayment Act (2002).

            2. Yes it is. But it is a “liberal” idea. It is just one that a bunch of dumb big government conservatives also embraced.

            3. Where the fuck was I defending Bush or the Republicans? “Compassionate conservative” is just another term for “squishy liberal”.

        4. But liberals will forever be convinced that any social problems can be solved by just putting that poor person next to a middle class white person.

          In their defense, there is a kernel of truth in that assertion: it’s probably easier to escape poverty if your neighbors aren’t poor.

          Poverty is often – not always, but often – the result of a pattern of making poor choices. When one starts making the right choices, one generally can start saving and his or her financial situation improves as a result.

          Often the pattern of poor decision making is due not to stupidity but counter-productive habits, and these habits come from the culture one is in.

          Cultures tend to be self reinforcing. A very good example of this is the racial insult “oreo” leveled by blacks to blacks who “act white” which discourages black children from trying to learn in school.

          In theory, put an ‘oreo’ in a school where he isn’t being condemned for his creamy white filling, and he might study hard and become a doctor (or heaven forfend a community organizer/sleazy lawyer for slum lords in Chicago).

          Of course, this effect is entirely in the margins. A very driven person will give the finger to the culture holding him back. Plant a family of ne’er do wells in the toniest neighborhood of Wellesley MA, and they will slip deeper and deeper into poverty.

          But it is a real effect.

          1. it’s probably easier to escape poverty if your neighbors aren’t poor.

            The experience of closing the housing projects says otherwise.

            1. I don’t think so really. He’s not saying that you are definitely going to escape poverty if your neighbors aren’t poor, just that it is more likely. Nothing from the experience of closing the projects says that everyone who moved out continued to live in the same way.

            2. Closing the housing projects doesn’t come into it.

              People aren’t going to change dramatically because:
              -People take their culture with them.
              -They stay in touch with their friends from the old days.
              -They dislike the new ‘different’ people and don’t want to be like them
              – etc

              Honestly, the kindest thing you can do for people in the long term is to not reward them for bad choices (the old victorian dichotomy between the deserving and undeserving poor).

              The modern welfare state tries to better people without setting expectations that people should be taking actions to move out of a condition of dependence to being self-sufficient and holding them accountable to those expectations. Dumping people in a strange neighborhood and expecting that will make everything better is a great example of that idiocy.

              1. My last neighborhood had some white trashy neighbors who moved in. And they just invited their trashy friends over to hang out… all the time. It made the other neighbors angry and suddenly a bunch of for sale signs popped up.

                I moved out a year later.

                1. Similar thing happened in my old neighborhood in suburban Chicago, when a house was being rented. One night every car parked along the street during one of their parties got two tires slashed, and one convertible got their top cut up. The all night parties stopped after that.

          2. I knew one girl who grew up in Wellesley. She was a gorgeous blond girl whose dad is a lawyer, and she went to Cornell for a marketing degree. Her tuition was covered by her uncle as a graduation present.

          3. Poverty is such a bullshit term. I just say that theys rich in worthless shit.

        5. It is true that just moving the people out of the projects isn’t going to eliminate the crime problems. But I also think that moving all of the poor people to the projects in the first place had a lot to do with crime becoming such a big problem there (along with the war on drugs). Taking all of the most dysfunctional people and having them live in the same place is not a good recipe for improving their situations.

        6. Ironically, studies show the more integrated/diverse a neighborhood, the more likely the whites are to vote Republican.

          1. What does ‘voting Republican’ even mean? I hate shit like that.

            1. It means racist. Voting republican is racist. Everyone knows that.

              1. Well done, sir, and you are correct. Voting involves a great deal of tribalism. But of course, only on the Right. The Left is way, way, way to savvy to fall for that shit.

            2. I don’t know.

              Is that related to “vote Republican” in some way?

    2. the life chances of that child, even her lifespan, is determined by the zip code she grows up in

      So get the U.S.P.S. to change the zip code. Duh.

    3. That is a scary prospect. Imagine all of the employment law headaches transported to the housing industry.

      1. Yup. Imagine getting sued because you sold your house to a person of t he wrong race. That is where it leads. Sorry Mr. Nerfherder, your neighborhood doesn’t have the proper quota of black people so you are going to have to sell your house to one instead of the high bidder.

      2. they’ll institute some version of the Rooney Rule. you have to have consider offers from minority candidates.

        1. Yup. And have to take lower offers from minorities if the neighborhood isn’t properly balanced. Low priced housing because you are black. Forced confiscation of property from white people. What could possibly go wrong? That would never create racial tensions or anything.

          These people must want a race war in this country.

    4. If only there was a way for those kids to escape that zipcode to obtain education without the distraction of violence and threat of abuse by neighborhood riff-raff for things he/she did at school when he returns to that zipcode.

