Obama Feels Blackmailed on Obamacare, Lots of Americans Would Like to Secede, Branson Wants End to Drug War: P.M. Links


  • What was he on when he decided to dress like this?
    Credit: CynthiaSmoot / Foter / CC BY-NC-SA

    President Barack Obama is complaining that Republicans are "blackmailing" him to block implementation of Obamacare, even though it appears as though his administration is less and less able to implement Obamacare in the first place.

  • 17 percent of Americans, if they had their own way, would secede from the state in which they live, according to a Rasmussen poll.
  • Wealthy businessman Sir Richard Branson is pushing for drug decriminalization in the United Kingdom, calling the war on drugs a failure.
  • Al-Shabaab, the terrorist group responsible for the deadly mall attack in Kenya, says that foreigners are "legitimate targets" and confirmed reports that they attempted to let any Muslims at the massacre site go free. Kenyan Muslims who aren't interested in going around killing people are not pleased.
  • A former teacher sentenced to just 30 days for rape of a 14-year-old teen (who subsequently committed suicide) has been freed from prison as the controversy swirls around the judge's decision.
  • In interesting computer trivia, Bill Gates revealed that the famous Ctrl+Alt+Del combination to reboot your PC was not intended. They wanted a single button, which might have been annoying to those of us who are constantly accidentally pressing the Windows button in the middle of tense video game moments and getting murdered.

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

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

NEXT: Former San Diego Chargers Defensive Back Commits Suicide

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. President Barack Obama is complaining that Republicans are “blackmailing” him to block implementation of Obamacare…

    Everything is race with this guy.

    1. “President Barack Obama is complaining that Republicans are “blackmailing” him to block implementation of Obamacare…”

      Generally, these things are hammered out during the budget process, but oddly enough, after 5 years…

    2. Yet another sign that he has never left the cozy proggy bubble in his whole life, and has no real experience with negotiation.

      “I won’t buy your house unless you fix the roof” is neither blackmail nor any different in form than what the Repubs are putting on the table.

      1. My first thought. A “constitutional lecturer” who doesn’t understand the legal definition of blackmail? Come on!

        1. To be fair, blackmail isn’t in the constitution.

          1. Neither is health care 🙂

    3. Barack Obama is complaining that Republicans are “blackmailing” him

      And Repubs claim Obama is whitewashing his many scandals. Race to the bottom!

      1. All his brown-nosers don’t care… they are ready to race to the bottom.

        1. All of his red shirts are willing to die on a hill for their captain.

          1. And his administration is full of yellow bellies.

    4. Gosh, I don’t know. A law that will dramatically increase my healthcare costs and further damage an already-weakened economy?

      I wish someone really would blackmail him. He’s a sleazebag politician from Chicago. Surely he’s done something really embarrassing that can be used against him. Come on, Chicago, help us out! Jeri Ryan, maybe? You owe us, lady.

    5. He sure does have an ego for a guy who seeks to repress the individual every chance he can get. He’s not concerned about society or community. It’s become clear that Obamacare is a clusterfuck, even to him. If he didn’t see it, various portions of the law wouldn’t keep getting delayed. He’s concerned about keeping his “legacy.”

      1. Legacy? He’s done so badly that Bush may be canonized by the Church in comparison.

        1. The leftists still write history, right?

          He will be apotheosized right alongside Saints Teddy, Woodrow, Franklin, Jack…

          1. “The leftists still write history, right?…”

            Fewer people are tuning in every day.

      2. I would like to see a congressional Republican counter him with that. “You need to stop the us against them mentality, Mr. President, and work with us to help the American people out of this impending burden.” It wouldn’t go anywhere but it would be a nice talking point to start cropping up everywhere they put a mic on the GOP.

        1. Obama: I’ll do far worse than kill you. I’ve hurt you. And I wish to go on. . . hurting you. I shall leave your economy as you left me, as you left her. Marooned for all eternity, in the center of a dead administration. . .buried alive. Buried alive.

          1. OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          2. The Wrath of Obama?

            1. Closer to peevish petulance than “wrath”, but sure.

              While we’re on that subject, Khan never seemed all that wrathful to me. Annoyed sure, but if you were a superior being trapped on Ceti Alpha V you would be, too.

      3. Anyone who believes Obama cares for them is a fucking retard. Wait. I apologize to retards.

        1. Obamadontcare

  2. A former teacher sentenced to just 30 days for rape of a 14-year-old teen (who subsequently committed suicide) has been freed from prison as the controversy swirls around the judge’s decision.

    Judge knows a Lolita when he sees one.

    1. The teacher spent about two weeks less in jail for committing rape than Roman Polanski did.

    2. In all seriousness, it was statutory rape.

      Not violent STEVE SMITH rape.

      I think that’s an important distinction that Shackford should’ve made since all the idiots in the media elsewhere didn’t and caused a bunch of people on the internet to fly off the handle.

      1. I’m comfortable with 14 being below the age of consent and think 30 days is outrageous. A 50 year old with a 14 year old is past my open-mindedness on this issue.

        1. You can both be right.

          1. I guess I don’t think the distinction is that important in this case. May be the difference between 20 years in prison and 10.

            1. LOL. So the guy should do 10 years for what was probably consensual sex?

              I’m not saying he’s a good person, and I’m not saying he should keep his job. But he isn’t responsible for her death any more than the legal system is for it.

        2. Eh.

          I’m okay with changing the age of consent to 14 – 16 like it is in most of the Western world.

          However, teachers should not be banging their students.

          1. How many do 14 versus the number that do 16?

            1. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi…..al.svg.png

              Dark Blue is 16.
              Light Blue is 15.
              Dark Teal is 14.
              Light Teal is 13.

              Green is 18.

              That ugly orange-brown color for US/Mexico/Australia is “varies by state”.

              1. Europe is a pretty even mix of 14, 15, and 16.

              2. India: 18


            2. Just trying to stick to notable Western European countries here:

              16 = Belgium, Finland, Latvia, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, UK

              15 = Denmark, France, Iceland, Poland, Sweden

              14 = Germany, Hungary, Italy, Portugal

              13 = Spain


              1. Spain, eh? Ah! That fiery Latin blood!

              2. Como, estas, baby – hey, I got a new stuffed animal for you, it’s in my van!

              3. Spain just stole the title of “Alabama of Europe”

                1. Re-zip! Re-zip! RE-ZIP!

        3. Did the 14 year old consent?

          If she did, I’m comfortable with dismissing your totalitarian impulses to jail the 50 year old.

          1. The idea behind the age of consent is that they can’t consent. You may disagree on what that age is but surely you believe there should be one? 16 with Romeo-Juliet laws is reasonable to me.

            1. Why 16? Why not 14, as clearly proposed by the other side here?

              1. At 14, there were 5 of us who, to be frank, used a lecherous 21 year old as our beer purchaser and chauffeur.

                Three of us knew and admitted then that we were using him; I disagreed and offered that, to an extent, that it was a quid pro quo in that the lech derived some pleasure in being in our company(hey, we were all cute, athletic young men).

                At any rate, he tried to engage each and every one of us by suggesting that we do a “wrestle” with him, when it was just him and the last one of us left in his car after having dropped off the rest of us. Some how, some way, we all seemed to know to say, “no thanks”.

                After we got our driver’s licenses and use of our parents’ cars, we ditched him.

                Today, we still laugh about it. Sure, there is no doubt that he was and probably still is, a lech who would love to engage in some fantasy “wrestling” with young boys.

                Oh, should we have told our mummies and daddies? Should we have complained to the authorities? Should we have “said something” knowing that the lech wanted to “see something”?

                1. There is a difference between “athletic young men” and a 14 year old girl, Mike.

                  1. We were 14.

                    One of our best girl friends, also 14, could kick 90% of the guys butts in the 8th grade.

              2. I don’t think people are wrong for disagreeing with the age. It’s obviously always going to be subjective. But to suggest it’s totalitarian to have an age of consent is malarkey. Of course it is libertymike.

                1. Of course! Somebody has to stake out the extremes!

                  Nonetheless, I assume that you, like me, would handle things the way Roger Moore did when Lynn Holly Johnson embraced / propositioned him in For Your Eyes Only?

