A.M. Links: Cruise Missile Strikes on Syria Likely, US to Hit Debt Limit by Mid-October, IRS Targets American Legion

|

  • file
    US Navy

    US officials say it's likely President Obama will order limited cruise missile strikes on Syria in response to alleged chemical weapons use by the regime. The British military is also preparing a plan for military intervention in Syria. American lawmakers appear to feel being "consulted" about military action in Syria would be enough, while the British parliament is being recalled to debate what the response to the alleged chemical weapons use ought to be. Russia has warned of "catastrophic consequences" if there's a Western military intervention in Syria.

  • Jack Lew told Congress the federal government will hit the debt ceiling, at about $16.7 trillion, by mid-October, sooner than previously expected, and told CNBC President Obama is not interested in negotiating about raising the debt limit.
  • The IRS is apparently targeting the American Legion, requiring extra recordkeeping and certain personal information of members, and threatening branches that don't comply with $1,000 a day fined. Kansas Senator Jerry Moran believes the tactics are a brainchild of Lois Lerner.
  • A Georgia judge ruled the use of police lights by cops makes a traffic stop involuntary after a police officer tried to argue to the contrary after busting someone for possessing marijuana that was apparently mostly stems and seeds.
  • A pair of former Islamist militant groups in Egypt are looking to negotiate a truce between the Egyptian military and the Muslim Brotherhood –they want the military to stop cracking down on the Brothers and the Brothers to stop demonstrating in the streets.
  • While there are only about 18,000 children doing it now, homeschooling is apparently catching on in China.

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

NEXT: Glenn Reynolds: Why Are Some Public Officials Treated Like Royalty?

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. Would it be in bad taste to sell bumper stickers on cafe press or similar, with
    something like: “Support Obama’s War” on them, specifically for covering up
    people’s Obama 2012 stickers? Is covering up an outdated political bumper
    sticker on someone’s car a terrible act of vandalism? Too far?

    Or, anyone got any better slogans? I’d love to do “Obama’s War in Syria only
    makes me support him HARDER” but I don’t think it would really fit.

    1. How about “Are you Syria-ous?”

      1. this all happened so Sudan-ly

    2. Give War a Chance

      Seriously though, putting stickers on someone else’s car is too far.

      1. Yeah, that is a total dick move. Also a minor form of agression. Also, also fucking with their right to free speech; which is a totally un-libertarian thing to do.

        1. Yesterday I saw a bumper sticker that said “Yes we did!”, and desperately wished that I had a bumper sticker in my pocket that said “Go fuck yourself.”

          But you’re right, that would have been petty and mean of me, and it’s not worth stooping to their level.

          1. Or perhaps, “Oh no, you didn’t”.

            1. di’ ‘int

      2. You wouldn’t have to. They’re so brainwashed they’d probably buy them and put the stickers on themselves.

      3. Someone covered up a pro-gay marriage bumper sticker on one of my wife’s super judgmental progtard (a progtard but not because of gay marriage) classmate’s car.

        The progtard assumed it was the only public conservative on our small campus housing, and went to the conservative’s apartment to yell and scream at her. Then felt a little foolish when the conservative said she had no idea what she was talking about.

        The school was in Minnesota so the passive aggressive nature of covering up a bumper sticker totally fits.

    3. I was thinking of it as more an act of sarcasm.

      “Obama 2016: Hope, Change, and Eternal War”

      1. Obama 2016: Perpetual War, Perpetual Debt, Perpetual President

    4. Obama: Still Bombing For Peace

    5. Nobel Bombing

      or

      Bombs for Peace Prize

      1. Well, it is the Dynamite prize from the inventor of said explosive.

        1. Napoleon?

          Wait wrong movie.

    6. I say for it. they already fucked up their car with a stupid bumper sticker. And I say this “minor form of agression” is better than wanting to beat the ever loving fucking shit out of any obama supporter I see.

    7. Would it be in bad taste to sell bumper stickers on cafe press or similar, with
      something like: “Support Obama’s War” on them

      I’m still waiting for the “Obama lied. People died.” signs to pop up to replace the “BOOOOOOOSSSHHH lied” signs in the People’s Republic of Takoma Park. You could have walked from one end of the town to the other on those signs and never touched the ground once.

      Just one more reminder that proglodytes are useless partisan bags of skin, when it comes to pesky things like actual principles.

    8. In the tourist trap of a town I grew up in, there was a gift store that sold stickers with a picture of a screw on them. They were the exact right size to fit over the heart on peoples “I -heart- my great dane” bumper stickers.

      My jr. high friends and I thought it was the height of hilarity to walk down the beach slapping those on the cars of unsuspecting tourists.

  2. Last week I was asked a couple questions about what was going on with the leaking water at Fukushima. I answered that basically it was nothing to worry about and was being way overblown. Someone has done the math that I was too lazy to do:

    The levels are established so that a person drinking two liters of water at the limit every day for an entire year (a total of 730 liters) will receive a “committed effective dose” of just 0.1 mSv.

    A dose of 0.1 mSv is 10% of the maximum allowed additional dose (1 mSv) to a member of the general public. The average background dose rate from all sources of radiation has been calculated to be 2.4 mSv/year.
    For strontium-90, the drinking water standard is 10 Bq/l. The water of concern is contaminated to 30 times that standard and there are 300 tons of it. There are one thousand liters in a metric ton of water. Determining the amount of Sr-90 that might flow into the Pacific Ocean is a simple multiplication problem.
    10 Bq/l x 30 x 300 tons x 1000 l/ton = 90,000,000 Bq
    Written in scientific notation on a blog where I dislike making the effort to use exponents, that can also be written as 9E+7 or 9 x 10^7.

    1. Continued…

      That might sound like a lot of material, but each gram of Sr-90 contains approximately 5,000,000,000,000 Bq. That can also be written as 5E+12 or 5 TBq (terabecquerels)

      If someone drank two liters per day of the water that we are supposed to be afraid of for an entire year, their committed effective dose would be just 3 mSv; it would slightly more than double their annual background dose. If the entire amount of that water entered the Pacific Ocean, it would contain less than 0.00002 grams (0.02 milligrams) of strontium-90.

      1. On other news in Japan: Their debt service jumped by 14% YOY.

        The amount to be allocated for debt-servicing for the year that will begin on April 1 is nearly as large as the gross domestic product of Singapore, which the World Bank put at $275 billion at the end of 2012.

        That will be up 13.7 percent from the amount set aside for the current fiscal year, reflecting the ministry’s plan to guard against any future rise in long-term interest rates.

        When 50% of your tax revenue goes to service your debt, you are well and truly fucked.

        1. Imagine that got as much play as a failed nuclear plant thats radiation hasn’t harmed a sole?

          1. Perhaps not a sole, but you didn’t say anything about flounder. Hmmm….

        2. Don’t expect Chony Krugnuts to talk about this much.

        3. Sounds usurious. They should pass a law.

    2. But you are forgetting that it is radiation, which automatically makes it 150% super-deadly.

      1. Remind people who get tans that it’s a sign of radiation exposure. It’s the ultraviolet radiation that triggers melatonin production in normally pale people.

        1. *Insert normal caveat regarding not being as applicable to people who didn’t start pale, yadda yadda yadda.

        2. And what do tans lead to? Cancer. Deadly, deadly cancer.

      2. On the plus side, it may cause superpowers to spontaneously arise in some individuals.

  3. US officials say it’s likely President Obama will order limited cruise missile strikes on Syria in response to alleged chemical weapons use by the regime.

    Just like Clinton, he has to have some way to distract us from these non-scandals.

    1. There hasn’t been a good fake scandal in 3-4 months.

      1. You’re right shreeeeky! Everything is on the up and up in the “Sugar Frosted Barry O’s” administration.

        You may now return to jerking off over Teen President magazine….don’t forget to clean up moms basement when you’re finished!

      2. You’re right, they’ve all been real scandals since April.

      3. Are you actually saying that the NSA leaks are not a scandal?

        Or are you being more sensible and saying that in contrast (to what you feel are fake scandals such as the IRS scandal) the NSA leaks are truly important?

        1. Greenwald has not alleged administration law breaking.

          He states (using Snowden) that the NSA is “capable of” or “has the ability to” – he is quite the accomplished shit stirrer.

          1. Now we see the violence inherent in the system.

            1. help help I’m being repressed.

              1. Bloody peasant.

          2. The NSA’s own audit revealed thousands of instances of violations of the law and internal directives since 2008.

            1. Oh, and the very existence of the programs revealed by Snowden is a violation of the law. And I mean the Constitution, not the PATRIOT Act.

      4. What part of the scandals are fake? Is the outrage fake? The wrongness fake? Or is it that our phony-in-chief’s worldview the truth is politically inconvenient and therefore fake?

    1. Next she’ll be choreographing Miley Cyrus dance routines.

      1. Morning Joe was fuming about the MTV Video Music Awards. Hey Joe, it’s fucking cable.

        1. Hey, I’m angry too. It’s am outrage that such a pretty girl dancing around in such skimpy clothing should be so utterly unsexy.

    2. The most controversial picture shows her posing topless with a cherry in her mouth while holding a gun in one hand.

      A gun?!?!?!? Oh the humanity.

      1. I like the name change.

        1. Hey, thanks!

      2. And an obviously fake gun, too.

    3. Also, I don’t find those pictures particularly erotic. Although the octopod-crotch is an interesting statement on the Cthulonic power of the vagina.

      1. Cthulonic power of the vagina

        That struck me as much more horrifying than it should have.

    4. I’m thinking they don’t know what erotic means.

      1. At least it didn’t have any sheep in it…it is Kiwiland.

        1. As long as they aren’t sheared, you don’t need one of those black plastic sleeves.

  4. US officials say it’s likely President Obama will order limited cruise missile strikes on Syria…

    Just enough bombing to dominate the news cycle.

    1. Unless the news cycle is still stuck on Miley Ray Cyrus swiveling her hips on the Ed Sullivan Show.

      1. Drop Miley on Damascus.

        1. Drop Miley on Damascus.

          Not if you want to still think of us as a civilized nation.

          1. Civilized? We’ve never been civilized. “American” is a byword for “Barbarian”.

            1. err…well…..just look at the time!

              (furtively runs from room)

              1. furtively runs

                BLAM BLAM BLAM!!!

                BLAM BLAM!!!

                We got him boys.

          2. Pop singers are covered under the START treaty after they dropped Paul Anka into Northern Vietnam in 1972. So much blood…

        2. That would be a violation of the Geneva convention

        3. The Onion made a joke about firing Christina Aguilera into crowds to disperse protesters.

          It’s the end cap for this video (about a 1:30 in)

    1. “…as a founding member and sole survivor of the far-right gang dubbed the National Socialist Underground..”

      Far right…socialist. Huh?

      1. Conservative and right wing’s meanings are completely dependent on context. Germany has been pretty socialist for a pretty long time, so socialism is conservative there. Though most people don’t seem to see this and assume that it always means the same as American conservatism or right wing-ism.