    5. I’m in Michigan and unfortunately our housing values have fallen so much that the normal price barrier to riff raff hasn’t been working. We have new neighbors across the street who refuse to park in their driveway and have three cars sitting on the street in our sub. I know, first world problem, but it sucks and makes the neighborhood look like crap.

      1. And by riff raff, I mean white trash. Our city is about 99.9% white. We also have too much rental housing along with a city income tax. It sucks. I still hate my realtor.

      2. I too live in Michigan… but sold my house last year – just broke even. I now rent in a more upscale area.

  24. http://www.gaypatriot.net/2013…..women-men/

    Men whose actions result in the death of a fetus, murderers. Women who go to an abortion clinic and kill said fetus, reproductive rights heroes. I don’t see how the Supreme Court could allow such laws to stand. If life doesn’t begin until birth, it can’t be murder, period. If it does, abortion is not a Constitutional right. It can’t be both.

    1. What happens if a pregnant woman is struck and killed by a car while crossing the street to go get an abortion.

      Is that a double-murder?

      1. Assuming that it was the wire coat hanger stuck in her cervix? Yes. Very guilty.

    2. I’m not sure it should be “murder”, but like anything else, it’s a matter of consent.

      1. It is certainly assault, or if the woman consented practicing medicine without a license. But it can only be murder if the woman dies. It can’t be murder if a life doesn’t end.

    3. I think the SCOTUS has recognized the state’s potential interest in protecting unborn life, especially late term, but that is balanced as the term gets earlier.

      1. But you can be charged with double murder for murdering a woman who is five weeks pregnant, well below any stage that the SCOTUS recognizes a state interest in protecting the unborn.

        Yes, if the state banned abortion at say 20 weeks, then for sure charging with murder after 20 weeks of pregnancy makes sense. But not for 5 weeks.

        1. Five weeks? Yes, that does seem contradictory. I’m not sure what constitutional provision such a law violates. Perhaps due process?

          1. I think equal protection. You are treating women and men differently even though they commit the same act. It would be like if they made it legal for women to rob banks but still enforced the law against men.

            1. It’s called the Pussy Pass. Women rarely get treated as harshly as men for the same crimes.

            2. But I imagine the law would apply to another woman killing the fetus?

            3. It’s not the same act.

              1. Yes it is Elf. Your actions are resulting in the death of a child. It is like saying that my killing you with a gun is not the same murder as my stabbing you or my killing you is not the same as your wife doing so. It is all murder.

                The bottom line is to call it “murder” in any circumstance is to assume that the fetus is a life worthy of protection under the law. And if that is true, a mother aborting it is just as much murder as a man hitting her in the stomach killing the child.

                1. I think I’m starting to see NEM’s point now (apologies for not getting it sooner). A person may take their dog to be euthanized whereas another person walking up and killing their dog would be illegal. Likewise a mother acting with a doctor for a legal abortion can be seen as engaged in a different act than someone walking up and killing a fetus.

                  1. I see is point Bo. But the problem is that that is not how the law sees abortion. Abortion is never seen as giving the woman the right to murder her child. It is legal because the fetus is not considered to be a person under the law and thus killing it is not murder or a crime.

                    Certainly, states can create a special class of crime for someone who is not the mother who kills a fetus. But that wouldn’t be murder and that is not what the states have done.

                    If states want to say “abortion is just the right of a mother to kill her child and is thus a right no one else has”, I wish them luck keeping abortion legal. And again, if a fetus is a life worthy of protection under the law and the mother has a legal right to murder it anyway, why then don’t mothers have the right to kill any of their children? Is the fetus less of a life? Sure. But then how can a man killing a fetus then be considered the same crime as a man killing a born child?

                2. No, it isn’t, any more than getting an abortion is the same as killing someone else’s fetus.

                  And if that is true, a mother aborting it is just as much murder as a man hitting her in the stomach killing the child.

                  That’s like saying a mother spanking her kid is just as much assault as some stranger doing it. It just isn’t the same. We give parents different rights with regard to their children. If you don’t like that, and want parents to be held to the same standards for assault, kidnapping, etc. that strangers would be, that’s fine. That’s just not the way the law is now and I doubt few people outside of the Harris-Perry’s of the world would do anything but laugh at such an idea.

                  1. Yes, NEM,

                    Your rule is giving mothers the right to murder their fetuses just like mothers have the right to spank their children. But, that is completely not the logic used to justify legalized abortion. And second, if it were and it were Constitutional, there would be nothing then stopping a state from making it legal for mothers to kill their children up to five years of age or whatever.

                    1. Perhaps the answer is that the state can recognize a potential life in the fetus. Because we are talking about potential life it can be terminated by mothers in consultation with their doctors because of liberty and privacy concerns (this is the reasoning of Roe), but in attacks by wrongdoers the ambiguity inherent in the value of ‘potential life’ will be construed against the wrongdoer. In other words, at least in early term, the potential part of potential life is stressed for the mother, while against a wrongdoer the life part will be stressed.