                  1. This reminds me of that Dragon Ball Z meme. “I see you fuck bitches. I also fuck bitches myself.”

                    1. Yes, I can see that.

            2. can’t consent

              I find it hilarious a libertarian would argue that a law can determine whether or not someone actually consented to something or not.

        4. Same here Apatheist. I am about as open minded on the subject as a person can get, but 14 is way over the line.

          1. I disagree.

            I was ready and willing to fuck at 14, there’s no reason why a female 14 year old shouldn’t be capable of consent.

            1. You run into the same trouble with any sort of arbitrary standard. Maybe in the abstract it should be judged on a case-by-case basis, but I’m having trouble with the practical details of such a system.

              I suppose there’s a case to be made that the fact that the minor in question gave consent to the 50-year-old is evidence that she did not have the maturity required to consent. I know that sounds paternalistic, but I take a more favorable view of paternalism when we are dealing with actual children.

              1. Practical details?

                Did they say ‘yes’ or did they say ‘no’?


                1. Of course. Clearly that’s all that matters.

                  1. Was someone holding a gun to her head?

      2. Yes, most May-December romances end in suicide for the younger partner.

        It’s still a better love story than Twilight, though.

        1. Can you think of something that *isn’t* better than Twilight?

            1. Why, oh why, do I ask these kinds of questions?

            2. Still a better band than The Eagles.

              1. Still a better band than The Eagles.

                You really take it to the limit with your criticism. Take it easy, dude. It’s like you’re some kind of music desperado who’s destined to challenge the Eagles for the long run. I’d say more, but it’s clear that, because of your Eagles hatred, you’re already gone.

              2. Come on dude, The Eagles are solid rock band. Saw them live. Joe Walsh is mental.

            3. I cant decide if they are serious or not.

              1. No matter what the answer, I can’t tell you why.

          1. Unbreakable.

      3. If I remember right, it was a lot worse than that. The girl had severe mental issues and the scum took advantage of that to coerce her into having sex.

        1. Citation please?

        2. That’s not at all what I read in the court documents.

      4. Yeah, I’ve lost respect for Shackford for not mentioning that fact.

        But I doubt he gives a fuck what I think.

    3. *lights the Plopper-signal*

      1. I’m here, many hours late!

  3. 17 percent of Americans, if they had their own way, would secede from the state in which they live…

    The average percentage of rural versus urban citizens?

      1. Table makes no sense with three classes of bourbon pumped in me.

        1. If you can still count how many you have had, it isn’t enough.

    1. Eh, isn’t moving easier?

      1. Move where?

        1. To a different state?

          1. You mean a different state where the proggy urban neofascists have also pretty much captured the state government?

            1. If all 50 states have been infested, then secede away!

              1. “Where you gonna go…where you gonna run?”


          2. Agrarian city-states?

        2. According to Sovereign Investor, you should move to Uruguay.


          1. Huh huh, you are gay, huh huh…

            1. Homer.

          2. “Uruguay is clearly a beautiful place to call home. One American expat here describes Uruguay as a well-kept secret for North Americans, but now the secret is out. Every year, more foreigners make Uruguay their home, along with many second-home buyers and investors.

            Forbes magazine last year surveyed more than 100 countries and rated Uruguay number one in the world for personal freedom.”

            As long as those foreigners are not North American liberals, they should be ok. If not, watch out. They will infest and ruin Uruguay.

            What, no mention Uruguay is a two-time World Cup champion?

            1. What, no mention Uruguay is a two-time World Cup champion?

              Fuck you asshole!, that didn’t even happen… at least one of those times!

              / The Brazilians

      2. Wasn’t that the whole idea of federalism? If you don;t like the rules here, move to a state more favorable?

        1. Until those pesky Justices with their Commerce Clause.

        2. I don’t know if that was the idea. I think the idea was more that the states started out as sovereign entities and only granted certain powers to the federal government. The laboratories of democracy thing was just an interesting result of that arrangement.

          1. The term “laboratories of democracy” was conceived by Louis Brandeis.

            It was not a founding era thing.

            1. I know the term was. But it still describes something that happened before then.

              1. Okay, it was happening, I will grant you that, but, it was not something conceived of by the founding generation.

  4. “I will not negotiate on anything when it comes to the full faith and credit of the United States of America.”

    With all due respect, Mr. President, that is painfully obvious.

    1. As if it were up to his sole discretion, anyway..

    2. But it’s those nasty Rethuglicans who won’t compromise!

    3. +2 downgrades.

      1. No more downgrades since DOJ sued S&P.

        1. Smothering the canaries when you go into the mine isn’t actually a good idea, even if the canaries keep giving you bad news.

          1. When you run your life off of the idea of “consensus” then I guess it sort of makes sense to kill the messengers.

            Sure, they may be right and may be Obama et al should listen, but in the current left’s worldview where consensus means more than facts – the absence of opposition is the same as not having any reasons to object.

    4. I will not negotiate on anything….”


  5. Kenyan Muslims who aren’t interested in going around killing people are not pleased.

    That hopefully goes without saying.

    1. I was hoping it would be Branson, MO, calling for drug decriminalization. I hear zombie Andy Williams likes to toke.

    2. Does anyone know of a good reason NOT to like Richard Branson?

      Everything I know about him makes me want to go out and develop human reproduction via clonal budding just so we can get more of him. I’m assuming there is something I’m missing.

      1. He’s basically as close as we get to Tony Stark.

      2. Branson is not a redneck/conservative type that most of the Peanut Gallery here likes.

        1. So I’ll take the deafening silence as a no, everyone else thinks he’s peachy. Also gratuitous photo of Prince Harry and Richard Branson.

          1. Branson is a big time environmentalist an supporter of Al Gore.

            That is a big-time sin to the rednecks here (like Pro L, Sevo, SouthronBoy, John, and so on)

            But believing in Creationism is just so dreamy to them.

            1. Unhappy birthday, scumbag. Here’s hoping it’s your last.

            2. And the Emmy nomination for best attempted self-parody is….

            3. You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

              1. Inconceivable

    3. From the linked article, describing the Portuguese system:

      The offender goes on to appear in front of a board of legal experts, social workers and psychologists, rather than a courtroom with a judge. The onus is on help, not punishment.

      The tipoff word here is “offender”. I am sure that my definition of ‘help’ is not the same as that of the “board of legal experts, social workers and psychologists”.

      How about just leaving people alone if they aren’t hurting you?

  6. …even though it appears as though his administration is less and less able to implement Obamacare in the first place.

    In their defense, have you read that thing? No one could implement that train wreck.

    1. “In their defense.”

      You’re a funny guy, Fist.

      1. Your death panel will kill me last?

        1. Yeah, the panel will promise to kill you last, and later, while they are killing you, they will tell you that you are not the last and that they lied.

    2. No one read it. They had to pass it to find out what was in it, remember?

      1. I took a class on it in law school. It was a three hour class and we barely scratched the surface.

    3. Seriously, if you have never looked at the legislation, please spend at least a few minutes with it.

      You will be *horrified*.

    4. Is that defense or a condemnation? Since that is what they wanted.

  7. Drug-sniffing dog searches to be clarified by Supreme Court [of Canada]

    A Supreme Court of Canada ruling to be released tomorrow is expected to clarify what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity that would justify the use of a police sniffer dog.

    The court has considered two cases where police didn’t have much to go on before deploying drug detector dogs on men who were transporting drugs.

    1. Forgot to add: I’m really starting to dislike that word “reasonable”.

      1. Aside from its totalitarian friendly applications and pliability, the word is a gold mine for esquires.

    2. “Those dogs can smell anything. That’s why you gotta kick them in the throat!”

    3. There’s not even clarity in the headline. People are searching dogs now? The dogs are lost? The lost dogs are sniffing drugs?

    4. So, in Canada they can’t even do a dog sniff without first having reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, but in the US, dog sniffs are used to create (a word I use advisedly) that suspicion.

      As I say more and more often, “Well, it used to be a free country.”