      2. What do you think “Nazi” stands for? Nationalist Socialist.

    2. I like how the National Socialist Underground is labeled as “far right”.

      1. Everyone in Europe is a socialist.

        So both the right and left are socialist.

        1. It’s like a continuous circle, go too far in either direction and you end up where you started I guess. Ultimately it’s just about TOP.MEN. gaining as much power or as many people as possible.

          1. as much power over as many people as possible.

        2. Socialist on the right want socialism only for themselves, not for immigrants. The left wants socialism for everyone!

          1. Socialists to the right of us, socialists to the left. And I’m stuck in Libertopia with you.

        3. Piss, off. I’m not!

      2. National Socialists have always been on the opposite side of the Communists since the Reichstag Fire.

        1. True, but using Christianity as an analogy, it’s Catholics versus Protestants, not versus Satanists (we’re the Satanists, being outright enemies of Gov, rather than favoring one interpretation over another).

          1. yeah, that’s exactly right. They are competing marxist heresies.

        2. Opposite side?

          1. Literally killing each other to gain power?

    3. “How could Germans go so far as to deny people human dignity and the right to live based on their race, religion, political persuasion or sexual orientation?” -Chancellor Angela Merkel

      Uh, Ang, there actually is a history of that sort of thing, Hon.

      1. Yeah, there are a number of books out there that could answer that question for her.

      2. You mean “Hun”.

      3. political persuasion

        huh? Isn’t she talking about…Ohh never mind.

      4. You know who else wondered how to get Germans to go so far as to deny people human dignity and the right to live?

  5. A Georgia judge ruled the use of police lights by cops makes a traffic stop involuntary

    Fortunately, the sound of the gavel does not make following the ruling involuntary.

    1. At least it’s a recognition that the state uses coercion…

  6. Juan Williams: Let’s not play racial politics when the bigger problem is violent criminal behavior

    So, let’s be honest about the political game being played with this tragedy. It is a cynical, dangerous game of one-upping the other side by claiming those other folks are the real racists.

    When will the political activists on the right and left work up their righteous anger over the real heart of the problem?

    They should be in the streets demanding that all Americans do something about the breakdown of the family in America, especially in minority communities.

    1. do something about the breakdown of the family in America, especially in minority communities.

      This is, of course, true. But it is too hard.

      1. It might also involve thinking about some of the incentives created by the policies Williams favors.

        1. This.

          Ending Great Society programs would be a good start towards fixing the problem.

      2. It’s too hard to put birth control in the soda?

        /sarc

    2. They should be in the streets demanding that all Americans do something about the breakdown of the family in America, especially in minority communities.

      How precisely do all Americans do something about this?

      He does a decent job of identifying the problem. He just can’t bring himself to go another step and suggest a solution. Dismantle the welfare state that undermines behavior.

      1. How precisely do all Americans do something about this?

        Exactly this.

        I’ve already done my part by maintaining a family. There isn’t shit I can do about anyone else and their family situation.

        1. I suppose I could be doing more. But I thought the point was to make sure it was the right person to marry before proposing?

      2. They should be in the streets demanding that all Americans do something…

        But if they have that sort of organization wouldn’t it be more efficient to use those resources to address the problem themselves rather than hector others to do it for them? It’s almost as if the issue really isn’t the breakdown, so much as that other people aren’t sufficiently concerned about the problems of others.

        1. All activism is about really loudly demanding that someone else fix the world’s problems.

    3. But isn’t Juan Williams one of those uppity niggers who’s a self-hating lawn jockey?

      1. “Uncle Tom” is the preferred nomenclature, Dude.

    4. “How dare you use this tragedy as an excuse to bring out your hobbyhorse! You should be bringing out mine!”

      99.7% of kids from non-traditional family backgrounds never commit violent crimes. Fuck off, Juan.

      1. 99.7% of kids from non-traditional family backgrounds never commit violent crimes

        Aren’t you a math professor?

  7. …President Obama is not interested in negotiating about raising the debt limit.

    He’s also not that interested in governing, it seems.

    1. I’m not interested in raising the debt limit either.

      1. Or they should just get rid of the debt limit altogether. It’s pretty clear both sides are going to use it as a political football so it’s not serving any purpose.

        1. It got us the sequester, which did less harm than not getting it.

          The football can be useful.

          1. Football is a good distraction from politics (Bob Costas not withstanding).

            Speaking of which, when is the NFL pick ’em league starting up? The season starts next week! What is sloopy up to?

            1. Auric, you’re a mostly grown man now under the rules of Obamacare, it may be up to you to take charge of this one.

              1. Nope, I’m still a child for another year!

                Though does it count if I’m actually on my own insurance, and just eligible to be on my parents?

            2. What is sloopy up to?

              If history holds, probably knocking up banjos again.

              1. Isn’t she still constructing number 2 right now?

                1. Sometimes people practice, even after they’ve got it right.

        2. And make Congress approve each and every expenditure? Do you know how much work that would be?

          1. What will you expect them to do next, you monster? Actually write the rules regulating corporate entities instead of outsourcing it to bureaucratic agencies?

      2. Cut spending until borrowing is no longer required.

        Oh wait, that kills sacral bovines.

        1. If borrowing is no longer necessary, how is the Fed gonna give the banks more money to keep the Dow Jones above 15K?

          You really need to get with the modern economic program!

          /sarc

          1. Without the Dow Jones, how will idiots like shrike convince themselves that the economy is doing super-duper under Obama?

            1. wait until the Obamacare 25 hour work weeks kicks in and the unemployment rate drops-the statiscally ignorant will be bamboozled once again by all those authoritative shiny numbers and graphs and stuff.

    2. True, what with the debt having gone flat, it seems pointless.

  8. “Congress should act as soon as possible to protect America’s good credit by extending normal borrowing authority well before any risk of default becomes imminent,” Lew said in his letter.

    Do these clowns even listen to themselves?

    1. Lew warned lawmakers on Monday that they will have to raise the debt limit by mid-October, sooner than previously expected.

      Emphasis added. So-called “experts” fuck up yet again.

      1. UNEXPECTED!

      2. Silly libertarian,

        the CBO has been accurate ALL THE TIME!

    2. Hmmm, I am about to max out my credit card. That could be bad for my credit rating… I better call and ask them to increase my credit limit!

      (And that’s not mentioning the completely wrong “risk of default” crap).

  9. Jack Lew told Congress the federal government will hit the debt ceiling, at about $16.7 trillion, by mid-October

    Ooooo, a sweeps month. Perfect.

    1. If only it could have happened around september 11.

  10. 10 Police Cars Chase Moped Going 25 MPH

    Police say an officer initially pulled the man over for driving the wrong way down a street. He spoke with the officer, but allegedly refused to shut off his moped and proceeded to drive away, according to the Journal Gazette.

    A chase ensued, with ten police cars pursuing the moped at speeds topping 25 mph.

    1. The moped driver was probably just following the arguments made by the cops in Georgia and treating the attempted stop as a voluntary one.

      1. Yeah, it’s a good thing the judge didn’t rule police stops as voluntary, or they would end up following me to the farthest gas station I could reach.
        AKA, “No, thank you!”

    2. Did they shoot his dog, too?

    3. Wasn’t this the start of one of the Police Academy movies?

      1. “Where do you put the batteries on that thing?”

        (So ashamed of myself right now.)

  11. A Georgia judge ruled the use of police lights by cops makes a traffic stop involuntary after a police officer tried to argue to the contrary after busting someone for possessing marijuana that was apparently mostly stems and seeds.

    No stems, no seeds that you don’t need

    1. +1 Acapulco Gold

  12. Mickey Kaus: The Ugly Side of Open Borders

    That’s the broader, more insidious implication of open bordersism?it takes the economic forces that are pulling America apart?giving us a Herrnsteinian society stratified top to bottom by (in large part) intellectual abilities?and both embraces and accelerates them. If the American middle class now going to busy itself “shaming” workers at the bottom (who now deserve to earn the wages of Bangladeshis) what’s the upper class going to think of those stuck in the middle class? Do they want to find out?

    1. God the CATO guy is a fuckhead. In private he was Mr. Toughguy about shaming people into better decisions. When he found out Klaus was going to make that public, it was a different story. CATO is worthless.

      1. CATO is worthless

        I hear their caterers mix a mean cocktail.

      2. I like how he pulls out the tried-and-true libertarian deus ex machina of “private charity” to wish away the horrible outcomes of his favored policies.

        1. I think it’s just neato how you’ll rush in to defend people who want to violate freedom of association when it suits your emotional desires.

          1. How am I violating freedom of association? If you want to go to Mexico to associate with unskilled laborers I won’t stop you. If you want to sign a contract with a Mexican unskilled laborers to work at your pillow factory in Santa Fe I won’t stop you.

            But FOA doesn’t mean the govt has to bend over backwards in assisting him to fulfill that contract.

            1. The government DOES stop me from hiring the Mexicans I want to work at that pillow factory, Tulpa. It isn’t about them “assisting” me in fulfilling that contract; they actively interfere with my Association rights because That Mexican Laborer is *over there*.

              1. Nope. They just are an obstacle to fulfillment.

                If I contract with a kid down the street to run to 7-eleven and get me a peanut butter cup and be back in 2 minutes, which is impossible to do traveling on public property, that doesn’t compel my neighbors to allow him to run across their property.

                1. If I contract with a kid down the street to run to 7-eleven and get me a peanut butter cup and be back in 2 minutes, which is impossible to do traveling on public property, that doesn’t compel my neighbors to allow him to run across their property.

                  And what PRIVATE property is the immigrant crossing to come to my factory?

                  What if I fly them here on my private plane?

                  1. The border is the government’s property, spanning from the earth’s core up to the edge of the atmosphere.

                    1. The border is the government’s property,

                      OK and? That means government can just shoot you whenever you enter its property?

                      And no, the government holds that property for us in trust. it does what we tell it to do with it. it doesn’t “own” it.

                    2. Does this mean government as the owner can discriminate against black people in crossing its property? What about white people? Gay people?

            2. But it does mean that government shouldn’t interfere with your decisions about who you want to employ or house.

              1. I’m against laws against employers employing people who are already here. But open borders would clear away not just that law but also the laws allowing the US to control the border.

                1. I’m against laws against employers employing people who are already here. But open borders would clear away not just that law but also the laws allowing the US to control the border.

                  And zoom go the goalposts.

                  And why does the US need to control the border from people coming here to work again?

                  1. And why does the US need to control the border from people coming here to work again?

                    Do you believe that the US has the power, or the right, or the justification for controlling its border in any way?

                    1. If it’s in furtherance of my rights, then that’s fine. Right now the U.S.’s border control policy violates my rights on a regular basis

                    2. Do your rights include seeing anyone who wants in to be allowed in? Would it violate your rights to exclude anyone who doesn’t have a contract for work?

