Toronto Mayor Admits Smoking Crack, Rand Paul Addresses Lack of Citing in Works, Works with McConnell on National Right-to-Work Law: P.M. Links

|

  • Won't somebody think of the regulations?
    Credit: Chris_Parfitt / Foter.com / CC BY

    The mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford, has finally admitted to smoking crack, probably in a "drunken stupor" (his actual words). He says he is not an addict and is refusing calls to resign.

  • In the wake of his plagiarism scandal, Sen. Rand Paul acknowledged that anecdotes in his material had not been properly "sourced and vetted" and will be implementing a new process.
  • In other Paul-related news, he's working with fellow Sen. Mitch McConnell to try to append national right-to-work legislation to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
  • A New Jersey couple is suing over the state's ban of therapy to try to turn gay kids straight, saying it denies their right to seek treatment for their teen son.
  • Officials in Eastvale, Calif., are going door-to-door checking dog licenses to justify their expensive contract with the county in response to complaints about loose dogs.
  • The latest limp White House defense of the Obamacare disaster and the president's untruthful statements about citizens being able to keep their insurance policies is that Barack Obama lacks the ability to go back in time and not say those things.

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

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content.

Advertisement

NEXT: Japan "Disappointed" By South Korean President's Comments on Summit

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. …he’s working with fellow Sen. Mitch McConnell to try to append national right-to-work legislation to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

    Typical rightwing homophobes.

    1. Ha, brilliant.

    2. How does this jibe with his support of businesses to hire whom they like and make agreements with other organizations? Didn’t he say he wouldn’t support parts of the Civil Rights Act based on the fact that it violates freedom of association?

  2. …Barack Obama lacks the ability to go back in time and not say those things.

    Obama can’t go back in time any more than he could have seen into the future that he would actually be called on his lie. All he can do is rewrite history from the present.

    1. Let’s not sugarcoat this: Obama’s time traveling capabilities aren’t as omnipotent as his followers had hoped.

      1. let’s not sugarcoat his acolytes ability to sugarcoat anything The Obama says that does not mesh with things he previously said.

    2. Comrade Fist, are you suggesting that Big Brother Barry didn’t increase the choco-ration to 20 grams?

      1. Well.. at least the wheat harvest is up again… for the 6 straight year in a row. Now, if only I could find some bread…

  3. “drunken stupor” is my excuse for a lot of things, too.

    1. I don’t think he would have been in a drunken stupor anymore. Not after the crack.

      1. “You got your crack on my booze!”

        “You got your booze in my crack!”.

  4. Officials in Eastvale, Calif., are going door-to-door checking dog licenses to justify their expensive contract with the county in response to complaints about loose dogs.

    Those clowns couldn’t even be elected dog-catcher!

    1. I volunteer going door-to-door checking for loose women.

      1. Have you yet met Loose Lucy? She’s a pure delight.

    2. because ticketing people for their contained dogs is the best way to reduce the number of loose dogs. bureaucratic derpese.

  5. Finally something the extremely religious and I agree on: Rick Wiles Explains How Miley Cyrus Sold Her Soul To Satan And Had Sex With A Demon

    Wiles called Cyrus the “poster child” for the “Synagogue of Satan” and asked, “any wonder whom she serves as her soul’s master?”

    After warning that Cyrus has been “baptized into the Illuminati,” Schimmel said that Cyrus was actually imitating the Hindu goddess Kali during her performance at the VMA’s.

    “There’s definitely a spiritual thing going on,” Schimmel continued, “she’s basically, at least symbolically, showing how to have sex with some Satanic figure.”

    1. BRB, looking for software to play MP3s backwards.

    2. I like how Satan uses a synagogue.

      1. The Dark Lord loves alliteration.

      2. Always with the jooooze!

        1. Hey, you know we Jews invented Satan, and we’re owed a shit-ton of royalties. Just ask Disney.

          -jcr

    3. Wiles is just trying to help her career.

    4. I’d have thought that Satanic figures simply had their way with people sexually; you don’t get to choose which sort of sex to have with them. Unless they give you the choice, of course.