      1. Canada? I’m not familiar with that term.

    5. How often do you need to search a drug-sniffing dog though?

  8. Robinson Cano wants $300 million contract.

    Even Yankees say, fuck that shit:


    1. Obviously, Cano needs to piss in a cup, because he must be high.

    2. As good as he is he doesn’t even run hard.

      1. He hustled his ass off when he played for the Dominican Republic in the stupid-ass WBC exhibition, which tells you what he really cares about.

      2. I’m perpetually amazed that nobody ever taught the guy how to run. Literally. He’s a fantastic athlete with insane lateral quickness, but he runs completely flatfooted even when he’s going all out. Drives me nuts. Really, nobody can hook him up with a track coach for an afternoon?

    3. Since they started testing for steroids, the days of players being dominant past the age of 32 ended. Every big contract that has been given out to guys over 30 since they started testing for steroids has been a disaster. How is that big contract for Arod working out? Or that one the Angels gave Pulhos?

      I would be surprised if anyone gives him that long of a contract. The chances of him justifying that big of a salary past age 32 are very slim. And he is 30 right now.

      1. I keep seeing the Dodgers have a lot of money to spend.

        How is that possible?

        1. I don’t know.

        2. Over three million annual attendance, hundreds of millions in merch sales. Plus, it’s owned by these guys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guggenheim_Partners

          They have over $180B in assets. They are loaded for bear.

      2. 5 years $100M. No more of these 8 year contracts, ever again.

        1. I would do that. Even then you are paying him $20 million at age 35. That is not the best bet.

          1. Right, but from a finance perspective (Time value of money), those 4th and 5th seasons aren’t expensive.

            1. He’s in NY, though. The Yankees have to pay a premium. My guess is they end up settling at 7/160.

              I say this without looking at their current 2014 payroll: Steinbrenner and Cashman will not go one penny over $189m; they already sacrificed this season to do so and it doing so sets up their finances for the next decade. Unless A-Rod’s suspension ends up being for the whole season, the Yanks won’t be doling out any insane contracts.

              1. I don’t think the Yankees will be doling out many more insane contracts anyway. I think they have figured out you can’t buy titles anymore.

                Word is MLB is after A Rod’s grand jury testimony. I have a feeling they are going to end up voiding a lot of his contract. Everyone has an interest in seeing ARod go down. Even the players do odd enough since it would make the Yankees a player on the free agent market again and drive up salaries.

              2. That seems mighty generous. I think the owners are starting to collude against that type of contract. I’m guessing they are enacting a gentlemen’s agreement that 5 years is a maximum length of contract. Cano doesn’t like it? Try Texas, or the Angels, or Detroit. The answer is going to be “nope”. Going forward, no owner is going to entertain 7 years.

                1. EDG

                  It isn’t even collusion. With the luxury tax the way it is, a $25 million dollar a year salary on a non producing player or a sub par player cripples even the richest franchises. After the ARod and Puhlhose contracts, no one is going to want to risk being in that position.

        2. Seriously. Look how the Devils were hosed with Kovlachuk. Long-term contracts make little sense. Di Pietro with the Islanders signed for 15 years – a goalie!

      3. Chipper Jones was the 2008 NL batting champion at the age of 36 and retired at the age of 40 with a .300 average – from both sides of the plate.

        But generally you are probably right about baseball players entering their mid 30s.

        1. There are always exceptions. Derek Jeter had a great year in 2012 until he got hurt right at the end of the year. But those are rare.

          Go back and look, the number of great players who were still great after the age of 35 can be counted on one hand. Pete Rose, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth and not many others. Even some of the greatest players of all time, DiMaggio and Mayes to name two, production fell off a cliff once they hit 37.

          1. An interesting case is that of Dwight “Dewey” Evans, the man who Sparky Anderson said made the best catch in the world series he ever saw.

            Compare his stats when he was in his twenties with his stats while he was in his thirties.

            One can make a credible argument that Evans was among the top 5 or 6 players in all of baseball for the decade of the 80s.

            1. There are some exceptions. Warren Spahn is another one. He had more wins after 40 than many pitchers have in what would be a good career. But they are exceptions. Most players skills decline pretty quickly after about 32 and even the really great ones rarely make much past 35.

              That is except of course during the 90s and 00s when they were using steroids.

              1. You remember Darrell Evans? IIRC, he might be another exception, at least insofar as he hit quite a few home runs in his late thirties up to 40. His career ended at the dawn of the steroid era, again, IIRC.

                1. Yes I do., I am old and remember guys like Ron Guidry and Willie Stargell.

                  1. Don Bradman averaged 97.14 in 1947 at the age of 39.

                    1. …and he would have averaged 100 over his career if he hadn’t been bowled for a duck in his final appearance.

                    2. It was almost like the gods just wouldn’t allow that level of greatness.

            1. There are a few.

              1. I think a big part of it is it just gets harder to bounce back from the inevitable injuries, especially with the intensity of the baseball schedule.

      4. Pujols rots while the Cards continue to be successful.

        I don’t get why these guys chase money like they do. He was well compensated in STL and still had a chance to win.

    4. As I saw Andrew Brandt say on his twitter earlier: Agent throws out the absurd $300 million number, so Cano looks good when he “settles” for a mere $200 million contract.

      1. “He just wants a high-living wage!”

  9. Bill Gates: CTRL-ALT-DEL Was a Mistake

    Do you hear that, Tim Buckley? Even Bill Gates thinks you’re a hack!

    1. It’s almost as if Bill Gates has let us down one last time.

  10. According to TurboTax, if my company drops me, it will cost my family $764/month for the cheapest insurance plan, and $0 in penalties if I don’t get insurance. Even with a newborn, I’ll bet $9000/year cash would cover all but the most catastrophic problems.

    1. Screw TurboTax, Brett.

      What do the Navigators say?

    2. “Even with a newborn, I’ll bet $9000/year cash would cover all but the most catastrophic problems.”

      …your first child, I see.

      1. The vets in your neck of the woods must be really expensive, hamilton.

        1. Unpossible! I live in Massachusetts – didn’t you know our health care costs are coming crashing down because of government?

      2. I may be assuming a competitive market with rational actors. Neither of which is actually true. As my buddy whose wife takes their kid to the ER once a quarter over nothing would remind me.

        1. That was mostly my point. We kinda stopped caring at kid 2 and gave up completely at kid 3, who is probably fortunate to be alive (and, of course, stronger for it).

        2. I went to the doctor twice in 18 years when I was a kid, and I turned out okay. Well, mostly.

        3. it’s hilarious what some new parents will do. he coughed .. call 911!

          my favorite is “my kid is burnign up”
          yeah, you’ve got him in fleece pjs, multiple blankets and the heat is on “blast furnace.” let’s take him outside for a few minutes.

          1. I have to remind my wife of this all the time. “He’s burning up!” “He just took a bath.”

          2. In Finland, it’s considered completely normal for babies to nap outside, even in winter.

            1. Finland. Yeah.

              I was once in line waiting to have tires put on my car when I noticed the guy going up and down the line starting everyone’s paperwork was in shorts and a tee. It was about 15 degrees and pissing ice. Evryone else was bundled up, but not that guy. I know for a fact that 15 degrees here is much worse than 5 below almost everywhere else. It is so fucking humid here and the cold just soaks right through you.

              I rolled my window down and remarked about the weather and his dress. He grinned like hell and said ” I am from Norway! This is nice sunny day!”

              1. What the fuck were you doing in Finland, SB? Man, the guys here are well-traveled.

                Anyway, it’s not uncommon to see us Canucks skating around ice rinks playing hockey in -20c weather with a baseball cap and ear muffs. I used to wear by corduroy Eagles cap.

                After a few beers we’d dare each other to wear as little clothing as we could go.

                1. my

          3. My only hope is that my wife is cheap and the idea of spending $250 on an ER visit is something she would hate.

            1. my wife’s mother was a nurse and i’m a volunteer EMT. if anything, we’re too causal. hit his head an vomited. meh. let’s put some ice on it and see.

              1. If most scared parents simply called their doctor first, they’d be told almost the same thing though – offer some OTC meds and say “call me if it gets worse over the next couple of days”.

                Like the old – take 2 aspirin and call me in the morning – it’s a general recognition from medicine that most things that make humans get sick will be solved in time by the human body itself.