      3. That’s what you got out of the article, not Kaus’s class warfare?

        1. Class warfare? WTF?

          1. How else would you describe this:

            That’s the broader, more insidious implication of open bordersism?it takes the economic forces that are pulling America apart?giving us a Herrnsteinian society stratified top to bottom by (in large part) intellectual abilities?and both embraces and accelerates them. If the American middle class now going to busy itself “shaming” workers at the bottom (who now deserve to earn the wages of Bangladeshis) what’s the upper class going to think of those stuck in the middle class? Do they want to find out?

      4. Sorry, I will take Cato and ‘insidious’ open borderism’ over the Daily Caller anyday.

    2. And if CATO really believed in open borders, they would fire their entire staff and replace them with Indian immigrants. HB1 guys would be cheaper and could put out the talking points just as well.

      1. This comment really captures the misunderstanding of immigration and its relation to the economy upon which most anti-libertarian opposition to open borders rests.

        1. Really? Perhaps you could explain how.

          1. The idea that everyone will lose their job if immigration increases. It is as if no one is worth what they are being paid and all employees are fungible.

            1. The idea that everyone will lose their job if immigration increases.

              Who said this? John was talking about what CATO should do if they were consistent, and Kaus explicitly said that knowledge economy workers would be safe.

              It is as if no one is worth what they are being paid and all employees are fungible.

              For unskilled labor that’s the truth. You may want to check out your own misunderstanding of the issue before criticizing others’.

              1. It is a big misunderstanding of how things work. At a place like Cato there is likely a long line of people vying for positions. The people who end up getting them likely have skills that are valuable, and they are paid for those skills. They are not fungible such that you just fire them and hire the next twenty or so immigrants that cross over.

                Even with unskilled labor this is not entirely true. Some ‘unskilled’ laborers are better workers than others. They can shovel better or whatever, or they have a better work habit, or they can speak English, etcetera.

                1. John wasn’t saying Cato writers can be replaced by random Mexican immigrants. Did you even read his comment? He was saying that they’ve become so hackish that anyone who can write decently in English can do their job, and there are a lot of relatively poor people around the world who can do that.

                  I don’t see any particular skill beyond that that is being displayed by Cato writers.

                  Even with unskilled labor this is not entirely true. Some ‘unskilled’ laborers are better workers than others. They can shovel better or whatever, or they have a better work habit, or they can speak English, etcetera.

                  Have you ever worked with unskilled laborers, BCE? Those differences really don’t matter in the real world.

                  “or whatever”, “etcetera”, “likely” … you do love the weasel/question-begging words.

                  1. Have you ever worked with unskilled laborers, BCE? Those differences really don’t matter in the real world.

                    I have. And they most definitely do matter. A lot of low wage, low skill workers are lazy as fuck. And some will work their asses off for whatever they can get.

                2. John wasn’t saying Cato writers can be replaced by random Mexican immigrants. Did you even read his comment? He was saying that they’ve become so hackish that anyone who can write decently in English can do their job, and there are a lot of relatively poor people around the world who can do that.

                  I don’t see any particular skill beyond that that is being displayed by Cato writers.

                  Even with unskilled labor this is not entirely true. Some ‘unskilled’ laborers are better workers than others. They can shovel better or whatever, or they have a better work habit, or they can speak English, etcetera.

                  Have you ever worked with unskilled laborers, BCE? Those differences really don’t matter in the real world.

                  “or whatever”, “etcetera”, “likely” … you do love the weasel/question-begging words.

                  1. Should I answer you twice?

                    Here is what John said:
                    -And if CATO really believed in open borders, they would fire their entire staff and replace them with Indian immigrants. HB1 guys would be cheaper and could put out the talking points just as well.

                    I take that to be a charge that Cato are hypocrites because if they ‘really believed’ in open borders they would replace their employees with Indian immigrants. But again that view, common among anti-immigration people, assumes that employers like Cato are only looking for the cheapest workers that can be find, and not the best workers for the cost.

                    And yes I have worked with unskilled laborers, and when I did some of the workers, such as those that could speak English well or those who were known to be reliable or those who were particularly good at certain tasks (‘unskilled’ is such a silly term, most every job employs some skill that people can be better or worse at) were often paid more by employers that were happy to do so.

                  2. Have you ever worked with unskilled laborers, BCE? Those differences really don’t matter in the real world.

                    Holy fuck, that’s stupid.

              2. Does CATO authors are unskilled laborors?

                1. I think that my last post suggests I might not speak English.

                  1. I think someone was going to ask to check your visa 😉

                2. Does CATO authors are unskilled laborors?

                  They’re getting more unskilled by the day.

              3. Employers are not looking for the cheapest employees, period. They are looking for employees who increase value. Most employers know that you often get what you pay for. And those that fear immigration seem to forget or ignore this and assume that because immigrants might be willing to work for cheaper they will en masse replace American workers.

                1. Employers are not looking for the cheapest employees, period. They are looking for employees who increase value.

                  Bullshit. If they can get 50% of the value for 40% of the cost they’re going to do it.

                  1. -If they can get 50% of the value for 40% of the cost they’re going to do it.

                    But if they can get 60% they very likely will be willing to pay more costs, etcetera.

                  2. Isn’t that an increase in value?

                2. Employers are not looking for the cheapest employees, period. They are looking for employees who increase value.

                  LOL at this homo economicus shit

            2. Open Borders is the position assuming people are fungible.

              1. How so?

                1. If you don’t have any problem with 100 million Africans doing all the shit work in the US, I’ve got a farm in South Africa to sell you.

                  1. RACIST!

              2. Open Borders is the position that says people have the right to contract with whom they please, and that the “national economy” is not a sufficient reason for you to butt into my business.

                Immigrants are the one place you can guarantee Team Red is going to start invoking SOCIETY’S NEEDS to overrule individualism. Every. Time.

                1. Well said.

                2. Open Borders is the position that says people have the right to contract with whom they please

                  People have that right under current law. You can go to Mexico and sign a contract with anyone you want.

                  It might be difficult for them to fulfill, but that’s another matter.

                  1. This might be the most Tulpastic comment yet.

                    1. This might be the most Tulpastic comment yet.

                      No kidding.

                      “You can contract with your marijuana dealer all you like. It just may be difficult to fulfill that contract.”

                      “You can contract to pay someone below minimum wage, but it may be difficult to fulfill what with the NLRB all in your ass. That doesn’t mean you can’t do it, though”

                      Tulpa, you need to climb off of this hill right now.

                    2. You mean the Dept of Labor, not NLRB (which handles unionization issues).

                      Those cases are different of course, since it’s the object of the contract that is being specifically targeted, as opposed to some precondition of the contract.

                    3. Those cases are different of course, since it’s the object of the contract that is being specifically targeted, as opposed to some precondition of the contract.

                      The object of the contract is labor. It is not a precondition of labor that you be present – you have to ACTUALLY BE PRESENT.

                  2. That is because the government is actively interfering with my rights, Tulpa. They are saying I cannot bring that laborer here to work because he comes from Somewhere Else.

                    And in case you were not aware, it is illegal to hire “illegal” immigrants to work for you. How is that not a violation of my association rights?

                    1. And in case you were not aware, it is illegal to hire “illegal” immigrants to work for you. How is that not a violation of my association rights?

                      You can’t hire illegal killers either. How is that not a violation of your right to associate?

                    2. You can’t hire illegal killers either. How is that not a violation of your right to associate?

                      Terrible analogy. If the killer is in prison, then no, I cannot hire him (well, maybe I could for some telemarketing work or piecemeal manufacturing or something). Did you read somewhere that I was against putting murderers in prison?

                      Try again.

                    3. But I have Job Offer and a Lease for the murderer. How dare you interfere with my right to associate by enforcing laws.

                    4. But I have Job Offer and a Lease for the murderer. How dare you interfere with my right to associate by enforcing laws.

                      This is a clown analogy, bro, given you cannot find any place where I said there should be no laws against murder.

                    5. And I never never said there should be no laws against international migration….

                    6. And I never never said there should be no laws against international migration….

                      The basis for laws against murder is protection of individual rights. What rights are you protecting? The “right” of “society” to “have high wages” or some dumb shit like that?

                3. Open Borders is the position that says people have the right to contract with whom they please

                  This is like saying “Complete drug legalization is the positions that says 60 year old accountants can smoke some weed after work.”

                  1. Not really. Open borders are necessary for people to be able to contract with whom they please. Complete drug legalization is not necessary to allow 60 year old accountants to smoke weed.

                    1. Open borders are necessary for people to be able to contract with whom they please.

                      WTF? You could have a policy of “open immigration iff in possession of contract” without open borders.

                    2. WTF? You could have a policy of “open immigration iff in possession of contract” without open borders.

                      And you would support that?

                    3. Sure, as long as the wage is high enough that the worker wouldn’t be a net burden. In the case of single healthy childless person, minimum wage is probably about right. (Of course this implies many Reason butthurt stories about migrant workers being kicked out of the country after having kids they can’t afford.)

                    4. Sure, as long as the wage is high enough that the worker wouldn’t be a net burden.

                      Net burden to whom? You think the existence of a welfare state justifies you interfering with my contract on wages?

                    5. You think the existence of a welfare state justifies you interfering with my contract on wages?

                      So you think corporate welfare is fine as long as it’s dressed up in libertarianese?

                    6. So you think corporate welfare is fine as long as it’s dressed up in libertarianese?

                      Where the fuck do you get corporate welfare from? I have a problem with the welfare state, same as you. The difference is I don’t use it as a hammer to further pound on rights, whereas you seem content to do exactly that.

                    7. Where the fuck do you get corporate welfare from?

                      imported labor that must be subsidized by everyone else

                      The difference is I don’t use it as a hammer to further pound on rights, whereas you seem content to do exactly that.

                      The existence of the welfare state isn’t one of my primary objections to open borders. Don’t know where you got this idea.

                    8. imported labor that must be subsidized by everyone else

                      This is completely nonsensical and doesn’t follow from anything that has ever been said about open borders.

                    9. This is completely nonsensical and doesn’t follow from anything that has ever been said about open borders.

                      Open Borders: I got muh feelz. Shut up with your economic realities.

                    10. Open borders are necessary for people to be able to contract with whom they please.

                      No. You can contract with someone anywhere in the world now (leaving aside material assistance to terrorists, etc)

                    11. No. You can contract with someone anywhere in the world now (leaving aside material assistance to terrorists, etc)

                      And you can contract with your marijuana dealer. too bad the police will bust in and arrest you for it…which is the same thing that happens if you contract with a Mexican for labor in America.

                    12. Tulpa’s a dishonest, sniveling little prick, NK. You’re better off leaving him to wallow in himself all by himself.

                    13. I am against the laws against employing people who are already here.

                    14. I am against the laws against employing people who are already here.

                      And what’s your justification for stopping people from coming here?

              3. Open Borders is the position assuming people are fungible.

                Yeah, and up is down and black is white. What an absurd statement.

                I assume you favor free trade. How can there be free trade if there is not free movement of labor as well?

                1. The open borders position doesn’t mandate ‘people=fungible’ but in practice almost every open borders advocate believes that. Of course, there are exceptions.