    5. That’s some serious crazy right there.

    6. So then Robin Thicke is Satan? Kirk Cameron, his TV son, will be so disappointed.

      1. That’s Alan Thicke. Kirk and Robin are half brothers, like Thor and Loki.

      2. Not Satan, Beetlejuice.

    7. Or Miley’s having fun slutting it up because slutting it up is fun.

      C’mon, c’mon, pound my strange

      1. And profitable. Don’t forget the lovely, lovely money.

        1. How has nobody else figured out that Miley is just playing the alter ego thing again? She appears to be very smart about this. Hanna Montana is played out and this.is.the next phase. She’s laughing all the way to the bank.

          1. What I don’t get is who’s buying it. She’s not unattractive, but damn is she an unsexy slut. She’s just no fucking good at it.

    8. Personally, I think our Dark Lord could find someone much better than Miley Cyrus.

    9. “Schimmel said that Cyrus was actually imitating the Hindu goddess Kali during her performance at the VMA’s.”

      So Hindu is a satanic religion?

      1. Jack Chick said so, and that’s good enough for me.

        Granted, he also thought Roman Catholicism was Satanic.

        1. he also thought Roman Catholicism was Satanic.

          In fairness their book actually does have Satan in it…

      2. So Hindu is a satanic religion?

        Rev. Lovejoy: No Homer, God didn’t burn your house down, but he was working in the hearts of your friends, be they Christian, Jew, or…(looks at Apu) ..miscellaneous.
        Apu: Hindu. There are seven hundred million of us.
        Rev. Lovejoy: Aww, that’s super.

    10. Holy crap, but it must be entertaining living in Schimmel’s head.

  6. …Sen. Rand Paul acknowledged that anecdotes in his material had not been properly “sourced and vetted” and will be implementing a new process.

    Shouldn’t he be checking into some sort of rehab clinic?

    1. The Joe Biden Center for Plagiarists?

    2. He needs to be extremely tongue-in-cheek over this. If I was one of his handlers, I’d have him out there saying:

      “I just found out about this from reading Maddow’s blog. You’re not going to find anybody more outraged and frustrated over this than me, ok? I’m going to get a team together to investigate who exactly let this happen, and if it was done intentionally. Let me be clear, I will hold responsible the speechwriter that did this.”

      1. a Super Committee!

      2. That would go over so many heads. It would be great.

        1. Exactly, and the media would have to just drop it right there since the last thing they want to do is have Rand explain to their viewers how vapid and reused the President’s responses are to all of his fuck ups.

          1. The media isn’t self-aware enough to do that. No, they would without sense or irony slam Rand for doing exactly what Obama did. Partisans don’t have senses of humor.

            1. And if they slam Rand, well, they will have fallen into his trap.

              Bwahaha ?

      3. And we’ll have it fixed by the end of November, or Sebelius ass is grass!

        1. She will be kept on until it actually starts to work. Would be too embarrassing to have to appoint then subsequently fire a series of HHS Secretaries.

      4. I won’t sugarcoat this: the Cleveland Browns were his ghostwriters.

    3. You know who else implemented a new process?

      1. Louis Pasteur? Didn’t he implement Pasteurized Process Cheese?

      2. Henry Ford?

        1. In some of their 4×4’s, Dana got the rest…

  7. The latest limp White House defense of the Obamacare disaster and the president’s untruthful statements about citizens being able to keep their insurance policies is that Barack Obama lacks the ability to go back in time and not say those things.

    Where’s Warty when we need him?

  8. Employment Non-Discrimination Act

    Employers are allowed to discriminate at all? Like not based on intelligence, ability, or attractiveness. I’m glad I’m not in a position to hire someone. I wouldn’t bother because it’s just such a risk.