    3. With so many dollar amounts divided by a unit of measurement, I think most people are going to assume you’re a spammer.

    4. Apparently I make too little money to qualify for subsidies, so it’s gonna be Medicaid for me. I figure if the government wants to force me to see a doctor to get the medication I want, it can start paying for the visits.

      1. The trouble with that Elphie is that ‘it’ ( the government) isnt paying for it.

    5. Just like Timmy Geithner, you have complete faith in TurboTax to do your taxes.

  11. So while discussing the remanding of Melissa Alexander to a new trial by the FL DCA, I came across this which clarifies that a firearm discharged while being used as a club in a manner consistent with SYG is eligible for SYG immunity in Florida.

    1. Angela Corey 0
      Her victims 2

  12. It looks like burning Atlanta was less environmentally friendly than driving around it at 85 mph.

    1. We have trees. Lots of trees. And where we don’t have trees, we have kudzu. Heck, we have kudzu growing on trees.

      1. You know, that entire blue zone in the South is probably the Kudzu Zone.

        1. Now I’m picturing a black and white Jeff Foxworthy in a suit introducing odd, frequently macabre tales involving Southerners?

          “Y’all are now enterin’ The Kudzu Zone.”

          1. I remember a good SF anthology from decades ago that had a kudzu horror/SF story in it. Don’t go into the kudzu!!!

    2. You know who else burned Atlanta?

      1. Hitler? Wait…

      2. David O. Selznick?

      3. Sherman Williams?

    3. the study estimated that roughly 2.1 million deaths per year could be attributed to fine particle matter pollution alone.

      That seem a bit high to anyone but me?

      7B people in the world. Divide by 70 (life expectancy, yes high) is 100M die every year.

      2% die from pollution?

      1. Not only is it likely wrong for being way too high, I would bet that the authors of this study cannot prove conclusively that even one single death arose from particulate matter pollution.

        But check the study – their “dirty” cities are also in less developed places in the world like China & South America – where I’m assuming there are other environmental factors affecting life expectancy.

        Also, from a slate article about the same study:

        Additionally, the study’s authors conclude that man-made climate change has expedited the creation of these pollutants by causing warmer temperatures that make trees emit higher quantities of organic particles that can then become pollutants.

        Which I guess means we need fewer trees – though like a lot of humans, I’m sort of addicted to oxygen.

        So yeah, it’s crap – just like second hand smoke – which “scientists” tells us kills 42K non-smokes in the US annually: http://s2intel.us/1eLesom.

        Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

    4. If Sherman could have known what Atlanta would turn into, he’d have salted the earth for good measure.

      1. Did we do something to you, or have you been stuck in a traffic jam on I-285 once too often?

        1. Oh, I had some less-than-ideal encounters with some residents of Atlanta, Georgia and it somewhat colored my opinion of the city.

  13. Feministing is infuriated with Gawker’s privilege brackets.

    You know when someone says something, and you’re thinking: Hold up – you did not just THINK that, you also let that shit come out your mouth, huh? Well, dear readers, today I present you with Gawker’s Privilege Tournament. This is extra special, because Hamilton Nolan didn’t just think about this; he took the time to write it down, he looked it over, and he still decided it was a great idea. Let’s start at the beginning, shall we:

    Loads of histrionics follow.

    1. That’s actually pretty clever of Gawker, especially if they follow it up with an entitlement bracket throwdown.

    2. Feministing is infuriated with Gawker’s privilege brackets.

      So, Mission Accomplished!

    3. All is proceeding as planned.

    4. You know when someone says something, and you’re thinking: Hold up – you did not just THINK that, you also let that shit come out your mouth, huh?

      How dare you think something I don’t want you to think!

    5. They’re just upset that Gawker had a post that was actually somewhat witty for once.

    6. I am looking at that chart and have no idea what it means. I suspect the producer of that chart doesnt either.

      I am also seriously dissapointed to see that the staff, listed on the right of the page with photos, has a bunch of serious hotties in it. If only they had brains they would be attractive.

      1. Dick. You’re going to make people think Libertarians are hard-hearted sarcastic cynical assholes by posting that sort of cruel follow-up.

        1. Entirely my intention.

      2. Noooo. There’s a nutpunch around every corner here.

  14. Have Professional Women Created a Worse World for Their Working Class Peers?
    In her new book, The XX Factor: How the Rise of Working Women Has Created a Far Less Equal World, British economist Alison Wolf argues that as the gap between genders has narrowed for the affluent, the gap between rich and poor women has broadened. The former’s professional success is made possible by “the return of the servant classes”?almost uniformly female housekeepers and nannies who free their employers to pull farther ahead. “Until now, all women’s lives, whether rich or poor, have been dominated by the same experiences and pressures,” she writes. “Today, elite and highly educated women have become a class apart.” I interviewed Wolf this week about her provocative argument and how it has been received….

    1. Looks like job creation and not oppression to me.

    2. Given most of the professional women I know are truly woeful individuals, I doubt it’s created a better world for them either.

    3. See, it would be so much better if those women didn’t have jobs at all. It’s so much worse to have demeaning work than it is to just be poor.

    4. Of course they have. Feminism has always been about making sure upper middle and wealthy white women get a chance to have everything they want. The ability to have a “career” is great if you are some rich girl going to Wellsley. But if you are lower middle class or poor, a “career” means working some shit job your whole life. Those women were better off at home and largely wanted to stay there. But they were told to shut up and go to work so their betters could live their dreams.

    5. Waiting for too much success to become a feminist talking point.

    6. And they’ve learned men drink after putting in an 8-12 hour day. You get thirsty after exercising so much privilege.

  15. Europa Universalis 4 Is The Best Genocide Simulator Of the Year

    I knew going in that I’d playing a game about a topic that, in real life, is horrifying to my (white, privileged) progressive sensibilities. I thought I was prepared for it.

    Then I actually saw how they treat the Americas[…]

    You can see a simplified take on their religion, a rough population estimate, and the only two stats that most indigenous peoples are allowed to have in this game: “aggressiveness” and “ferocity”[…] Since when does self defense, or the defense of one’s territory, become aggressive? Why, when brown people are doing it, of course […] That doesn’t strike anyone else as a bit?broad? A bit caricatured? A bit?say it with me now?racist?


    And it’s hard to believe that this isn’t intentional. It’s hard to believe that the existence of the Huron and the Iroquois aren’t only there for the European player’s benefit.

    1. That’s some quality butthurt.

    2. Don’t play it, then. Or make your own game. Or wake up and realize they’re images on a computer screen, not real humans.

    3. They actually made playing all the little shitty parts of the world way more possible and fun than in the previous iterations.

      And it’s hard to believe that this isn’t intentional. It’s hard to believe that the existence of the Huron and the Iroquois aren’t only there for the European player’s benefit.

      Of course they are. The game is not supposed to be balanced.

      1. Isn’t every single pixel and line of code there for the player’s benefit?

        1. Well that and it’s one of the most mod-able games out there.

          1. Very easy to mod and its fucking number 4 in the series, this isn’t new shit. All of their grand strategy games are in the same vein of being rigged to words being historically accurate but allowing you to bend history.

            I’m glad that Paradox has gotten more popular because it gives them more money to make the games better but it was nice playing EU II that nobody has heard of and not having the world analyze the shit out of it. Or fucking complaining that it is not CKII. I see so many people complaining that you can’t control and interact with your dynasty. It’s a different game! Fuck!

            1. My favorite Paradox game continues to be EU: Rome, as I went into the text files and translated the entire UI into Classical Latin. I was working on the events before I gave up.

            2. Can anyone tell me if EU4 plays nice with Windows 8? EU3 sure doesn’t.

              1. It does.

                Plays on Linux and Mac, as well.

                1. Thanks, TIT. I think I asked this earlier, but forgot the response.

      2. The implications of the name “Europa Universalis” apparently did not sink in.

    4. Looks like someone has never played the Sunset Invasion DLC for Crusader Kings 2.

      1. …or exported it to EU4.