              4. Open Borders is the position of the Libertarian Internationale. It is a position that renders an actual libertarian society impossible.

                Like all such, it uses libertarian rhetoric to describe an aim that appears libertarian–in this case freedom to contract–while ignoring other, more important aspects of libertarianism that would get in the way.

                Yes, you have the right to contract with whoever you want. No, you cannot execute that contract if it infringes on anyone else’s rights without negotiating a compensatory contract with everyone who is negatively impacted.

                Additionally, in any libertarian society, there are borders–and they are plentiful, and enforced–because private property is a must. Open Borders violates this primary aspect of libertarianism.

                The elimination of borders is a socialist goal. Not a libertarian one.

      2. And if CATO really believed in open borders, they would fire their entire staff and replace them with Indian immigrants. HB1 guys would be cheaper and could put out the talking points just as well.

        If you don’t see why this is a ridiculously dumb argument, I don’t know what I can do for you.

        1. If you don’t see why this is a ridiculously dumb argument, I don’t know what I can do for you.

          If Libertarians really believed in drug legalization, they would leave their jobs and smoke heroin.

    3. This is fucking stupid.

    4. It’s funny how libertarians act like Cato is less full of shit than Heritage or CAP.

  13. Shirtless Clown Pulls Down Man’s Pants After Chicken Wing-Eating Contest, Gets Punched in the Face

    Chicken wing-eating contests seem like a competition where you want to keep your hands to yourself. Perhaps this shirtless dude has learned that lesson. During a wing-eating contest, he first puts his hands on the face of his opponent while he is eating. Then, after the guy finishes his wings and wins, shirtless dude pulls down the winner’s shorts as he is standing victoriously. In a completely justified move, the champion then punches the shirtless dude in the face. Street justice! What a feeling of joy it is to watch that guy fall out of his seat after getting punched in the nose.

    includes .gif animation

    1. The headline alone is enough to start my day off right!

    2. Perfect punch – no hesitation when the asshole deserved it.

  14. The IRS is apparently targeting the American Legion

    They really misunderstood the documentary We Are Legion, didn’t they?

    1. Kooky conspiracy theory:

      A complete, up-to-date list of people who identify as veterans will be very helpful when the time comes to select candidates for re-education. These guys tend to have views that are incompatible with the fundamental transformations required for Hope ‘n Change.

      But, seriously, why would the Obama Administration intentionally alienate veterans?

      1. They dislike them and want them stifled – just like Tea Party, Roman Catholics, etc.

      2. You really need to read Obama’s books, especially his first one. It will greatly help you to understand what this guy is truly like and why he does the things he does.

        1. You know who else revealed his sinister plans in a book?

  15. Deputies: man threatens to kill wife over dirty cat litter

    “Avelino was becoming angrier and threatening to throw the cat against the wall,” according to the report. He then “took possession of a knife” and said to his wife: “Do you want me to kill you? I will kill you.”

    “Avelino made a verbal statement advising that he believes a wife is responsible for cleaning the kitty litter box and that he did no wrong in threatening (her),” a deputy reported.

    1. Why can’t people respect this man’s culture?!

    2. The rule in my house is “Forget the box; forget the cat.” The litter gets changed every day or one cat goes missing per day missed.

      1. Yes, punish the cat for someone else’s screwup. A truly libertarian approach to personal responsibility. Good job.

        1. cat’s have no souls

          fuck’em

  16. So what if Putin thinks Obama is an easy mark and launches a few cruise missiles himself and sinks an American aircraft carrier. What then? Does Obama run home humiliated or does he strike back and risk a world war? Isn’t it possible Putin will bet on the former and go for it and obtain an enormous strategic victory?

    Perhaps I am a pessimist. But I have a terrible feeling about this. I think this is much more dangerous than people think.

    1. Why would Putin have to do it, the Syrians have ex-soviet anti-ship missiles. Targeting is the problem but a few whispers from the Russian could solve that.

      1. Doesn’t the loss of a carrier to enemy action constitute grounds for nuclear war under public US military doctrine?

        1. Yeah, I’m pretty sure such an overt act of war justifies a full retaliatory counter-strike.

          1. So if we chuck crusie missiles at Damascus for a week, Syrian retaliation is an “act of war”?

            My rules of war book must be missing a few pages.

            1. I was referring to an attack by the Russians against U.S. Obviously bombing Syria is also an act of war against Syria.

        2. Uh, yeah — I think that’s John’s point.

          Global thermonuclear war would be classified as dangerous.

          1. What about regional?

    2. Doesn’t really seem worth it, does it?

      1. No it doesn’t. I don’t see an upside to this at all. This is not Iraq where we had the ability to put in a pro US government. All we are going to do is replace one enemy for another, and that is if things go well.

        1. Yeah, best case, US missile strikes help topple the government and the guys who replace it are somewhat grateful and only massacre a small percentage of the population.

          More likely the strikes just add to the bloodshed and the hatred of America. Worse case they incite more terrorist attacks on US interests around the world and American civilians here. Worst case it touches off a pan-Arab war.

      2. Obama (sorry for that racist comment) has to teach Assad that red line crossing is verboten

    3. this is much more dangerous than people think.

      Yep. Better get W to look into Putin’s soul again. 8-(

      1. Bush never really fucked with Putin. So maybe Obama should do the same thing.

        1. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!

    4. If it’s really that easy to sink an American aircraft carrier, I think we have some pretty serious issues with the lack of effective defensive countermeasures.

      1. They are increasingly vulnerable to anti-ship missiles. It is not easy. But all it takes is one missile to get through. The missiles today are very deadly. We have counter measures, but they are not perfect.

        1. So then it would take a serious, concerted, and likely sustained attack on the carrier and its battle-group to succeed. I don’t really see the Russians risking that since they must know they would take heavy losses in the process.

          1. It is unlikely. But the consequences are so big, why risk it?

          2. If it’s really that easy to sink an American aircraft carrier, I think we have some pretty serious issues with the lack of effective defensive countermeasures.

            The USS Stark says, “Hi!”

            Now, a CVBG is probably not asleep at the switch like the Stark’s crew was, but still… Lots of sea room will help.

            And it’s not like the Syrians have old ex-Soviet SSMs, they’ve the improved versions of them, the ones the Russians themselves use.

            I’ve no idea what the Russians were thinking—besides, “Ka-Ching!!”—when they sold the Syrians SS-N-26s.

            1. The Soviets were thinking the SS-N-26s might stop the US or China from messing with Russia’s client state.

      2. If it’s really that easy to sink an American aircraft carrier, I think we have some pretty serious issues with the lack of effective defensive countermeasures.

        It depends on the defensive posture of the ships.

        If we were at Wartime Steaming conditions (Material condition Z set, all the radars energized, CIWS ready to fire) then no.

        But during normal peacetime steaming, yes.

        Basically, modern antiship warheads are incredibly destructive. IF you can detonate them before they get inside the skin of your ship then you are fine. One hit from a P-700 would probably mission kill a carrier. Two or three would probably sink it (after a few hours).

        Basically, it doesn’t matter how much armor you put on a ship. The adversaries can just put a bigger explosive or a nuke in the warhead.

        The focus is on defeating threats in flight. And that means your defensive weapon systems have to be manned. They aren’t manned continuously (wear and tear on crew and equipment), so a sneak attack could do a great deal of damage.

        1. It depends on the defensive posture of the ships.

          If we were at Wartime Steaming conditions (Material condition Z set, all the radars energized, CIWS ready to fire) then no.

          I would hope that if we are initiating hostilities against Syria then we would have the sense to have our ships at Wartime Steaming conditions. Because they just might try to retaliate.
          Of course, we shouldn’t be attacking Syria in the first place.

        2. “…CIWS ready to fire…”

          I loled.

          1. Personally, I feared the damn things.

            They’re the Terminator of antimissile defensive arms – they fuckin gkill anything their cold electronic brains think is a threat, even if it’s the bridge of their own ship (in its defense, few sailors on a ship have never felt the urge to cut the XO in half at some point during their tour).

            IIRC the first time one was tested it engaged and destroyed the target and then spun around and started tracking a target nobody could see, the barrel making tight little circles. IT turned out that the radar had locked onto aircraft landing at an airport 15+ miles away and was just waiting for them to get into range.

            1. Yes but it’s the enemy that’s supposed to fear it, not us. I watched a Phalanx test on a training cruise; the drone survived three identical passes across our bow before we hit it.

              1. And of course I say “drone” but it was the sort that you tow behind a manned aircraft – hopefully far behind.

                1. …they fucking kill anything their cold electronic brains think is a threat, even if it’s the bridge of their own ship…

                  Sounds like the hilarity that ensued during testing of the Sgt. York AAA system, that the Army ended up not buying:

                  In February 1982 the prototype was demonstrated for a group of US and British officers at Fort Bliss, along with members of Congress and other VIPs. When the computer was activated, it immediately started aiming the guns at the review stands, causing several minor injuries as members of the group jumped for cover. Technicians worked on the problem, and the system was restarted. This time it started shooting towards the target, but fired into the ground 300 m in front of the tank. In spite of several attempts to get it working properly, the vehicle never successfully engaged the sample targets. A Ford manager claimed that the problems were due to the vehicle being washed for the demonstration and fouling the electronics.

                  Gee, sweeping the reviewing stand with 40mm autocannon didn’t convince the brass to buy it… Who’da thunk it?

          2. Personally, I feared the damn things.

            They’re the Terminator of antimissile defensive arms – they fuckin gkill anything their cold electronic brains think is a threat, even if it’s the bridge of their own ship (in its defense, few sailors on a ship have never felt the urge to cut the XO in half at some point during their tour).

            IIRC the first time one was tested it engaged and destroyed the target and then spun around and started tracking a target nobody could see, the barrel making tight little circles. IT turned out that the radar had locked onto aircraft landing at an airport 15+ miles away and was just waiting for them to get into range.

        3. I wonder how many Kilos Syria has, and how good at catching them the CSG will be while their submarines are distracted launching TLAMs.

    5. The Russians wouldn’t do it themselves. More likely they would sell the equipment to the Syrians and wait for them to do it.

      But I think the potential risks for Putin far outweigh potential benefits.

      1. Or Hezbollah – Iranian/Syrian proxies and they already have C802s they used against the Israeli’s once.

      2. Or Hezbollah – Iranian/Syrian proxies and they already have C802s they used against the Israeli’s once.

      3. While I don’t endorse needless provocation or see much need for U.S. intervention in Syria, Russian threats are likely pretty empty. People sometimes forget that they are no longer a major military power. Even their nukes are probably far gone enough to make it dangerous for them to rattle the saber much.

        On the other hand, I doubt Putin fears or respects the current administration at all.

    6. Are you really purposing that Putin is dumb enough to risk World War 3 over a minor dictatorship?

      I get that you hate Obama, John, but it sounds like I got a bridge I could sell you, buddy…

    7. Unless things have changed dramatically in the last few years, launching “a few cruise missiles” would not sink an American aircraft carrier.