                    2. This idea respects two things: that up to a certain point the fetus is potentially a life but ‘belongs’ to the mother, otherwise there is no ‘choice’ for her and her liberty/privacy interest is meaningless in this area. But that doesn’t apply to a stranger-wrongdoer.

                    3. Sure they can Bo. But they need to write special laws doing that. Murder doesn’t work here. Murder only works if you have the death of a “person”. What you are creating there is not a person but a new class entity. So killing it wouldn’t be murder. It would be whatever new crime you want to call it.

                    4. ” Because we are talking about potential life…”

                      No we are not. We are talking about a potential infant, a potential adult. The threshold between nonlife and life has already been crossed. The potential life formulation is a lazy rationalization.

                    5. Your original post, and the Gay Patriot post, presume that there is some logical inconsistency here. There isn’t. It’s just a particular case of the law’s recognizing (granting, whatever) rights that parents have with respect to children that others don’t have. We do this all the time — spanking isn’t assault, grounding isn’t kidnapping, etc. — and people seem to be fine with the concept.

                      I’m not arguing that this is seen as the legal basis for abortion, only that there is no logical inconsistency in allowing parents to do things that others can’t. At most, abortion is different in scope, not kind.

                    6. There is a huge amount of illogical here NEM. What you are telling me is parents can murder their kids. And if that is true, there would be nothing to stop a state from legalizing infanticide. If it is murder for a stranger to kill a fetus, then it is infanticide for the mother to do it. Sure it is possible to write a law to legalize infanticide. But if states can do that, they can legalize a lot of other infanticide.

                      The reason why it is not the legal basis for abortion, is that there is way states could ever constitutionally legalize infanticide. Therefore, abortion cannot be infanticide if it is to be legal. And if abortion is not infanticide, a non parent killing a fetus cannot be murder.

                    7. If it is murder for a stranger to kill a fetus, then it is infanticide for the mother to do it.

                      One more time, slowly.

                      If it is assault for a stranger to hit a kid, then it is assault for a mother to spank her kid. Except that’s not reality, though the mother can exceed boundaries and be criminally liable.

                      If it is kidnapping for a stranger to transport and hold a kid against his will, then it is kidnapping for a mother to haul her kid upstairs and make him stay in his room. Except that’s not reality, though the mother can exceed boundaries and be criminally liable.

                      Parents can do things to their kids that strangers can’t. That seems pretty non-controversial to me. Abortion is just the most extreme example. A mother can abort/kill her fetus/kid within certain relatively narrow legal boundaries, though the mother can exceed boundaries and be criminally liable.

                      There is no logical inconsistency in that position with regard to abortion. It is just another thing that a mother can do that a third party can’t. Again, whether the law does or doesn’t address the issue in the same way isn’t what I’m arguing.

                    8. Assault is not murder you half witt. Equal protection doesn’t mean everyone has to be treated the same. It means that there has be big state interest to justify it and the harm of the inequality unavoidable and smaller than the interest.

                      Spanking meets that. Infanticide doesn’t. The sanctity and the privacy of the family outweighs the state interest in kids not being spanked. It doesn’t out weight the state interest in ensuring kids are not murdered.

                      If your logic were correct, states could legalize all child abuse up to and including murder with equal protection problems or issues. And that is completely false. A state could never do that. The state’s obligation to ensure its citizens are protected under the law will always outweigh the privacy interest of parents being able to kill their children.

                      If you admit a fetus is a person, you have lost the abortion debate. You are right now defending the state’s right to allow parents to kill their children. That is where this argument has led you. In other words, you lose.

                    9. I am not sure. If the state can recognize a fetus as a ‘potential person’ then it could focus on the ‘potential’ part, along with and in conjunction with the traditions NEM points too giving parents special rights over their progeny, in making early term decisions including abortion while focusing on the ‘person’ part when dealing with wrongdoers and strangers to that tradition harming the fetus.

                      I am not sure this is unheard of in Anglo-Saxon law. Animals for example have and are treated as a kind of ‘quasi-property.’ At one time there was no common law offences for larceny of a dog because they were not considered property that could be stolen while there was a common law cause of action for conversion and trespass to chattels for harming another’s dogs.

                      So perhaps the way to reconcile the admittedly apparent illogic here is to see the law as understanding a fetus as a kind of ‘quasi-person.’ This actually seems to go well with Roe and its statement about varying state interests and rights of the mother across the trimesters.

                    10. There is no way such a defense to murder would ever withstand Constitutional scrutiny. The victim of the murder has a right to protection under the law too. The state has an interest and obligation to protect their life too. And sorry but “fuck you that is why” doesn’t cut it as a justification for not protecting that right.

                      No pro choice advocate would ever concede that a fetus is a person under the law. They can’t. And if it is not a person, killing it can ever be murder.