      2. HM, I’ve been thinking about getting that DLC. Do they steamroll people like the Mongols do?

        1. Yes, but it isn’t quite as bad as the Mongols.

        2. In my experience, yes. It’s just like the Golden Horde but from west to east.

          1. HM, do you consider Dmitri Donskoi are hero?

            1. Well, history certainly would have been different had he lost. The Slavic world would have been thoroughly Islamism, which, ironically, would have put the Jews of what would have been the “former” Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in a better position in later history. Siberia would probably have been Sinofied as opposed to Russofied. God knows how a future Mongol-British War would have turned out.

              1. Interesting.

                My first Russian language prof, who was Czech and my Russian history prof, who was from Hungary, both considered Dmitri Donskoi a hero, and, IIRC, they theorized as you do.

                Both of the profs were ardent anti-communists who were put in front of a firing squad by both the Nazis and the Soviets.

    5. Does it make me a terrible human being if I admit that I made a point of blowing up Indian War Canoes and leaving no survivors in Sid Meier’s Pirates?

    6. He had no problem with killing and oppressing untold numbers of virtual Europeans, but only had a pang of conscience when he realized that his dream of preventing the founding of the USA required oppressing virtual Amerinds first.

      That’s just fucked up.

    7. He had no problem with killing and oppressing untold numbers of virtual Europeans, but only had a pang of conscience when he realized that his dream of preventing the founding of the USA required oppressing virtual Amerinds first.

      That’s just fucked up.

    8. the only two stats that most indigenous peoples are allowed to have in this game: “aggressiveness” and “ferocity”

      I’ll only bitch about racism in the game if the only stats the slaves have are “uppity” and “shiftyness”. Haven’t played it yet, it looks like a more cerebral “total war” type of game though.

  16. I’ll just leave this here:

    22 Things Only Women’s And Gender Studies’ Majors Understand

    1. Everyone assumes you’re gay.
    2. If you really are gay, well, “it figures”.
    3. You’re sick of trying to explain to people that you don’t identify with a gender anymore.
    4. You’re sick of trying to explain to people that gender and sex are social constructs.
    5. You’ve tried (in vain) to explain what performativity is.
    6. You adore the phrase “historically and culturally specific” because it makes you sound super smart.
    7. You only date feminists.
    8. All of your friends are feminists.
    9. A surprising number of your friends are also gay, transgender, drag queens/kings, and/or some other kind or gender deviants.
    10. You’re utterly at a loss as to why anyone would NOT identify as a feminist.

    1. 11. Because feminism is not only an awesome cause full of awesome people? [refers to picture]
      12. It’s pretty obvious, too. [refers to picture]
      13. You’re thrilled at the prospect of raising a daughter (or a child of any gender) because you know you can DO IT RIGHT! [delicious irony, the picture shows a girl with a Nerf gun]
      14. You’re so sick of the question: “Why is there Women’s Studies but no Men’s Studies?”
      15. ?because there is “Men’s Studies.” [apparently History is actually Men’s Studies]
      16. You feel the urge to respond to outrage by writing an essay about it.
      17. Judith Butler is both your best friend and worst enemy.
      18. Don’t even get you STARTED on Foucault
      19. Most of all, you understand that even though every other major thinks you just sit around making fun of men?
      20. ?you actually LEARN a lot about people, society, sociology, psychology, history, science, economics, philosophy, and more!
      21. Not to mention everything you learn about YOURSELF, which enables you to grow into a well-rounded, educated person.
      22. WGST majors know that they have the BEST major!

      1. 22. WGST majors know that they have the BEST major!

        23. Starbucks offers better health care benefits than McDonald’s

      2. “You’ve tried (in vain) to explain what performativity is”

        Uh god, tell me about it. I have trouble explaining the words I invent too. Bromancislapfizzitulation is sometimes the only word that fits a situation, people. Get with it.

        1. I love early 70s Bromancislapfizzitulation movies. Hopefully Quentin Tarantino will make one soon.

      3. 12. It’s pretty obvious, too.

        It’s obvious when talking about ‘feminism is the radical notion that women are people’ and ‘equal pay for equal work’ but once you get to limiting the percentage of the population that is male for breeding purposes only and implementing a matriarchal utopia or complaining that all porn (even mine!) demeans and degrades women you’ve lost me.

        1. or complaining that all porn (even mine!)

          Another desperate attempt to get us to post photos of “hot men” for you, isn’t it? :-p

          1. I usually post up eye candy for the male heterotarians when I post something up for the homotarians and lady libertarians. Just sayin’.

            1. And that’s more than sarcasmic does, the bastard.

              1. Watch out, Heroic Mulatto. Sarcasmic will call you a chubby chaser if you dare find any woman besides those under 100 lbs with the build a 12 year old boy attractive.

                1. those under 100 lbs with the build a 12 year old boy attractive.

                  See, HM, sarcasmic is just splitting the baby and nobody is happy. Although I suppose people don’t complain about some of the results for “waifish models” on google images. I’m a little confused how this comes up in that search though, but I’m not complaining.

        2. However, if you dare say that it’s a crock, they point to those first two points and call you sexist

    2. WHY

    3. Everyone assumes you’re gay.

      Most of the gay people I know are intelligent.

      1. I automatically assume everyone’s gay until the come out of the closet as straight.

      2. I know both men and women gays. Not a single one of them was any kind of hate studies major.

    4. 7. You only date feminists.
      8. All of your friends are feminists.

      No one else will put up with you.

      10. You’re utterly at a loss as to why anyone would NOT identify as a feminist.

      You live in a hive mind.

    5. 20. ?you actually LEARN a lot about people, society, sociology, psychology, history, science, economics, philosophy, and more!

      Oh, fuck

      1. 20. ?you actually LEARN a lot the proper way to avoid cognitive dissonance about the way we tell you to think about people, society, sociology, psychology, history, science, economics, philosophy, and more!

        Fixed for accuracy.

    6. You’re sick of trying to explain to people that gender and sex are social constructs.

      As dumb as the former is, I’ve never even heard someone try to argue that sex was a social construct before.

      1. It’s social. And it involves erection.

      2. Oh, such people exist. It is damn near impossible to make sense of what they say, but they do exist.

        1. So, I am not a man because I have a penis, but because society tells me I am a man?

          1. No, I’m afraid it’s a bit more complicated than that. I won’t attempt to explain it as my skills for writing about ridiculous shit have dropped off quite a bit since college.

            1. Well, I made the mistake of going to the comments section at Buzzfeed for answers:

              Sex is a social construct because it is not necessary to know what sex someone is. The desire to know people’s sexes comes from society’s fear of accidentally being attracted to someone that’s sex might not match up with that person’s self-described orientation.

              1. Egad. With some extraordinarily rare and statistically insignificant exceptions, you’re either male or female. Those are facts. You know, on planet Earth.

                These same people are the ones who deny economics, climate science, and everything else tangible.

                1. A lot of the other comments were all about pointing to the exceptions. Derp, derp, how do you explain hermaphrodites? Derp, derp.

                  1. By that logic, all of mankind has been to the Moon.

                    1. Yep – if sex is truly a social construct, then there’s really no need for feminists nor Womyn’s studies.

      3. People can claim anything. But reality really doesn’t give a shit.

        1. I was born a poor black child.

    7. Sex isn’t a social construct. Gender is, sex isn’t.

    8. Huh. I honestly can’t tell if that was written by a feminist women’s studies major or if it is meant to make sun of feminist women’s studies majors.

      1. Same here. Still scratching my head.

      2. It was written by whiny emo betas, for other whiny emo betas, in a desperate bit to feel somehow superior, at the behest of a sadistic collage professor who was laughing his ass off at how fucking stupid they sound, whilst thumbing through their fat wads of tuition cash…

  17. Time’s Stengel latest in long line of reporters who jumped to jobs in Obama administration
    …The latest hire: Richard Stengel, Time magazine’s managing editor (and Carney’s former boss). Obama nominated Stengel last week to be the State Department’s undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs, a top communications post. Stengel will succeed Tara Sonenshine, another journalist (ABC News, Newsweek) who became part of the government she once covered.

    At State, Stengel can swap newsroom stories with Samantha Power, a former journalist (U.S. News, the Boston Globe, the New Republic) who is now the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. His staff will include Desson Thomson, a former Washington Post movie critic who became a speechwriter for Hillary Rodham Clinton when she served as secretary of state. Other colleagues will include two recent additions to Secretary of State John F. Kerry’s staff: Glen Johnson, a longtime political reporter and editor at the Boston Globe, and Douglas Frantz, a reporter and editor who has worked for the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and, most recently, The Post. Frantz was also briefly an investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Kerry, then a senator from Massachusetts….