    1. Most current laws revolve around the firing of protected classes, not hiring. I’m sure you can imagine what the unintended consequences of these laws are…

      1. The HR guy at a place I worked in the 90s was in the uncomfortable position of having to fire a Haitian woman who was having freak out episodes because she thought the work place was infested with demons. Curiously, my desk what right behind hers. He asked me a lot of questions about her behavior to get documentation on the record.

        1. What a coincidence, that you were located next door to someone who thought the office was infested with demons.

          1. When you typed “coincidence” did you have trouble not putting it into quotes, because all I could see were the big air-quotes floating over it.

            1. I rely on the commentariat’s finely tuned snarkasm detectors.

      1. “The initiative, part of a budding “Ban the Box” movement across the country, calls for employers to wait until a prospective employee is being interviewed or has a provisional job offer before inquiring whether he or she has a criminal past. The idea is that ex-offenders will have a better chance at getting a job if they’re not eliminated at the very beginning of their job search.”

        So, they’ll still ask, just not on the application.

        Still dumb.

      2. Why is it better to get kicked out by a background check after an interview instead of before?

        1. Gives the applicant more time to get his hopes up before the ultimate rejection. Makes the rejection that much more painful, and more likely to induce a criminal rage.

          1. And wastes the time of the hiring manager. And makes it take a little longer for the eventual selectee to start working.

        2. If you are rejected at the applicant stage, it is difficult to tell exactly why you were rejected. If you have an offer and are rejected after answering yes to the criminal record, your lawyer has better evidence as to why.

  9. In the wake of his plagiarism scandal, Sen. Rand Paul acknowledged that anecdotes in his material had not been properly “sourced and vetted” and will be implementing a new process.

    That’s slightly better, but I do not like his bitchy, defensive attitude about the whole thing. You got caught Rand, own up to it, endure a few days of jokes from the comics, and move on.

    1. +1 taking it like a man

    2. It is an important issue. Not some insignificant misstatement like telling the country they can keep their insurance if they like it.

      Good thing Reason is covering the important issues.

      1. They want to keep getting invited to the cocktail parties.

      2. Relax John, I’d still vote for Rand in a heartbeat against the GOP field and Democrats.

        But I do value honesty and integrity and that comes from admitting your faults, not playing victim even if the media is being unfair.

      3. Hey, it’s either this or Lou Reed essays. Take your pick.

        He’s dead by the way. Don’t know if you caught that.

        1. Wait…what?! Why weren’t we told!

    3. Yeah, the last thing you want to do is act like Obama.

  10. “Barack Obama lacks the ability to go back in time and not say those things.”

    That’s the problem, you see. It’s not Obo, it’s time’s arrow that is at fault.
    Much the same as when someone trips and falls, it’s not their fault for a lack of attention, it’s that damn gravity!

    1. Does that mean we can find Data’s head in a cave somewhere? Or am I misremembering?

      1. If the Obamacare servers were in Data’s disembodied head, that would explain a lot.

  11. The mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford, has finally admitted to smoking crack

    Speaking of crack. Anyone know the difference between Magic Johnson and Len Baez?….

    Bot had some bad crack…

    1. That’s not a difference.

      1. The joke is in the type of crack….

        1. Yeah, I got the joke, you’re just an incoherent twit.

          What do Magic Johnson and Len Baez have in common?

          Both had some bad crack…

          Still a stupid joke, but it at least makes sense. “Both” implies a similarity, not a difference.

        2. Did Len Bias and Joan Baez have a love child?

  12. From the ‘feminists don’t understand men’ category: Cheating on your husband can save your marriage

    A painful affair, a diffident wife, a husband who can’t find his rage: To an untrained eye, this looks like some pretty meager material for any therapist to work with. But the therapist, Emily Brown, who directs the Key Bridge Therapy and Mediation Center in Arlington, Va., and is an expert on affairs, reads this situation as hopeful. In her taxonomy of affairs, this type?the “conflict avoidance affair,” generally found among couples whose arguments never escalate into screaming matches?has a prognosis for resolution of “very good” and a “low” probability of causing divorce. The affair, in Brown’s eyes, is a “wake-up call,” not the “disaster” the couple sees now “but a real opportunity for them to go on a different route and deal with the issues between them.” In the hands of the right therapist, Brown says, the affair is what could save their marriage.