                    11. If the state can recognize a fetus as a ‘potential person’ then it could focus on the ‘potential’ part, along with and in conjunction with the traditions NEM points too giving parents special rights over their progeny,

                      Sure they can do that. But to do that you need to create a new class of entity and a new law. Murder is the murder of a person, not a “potential person” whatever the hell that is.

                      And even that is dubious. Where is the logic for this distinction? What you are doing is taking what should be a sentence enhancer and trying to make it a separate crime. If I kill an 18 year old headed to Julliard this fall, I am probably going to get a stiffer sentence than if I keel my 50 year old three time felon meth dealer. In the same way if I assault a woman and that results in the loss of her fetus, that is a worse crime with a worse effect on the victim than is I assaulted a non-pregnant woman. But it is not two separate crimes. It is one crime under different circumstances which should result in different punishment.

                    12. Assault is not murder you half witt.

                      analogy (??n?l?d??)

                      ? n , pl -gies
                      1. agreement or similarity, esp in a certain limited number of features or details
                      2. a comparison made to show such a similarity: to draw an analogy between an atom and the solar system
                      3. biology the relationship between analogous organs or parts
                      4. logic, maths a form of reasoning in which a similarity between two or more things is inferred from a known similarity between them in other respects

                      If you can’t grasp that I am not arguing that assault is murder but am arguing “Parents are non-controversially allowed to perform action X which non-parents are not” to illustrate the abortion is logically consistent the idea that parents can kill a fetus when others can’t, we’ve gone as far on this topic as we’re going to.

                    13. If you can’t grasp that I am not arguing that assault is murder but am arguing “Parents are non-controversially allowed to perform action X which non-parents are not” to illustrate the abortion is logically consistent the idea that parents can kill a fetus when others can’t, we’ve gone as far on this topic as we’re going to.

                      Yes, parents can do somethings. They can tell kids what to eat and when to go to bed. But there is a point at which the state’s interest in protecting them and the child’s interest in equal protection under the law ends that. Just because you can spank your kid or effectively imprison him by grounding him, doesn’t mean you can murder him. There is a point where the parents’ right to privacy and right to raise their children ends. And that point is well before murder.

                      So no, your analogy doesn’t work. You are just begging the question. Just because you can square spanking with equal protection doesn’t mean you can square murder with it.

                    14. There is no logical inconsistency in that position with regard to abortion. It is just another thing that a mother can do that a third party can’t.

                      There is when you consider the other half of the equation, which is that states could not constitutionally legalize the murder of a class of their citizens. That is the part you are forgetting or just stubbornly refuse to see.

                      Think about it for a moment. There is really only one defense to murder, self defense. There, the accused says that he had no choice to but kill the victim or lose his own life. Even the Castle Doctrine is just a variant of self defense. It is just saying home owners don’t have to retreat and can presume someone who enters their house unlawfully is there to do them great bodily harm or death.

                      In contrast, abortion requires no justification. A woman doesn’t have to show the state any reason. A woman can get an abortion because she felt like it. If you are going to say that abortion is a defense or a legalized form or murder, you are saying that the state can allow a mother to murder her child for any reason up to an including convenience or entertainment.

                    15. “Except that’s not reality, though the mother can exceed boundaries and be criminally liable.”

                      Discipline is generally considered conducive to the child’s long term interest, therefore judicious use of spanking is not considered assault.

                      It is rather difficult to argue that abortion is in the child’s long term interest.

                      Your argument makes no sense, due to it ignoring the why of how parents can take liberties with their children that are out of bounds for strangers.

    4. If you have your dog put down is that the same as if someone comes along and kills it?

      If you spank your kid is that the same as it someone comes along and spanks him?

      Kids in general, and pregnancy in particular, present a lot of non-trivial moral issues. Parents, and mothers, can have rights that others don’t without there necessarily being a logical inconsistency.

      1. If you have your dog put down is that the same as if someone comes along and kills it?

        No. But that is because we have said you have the right to kill your own dog. Now, if states want to say that only mothers have the right to kill their own fetus, that is fine. But that is not murder. That is a different charge. But there are no special, killing a fetus without permission of the mother statutes. Instead, these cases are tried as straight murder.

        1. Now, if states want to say that only mothers have the right to kill their own fetus, that is fine.

          That’s essentially what they’ve done, isn’t it?

          But there are no special, killing a fetus without permission of the mother statutes. Instead, these cases are tried as straight murder.

          How is that practically or meaningfully different from making legal abortion an absolute defense to murder charges?

          I don’t really have a problem with treating the killing of a fetus as murder while allowing the mother to do so any more than treating the hitting of a kid as assault while allowing the mother, within some parameters, to do so.

          1. That’s frankly just plain silly. You’re going to permit what you would call murder in any other context because…?

            1. -You’re going to permit what you would call murder in any other context because…?

              Per NEM’s analogy this can be reworked and asked of you:

              You’re going to permit what you would call assault* in any other context because…?

              *Spanking.