    1. The fact that Samantha Power has any influence at all in this country says a lot about why we are in such bad shape.

      1. As opposed to that idiot war-monger John Bolton?

        You are insane.

        1. shriek, John did not compare Samantha Power to John Bolton, did he? In fact, he did not raise Bolton’s name, at all, right?

          Thus, your invocation of Bolton is DEFLECTION.

          btw, I loathe Bolton and that idiotic mustache.

          1. I agree with you point that PB’s making a deflective statement and not arguing in good faith and am not a Bolton fan either, but PB isn’t just a logic impaired troll, he’s also demonstrably wrong.

            Bolton got a JD from Yale in 74 and has worked in several government positions starting in Reagan administration in state department and other places.

            Samantha however went from college directly into Founding Executive Director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy and then into the Obama administration.

            Honestly – I can see why Obama might like her – she’s him – no real experience, never actually run anything, but lots of people thinks she’s smart and articulate.

            But without question – Bolton is eminently more qualified than Samantha to work in upper most levels of government.

            1. run – ran – damn it

  18. Krugman, genius that he is, has solved the trade deficit problem:

    Leaving aside the large surplus just after World War II, we went from persistent small surpluses before 1980 to persistent large deficits after 1980. This meant that we needed more domestic demand, other things equal, to achieve full employment ? and arguably that we needed a series of bubbles and rising leverage, which are no longer forthcoming.

    The reason I’m hesitating a bit before simply declaring trade the culprit is the issue of causation, and the related issue of whether those deficits are likely to persist. Why, exactly, did we start running persistent deficits?

    After around 2000, you could argue that policies abroad were responsible: China and other developing countries were clearly keeping their currencies undervalued and accumulating large dollar reserves, and the counterpart of that accumulation had to be deficits in the rest of the world, which ended up meaning us. But the deficits began long before that, and some of the biggest surpluses out there are being run by countries that don’t do a lot of foreign exchange intervention (e.g. Germany).

    So the causation could run the other way, with deregulation and rising leverage pulling in foreign capital, keeping the dollar overvalued, and producing persistent deficits.

    1. Interesting thesis. I wonder what economy he is looking at that has had deregulation?

      1. One of Krugabe’s most disturbing insanities is his obsession with the “over valued” dollar. Basically, Krugabe believes that the road to prosperity lies in destroying as much of the American consumer’s purchasing power and wealth as possible.

        1. If he believes it’s so overvalued, he should be shorting it.

        2. I believe Robert Reich refers to this phenomenon as things which are good for the individual, but bad for the group (economy).

          Saving money is good for you, but bad for the economy.

          He said that. Said it. Out loud. On NPR.

          1. Saving money is good for you, but bad for the economy.

            Wow. They are so demand side obsessed they disrard the basic truths of macro economics; one of them being “investment = savings + debt”.

            1. Even more basically, they ignore that “demand” means fuck-all if your “supply” is zero. People actually have to create wealth in some form or another.

              This is one of the problems of having an advanced economy. This basic – fuck, primal – point can be much more easily ignored in an economy where ~80% of the economy is service, and about 20% is industrial & agriculture. When half the population had to grow a crop or starve, eliding the simple fact that people need to create wealth to live was not so easy.

              1. People like Reich are clever people who have devoted all of their talents to finding clever ways to pretend reality is something other than what it is.

    2. Leaving aside the large surplus just after World War II, we went from persistent small surpluses before 1980 to persistent large deficits after 1980. This meant that we needed more domestic demand, other things equal, to achieve full employment ? and arguably that we needed a series of bubbles and rising leverage, which are no longer forthcoming.

      Can Kruggers just come out and admit that he’s a mercantilist?

    3. So the causation could run the other way, with deregulation and rising leverage pulling in foreign capital, keeping the dollar overvalued, and producing persistent deficits.

      Yeah, or there’s the obvious reason that the petro-dollar system creates global demand for dollars, which drives the persistent government and trade deficits.

    1. Short-term problem. Any fish that feeds on testicles is going to starve out in NJ.

      1. Or it will learn to live on tanning lotion and hair gel.

  19. 17 percent of Americans, if they had their own way, would secede from the state in which they live, according to a Rasmussen poll.

    Loosen up the requirements to secede from a state, and you’ll just have the FedGov threatening uncooperative states with being broken up – govt funded (thru ‘education’, “community outreach”, etc) secession movements, bribes of taxpayer money to new states for boondoggles, etc.

  20. The near-Dadaist absurdity of Marcotte’s essay writing makes a glorious return! Sample sentence:

    And then there was this depressing marriage guide from one of the Real Housewives that explains that in order to earn the right to have some asshole gently farting away as he shares your bed for the rest of your life?or until your tits fall and he trades you for a new model, but same thing, since women’s value is only in pleasing men?you have to be a combination of a sex toy and house servant.

    This seems… strangely evocative. You doing OK, girl?

    1. Bonus:

      You are to exit every room he is in backwards, whether on all fours or merely two feet. Turning your back on your man instead of gazing at him worshipfully every moment you’re around him is not permitted. Do you really want to spend the rest of your life without someone around to carp about how women these days don’t know how to please a man?

      Valentine’s Day in the Marcotte household must be an absolute joy.

    2. “a combination of a sex toy and house servant.”

      That’s horrible – it fails to include the part where she does all the grocery shopping!

    3. you have to be a combination of a sex toy and house servant.

      Yeah Amanda, to get a guy who has any other options to marry you, you have to put out and generally bring something to the relationship. The patriarchy is a real bitch like that.

      Other than a sociopath who will say anything to get a woman in bed and just doesn’t give a shit about anything beyond that, what the kind of pathetic self hating man would date, much less marry, someone like Marcotte, even if she was a 10 in the looks department, which she is not?

      1. The kind who plans to insure her life for a lot of money and has a foolproof way to murder her without suspicion falling on him?

        1. Well there is that prospect for Amanda. She is going to be an unimaginably sad spectacle as an old woman. Old, alone, angry, bitter, living in some run down third floor walk up in a crummy area of Brooklyn with five cats.

    4. All the feminist websites are running commentary on this. And, while there is a lot of crap there (but what happened to choice?) the best part is how offended they are by this:

      I can do something that pisses him off on a Monday, but if we had sex on Sunday night, it blows over more easily. But if we haven’t done it for two days and I give him attitude? It could be a huge fight.
      There’s real passionate sex and maintenance sex. You need them both for a healthy marriage. Maintenance sex keeps the wheels greased, the lines of communication open, and the fights to a minimum.

      As I’ve shown time and time again, good, practical advice seems to enrage feminists more than anything else.

      1. Sex is the most powerful weapon women have. Men will endure practically anything for sex. Putting out has traditionally been one of the best ways women had to get what they wanted out of their husbands. Many a husband has had the thought go through their heads “wow the wife doesn’t do this often, this is great, oh shit what does she want”, but not care.

        Feminists are all about female empowerment. But they spend their entire lives trying to deny women the greatest weapon nature has ever given a creature. It really is a bunch of ugly and sex hating women out to get revenge on their hotter more sexually open sisters.

        1. Theoretically in a relationship sex shouldn’t be used as a weapon at all.

          I mean if you’re married and the only way you can have sex is to *bargain directly for it by sacrificing something else – why not just skip the expensive divorce and order out?

    5. since women’s value is only in pleasing men

      As opposed to…making men miserable? If and when I want a woman to abuse me, I know who to call, how much it costs, and how to lay down to sleep until the pain in my balls subsides.

      1. Jeez, don’t make it sound like you’re the only one who has a mother-in-law.

  21. ACA is going to cause rates to shoot up in MA for small businesses. HHS just denied a waiver request on the rating rules the state had in place.
    no go. they have to comply with the fed ones.