    See guys? When I have an affair with your wife I’m only trying to help!

    1. Why not apply this principle more broadly?

      “Honey [munch munch], these bags of potato chips are just what I need to help with my diet!”

      “Honest, occifer, all I had was a couple bottlesh wishkey, and that was so I could conquer my alcoholism!”

      1. But if you could go back in time, you could…
        Aw, the hell with it.

        1. Don’t sugar coat it… say what you mean…

      2. You misspelled “aquifer”.

        PS I’m not sure what aquifers have to do with this.

    2. That’s my scam, Serious! Find your own, jerk!

    3. Internet feminism continues its mission of relieving women* of all responsibility for everything.

      *Note: does not apply to conservative or libertarian women.

      1. *Note: does not apply to conservative or libertarian women.

        I was going to say..Palin who only held part of a term of office in of all places Alaska is apparently responsible for Cancer and every handgun related murder in the US since 1975

    4. How do progressives say things like this to each other without bursting out laughing?

  13. There’s a new movie about Muhammad Ali – and it’s a legal thriller! With Christopher Plummer as Justice John Marshal Harlan! Benjamin Walker as Harlan’s law clerk! Frank Langella as Warren Burger! Danny Glover as Thurgood Marshall!

    (nb – the review is in a liberal Catholic publication, so you’ll get the usual quota of “omg Bush v. Gore was so awful!!1” remarks)

    http://www.uscatholic.org/arti…..ight-28056

  14. and Rob Ford just had a press conference to announce he’s staying on as mayor.

    1. and that NFL tie!

    2. Hey, if the mayor of Washington DC can stay after being filmed smoking the crack, why can’t he? He didn’t even try to say “The Bitch Set Me Up!”

  15. One final reminder for all real Purity Test passing libertarians to get out there and Vote for McAuliffe, Buono, and De Blasio!

  16. The Tumbling Boundaries of Gay Rights

    In this case, [Paul Singer] was announcing a new project to be funded, at least at the outset, by him and other conservative donors but to be run by the Human Rights Campaign, an L.G.B.T. advocacy group in Washington, which is much more closely affiliated with Democrats. The initiative will be dedicated to fighting the victimization of gays and lesbians internationally. But it will also show that there are Republicans ? not a majority, but an increasingly impassioned minority ? who are intent on progress and justice for L.G.B.T. people. They won’t surrender that cause to Democrats, and they believe that Republicans who do so are resisting a future that’s both just and inevitable.

    I’m really interested to see how this plays out. The HRC is obnoxiously partisan but if they’re beholden to Republican donors it might crack that nut in interesting ways. Still annoyed that ENDA is a litmus test for reasonable support for gay rights though.

    1. The initiative will be dedicated to fighting the victimization of gays and lesbians internationally.

      Interesting that HRC isn’t doing that already. Why would that job fall to the “Republicans”? It is almost like HRC is supporting this to that they don’t have to get their hands dirty by saying unpleasant things about people favored by the multicultural left. So they will leave that job to the Republicans who everyone knows are racist anyway leaving the rest of HRC to continue to be an arm of the Democratic party but no longer worrying about charges of hypocrisy for not talking about gay rights overseas.

      1. Sadly a conversation that will never be made public ever.

        Dem: How are we going to get the Arabs, Latin America, and Communist China to like gay marriage?

        HRC: We get the Republicans to do it.

        Dem: You are a fucking idiot.

    2. HRC knows better than you what’s best for gay people, Jesse.

      1. They certainly think they do. They weren’t always a completely insular, useless organization, but they certainly are now. I was heartened when a friend of mine’s bf wouldn’t let him take an HRC sticker and a group of friends-of-friends sat there explaining what a useless shill organization they are.