      A carrier travels in the center of a battle group and is surrounded by Cruisers and Destroyers armed with anti-missile systems. Whatever launched the missiles would have return fire long before the President was even informed.

    8. Perhaps I am a pessimist. But I have a terrible feeling about this. I think this is much more dangerous than people think.

      Yep,

      American hubris has topped out. Almost everyone in this country is sure of our country’s military invincibility.

      1. Well, our military is pretty much invincible at this point in time given a reasonable definition of victory, that doesn’t include making people in third world shitholes stop killing each other and form a stable democratic society.

        That doesn’t mean that war would come without severe costs, of course.

  17. Richard Cohen: Feeling powerless? You’re not alone

    No doubt, the man who best appreciates how power has lost its power is Obama. Until recently, he was not able even to appoint certain ambassadors. Naim, a habitue of international conferences as a former Venezuelan minister of industry and trade, relates how Davos Man in his various permutations is forever lamenting an inability to just get things done. Orders are given, subordinates salute ? and then nothing happens.

    Why is this happening? For one, there is just more of everything ? people, for sure, but also weapons and nations and billionaires and blogs and even chess grandmasters ? 88 in 1972, more than 1,200 today. Mentalities have changed. Women all over the world are walking away from abusive marriages, and people are more mobile. “Barriers to power have weakened,” Naim writes. The world is awash in democracies.

    1. The result is that once again some of the more criminally insane members of the Republican caucus are talking about shutting down the government and, in their free time, repealing Obamacare.

      Cohen really is a mendacious little shit. His whole premise is feel bad for Obama and the Republicans are nuts.

      1. yeah, there is plenty of laughable handwringing in the whole piece.

      2. more criminally insane members of the Republican caucus

        Obviously people who believe this are going to sympathetic to libertarianism.

      3. It never takes long for liberals to start arguing that political opponents are treasonous or criminal.

        What happened to questioning authority, you hypocritical fucks?

    2. What brings this to mind is “The End of Power,” a remarkable new book by the remarkable Moises Naim, the former editor of Foreign Policy. It was recommended to me by former president Bill Clinton during a brief conversation on the situation in Egypt.

      Paraphrase: “Did you see that, peons? I hobnob with ex-Presidents, therefore my opinion is valuable!”

      Fuck you, Cohen.

  18. Obama may want to consider that in his second term, to draw attention from his many scandals, Clinton found an inventive cause for military intervention into a foreign civil war, and was still impeached before he could finish his presidency.

  19. Drone hits dude in the face

    A little warm up for the cruise missile activity.

    1. It’s as if every remote control model flying machine is now going to be called a drone.

      1. It’s terminology creep — like WMD.

        1. Yeah, WWI-era gas attack that kills hundreds now equals “mass destruction”, conflating it with a nuclear detonation.

  20. Oh deer! Fur and antlers are all around in one Japanese city

    Amateur video from Japan shows a city streets overrun by a herd of deer, with buses and cars inching their way past the animals.While some pedestrians stop to take photographs of the deer, others walk past without giving them a second glance.

    The footage was captured in the city of Nara in central Japan, which is home to over 1,000 Sika Deer.

    The deer were once considered sacred messengers of the gods by devotees of the Shinto faith and killing them was a capital offence, but they are now classed as a national treasure.

    1. Do they not have Lyme disease in Japan?

      1. No, it’s a new world disease, limited to the ticks of north America from what I can tell.

    2. Seriously, shotguns and slugs could fix this problem at this range. I hear vensions sashimi is tasty.

  21. -Pornography to Become Even More Readily Available on the Internet
    -Quietly, with almost no fanfare, the governing board of the internet (ICANN) approved a new .PORN domain on the internet. The .PORN domain joins the .XXX domain already in existence and others proposed, such as the .SEX and .ADULT domains. Morality in Media (MIM) has called for an investigation of the ICM Registry the company behind the approved .XXX domain and the proposed new porn domains “for violations of federal laws that prohibit the distribution of hardcore and obscene Internet pornography.”

    -The bottom line is that the new domain is a boon to numerous companies who will gain substantial financial benefit from making and distributing pornography that uses, abuses, and objectifies girls and women. With the new .PORN domain, the production and distribution of pornography will expand exponentially. Does anyone truly think that child pornography will not also expand dramatically, and thus that child abuse and exploitation will become an even greater problem? Sex trafficking, already a horrific crime that is abhorrent to decent people around the world, will increase, and we’ll see more and more alerts for missing children and teens. We will see more mainstream use of pornography and, thus, more and more users addicted to pornographic images. We will see more marriages destroyed, more women abused, and lives ruined from the grave social costs of pornography.

    http://www.cwfa.org/content.asp?id=22487

    1. Why would child pornography expand because of new domains?

      1. You would think SoCons would be happy about this as it would make it easier for them to set up their computers to block porn sites.

        But as long as anyone is out there enjoying porn they are not going to be happy.

        1. ^This.

          Yeah, the porn banners have long wanted to exile the naughty bits of the internet to easily blockable domains such as .xxx

    2. “pornography that uses, abuses, and objectifies girls and women.”

      How come we always hear this about pornography? Don’t men act in porn films too? How come nobody whines about them being used or abused?

      Isn’t it a sexist to assume the women are always victims, and the men are not?

      1. Actually, porn establishes a high market value for attractive women.

        The rest of us? Zero market value.

        1. Hasn’t the internet taught you anything, there’s a market for even fugly porn.

    3. Next step is to force all porn websites into these new domains. If you don’t agree you believe in selling heroin to children.

      1. Or to be a lying dishonest piece of shit.

        1. Fine: If you don’t agree you believe in allowing 7/11 to sell heroin to children.

          Better?

          1. Why shouldn’t 7/11 be allowed to sell heroin to children?

          2. Seriously, go fuck yourself.

            1. Here’s the discussion that Appatheist is alluding to.ppatheist is alluding to.

      2. Well, I mean, if they want to buy it. But I draw the line at hard selling.

      3. It would certainly quiet the noisy little brats. Hell, heroin was good enough for your great-great grandmother’s cough, it’s good enough for your children.

    4. One thing the porn world does well is parse out the underage porn – since the Traci Lords incident cost them millions. Funny how losing money is the best deterent (sp).

      1. Never mind she had an official driver’s license and passport both showing her to be of age.

    5. Morality in Media (MIM) has called for an investigation of the ICM Registry the company behind the approved .XXX domain and the proposed new porn domains “for violations of federal laws that prohibit the distribution of hardcore and obscene Internet pornography.”

      MIM, how quaint.

    6. You have a pretty big hard-on for porn, huh Bo?

      NTTAWWT

      1. One evening John, Immaculate Trouser and I had a discussion about all the ‘wacky feminist’ posts here. I asked why there were not more from wacky SoCons and they said it would be a great idea for someone to do that. So I started to browse these SoCon websites. They are really fascinating in a strange way, an alternate universe as rich and strange as the feminists sites. And porn is something they are very focused on.

        1. You bring up a valid point, Bo, but all I can hear is *FAP FAP FAP FAP*!

          I’m just giving you a hard time, man.

    7. The bottom line is that the new domain is a boon to numerous companies who will gain substantial financial benefit from making and distributing pornography that uses, abuses, and objectifies girls and women.

      People still pay for porn?

      They’re doing it wrong.

    8. Sex trafficking, already a horrific crime that is abhorrent to decent people around the world, will increase, and we’ll see more and more alerts for missing children and teens.

      Who knew the three letters at the end of a URL could mind control people into kidnapping teenagers?

      1. I think they’re talking about using four letters at the end of the new URLs. That must be why.

  22. Today’s Morning Joke featured a truly epic pity party of hyperventilating and pearl-clutching over Miley Cyrus’ performance on some show. She was even described by one of the sadly crabby old grannies as seeming to be “unhinged”. I saw a little clip, and it looked like she was just having a great old time, which is, as we know, strictly verboten for an attractive young woman in American culture in any sexual context.

    Thought you’d like to know.

    1. She’s an attention whore. Apparently, there are plenty of people willing to supply her need.

      1. As usual, The Onion got this exactly correct. Take note, Gillespie. Not nearly enough Lobster Girl animated links on this site.

    2. I think you might be using the term “attractive” a bit loosely. I also found all the dancing pedobears a bit odd.

      1. But she was number one on Maxim!

    3. Who gives a shit about Miley Ray Cyrus anyway?

      1. They are afraid of their little Hannah Montana’s turning into sluts.

        1. Yeah, well, make sure to teach the lesson that “Fuck you, dad!” gets attention.

          1. Yet another reason for her father’s achy breaky heart.

      2. Legions of tweeters?

      1. That’s just sad.

        Did she get to that…whatever the hell it’s called music award show on the short school bus cuz that’s what it looks like.

        1. Scroll down.

    4. Wait, so you’re telling me that a girl raised by white trash is kind of trashy herself?

      Shocking news is shocking!

  23. American lawmakers appear to feel being “consulted” about military action in Syria would be enough…

    Watch CNN. That will be your consultation.

    1. See my posted link above for CNN’s likely prioritization of this whole shebang.

    2. Watch CNN. That will be your consultation.

      That will also be how Obama finds out he started bombing Syria.

  24. Is Obama trying to get Rand Paul elected?

    If the country hates intervention in Syria as much as suggested, the establishment republicans are DOA in the primaries.

    1. Who cares what people think? It is not like this is a democracy or something.

  25. Mask Slipping: This morning on NPR they were interviewing a US Ambassador who said that Syria had crossed a threshold by publicly disrespecting the administration. Oh, and also the US. See, it’s not about the gassing of civilians, it’s about disrespecting our au-thor-i-tay.

      1. Found it.

        Don’t you see, Obama simply *has* to strike since his self-proclaimed red line has been crossed? 8-(

        1. Thanks, Rich.

    1. China and Russia do that on a daily basis. Are we going to go to war with them?

      1. I just saw that China is also issuing threats. What’s the compelling need for us to intervene here again?

        A smart administration would say, “Sure, we’ll lay off. As soon as you do.”

        1. What’s the compelling need for us to intervene here again?

          Obama’s approval rate is slipping.

          It’ll get a nice boost once there are some fresh pictures of coffins with US flags on ’em.

    2. China and Russia do that on a daily basis. Are we going to go to war with them?

        1. Not a *declared* war, anyway.

          1. Just a little cyber foreplay

        2. ISWYDT

    3. I interpreted the Ambassador Frederic C. Hof comments in just the same way. Historically, ambassadors were supposed to defuse conflicts before they escalated to war. Apparently US ambassadors now serve to create popular support for war.

      Curiously, his promotion to ambassador reflects his marvelous success as Special Coordinator for Regional Affairs in the US Department of State’s Office of the Special Envoy for Middle East Peace. For the Newspeak-impaired, that’s Middle East Peace as in “War is Peace”. Hence, the promotion.

  26. -Across the United States, as companies continue posting record profits, workers face high unemployment and stagnant wages. Driving this change is a deep-seated belief that took hold in corporate America a few decades ago and has come to define today’s economy ? that a company’s primary purpose is to maximize shareholder value.