    1. I am in some ways glad the Republicans are not going to be able to delay this thing. It is going to be horrible. And that makes me very sad. But on the other hand, even though I know many people think that the Progs will manage to blame this on everyone else and get the American people to buy even more of what they are selling, I think this might just be the time the the Progs finally get what they deserve. This time they have finally screwed over the middle and upper middle class of America in a really identifiable and attributable way.

      I have no idea what the fallout of all of this is going to be. But it is going to be big whatever it is.

      1. I agree.

        The problem is that a good chunk of those affected will, no matter what, blame Republicans.

  22. “…even though it appears as though his administration is less and less able to implement Obamacare in the first place.”

    Wow! It’s almost like he’s just blaming Republicans because he can get away with it! I am shocked!

    1. Dirt sample reveals two pints of liquid water per cubic feet, not freely accessible but bound to other minerals in the soil

      2 pints per cubic foot sounds like a shitload to me.

      But, “bound to minerals” doesn’t sound like liquid to me.

  23. The most compelling coverage of Ted Cruz’s not-filibuster you will see anywhere!*

    *Assuming you have been locked in Jessica Valenti’s basement and forced to read Jezebel and nothing else for the past 10 years.

    So how does Cruz stack up to this year’s OG of long-talking Texans who care about health care, Wendy Davis? Let’s find out:


    Sneaker color

    Wendy Davis: Pink, for the ladies.

    Ted Cruz: Black, for all the people who will die from lack of health care should he ever get his way.

    Winner: Cruz’s people did manage to get a lot of press mentions of his sneakers, but there’s no way he’s going to be on a magazine cover holding those shoes. So we give it to Davis.

    You know who else liked wearing black..? (Besides priests, Shaft, Kate Beckinsdale, and Tommy Lee Jones in Men in… well, you know.)

    1. The Cruz filibuster was nothing. It wasn’t even worth noting. It was of no importance at all. It was a cheap stunt.

      That totally explains why every leftist hack website and news organization were and are obsessed with it

  24. Good news: Universal flu vaccine breakthrough

    Scientists have reached a breakthrough in their pursuit of a universal vaccine for flu, which includes even future deadly strains. The answer lay within the human body itself, after eluding specialists for decades.

    “The immune system produces these CD8 T cells in response to usual seasonal flu? Unlike antibodies, they target the core of the virus, which doesn’t change, even in new pandemic strains. The 2009 pandemic provided a unique natural experiment to test whether T cells could recognize, and protect us against, new strains that we haven’t encountered before and to which we lack antibodies,” Lalvani said, cited by The Independent.

    1. That is good news. At some point, a new 1919-like strain will come out.

  25. FTB blogger tries to defend rape (by way of CCC) allegations.

    He unfortunatly tries to use logic. Despite making a pretty good go of it, feminists are pissed that he “manslplained” with his “logic”. There is a ton of purposely missing the point, insane theories that have no bearing in reality, and feigned outrage in the piece. So basically standard feminist fare.

    1. 2. Women are neither cars nor houses. Your analogy privileges are now revoked.

      In Post #1, Carrier decided that the best way to analogize a woman rape victim would be to reduce her to a car:

      Even if we leave our keys in the ignition, it is still theft to drive off with it. It is still victimizing someone, taking or using their property without their permission.

      In Post #2, Carrier apparently felt that the reason all the hysterical rape victims criticizing him didn’t appreciate his analogy was because we needed a closer to home analogy and switched things up by reducing women to houses:

      If you shoot a machinegun into a residence, you might have committed murder. It can even be said that you don’t know if you committed murder, or even showed no concern for whether you had. But it’s still not murder (if no one was killed). You actually have to commit murder to be guilty of murder.

      I have already covered in my previous post + comments why these analogies are bad, but to recap: Comparing women to inanimate objects is dehumanizing, it buys into the Rape Culture framing that sex is an object which men take from women rather than an activity which two (or more) people participate in, and it reinforces the incorrect assumption that rape is a tool used to get sex rather than rape being an actual goal of most rapists.

      1. Remember, this is how they treat allies who dare have a penis (and want to put it in women without taking hormones or wearing a dress).

      2. So add analogies to the long list of things feminists don’t understand (humor likely #1).

    2. They want rape to be a strict liability crime because there are like a bajillion other strict liability crimes out there.

      And just think, these women are allowed to vote.

      1. Yup. Love the solution here:

        Since Carrier’s situation -explicitly- involves the rapist deliberately [and in advance] removing the option to have sex (by removing the victim’s ability to consent by getting her drunk), that suggests we’re dealing with a sadistic rapist who *prefers* rape to sex.

        By reducing “sex” to an owned object like a “car”, there’s a built-in presumption that the rapist was just after the object (sex) as a goal and used a tool (rape) to get it. But when you recognize that rape is NOT sex, then we see more clearly that the rapist didn’t “use rape to get sex”, but rather that the rapist “used rape to get rape”. Indeed, by removing the victim’s ability to consent, the rapist ensured that sex would not be had that night.

        Once we understand that for many rapists, the POINT is to commit rape rather than to have sex, we can (a) deal more effectively with the reality of Rape Culture and (b) stop whiffling about whether the woman’s blood alcohol was a fraction of a percent off for the rape to be a Legitimate one.

        1. The idea that we don’t know with any certainty many times who is and is not a rapist and finding that out is kind of the point of having a criminal trial never occurs to them. To them every man is a rapist and we have trials to make sure they are punished as such.

          And this is what they call “justice”. After you get passed how silly and ignorant they are and really think about what they are saying, they really are terrifyingly evil people.

          1. You and I get on libertarians’ case for being pie-in-the-sky and unwilling to adapt their ideals to practical politics, but this is Exhibit A for what happens when really silly people with poorly-developed thesis try to develop it into something more.

            The feminist ideology teaches that all men (and some women) perpetuate rape unconsciously, and that it is a social fixture. In a very real sense, they believe that rape is the result of a large conspiracy comprised of about half of the US. There is no way to adapt this to law in a rational way, because it’s not a rational viewpoint.

            1. This anarchist totally agrees with your assessment of feminist ideologues. They have sub-Tony retard ratiocination.

        2. Does this work the other way around? If a guy has sex while drunk is he a rape victim? And given her last sentence, the only logical conclusion would be that she wants to outlaw sex following any consumption of alcohol

          1. People would float that in Dan Savage’s direction occasionally and he’d shoot them down with extreme prejudice. Maybe these people are secret eugenicists who only want attractive people with stellar personalities getting laid (and therefor procreating).

          2. f a guy has sex while drunk is he a rape victim?

            Theoretically, yes. But by claiming that the “rapist wants rape” instead of it being a drunk guy having sex, they avoid that issue. It becomes whoever claims it. Because they know that men are not insane enough to claim rape for regretful, drunken sex.

            As the college kangaroo courts continue, I think they might find that no longer holding true. Then we’ll get something like the “dominant aggressor principal” patch that they had to put on the VAWA laws. Can’t have people realizing that men and women behave badly in their pet issues in roughly equal numbers, now can we?

            Also, if he does, they call him a “rapist MRA” who is just trying to defend his rape privileges.

    3. I think “mansplain” started as a term to describe a man explaining to a woman what she thinks/feels. IOW, it was just garden variety overconfident bullshitting. Apparently, it’s now expanded to any man who dares to try to win an argument with a woman.

      1. They really make no secret of their rejection of logic and rationality. If that doesn’t qualify them as “insane”, I am not sure what would.

      2. The original definition was a guy trying to explain something to a woman when she has more expertise in the area than he does, e.g., a guy in, say, sales trying to tell me, an astrophysicist, how stellar fusion works. And yes, much of it was that women don’t recognize overconfident bullshitting. (I do, because I have a Ph.D, the conferral of which basically requires development of practiced overconfident bullshitting independent of gender.)

        Now mansplaining has generalized to any time a woman thinks a man is talking down to her.

    4. https://reason.com/blog/2012/05…..n-feminism

      “Many libertarian men are fairly ignorant about women’s issues. Some of them are outright hostile to feminism because they’ve never bothered to find out what it is,” says Sharon Presley, Ph.D.

      Judging by the sorts of posts quoting jezebel, feministing, shakesville, etc. it looks like libertarians have found out what modern feminism is and don’t like it one bit. Gee I can’t imagine why.