        1. I have a lesbian friend who hates them with the passion of a thousand suns. I didn’t even know who they were until I set her off about the issue one time.

          1. Yeah, I don’t think there’s a lack of gays and lesbians who see the HRC as beltway insiders who have mismanaged the push for equality by putting all of our eggs in the Democrats basket. The folks of my acquaintance who are most enthusiastic about the HRC are straight progressives who think they’re being helpful.

            1. The HRC is also hated by the far left for abandoning the Trans community and focusing to much on marriage.

  17. http://blog.al.com/montgomery/…..ncart_2box

    Wow, an Auburn, Alabama teen has a relatively easy time forming an atheist club at his high school.

    As someone who grew up an atheist libertarian teen, if I were a teen all over again, I’d much rather try to start a libertarian club. I’d think even Alabama school administrators would be a lot more receptive to atheist student groups than pot-reform student groups.

    1. “Duncan’s parents are atheists, and they encouraged their children to think for themselves and exposed them to science.”

      I am amazed at the coincidence that thinking for himself led him to decide that his parents were right!

      Well, as the Good Book says, “Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it.” (Prov. 22:6)

      1. I am amazed at the coincidence that thinking for himself led him to decide that his parents were right!

        Those are some of the more infuriating examples of sociopolitical double standards.

        When a 7 year old kid writes a letter to a congressman to advocate for same-sex marriage, the kid gets fawned all over as “brave” or “refreshing” or “wise beyond his/her years” as if the kid is capable of forming mature opinions on a complex manner.

        When a similarly aged kid writes a letter about how his unborn sister is a tangible being or some shit, then he/she MUST have been brainwashed and readers are directed to feel disgust at how the parents are suffocating the kid’s ability to become his/her own person.

      2. Well, his parents did take him to church. I’m not saying that’s evidence that they weren’t pressuring him to be an atheist, but he wasn’t prevented from hearing religion for himself.

        That being said, in my case, I was deconverted from Christianity because my 8th grade science teacher was so lousy that I was forced to teach myself or risk failing. I read so much about cosmology and biological evolution within the course of a year, that I was an agnostic by 6 months, and after reading some philosophy and skeptical books, I was a militant atheist by 10 months into my little self-study. I guess I should congratulate my lousy 8th grade science teacher?

        1. Not everyone gets their religion from their parents, but when you see an article about a young “freethinker” who is all into the scientific method, and it turns out that he believes like his parents do, then the “science!” narrative gets muddled.

          1. As far as the kid’s exposure to religion, most kids in Christian households get a wee bit of exposure to ideas challenging their parents’ beliefs – media, school, etc.

          2. True. It also weakens the narrative that this kid was an isolated and lonely child until he started his club.

            Looking back on my teenage years, the biggest external pressures I received came from my family and church. School could be a challenge, but I kinda already knew it would be a short experience that I wouldn’t have to deal with once I graduated.

            So, this kid’s experience doesn’t really relate to my own. My experience as a young atheist would have been much better had I had a home life like this kid’s.

            Still, I think it’s rather nice that he’s gotten to build a support group at his school. I just hope it allows for freethought in politics as well as religion.

      3. “”Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it.” (Prov. 22:6)”

        It’s important to point out that it cuts both ways.

        Mormon’s kids, Radical Islamic Palestinian’s kids, etc.

        1. Bear in mind that, technically, my citation of a Bible passage re an atheist kid was sarcastic.

  18. I am somewhat pleased by today’s Champions League results.
    /no spoiler

    1. My team is already in the knockout phase!

    2. Were all the teams killed in plane/bus crashes en route to the matches?

  19. Not sure if this has been posted recently:
    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_new…..-case?lite

    1. “And yet both men have since recanted their accounts, admitting to a lower court judge in 2012 that they lied on the stand during Ferguson’s trial. There is no physical evidence tying Ferguson to the crime scene and neither the fingerprints nor strands of hair found at the scene match Ferguson or Erickson.”