    -But changes were already afoot in the academic world that would reshape the fundamental relationship between this country and its companies. Lynn Stout, a professor of corporate and business law at Cornell University Law School, traces the transformation to the rise of the “Chicago school” of free-market economists.

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

    1. Driving this change is a deep-seated belief that took hold in corporate America a few decades ago and has come to define today’s economy ? that a company’s primary purpose is to maximize shareholder value.

      You misspelled centuries.

      1. It is a bizarre article, and it is currently the ‘most popular’ for the Post. Officers of a corporation have a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value, that is not some recent invention of libertarian scholars, it is the common law. The entire logic of a corporation demands it.

        1. The point opposing that argument (that they seem to have lost) is that incorporation is a privilege granted by government and government can put whatever strings on that grant that they want to.

          Individuals would still be free to associate and do business without those strings by organizing as full liability partnerships.

      2. On the one hand, I suppose shareholders in a company can prioritize whatever they want. On the other, were I an officer of a corporation that didn’t prioritize mazimizing shareholder value, I’d want very explicit direction ratified by more than 50% + 1 of the shares.

        1. Ive always thought the phrase “maximizing shareholder value” weird.

          Does anyone literally follow that? That might imply doing illegal activities, right? Or going into businesses outside your core competency? Require a corporate Christian bookstore to carry porn?

          You get the idea.

          Its a bullshit phrase, if taken literally. “Maximizing shareholder value, within the ethics and founding principles of the corporation” seems more acceptable.

          1. Sure, that is a valid point. But what I think the article is missing is the basic logic of a corporation. The investor gives the officers money to accomplish a broad task and the officers have a fundamental duty to work and focus on this task. It is the entire nature of the agreement.

            1. Oh yeah, the article is bullshit.

              I was just pointing out the phrase as commonly used makes no sense anyway.

          2. Because “shareholder value” =/= profit.

            See Amazon. Tremendous shareholder value and little to no profit.

          3. Sure. Unless you’re a buggy whip maker. Then your best strategy might be to build a new core competency right quick.

            1. I bet there is someone making money today selling buggy whips.

              1. I always wanted to sell pagers…but ironically

          4. I was taught it in business school over 20 years ago. Big profit, paid to the shareholders in the form of dividends is one way. Rapid growth yielding capital gains (share price) is the other.

            “This pressure comes from the media, from shareholder advocates and financial institutions…” No, it comes from the Board of Directors who fire failed CEO’s. And from the Shareholders who fire the Directors.

            The rest of the article seems to be whining about competition and ignoring the fact that the U.S. has become a horrible place to do business.

          5. How much is a shareholder worth anyway?

            Especially since most of them are CalPERS.

      3. During the 2012 election there were some articles about how Bain somehow pioneered shareholder value, so….Romney’s fault.

        1. No, it was most solidly established when the shareholders of Ford Motor Company sued Henry Ford when he wanted to run the company as a charitable organization. That’s when it formally made it into precedent, as previously the management didn’t go off the rails like that.

          1. Wasn’t trying to be historically accurate, just pointing out the historically illiterate press during an election (where they want to protect their guy, of course)

      4. “You misspelled centuries.”

        Technically not since the modern corporation is not yet 200 years old

        That said while the goal is to maximize shareholder value the thing so many miss is that financial value is not the only form of value, and other forms need to be factored in to that calculus as well.

        1. Actually, the whole point of economics is that it CAN all be reduced to a single financial value. That’s the basic thing that people miss. The stock price includes the valuation to the last parties to transact a share or bloc of shares of all of their diverse values boiled down to a single number.

    2. I have nothing to contribute. Read further for ad hominem attack on the writer:

      she’s young and has no idea what she’s talking about

  27. It’s always lasers…

    Weather could be controlled using lasers

    Experts from around the world are to gather at the World Meteorological Organisation next month to discuss how powerful laser pulses can be used to generate changes in the atmosphere that influence the weather.

    Their experiments have shown that intense pulses of light can cause ice to form and water to condense, leading to the formation of clouds.

    1. “Controlled” means we can make it rain locally with no good idea what taking that moisture out of the air does downstream. This is a bad plan to implement on a large scale quickly.

      1. ^This. What could possibly go wrong?

  28. Feminism sounds like such a joyous movement to be a part of

    When I express my anger at careless, racist reporting of an Asiana Airlines crash that killed two teenage girls?KTVU fired a producer after the network broadcast the pilots’ names as “Sum Ting Wong,” “Wi Tu Lo,” “Ho Lee Fuk,” and “Bang Ding Ow”?the immediate reaction I get is a giggle and a laugh.

    #SolidarityisforWhiteWomen was a worldwide trending hashtag originally created to expose the tendency of feminism to exclude the experiences and narratives of women of color. The hashtag led to robust and much-needed discussions that unmasked the tendency of all progressive circles to work in silos instead of calling for true solidarity across multiple race and gender identities. Filthy Freedom founder Bea Hinton and I both participated in the discussions and watched as they yielded hashtags such as #blackpowerisforblackmen, which highlighted the privileging of black male voices in discussions on black empowerment, and #fuckcispeople, which called out the tendency of all social justice narratives to focus solely on cisgender struggles. Through the steady stream of well-formulated tweets (and angry trolls), I kept wondering: Is my voice, as an Asian, female-identified individual, relevant at all?

    1. High Expectations Asian Father must really be disappointed in her.

    1. If it’s their gold, who cares what they do with it?

      1. “If it’s their gold, who cares what they do with it?”

        Someone looking to invest in gold.

      2. It will be back on the market within 24 hours.

        1. I hope it’s properly laundered first.

  29. http://www.salon.com/2013/08/2…..ut_rights/

    Read’m and weep.

    1. Before I even start reading this, I note that Michael Lind is the author. So beware.

      I’ll keep reading, for the sake of the commentariat, but I don’t want anyone coming in after me. There’s no sense in wasting lives here.

    2. Where is my right to HD streaming porn?

    3. Oh jesus. “good health” is not a right, it’s a personal fucking responsibility. I love michael’s ‘false choice’ of it being either a luxury item or a public entitlement.

    4. Redefining as “liberty” what is certainly understood by most as “security”, generally using “freedom” in the sense of “absence of” instead of “choice” while encouraging confusion between the two, seems to be common practice with authoritarians. Apparently they are ashamed of what they are selling.

  30. Neuroscience is so patriarchal!

    George Prochnik had a beautifully written essay in the New York Times on Sunday about why noise might be the “supreme archenemy” of thought. It is full of scientific evidence suggesting that hearing, an evolutionary “early warning system,” takes over our brains in ways we don’t always understand.

    [Snip]

    I guess that’s my problem with Prochnik’s otherwise excellent article. History is littered with instances of white men thoughtlessly asking (or forcing) people who are not white men to shut up. It just feels jarring to read a male author use the words of other male authors to extol the virtues of silence. Either Prochnik shouldn’t place such a high premium on quiet or, if he must have a hushed, pristine bubble in which to think great thoughts, he should retreat to a highbrow man cave and let the rest of us live in

    1. Wanting quiet is now sexist?

      1. Do you know many wives who bitch about how much their husbands want to talk?

        1. When wives say “talk”, they mean that they want their husbands to agree with them.

          1. Listen and nod.

            1. The two most important words in a successful marriage are “Yes, dear.”

              When used properly, they mean anything both speaker and hearer want them to mean, and avoid useless conflict.

              1. In my experience they simply defer conflict until the point where the mismatched expectations are no longer deniable.

                1. You haven’t yet learned the proper use of the words.

      2. Anything a woman doesn’t like is sexist.

      3. Wanting quiet is now sexist?

        Sounds like little Katy “stampy feet” needs attention.

    2. So I thought the left was supposed to be all scientificimal and shit?
      History is littered with instances of white men thoughtlessly asking (or forcing) people who are not white men to shut up.

      Like all those Rethuglikkkans and libertardians telling Barack to shut up!

      1. So if I as a white man thoughfully asked her to shut up?

        1. You are a libertardian so you by definition can’t think.

    3. White men telling others to shut up?

      Didn’t Hitler see history has one long struggle between races? Isn’t it funny how the modern left seems to view history the same way?

      1. You’re doing it wrong. The correct form is:

        You know who else saw history as one long struggle between races?

        1. Hitler?

          See..

        2. Jesse Owens?

  31. It’s made from people!!!!

    Nothing but the Soylent: we’re trying 1 full week of the meal substitute

    An unassuming USPS box arrived in my mailbox this afternoon, but the label had a word in it that I’d been hoping to see: “SOYLENT.” Unpacking, I laid the contents on the counter in front of me. These were five shiny, bulky pouches. They crinkled dully when I touched them, sounding and feeling like the heavy-duty plastic used to wrap military MRE rations.

    Arrayed on the counter in front of me was what the technology press has been calling both the future of food and a harbinger of the downfall of modern society: Soylent.

    1. I just do not get this branding. Call me overly influenced by Charlton Heston, but I’m not eating anything called Soylent. Ever.

  32. Orders are given, subordinates salute ? and then nothing happens.

    Truly the most desirable outcome.

  33. Other people will affect your child far less than your inability to see people as individuals, lady

    The above situations have deeply struck me, as a woman, as a person of color, as a person in an interracial relationship. Situations like these still hurt and surprise me, even with 21 years of being black under my belt, and getting teased in school for the way I talk, and being told I wasn’t black enough to hang out with the black kids, and getting asked if my hair is a weave, and smiling politely when people around me use the “N” word casually, and hearing “oh, but you’re not really black” as a compliment. (Once, I swear to God, I was told that I wasn’t really black because black people put a lot of cream cheese on their bagels and I don’t. I swear to God.) I have had years of experience, years to build up armor, but they still sting and burn and chip away at my confidence, at my sense of self.

    And I think: if all of this hurts so bad, how is it going to affect my child?

    But this isn’t just about him? I could marry any white guy. I could marry any Asian guy, Hispanic guy. I could marry any black guy, and pop out a kid who is the spitting image of me? but will still have to deal with shit from people almost every single day, because no matter where you go, there are intolerant people.There are mean people. And that scares me.

    1. “21 years of being black” Was she something else before that? Or is she confessing to being too young to think? Nevermind, it’s the latter as shown by the remainder of the babbling.

    2. What kind of moron goes through life scared because some people are mean and intolerant?

      1. ^This. People can be mean and insensitive? Boo-freaking-hoo.

      2. What kind of moron goes through life scared because some people are mean and intolerant?

        The one that fits the profile of a typical Jezebel contributor.

    3. because no matter where you go, there are intolerant people.There are mean people. And that scares me.

      Even paranoids see bugaboos everywhere.

    4. Non-white people only date outside their race because of white racism. Of course, everything white people do is because of racism.


      bLaine kelleyUnimuexxx51L
      It’s a completely different situation when a person of color refuses to date another person from their background based solely on such a factor; that is self hate.