            2. Because the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the fetus.

              We permit people to kill in particular circumstances that would otherwise be murder all the time.

              1. Because the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the fetus.

                Okay, then why couldn’t a state then decide that the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of children up to five years old? Is there something different about a five year old versus a fetus? If so, then why can a man murdering a five year old be treated the same as murdering a fetus? They are two different legal entities.

                Again, if states want to create via statute a special crime called “assaulting a fetus by someone not the mother”, that is fine. But they are not doing that.

                You want fetus’ to be this special legal entity that can be killed by only their mother. Okay, but when you do that, you make the fetus something other than a person and thus make the murder charge inapplicable.

                1. Okay, then why couldn’t a state then decide that the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of children up to five years old?

                  I suppose it could. A five year old wouldn’t last very long without caregivers of some kind.

                  Okay, but when you do that, you make the fetus something other than a person and thus make the murder charge inapplicable.

                  It’s not something other than a person, but, given our biology, it is a person uniquely the property of parents, in general, and mothers in particular.

                  1. I suppose it could. A five year old wouldn’t last very long without caregivers of some kind.

                    No it couldn’t. That would be a blatant violation of equal protection. The five year old is entitled to protection under the law just like you and me. And the state could not decide that protection ended when it came to their parents.

                    It’s not something other than a person, but, given our biology, it is a person uniquely the property of parents, in general, and mothers in particular.

                    Under ancient Roman law maybe. But not under American law. A child is a life entitled to equal protection under the law. And a state could no more legalize the murder of a child than they could legalize the murder of short people or people with red hair.

                    Try again. You can’t call the fetus a child under the law and keep abortion legal.

                    1. A child is a life entitled to equal protection under the law.

                      Can I lock my wife in her room and make her do homework? Can I lock my kid in her room and make her do homework?

                      Can my 13 year old vote? Drive a car? Buy beer? Carry a concealed handgun? Decide not to go to school?

                      There are metric craptons of things kids can’t do which, apparently, don’t implicate the equal protection clause and numerous ways in which kids can be treated differently. I don’t think even a parent should be able to kill a 5 year old but, then again, I don’t think they should be able to abort after 24-26 weeks or so, either.

                      As I said earlier, kids present all sorts or moral, let alone Constitutional, problems that are not easy to answer consistently. Hell, maybe fetuses should be counted in the census and be used as tax deductions if the laws are going to be hyper-consistent. However, just like popping out of the birth canal doesn’t seem automatically to confer personhood, being unborn doesn’t seem automatically to take it away. Maybe murder isn’t an appropriate charge for killing a fetus before a certain age, but that doesn’t mean it is always inappropriate. IMO, obviously.

                    2. Can I lock my wife in her room and make her do homework? Can I lock my kid in her room and make her do homework?

                      No. But that just means her rights under equal protection go further than your child’s rights. That doesn’t mean the child has no rights and you can murder him.

                      How badly do you have to lose this argument before you will concede? If this were a fight, the referee would have stopped it. Let me throw one more right for good measure. Just because parents have greater autonomy over their children than they do over each other or other adults, does not mean that autonomy extends to the right to murder the child. Children by necessity have fewer rights to legal protection than adults when dealing with their parents. They do not have no rights. They certainly have the right to have the state protect them against murder. You don’t own your child under American law the way you did under Roman law.

          2. That’s essentially what they’ve done, isn’t it?

            No, they are calling it murder, which is something different that has different elements, namely the ending of someone’s life.

            How is that practically or meaningfully different from making legal abortion an absolute defense to murder charges?

            First, there is no such defense. Second, if there were, its existence would have to admit that there was a life that was ended that was worthy of protection by the law. I would agree with you that saying “abortion by the mother is an absolute defense to the crime of murder of a fetus” would be a more honest way to do things. But it would be blatantly unconstitutional. If the fetus is a life, and it has to be for there to be a murder charge to need a defense to, your proposed defense would be granting mother’s the right to kill their children. Legally, it would be no different than making being a mother an absolute defense to killing a two year old. In each case both the victims are persons whose death warrants a murder charge and being the mother is considered a defense to such charge.

            The only way abortion can be legal much less a right is if you consider a fetus not to be a person under the law. If you don’t consider it a person under the law, killing it can’t be murder under any circumstances.

      2. You make a good point but I still think John’s point holds because it is ‘murder’ that is charged.

      3. If you have your dog put down is that the same as if someone comes along and kills it?

        It depends on whether that someone is a cop.

    5. Perhaps attacking a woman and killing her fetus should be a special crime against the woman. Or maybe it should just be incorporated into mayhem laws? I think we can all agree that assaulting a woman with intent of killing a fetus is worse than simply assaulting a woman, even if we can’t agree on whether it is murder.

      1. I would agree. And I don’t see a problem with creating special laws on the subject. But I don’t see how you can call it murder.