  20. Something completely different: why I loathe gyms.

    Look at me! Praise me! I am doing fitness!

    1. I read that while eating a cheeseburger.

    2. Sounds like he went to a Crossfit gym.

    3. That had a disappointing lack of pictures of preening muscle queens.

      1. You’re right, that was a crucial oversight. Here. I don’t know your opinion on tattoos, but the rest of him seems right up your alley.

        1. When did we decide that my “alley” was Zangeif without any body hair or abs with value-added faded tattoos?

          1. BEARD YOU IDIOT

            Also, a friend of mine calls me Zangeif. I approve.

            1. You should totally sport the Zangeif Mohawk. What are you, chicken?

              1. Goddammit, why didn’t you tell me this 10 years ago? Now I’m too fucking bald to pull it off.

                1. Glue your pubes to your head and fashion the Mohawk that way. I’d help you out, but I laser. It’s like a turtle shell down there.

                  1. If it helps, I can mail Warty some pubes. There’s this homeless guy down the street who sometimes falls asleep on the sidewalk without his pants.

                    1. That would help. I have an enormous head and astonishingly sparse pubes.

                    2. But enough about your bizarre genitalia.

            2. That’s way more beard than I can handle.

    4. That whole thing was awful.

      1. Marty is best in small doses, and often in homeopathic doses.

      2. Brain bleach over here!

    5. I hate the gaggle of juiceheads I find at my LA Fitness.

      There are dozens of meat locker gyms in the area, so why are you spending 8 hours a day at the family, big-box gym grunting like a goddamn boar in heat while doing shrugs and dropping 110 lb free weights onto the floor?

    6. You may have found somebody who’s a bigger narcissist than Obama.

    1. FOX News: The ACLU wants to ban the technology used to catch the Boston bombers and the attempted Times Square bomber!!!

      “Human Rights group wants women to become sluts!

      By proposing a ban on female circumcision, a human rights group would make it more difficult for women to stay virtuous.”

      So much for the Non Spin Zone.

  21. So if Wikipedia summarizes the plot of a movie they didn’t write, you still need to credit them in a public speech when you describe the plot of the movie in a similar fashion? Who got plagiarized exactly, the anonymous Wikipedians? And is a public speech really held to the same standards as a published work? Don’t most politicians employ people to write their speeches for them? Wouldn’t they need to credit those speechwriters publicly in that case?

  22. In the last thread I gave you Marcotte’s wisdom on gender-rated insurance, now here’s Joan Walsh

    Let’s face it: The only way charging women more for health insurance and healthcare makes sense is if they have a partner who either shares that burden or shoulders it entirely. As in?a husband. Then it’s clear that the male of the species is doing his part to keep the species healthy and reproducing itself. A woman who doesn’t have a husband to play that role? Well, there shouldn’t be women like that ? and certainly if there are, they shouldn’t be having children anyway, or even having sex, so they don’t need maternity care or contraception.

    That’s the only way I can explain the GOP’s willingness to openly endorse an enormous transfer of wealth from women back to men by not only advocating the repeal of the ACA but specifically railing against its equal-premium provisions. But don’t worry gals: you’ll get that wealth back once you get yourself a man!

    It’s truly outrageous that economics incentives two parent families.

    1. Let’s face it: The only way charging women more for health insurance and healthcare makes sense is if they have a partner who either shares that burden or shoulders it entirely.

      What? No, the only way it makes sense is if women are more likely than men to use their health insurance more.

      1. And I am sure Joan thinks it is terrible to charge men more for auto insurance.

        1. Funny, she didn’t mention car or life insurance rates.

          1. I wonder if she’d agree than women should have to pay more for groceries than men do in order to make up for the fact that men eat more. End the wealth transfer from men to women!

        2. Or life insurance.

      2. It flies completely over their heads that they advocate a wealth transfer from men to women. Not stealing is taking after all.