      However, when a white person refuses to date other white folks there isn’t the same self hate issue to be concerned about because white folks are the majority (power wise). White folks are not marginalized and not raised in a culture that for centuries has told them that they are inadequate, undesirable, etc. White folks have been and still are the standard of “normality”, beauty, etc in our society.

      The concern that can develop with white folks who refuse to date white folks is the potential for them to be merely exotifying people of color, and being attracted to them solely because of their “color” and not for who they are as an individual. Yesterday 7:23pm

  34. Who gives a shit about Miley Ray Cyrus anyway?

    Presidential fluffers desperate to divert attention from the train wreck which is the current administration, I’d say.

    1. ? He caaaaan’t think!
      He caaaaan’t lead!
      But whooooo cares?
      His name is Obamaaaaa! ?

  35. Also, given the likely candidacy of Hilary, I think that people can now retire this, “Why do you people post these idiot feminists articles?”

    Because when Hilary runs, these idiots will be the spearhead of her organization, and you can expect to see this crap migrating out into the mainstream culture. In short- we are DOOMED!

    1. The horror! I fear that all the crazy Jezzie stuff I never heard about until I started reading H&R comment threads will become mainstream. I’ll end up having to discuss the patriarchy with all my friends and see Amanda Marcotte do guest appearances on Big Bang Theory

      1. and see Amanda Marcotte do guest appearances on Big Bang Theory

        The Wil Wheaton ones were enough to drive me away.

  36. Russia has warned of “catastrophic consequences” if there’s a Western military intervention in Syria.

    And yet when we intervene (because it’s almost certain that we will) and shit goes south (because it’s certain that if we intervene it will), it will all be described as unexpected.

    1. Russia is one to talk, after their invasion of Georgia. Basically, the U.S. is going to play the same card in Syria, i.e. “Do you fucks really want to start World War 3 over this bullshit?”

      1. Well Georgia is a border country with disputed borders and I think the nominal Russian argument was that they shot first.

      2. But Putin was engaging in real humanitarian interventionism as supposed to the phony US kind. As least that is what his defenders say. And Georgia was on Russia’s border which is why the US should leave Castro alone.

        1. Or it could be because the Georgians had tanks firing into a Russian peacekeeper barracks, a peacekeeping force that Georgia had agreed too.

          1. So you support humanitarian intervention as long as the right TOP MEN are doing it?

  37. How dare George Will point out facts inconvenient to liberal on MSNBC!

    During the segment, unrelenting badass Donna Brazile noted that if he were alive today, Dr. King would still be marching for issues like economic justice and voting rights. Cokie Roberts called changes to voting rights laws “downright evil.”

    But be-wigged Will had a better idea for What’s Really Wrong with communities of color ? unwed mothers. After Washington Post Chief Correspondent Dan Balz pointed out that the economic disparity against which Dr. King and hundreds of thousands of others marched continues to exist despite social progress, Will jumped in:

    The events to which you refer were foreshadowed by soething that happened 8 months after the march. 8 months after that a young social scientist from Harvard working in the Labor Department published a report. His name was Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He said there’s a crisis in the African American community because 24% of African American children are born to unmarried women. Today it’s tripled- 72%. And THAT? and not an absence of rights ? is surely the biggest impediment…

    In other words, George Will thinks black women can just… marry their way out of centuries of oppression and racism, I guess.

    1. Such people would do well to watch Walter William’s lecture “How much can discrimination explain?”

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKgHc6bWqZ4

    2. Actually, parents demonstrating responsible behaviour has a remarkable positive influence on the economic outcomes of their offspring. A stable marriage with investment in the children is a sign of such behaviour (though not a cause) The problem is how to reintroduce it.

      1. I think the way to reintroduce it is to simply not undermine it with things like welfare. Marriage is in general a valuable tool for life success and if not undermined or made to seem irrelevant people will naturally gravitate towards it or suffer.

        1. I was listening to a lecture series (possibly posted in the links a few weeks back) sponsored by Ron Paul on money.

          In one of those lectures, the speaker mentioned the revisionist history in regards to women in the workforce. Most people are taught that the 40’s were the kickoff of women gradually entering the workforce as they “realized their worth”, or at least that they started working in droves in the 60’s, when the women’s lib movement peaked, but he said the reality was that women stayed home to take care of their families up to the 70’s, but the stagflation caused by the Great Society combined with Jimmuh Cahtuh running away from all the economic rabbits meant that one income couldn’t support the family anymore.

          That (IMO) was the start of the disintegration of the family (especially the black family). It had disparate impact based on class (upper middle class mothers didn’t need to work, but lower middle class mothers had no choice), and thus had a disparate impact based on race.

      2. “””‘The problem is how to reintroduce it.””‘”

        How about if we give everyone with no stable income a mortgage for a over priced house, or is that too 2008?

        1. That’s not reintroducing responsible behaviour.

          1. But it was one of the primary rationalizations for the practice.

    3. In other words, George Will thinks black women can just… marry their way out of centuries of oppression and racism, I guess.

      At least they will escape the decades of oppressive excuses posited by guilt-ridden whites who keep oppressing them with policies derived from racially-motivated low expectations.

    4. “…unrelenting dumbass Donna Brazile…”

      In other words, George Will thinks black women can just… marry their way out of centuries of oppression and racism, I guess.

      They could marry their way out of crushing fucking poverty and dysfunction, I guess. And help their kids start from a higher floor, and so on. That might take planning and responsible behavior, though.

      1. Not “marrying their way out of centuries of oppression and racism,” does not seem to work, so how about trying something different?

      2. Liberals would rather inner city blacks remain in constant, soul crushing poverty than take even the slightest step to better themselves. If inner city black people weren’t super poor, then who would liberals get to pat themselves on the back for defending?

        Since modern leftism is an aesthetic movement based entirely on stroking your own ego, their movement could not survive black success.

        1. Ever notice how quickly they become klansmen when you mention walter e williams or thomas sowell? And they fact that they made it before the great society just completely drives them batshit?

    5. In a roundabout way the Jezzie makes a good point: MLK’s legacy would probably have gone the way of John Lewis if he didn’t get killed.

      1. In a roundabout way the Jezzie makes a good point: MLK’s legacy would probably have gone the way of John Lewis if he didn’t get killed.

        I doubt Reason will be wanting to write a modern article admitting that despite his opposition to segregation he was no libertarian.

      2. Oh yeah. I like the “content of their character” ideal, but MLK would probably be for AA and other social justice crap nowadays. Maybe not Al Sharpton level, but close to JJ

        1. he was for AA wasn’t he? He wasn’t a conservative at all, he was leftist. Not to disparage the guy, but the civil rights act has created some really messed up unintended consequences.

    6. During the segment, unrelenting badass Donna Brazile noted that if he were alive today, Dr. King would still be marching for issues like economic justice and voting rights. Cokie Roberts called changes to voting rights laws “downright evil.”

      But be-wigged Will had a better idea for What’s Really Wrong with communities of color ? unwed mothers.

      What’s more likely, that black communities have been deeply impoverished for decades due to laws that weren’t enacted until this year, or that unwed motherhood results in negative outcomes? Honestly, how can these people even argue that unwed motherhood isn’t bad? Aren’t they the ones who use the negative consequences of unwed motherhood as an example of why abortion should be legal?

      1. The cognitive dissonance is strong in them.

  38. Crossposted from 24/7, since no one reads it: I wish someone like Rand Paul would openly say that until Congress gives the go ahead, any military forces that follow the president’s orders are violating their oath to uphold the Constitution.

    1. That would be epic. Paul Sr. might actually have done that. I doubt Rand will.

    2. That would, um, make the cheese more binding.

    3. So you want RP to lie?

      Which part of the Constitution is he supposed to point to? The part written in invisible ink?

      1. Now that strikes me as unfair. ant1sthenes is likely just offering a strict reading of the War Powers Clause. Just because our current jurisprudence does not agree with it does not make it a ‘lie.’

        1. Here we go with the “likelys” again.

          There’s no way you can get that out of A1S8 where Congress is given the power to declare war, anyway.

      2. which part gives the president the power to declare war?

        1. James Madison:

          “. . . The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature . . . the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.” (1793.)

          “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war to the Legislature.” (Letter to Jefferson, c. 1798.)

          1. You mean the guy who foolishly provoked the last invasion of the US by invading Canada?

            And of course Thomas Jefferson started both Barbary Wars with nary a single declaration of war by Congress.

            Even the Founders’ own generation didn’t interpret the Constitution that way.

    4. Crossposted from 24/7, since no one reads it

      As it should be!

  39. Let’s tax our way to a Crime Free America!

    A pair of Democratic lawmakers are proposing steep new taxes on handguns and ammunition, and tying the revenues to programs aimed at preventing gun violence.

    Called the “Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act,” the bill sponsored by William Pascrell, D-N.J., and Danny Davis, D-Ill., would nearly double the current 11 percent tax on handguns, while raising the levy on bullets and cartridges from 11 percent to 50 percent.

    “This bill represents a major investment in the protection of our children and our communities, and reflects the long-term societal costs of gun and ammunition purchases in our country,” Pascrell said.

    It’ll work, I promise! It’s not an anti-gun tax, but For The Children!

    Not only is there a proposed tax on guns and ammo, but a raise on transfers from $5 to $100 as well as raising the tax on NFA transfers from $200 (which is already absurd) to $500.

    The bill would also increase the transfer tax on all weapons (except antique guns) covered under the National Firearms Act (which excludes most common guns) from $200 to $500 and index to inflation and increase the transfer tax for any other weapon from $5 to $100.

    But don’t you worry. No one is out to keep people from having guns, nor will this new tax encourage off the books transfers. No siree!

    1. Hey, they taxed marijuana and that’s still legal, right?

    2. Placing firearms outside of the means of the less affluent is certainly more racist than asking to see an ID to vote…

      1. How about needing a firearms owner’s ID to vote? If you’re not equipped to jump to the nation’s defense, you don’t get a say!

        Actually, I hate the very concept of an FOID in of itself, sop scratch that.

    3. This bill represents a major investment…..

      Ah….this is the same line of thinking that allows shreeky to bill himself as an “investor”.

    4. Danny Davis is an empty skull. That is why his voice resonates so well.

  40. Trying out a new look? Bella Thorne leaves new film set in grunge stockings and green skirt combo

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..combo.html
    Fifteen will get you twenty.

    1. She will not age well.

      1. She already looks 25+.

  41. She’s no blushing bride! Katie Holmes struts around in sheer petticoat on set after stripping off wedding dress

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..dress.html
    After being married to Tom Cruise she’s, I dunno, damaged goods, but damn that’s one fine ass.

    1. After being married to Tom Cruise she’s, I dunno, damaged goods, but damn that’s one fine ass.

      Dunno…with Tom Cruise she have very low mileage.

  42. What’s with the mullet? Wikileaks founder Julian Assange dons blond wig to film bizarre rap video in his Ecuadorean embassy refuge

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..ction.html
    I couldn’t watch the video. The stills were disturbing enough.