        1. I agree on not calling it murder. I also like the idea of limiting abortion to the first 20-25 weeks and only calling it murder after that. Otherwise I think mayhem is the right call. The attacker is literally damaging a part of the woman’s body beyond repair. It doesn’t impair the woman like removing an arm or an eye, but I don’t think impairment is generally required to try someone for mayhem is it?

          1. Why do you hate women some guy? 😉

            1. Hey! I hate everyone equally so that makes it okay.

              1. Best line of the movie: “There is no racial bigotry here. I do not look down on niggers, kikes, wops or greasers. Here you are all equally worthless”

                1. Yes. That opening master shot of Ermy walking through that barracks is one of the great scenes in movie history. It is one of those scenes that you can never not stop and watch when you happen to flip by it on cable.

      2. “Perhaps attacking a woman and killing her fetus should be a special crime against the woman.”

        That’s what the choicers want. They know what us pro-lifers are up to when we call for making the killing of a fetus murder – we’re trying to protect fetuses as human beings. And the choicers know that undermines their pro-abortion arguments that fetuses aren’t persons with rights.

        1. See NLF above. If you admit that a fetus is a person, you end up saying that it is okay to legalize infanticide. And constitutionally that would never fly.

          1. I hesitate to show optimism about what the courts will or will not do to the constitution. My hope is that they will get tired of the constant abortion litigation, that they’ll see ultrasounds of their grandchildren, and finally decide to stop meddling in the whole abortion issue.

            1. At this point, I agree with the pro choice people. Killing a fetus shouldn’t be murder. It should be a sentence enhancer. But it is not murder. The day the court or the law declares fetus’ people and bans abortion will be the day I will support murder in these cases.

              Whatever we do it needs to be consistent and logical.

    6. My healthcare law professor shared with me a story about some woman in Minnesota who was charged with child abuse for smoking crack while pregnant.

      She got an abortion, showed up to arraignment, and had the charges dropped.

      I’m not saying she should or shouldn’t have received the charges anyways, TBH I don’t know, but the inconsistent application of law on fetal rights creates all sorts of difficulties.

      1. Perfect illustration of our double-minded policy.

    1. Because walking outside and giving to the local homeless guy just isn’t complicated enough.

      1. Bloomberg won’t allow it.

    2. They missed a chance by not calling it “sloppy seconds” and allowing it to double as a swingers app.

    3. C.W. Swappigans is going to be a reality

  25. This weekend I will be making speaker grills for my UREI 813A monitor speakers – needed to stop the cat from chewing on the surrounds.

    Behold their glory (at 183pds each)
    http://auctions.c.yimg.jp/img3…..m24853.jpg

    That’s an Altec 604 driver (with blue horn) and a 15″ bass driver. These were normally used soffit mounted in recording studios.

    1. Monitor speakers? So these will be 18″ from your head?

      1. no – they’re often used like this:
        http://www.shelterislandsound……nitors.jpg (mounted on the wall)

        I will be using them on the floor.

        1. A better method of stopping the cat from chewing speakers:

          http://www.cabelas.com/product…..7AodVE4AHg

    2. Nice! I have a pair of Altec Lansing Model 14 speakers in my living room, that I had to re-cone and re-foam a couple of times, but they still sound tremendous. My wife has been trying to get me to get rid of them because they’re too big and replace with a standard surround-sound system with sub- base and satellites, but so far I’ve resisted.

      1. keep resisting! Model 14s are very nice.

        I once owned Model 15s – bought at a garage sale – and they were pretty er, mediocre – but I generally don’t like any bent horn designs. Plus they used some no-name RCA instead of Altec woofers.

  26. -Iowa state senator allegedly sought payments to back Ron Paul in 2012

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..l?hpid=z13

  27. Did my good deed for the day.

    On the way to work this morning I noticed another guy was doing well above the speed suggestion (I hate the term “speed limit”), which was recently lowered on the expressway I travel so cops can make more money. I should note that they also recently removed several of the signs to really fuck with people.

    Anyway, this guy and I were going about the same speed (80 in a 55 on a mostly open road) until a slower truck forced him to change lanes and get behind me. So we were speedin’ along and my radar detector started picking up something in the KA band. I slowed down, pointed at my detector, and watched as he slowed down too. Sure enough, about a quarter mile ahead was a fucking uniformed extortionist waiting to ruin someone’s morning.

    Well, gents, I’m proud to say he didn’t get shit from us today. When we were out of range the dude gave me a thumbs up and we went our separate ways.

    A tiny victory over society’s unaccountable marauders, but a victory nonetheless.

    BUY A RADAR DETECTOR!

    1. speed suggestion

      I prefer “speed minimum.”

      uniformed extortionist

      I love this.

      BUY A RADAR DETECTOR!

      That’s like playing baseball on PED’s. Where’s your sense of honor?

      Seriously though, aren’t there a few states where they are illegal? I remember my father hiding his under the seat whenever we got to Virginia.