    2. The only way women could pay for their higher premiums is if they have a sugar daddy?

      Feminism!

      1. I’m pretty sure that contemporary feminism just wants to take the old model of where men would work provide things for women and turn it into men work to have their money taken by government which in turn will hand it out to women. They just wanted a middle man.

        1. Tired of getting fucked in exchange for being provided for, they changed the system so that the providers get fucked instead.

    3. New talking point detected:

      A Big Old Geek 1 hour ago
      NOT charging women more for healthcare only makes sense if you similarly prevent men from being charged more for auto insurance.

      If there is an increased risk of having to pay out, the premium should reflect that, unless there is a significant societal benefit to not acknowledging that increased risk. I happen to believe that there is a benefit to gender blindly setting premiums in both cases, but I don’t see how you can favor one and not the other.

      FlagLikeReply
      JohnDavis 54 minutes ago
      @A Big Old Geek Then you FAIL to comprehend the different concepts of accident of gender at birth with risk pools for behavior after birth. Men drive more miles, drive faster, drink more alcohol, drive drunk more often, have more accidents. That has nothing to do with being born male, it has to do with life choices after birth, male or female. (And female drunk drivers get charged about as much as males, by the way). You happen to believe “that there is a benefit to gender blindly setting premiums in both cases”, except you FAIL to understand the concepts of choice to engage in risky behaviors versus the universal concept of equality for all from birth. Nice mxed message you got there.

      Flag

      1. That has nothing to do with being born male, it has to do with life choices after birth, male or female.

        What about life choices like, oh, I dunno, getting pregnant? Having a kid and not giving it up for adoption? Choosing to see a doctor for minor things a man wouldn’t go to a doctor for?

        1. Irrelevant. This has all the indicators of a new talking point. I’ll check fark in a few days, and I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that it’s all over the place.

  23. India launches Mars probe.

    I had some curry last week that would make excellent rocket fuel.

  24. Sarvis Campaign bankrolled by Obama bundler.

    Campaign finance records show the Libertarian Booster PAC has made the largest independent contribution to Sarvis’ campaign, helping to pay for professional petition circulators who collected signatures necessary to get Sarvis’ name on Tuesday’s statewide ballot.

    Austin, Texas, software billionaire Joe Liemandt is the Libertarian Booster PAC’s major benefactor. He’s also a top bundler for President Barack Obama. This revelation comes as Virginia voters head to the polls Tuesday in an election where some observers say the third-party gubernatorial candidate could be a spoiler for Republican Ken Cuccinelli.

    ?

    In March 2012, ABC News reported Liemandt was among three dozen of the Obama campaign’s largest bundlers invited to a state dinner honoring British Prime Minister David Cameron. ABC News reported the invited bundlers, who also included Vogue editor Anna Wintour and Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, were responsible for at least $10.7 million of the $250 million the campaign had collected to that point.

    Liemandt and his wife Andra have also beencontributors to the Libertarian National Committee, but their largess has been mostly focused on the Democratic Party.

    http://www.theblaze.com/storie…..rial-race/

    1. Yeah, that is a problem.

      1. I guess you take your money where it comes from. But how do I know Sarvis is sincere or he is a stooge as well?

        1. That may explain his negative opinion of Austrian economics.

    2. “helping to pay for professional petition circulators who collected signatures necessary to get Sarvis’ name on Tuesday’s statewide ballot.”

      I’m not scandalized by this. Considering that it’s the Dems (plus the Reps) who created these horrible ballot-access restrictions to begin with, I’m pleased to see a dem step up to help someone surmount this Dem-created obstacle. Of course he has bad motives, but what Dem doesn’t?

      1. Sure. But how do you know Sarvis means what he says? Maybe he is just a giant trolling operation.

        1. He’s not going to win. Who the fuck cares?

          1. But a lot of people are going to vote for him thinking he is something that he is not.

            1. “something that he is not”

              What would that be?