    1. Cabin fever I’d guess.

    2. Is that Nigel Tuffnel with him?

  43. Can’t decide between pizza or burger? Get both! Monster hybrid Megaburgerpizza goes on sale in Japan

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…..Japan.html
    Dem Japanese eat some weird shit.

    1. PIZZABURGER!!! Where have you been all my life?!?!

  44. Woman sees her stolen bike for sale on Craigslist, makes an appointment to buy it, then rides away and never looks back
    Kayla Smith, a Vancouver bartender, says she had no time to call police when she saw her $1000 stolen bike being sold

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..slist.html
    It’s not like the cops would have done anything anyway.

    1. They would have taken the bike as asset forfeiture. Then they would have shot her dog.

      How dare you say they wouldn’t have done anything?

    2. Did she say how she identified it as hers and not just the same make?

      1. FTA:

        ‘I noticed that it was my bike right away because of the RIDE ON stickers on the frame,’ Smith wrote.

        1. Yeah, I stopped going to your dailymail links after the first one because their page layout hates me.

  45. Investigators request school records of ‘very isolated’ Sandy Hook shooter as they piece together ‘jigsaw’ of what drove him to slaughter

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..ested.html
    Better make sure your kid is involved in extra curricular activities or the pre-crime police may take him away.

    1. I’m glad they have so little else to do that they’re investigating a closed case.

  46. Vanishing Chernobyl: Aerial photos show how devastated town in radiation disaster zone is being reclaimed by nature

    Former power plant and neighbouring city of Pripyat are slowly becoming hidden from view by Red Forest
    Ukrainian government evacuated 350,000 residents from Chernobyl and Pripyat following 1986 disaster

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

  47. In other words, George Will thinks black women can just… marry their way out of centuries of oppression and racism, I guess.

    Willful ignorance of the other guy’s argument is not an effective refutation strategy.

    1. Willful ignorance of the other guy’s argument is not an effective refutation strategy.

      Well it has been their standard modus operandi for some time and has worked out well for them…

    2. Don’t talk about logic when talking about how lefties argue. Tony has provided himself as living evidence of the futility of such endeavor.

      1. Don’t give me your privileged mansplanation western rich straight white male cisgendered sociolinguistic constuct logic OldMexican!

        1. white male

          White hispanic male.

    3. Except when the other guy is arguing against the supposed libertarian position.

    4. Actually, an individual black woman can behave in ways that would make the centuries of oppression and racism that has beset their race inconsequential.

      If one behaves irresponsibly and thereby makes oneself a burden upon society, one shouldn’t complain overmuch that it is society’s fault.

  48. parents demonstrating responsible behaviour has a remarkable positive influence on the economic outcomes of their offspring.

    Exactly. And “marriage” in some formalized government-approved sense is not what’s required, responsibility is. A simple willingness to postpone short term gratification in favor of long term goals, and to teach that by example, is what is needed.

    We, as a culture, seem to have lost that.

    1. Yeah but did you see what happened on Big Brother?

      We as a culture are fucked.

    2. It’s like she thinks the argument is “Rich people drive nice cars, so if I buy a nice car I’ll be rich!”

    3. When pundits like Will and Charles Murray talk about “marriage” they’re not just referring to the marriage contract per se, but also the faithful execution of traditional terms of that contract. Obviously, getting a marriage license isn’t going to solve anything unless the parties commit to behaviors consistent with a good marriage.

  49. Anyone else want to get a stillsuit now?

    1. I’d prefer an ornithopter.

      1. I could go for one of the FTL ships.

        1. So you have a navigator mutant lying around in a tank of melange to steer it?

          1. Nah, I just don’t fear computers.

            1. Highliner! That was the word I was looking for. (No, I haven’t had time to ask the internet.)

              Can their systems be computerized?

              1. They did in the later novels, once the Ixians started trying to do it.

                1. Yeah, the Bulterian Jihad was the hand waving to ignore the fact that there were obviously microcontrollers, but deciding machines would ruin a big part of his theme.

        2. And deal with the Spacing Guild?

    2. Isn’t it supposed to be your entire eye, not just the iris?

  50. Warplanes and military transporters have begun arriving at Britain’s Akrotiri airbase on Cyprus, less than 100 miles from the Syrian coast, in a sign of increasing preparations for a military strike against the Assad regime in Syria.

    Two commercial pilots who regularly fly from Larnaca on Monday told the Guardian that they had seen C-130 transport planes from their cockpit windows as well as small formations of fighter jets on their radar screens, which they believe had flown from Europe.

    http://www.theguardian.com/wor…..s-damascus

    1. You know how many countries fly C130s these days? We’ve sold that workhorse to pretty much everybody.

    2. Warplanes and military transporters have begun arriving at Britain’s Akrotiri airbase on Cyprus

      Miley Cyprus.

    1. amazing

    2. too funny

    3. Holy shit, this is great.

    4. Definitely worth a click

  51. Bacteria and fungi team up for good.
    SLD, no subsidies for isobutanol!

    Rather than spend more time attempting to make the perfect superbug, chemical engineer Jeremy Minty decided to look to nature for an example. He divided the required tasks of fuel production between two specialist organisms, allowing him to do all the work in a single bioreactor.

    When Minty first combined T. reesei and E. coli in the lab, he wasn’t sure what to expect. But he soon realized this fungus and bacterium were made for each other: T. reesei’s surface is covered with enzymes that help dissolve the plant matter into sugars, which the E. coli bacteria further simplify. “That was really important to make this system stable,” Minty says. “It gives T. reesei privileged access to the hydrolysis process.”

    Lazy PhD candidates make the world go round.

    1. How is it lazy to realize that the answer might already exist and the puzzle is figuring out where to look? This dramatically shortens the distance to a marketable product from the base research.

      1. Because as a former lazy PhD candidate (too lazy to be successful) I translate the first paragraph as: “I didn’t feel like messing with multiple reactors, so I threw both in one and hoped it worked.”

        Especially since a bioreactor is often a jar on hot-plate.

        1. Meh, I’m too lazy to rebut that.

          1. Exactly. Also, you should realize that lazy and successful is my ideal person, so I’m giving highest praise.

    2. now if they could do something with kudzu, we’d probably be able to have enough fuel to run all our cars for a hundred years.

  52. Emotional justice primer, thanks to the PM links last nite

    Oppression is trauma. Every form of inequity has a traumatic impact on the psychology, emotionality and spirituality of the oppressed. The impact of oppressive trauma creates cultural and individual wounding. This wounding produces what many have called a “pain body”, a psychic energy that is not tangible but can be sensed, that becomes an impediment to the individual and collective’s ability to transform and negotiate their conditions.

    Emotional justice is about working with this wounding. It is about inviting us into our feelings and our bodies, and finding ways to transform our collective and individual pains into power. Emotional justice requires that we find the feeling behind the theories. It calls on us to not just speak to why something is problematic, but to speak to the emotional texture of how it impact us; how it hurts, or how it brings us joy or nourishment. Emotional Justice is very difficult for many activists, because historically most activist spaces have privileged the intellect and logic over feeling and intuition. This is directly connected to sexism and misogyny, because feeling and intuition are culturally and psychologically linked to the construct of “woman”, a construct that we have all been taught to invalidate and silence.

    1. I couldn’t even finish the second paragraph I was laughing too hard.

      1. I think laughter, right in their faces, is probably the most effective counter to such idiocy.

    2. This wounding produces what many have called a “pain body”, a psychic energy that is not tangible but can be sensed,

      reality-based community

    3. “That which does not kill you makes you a weepy, whiny, feminist bloggress”

      Things Conan used to say?

      1. Well, that which does not kill you can still cripple you for life.

        1. What doesn’t kill you makes me stronger.

        2. Psychic or Physical? I know if I spent all day reading the linked claptrap, I would be crippled and seek SSD so I too could be a victim. But I don’t think that would work since I’m a white male.

  53. Lazy PhD candidates make the world go round.

    A long time ago, a friend had a thing on his wall about this. I wish I could remember it in full, but basically it broke down as, “Real progress does not come from hard workers staunchly putting their backs to the wheel; it comes from lazy bastards looking for an easier, faster, way to get their work done so they can go fuck off.”

    1. Heinlein’s short story The Man Who Was Too Lazy to Fail has been my guiding principle for years. Terribly formatted version here.

  54. Oh Ed didn’t you post this only a 12 hours ago?

    Nevertheless, it does not appear President Obama is eager to escalate US involvement in the conflict.

    https://reason.com/blog/2013/08…..ia-imminen

  55. Emotional justice is about working with this wounding.

    Embrace your victimhood. Wallow in it. Feel it squish between your toes. Rub it slowly into your most sensuous places. Pleasure yourself with it. Surrender yourself to it, until you victimhood is the sole, pure essence of your being.

    People will love and respect you, then!

    1. I refuse to be called a victim. I don’t like it. Might be why I go insane and loose spittle flying rants at ‘progressives’ after a given period of exposure. Yes, my social skills need work.

  56. It’s time to play our favorite game: What is Most Appalling Here?

    1. Lordy. I wish she’d included the shield. A large, large shield.

      1. A shield big enough to cover all that is too heavy for one chubby white girl to carry.

    2. Actually, my takeaway is that no one can be that pale AND wear that costume more than once a year. So if this is her one day a year to share her positive body image with the world, what do I care? Tomorrow she’ll need a mirror to see her lady bits and my junk will be plainly visible to me just by looking down my torso.

    3. The fact that John would fuck her in a heartbeat.

  57. That’s not a woman.

    1. Maybe not, but it is a construct that we have all been taught to invalidate and silence.

  58. Sad Beard flogging the platinum $1T coin as a solution to debt again. Why use platinum for fiat currency? Once the melt value is no longer equal to the face, why waste good plat on it?

    1. $1T poker chip?

      1. Do we use different stock or ink on $1 and $100 bills? no. Fuck it. Just print a $1T bill and get it over with.

        1. IIRC bills are limited by statute but there’s a loophole for coins, which gave rise to the original suggestion.

          1. Ah, well why not just mint something in an industrial metal?

            1. Beats me. It could be the commemoratives they’re allowed to mint have to be precious metal, or it could be the prestige factor.

            2. Just get the Sec of Treasury to scribble something on a napkin and sign it.

    2. The former economist turned propagandist is conflating money with wealth? I’m shocked! Shocked I tell you!

      1. undergrad philosophy. That and a profound knowledge of frozen organic burritos are the requirements to be Slate’s business and economics blogger.

    3. Oh yes, Trillion Dollar bills did Zimbabwe a world of good.

      I know they were already in an inflationary spiral, but increasing the number of dollars in circulation is just going to reduce their value. While I’ve joked about inflating our way out of debt, my pay (and that of many many others) isn’t index linked, so we’d be the ones screwed over.

    4. Because the legislation says it has to be a platinum coin.

      1. Ah. Well, at least Congress is to blame for that part of the stupidity.

  59. A candidate for FERC who may want to legislate from his post. Top men say he’s golden. WSJ says he’s a rent-seeking statist. Politico disagrees.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..on_LEADTop

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.