      1. I know Virginia is definitely one of them. Can’t say about the rest, though I am sure the Valentine salesman can tell you alllll about it.

        1. Florida and Connecticut too.

          1. They are not illegal in FL. I live in FL.

            Radar and laser JAMMERS are illegal here, but not detectors.

            Don’t mount it on your windshield though. You’ll get a ticket for that.

            That’s right, instead of banning detectors outright they made it illegal to mount anything but state approved E-Pass shit to your windshield.

            1. Don’t mount it on your windshield though

              Ah! I thought they were illegal because I assisted a guy who had been in a car accident in Orlando, and he was desperate to get the radar detector off his dashboard.

              1. I think it’s one of those deals like filming cops. Even when they are legal, if an individual cop hates them then you are going to have a very bad day.

      2. I believe New York has outlawed them as well, but I also believe may of the departments are using LADAR equipment, which doesn’t ping on detectors.

    2. One of the nice things about my commute from the city to a rural exurb, I go past the same cops, sheriffs, and staties commuting in and out every day while doing an average of 12-15 over the speed limit. Never even get so much as a second look. 70 in a 55 on a 2 lane road with lots of traffic coming opposite is about the convergence of my safety/convenience lines.

      1. I was pulled over in Pennsyltucky once while doing about 85 and the trooper’s advice was, “stay under 80 and we don’t care, go over and we’ll grab ya.” I apply his advice universally: cruise at 15 over the limit unless someone else is going faster.

        1. Be careful in small towns. I got pulled over going 68 in a 65…. couldn’t fight it because I was on my way to college. It was a three hour drive to the courthouse.

        2. I heard the same thing in IL except the unoffical limit is 75

    3. BUY A RADAR DETECTOR!

      A lot of departments are now using radar guns that only send a blip of a signal when the trigger is pulled, as opposed to a constant broadcast, to avoid detection.

      1. They use “constant on” a lot here.

        YMMV.

  28. “Unfortunately, in too many of our hardest hit communities, no matter how hard a child or her parents work, the life chances of that child, even her lifespan, is determined by the zip code she grows up in. This is simply wrong,” he said.

    Fucking correlation- how do it work?

    1. It goes back to liberals really believing that old Heinlein line about bad luck. You see liberals think that an area doing badly is just the result of bad luck. So when a poor person works hard and gets the money and moves to a better neighborhood, they don’t do better there because they worked hard and made the right decisions, they do better there because the old neighborhood is suffering from a lot of bad luck and the new neighborhood has good luck.

      So, if we can just get the poor people out of those bad luck neighborhoods and into the ones that are having good luck, their luck and thus their lives will change and they won’t be poor anymore. This is what they actually believe. They just couch it in better sounding language.

      1. Hence the use of the word “fortunate,” as if it’s all a matter of luck and individual effort doesn’t matter.

        1. I have always understood the term “less fortunate” to mean “less responsible”. But, then, I was more fortunate when it came to parenting.

          1. For me, less fortunate means that I’m not a trust-fund baby.

    2. Well, if you believe that it “takes a village” to raise a child, then the logic is sound. The children of the poor would adopt the values of the village in which they are raised.

      This, of course, negates the fact that parents themselves are the primary shaper of their children’s lives.

      Sadly, the best way to provide stability for a child is to have a viable framework of family around them. Marriage matters as it preserves wealth and allows more time to spent parenting. (This is, of course, not to say that government should have a role in this.)

      1. Let’s just hope that the village idiot egalitarians never figure out the difference between correlation and causality.

        Because, if they do, the obvious solution is for ALL children to be removed from their mothers at birth.

        To achieve genuine equality, ALL children must be raised by the State in an identical environment. This would facilitate a fundamental transformation in what it means to be an American, and represent a genuine commitment to the ideal of equality.

  29. -Our Extremely Messed Up Copyright System: Item 137

    -“A book published during the presidency of Chester A. Arthur has a greater chance of being in print today than one published during the time of Reagan. Copyright correlates significantly with the disappearance of works rather than with their availability,”

    http://www.volokh.com/2013/08/…..-item-137/

    1. I read that. It is very interesting and disturbing. They need to raise the fees for keeping a copyright after so many years. Raise it to say $50,000 a year. If the owner isn’t doing enough with it to make paying that fee worthwhile, it needs to go to the public domain and give someone else a shot.

    2. That’s really kind of misleading.

      When CreateSpace and Amazon (now one and the same, since the latter bought the former) made it trivially inexpensive to bring a paperback to POD and to publish an ebook, enterprising individuals grabbed all the out-of-copyright (and thus free) content they could find and published it to one or both programs.

      Since nobody owned that content, many different people published their own editions. At one point there were hundreds of different “editions” of Pride and Prejudice out there.

      So naturally an analysis of how many editions of a work exist will find a bias towards out-of-copyright works. For the people who published them, that content was free.