      1. Funny how people who openly espouse classical liberal values of equality, rule of law and justice, are “outright hostile to feminism”. It is almost as if the word doesn’t really mean what they claim it does.

      2. We do our best. In fact, I started posting this shit in response to that article.

      3. I first thought, someone with a PhD wouldn’t be stupid enough to make this statement out loud even if they agreed with it, so I had to look up her degree…

        A PhD in social psychology, which I also had to look up and now that I know this, I think I’m actually dumber… but apparently social psychology is the “scientific” study of how people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others…

      4. Aren’t many feminists fairly ignorant about libertarianism because they’ve never bothered to find out what it is?

    5. Atheist schism!

      So now Michael Shermer can add SADISTIC RAPIST to his resume.


    The totally insane list of demands House Republicans unveiled today as their price for not destroying the American economy has naturally prompted some posts about better strategies for them to take. But I haven’t yet seen anyone offer what I think is the really correct play: They should vote, as soon as possible, to rescind the statutory debt ceiling once and for all.

    Everyone who actually knows what they’re talking about thinks abolishing the debt ceiling is a good idea. So Republicans should surprise the world and just write a bill that’s strongly in the national interest and has nothing to do with fighting Obama and pass it. Do the right thing. Surprise the world.

    One big upside of this strategy is that it would be the right thing on the merits. The lives of literally billions of people around the world will be improved.

    A masterstroke, Sadbeard. You should fax this to GOP headquarters right away; they need to hear about this revolution in human thinking ASAP from their new Clausewitz.

    1. Not destroying the American economy. Just what is harming the American economy the most right now? Hmmm.

      1. Pro L, you know it’s because we, and by that I mean all Americans, are not closing our eyes and believing in Obama hard enough.

    2. One big upside of this strategy is that it would be the right thing on the merits. The lives of literally billions of people around the world will be improved.

      The lives of billions of people will be improved if only Obama is given a blank check to borrow as much money as he wants in our names. And they pay him to write this inane shit. Either sad beard is one of the most brilliant con artist performance artists in history or he really should be living in some kind of sheltered workshop.

      1. Definitely the best part of the article. It’s almost like progressives are completely unhinged from realistic expectations of what policies might do or something.

        1. The are totally unhinged. And it is only going to get worse. Think how crazy hacks like Sad Beard and Douche bag Klein are going to be when Obamacare blows up and the country goes into revolt. Their entire world view and sense of smugness depends on that thing working and it is going to fail in an unimaginably spectacular way. The amount of derp and delusions required to get them through that boggles the mind.

    3. Everyone who actually knows what they’re talking about thinks abolishing the debt ceiling is a good idea. So Republicans should surprise the world and just write a bill that’s strongly in the national interest and has nothing to do with fighting Obama and pass it. Do the right thing. Surprise the world.

      Amazing how this, in no way, resembles an argument.

      1. Whatever. Everyone who actually knows what they’re talking about knows that Canadians don’t speak English.

      2. It doesn’t even qualify as an appeal to authority since Sad Beard doesn’t seem to know or bother to list if he does know who “these people who know what they are talking about” are.

        What is really funny is that Sad Beard was a philosophy major at Harvard. At least when I got my degree, you had to take formal logic to graduate. If I were Sad Beard’s formal logic professor, I would hunt him down and kick him in the nuts for embarrassing me so badly.

        It is not so much that is arguments are wrong. It is that they are so poorly constructed. How can anyone who got passed the 8th grade think that is a good sentence or in any way constitutes a valid argument? And just think, he does this for a living. He didn’t just jot this out on a comment board. This is his job. He thought about it, wrote that, no proof read it and thought of it again, yet still thought that sentence was a good idea.

        1. And why doesn’t he even address the McClintock gambit to ensure FF&C is maintained?

          1. I doubt sad beard plays chess. He looks like a Sorry man if I have ever seen one.

            1. I’m thinking Twister. He was the fat kid who would eliminate any potential sensuality in the game through his participation.

              1. It is definitely some sort of 60s/70s child’s game that he plays ironically.

                1. You know, I don’t think they know what that word actually means.

    4. Goddamn, Matty is the worst.

      I saw a graphic going around today suggesting we’ve had all kinds of great fiscal reforms from the debt ceiling fights, going back to the 80s.

    5. lol – this is a beautiful, almost perfect example of someone have zero self-awareness:

      Everyone who actually knows what they’re talking about thinks abolishing the debt ceiling is a good idea.

    6. The totally insane list of demands House Republicans unveiled today as their price for not destroying the American economy

      So preventing the expansion of federal debt will destroy the American economy


    7. Where the hell is the comment section?

  27. “Atwood wrote The Handmaid’s Tale in the mid-1980s, at the height of Reagan America, and it’s somewhat alarming to realize that the contemporary cultural forces underlying the novel haven’t really changed that much in the last thirty years. Then as now, suppression comes not so much in sweeping, slate-wiping gestures as in little erosions and aggressions?legislation that doesn’t ban abortion outright, but which makes it prohibitively difficult to get one; the way women don’t face bans on employment but do face constant, ingrained assumptions and subtle (or not so subtle) prejudice against their skills and abilities due to gender; the incredible hostility that so many women encounter online for voicing feminist opinions.”


    1. It is always about abortion for these people. They can’t get their mind off it.

      1. Actually, what amused me most was the whinging about online hostility to feminist opinions.

      2. Republicans don’t have that problem.

    2. Remember the time that feminist said something insanely stupid about something in American socio-political culture? You know, about five seconds ago?

      Those were good times.

    3. When this foundation for dictatorship they’re so eager to build ends up in the hands of a conservative dictator, I’m going to laugh from my cross as they all get crucified up and down I-95.

      1. We’ll have to rename the I-95, of course. “Via Crappia”, maybe.

    4. Unfortunately the modern GOP is a sorry amalgam of Fundies and bigoted rednecks who regret the day we passed the 19th Amendment.

      1. Yeah, cause you know, generalizing an entire subculture as bigoted is the height of understanding and tolerance.

        But I understand – you’ve probably spent some time in small towns, and no doubt that regardless your race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation, I’m sure they had an active and almost immediate dislike of you.

        Most decent folks do

    5. I don’t suppose the overt hostility of feminism has anything to do with the reaction it receives. See, oh, Fatsville and Jezebel, for example.

  28. the incredible hostility that so many women encounter online for voicing feminist opinions.”

    How could somebody who seems to have at least a passing famliarity with the Internet and its culture write something so utterly oblivious?

    1. My experience is that no opinion whatsoever won’t be met with incredible hostility.

      Here, let’s test that hypothesis: “Hitler was a bad person.”

      1. Fuck you for saying that, ProL.

        What I mean by that is that I find your opinion most reasonable, and desire the best for you in your romantic and boning endeavors, ideally with a beautiful woman.

        I believe that is how internet discourse usually works.

        1. What Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it’s the meek who are the problem.

          1. People always misinterpret that. It’s the *geeks* who shall inherit the Earth. That’s why I always wear my “Han Shot First” t-shirt under my regular clothes, in anticipation of the rapture.

            1. Are you kidding? God hates geeks. You know who the geek angel was? Lucifer. Geek apostle? Judas. See a trend here?

              1. Here there is no Geek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

                Colossians 3:11, written by Paul after a particularly intense LAN party.

              2. Was not Judas the former tax farmer? You want to saddle the poor geeks with that?

                1. You’re thinking of Matthew.

  29. So I was inspired by a professor who seriously believes that the Russians were behind Stuxnet to actually read “Confront and Conceal,” the book that supposedly documents (among other things) the US and Israeli plan to create and deploy the virus. I’m still in the first part, but I’m starting to get the idea that the tone of the book is “It’s all Bush’s fault.”

    1. If Stuxnet is “all Bush’s fault” wouldn’t that be a good thing about him to most people?

      IE – one person’s fault, is (I would think) a whole lot of other people’s merit.

      1. I haven’t even gotten to Stuxnet yet in the book. The overall topic is all about Obama’s approach to national security, and so far it’s framed in the theme that he inherited a mess. Which he did in many respects, but I’m wary of shouts of “BOOOSH!” having seen it too many times.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.