      The question becomes whether that content would have been published originally, and whether copies of it would have been maintained, if copyright didn’t exist in the first place. The entire reason there was a gold rush to put out-of-copyright content up on Amazon’s platforms is because that content had been created and maintained in the first place, and Amazon (and CreateSpace, now part of Amazon) suddenly reduced the capital barriers to publication.

      1. “The question becomes whether that content would have been published originally, and whether copies of it would have been maintained, if copyright didn’t exist in the first place. “

        Survey says…. Yes, yes they would.

        Given the trivially small percentage of writers who are even able to make a living off their craft WITH copyright protections in place and the plethora of other motivations for being a writer it is a fairly safe bet that 99% of the books ever written would still have been written in a world with no copyright protections

  30. U.S. jobless claims edge up; still point to healing job market

    Yes, that is exactly what it points to.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/…..13167.html

    1. this healing is taking a damn long time…

    2. The never ending optimism by the press is beyond mockery at this point. Its been 5 years with the same “points to improvement” and “we’ve turned the corner!” headlines every week.

      It undeniably is propaganda.

      1. If we were a corporation, our stock price would be diving.

        1. If we were a corporation, our leaders would be in prison. However we are not a corporation, and we do not have leaders. We have rulers.

          1. No, no, we don’t have rulers. We have owners.

            1. Same diff.

      2. But, but, but without the stimulus we’d have 150% unemployment!

      3. Summer of Recovery!

  31. Wow. An utterly substanceless segment about taxis on Bloomberg. A NYC taxi medallion is worth a million dollars. Yay! Whatever you do, don’t question the necessity of government interference in voluntary transactions.

    1. We couldn’t take those cab companies property Brooks. Why do you hate private property so much? What are you a socialist?

      1. Where did Brooks call for expropriation? I’ll I saw was opprobrium for oligarchic licensing. What did I miss.

        1. What did I miss.

          Sarcasm, would be my guess.

        2. My sarcasm. The only reason that “property” is worth so much is because the government restrains competition. So it really isn’t property it is a special privilege. But rest assured the system’s defenders will call them property and scream about the government taking away the cab companies’ property.

          1. Stop being so sarcastic. It’s only Thursday, fer godssakes. Why can’t you be just sardonic instead. Geesh!

  32. “The Obamacare opt-out that leaves it all to faith”

    Founded in 1993, Medi-Share historically grew at roughly 10 percent a year. Since the Obamacare passed in the 2010, growth has ticked up to 15 percent as some Americans look to end-run the mandate. About 150,000 people are members of medical-sharing ministries, and 60,000 of them belong to Medi-Share, according to Medi-Share President and CEO Tony Meggs.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/…..45859.html

  33. This time, the DOE’s regulators are preparing to add computers and computer monitors to the checklist of controlled energy appliances.

    http://tinyurl.com/n3jneh5

  34. “Governor Jerry Brown is dealing with problems in California he helped create when he was governor in the 70s.”

    Yes, he is, but not for the prime reason claimed in the link. His problem is NOT that he started cutting taxes; his problem was his pink-slip that he turned over to the unions and the greenies.
    For that, we have billions in un-funded liabilities, we have pub-sec workers making twice the clearing price of their labor, we have the same number of water reservoirs we had at the time, and we have the med fly!
    Thanks loads, moonbeam!

  35. Sandlot actor allegedly headbutted a cop

    Did the cop yell, “you’re killing me, Smalls” or “stop resisting”?

  36. What does that make Barack Obama?

    A White Kenyan.

  37. On my way to work this morning I saw a nice looking, brand new, silver Dodge Charger waiting to pull out onto the road. Suddenly the Dodge Charger starts flashing lights. Turns out he was a cop in an unmarked car who got someone going roughly 5 mph over the speed limit. (Not to mention that in the 50 yard radius that he pulled the guy over the speed limit went from 55 to 45 mph, meaning that this guy was probably in the process of slowing down to the new speed limit.)

    Hell, sometimes they will pull people over and tell them that they were speeding even when they were going the exact speed limit. Often you’ll see a cop car flying down the road around the period of time that most people get off of work, deciding on a victim to fill his ticket quota.

    It’s incredible how many unmarked cars there are around here. There isn’t any crime problem. They just need to keep giving out tickets in order to fund the purchase of even more shiny, new unmarked cars. It’s incredible.

    1. I once was tailgated on the Mass Pike by what turned out to be an unmarked police SUV.

      Fortunately for me, I was happy with my cruise control setting and trying to keep my gas consumption down so I refused to speed up for him.

      Asshole tailgated people until one of them accelerated, and bang his lights came on.

      That business about cops having to obey traffic laws when their lights are off is such a joke.

    2. Round here the state police drive unmarked Mustangs.

      1. For a while all of their unmarked cars were dark blue/black Dodges. Now they’re using different colored cars. So, now I simply avoid any recent-looking Dodge.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.