            2. You mean he really is a mendacious piece of shit like McAuliffe and Cucinelli?

              1. He can’t be Ted. He is a Libertarian. It is not like he supports expanding medicaide to comply with Obamacare or anything.

                1. Sure, but this doesn’t make him a Bad Person for accepting funds from a Dem donor for overcoming oppressive obstacles the Dems helped erect in the first place.

                  I find myself defending Sarvis here – maybe an unfamiliar position for me, but I’m not going to get all butthurt because a third party candidate does all he can to overcome major-party sabotage.

                2. Does he support adding an E to the end of Medicaid? Is he a time traveler from the 1700’s???????

        2. Anything is possible, but I don’t think it’s very likely. Republicans helped Nader in 2000, but I don’t doubt Nader’s sincerity.

          And these ballot obstacles shouldn’t exist. Democrats helped erect the obstacles. Therefore Dems do a service by helping surmount the obstacles. Almost as good a service as not erecting the obstacles in the first place.

          1. The Dems thought that appealing to Team Libertarian was a good strategy, most of the writers here thought that they were correct. Here’s to Virginia’s Libertarian Moment, led by Terry McAuliffe.

    3. As I commented in one of the threads this morning, if Sarvis polls more votes than the margin between Cucinelli and McAuliffe, the loser isn’t going to say, “How can I get the libertarian votes” but “How dare you libertarians cost me a victory!”

      1. Because no democrat has ever said anything bad about Ralph Nader?

  25. WARNING: THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY THE FDA TO CONTAIN CONCENTRATED AMOUNTS OF MARCOTTE LOGIC AND PROSE. PROCEED WITH CAUTION

    I’m all for criticizing the TSA’s policies, which were started under the Bush administration, no matter how much the paranoids want to make this about their bizarre fantasies that the black President is out to steal their penises.

    That is a recurring nightmare of mine, except instead of a black President it’s Warty.

    We need sober-minded people to have a grown-up discussion about how to roll back security to respect people’s time and privacy without giving it up completely.

    Without giving up time, privacy, or security? Or all three? The clarity of Marcotte prose, ladies and gentlemen. Also: what leftist commitment to civil liberties?

    Conservatives are highly authoritarian people, but they project their own desires for control and power onto everyone else and thus live in paranoia that they’re supposedly losing freedom.

    Help, I’m ODing on irony-proof projection! If I don’t make it out of this essay alive, tell everyone I died during a botched attempt at autoerotic asphyxiation Carradine-style: it would be less shameful than the truth.

    1. Dude, instead of reading and posting these brain-dead, irony-free unbelievably self-unaware articles by Marcotte, why not put your time to good use and try to determine what the underlying conditions might be to produce such pure, unadulterated projection in a person? Do the world a service, and figure out what makes her tick.

      1. I’m the kid who pulls wings off flies, not the one who wins the science fair.

        Besides, it’s pretty easy to figure out what makes her tick: she’s a witless partisan who lives in an echo chamber and has her various neuroses confirmed by her readers, circle of friends, and continued success at what she’s doing. It’s easy not to understand something if the incentives are in place for you to write and think contrary to a proper understanding of the world.

        The better question might be what, exactly, made second- and third-wave feminism as a movement develop into insular progressive chatterboxes, but that’s probably beyond my ken.

        1. I disagree. Yes, she’s a witless partisan, but there’s got to be something going on in her head where when she looks at her partisan enemies, she unconsciously sees herself. And then describes herself exactly when writing about them.

          I’d speculate that there is so much suppressed self-hatred bubbling around in her mind that if she didn’t project she’d commit suicide.

          1. That’d be a fun paper to write.

            1. Exactly. Now get on it!

              1. I am just here to voice my displeasure that not only do you two know this woman’s name but now because of your discussion I know it as well.

    2. I’m all for criticizing the TSA’s policies, which were started under the Bush administration, no matter how much the paranoids want to make this about their bizarre fantasies that the black President is out to steal their penises.

      What in the living fuck?

  26. I could barely hear the audio because it was at a bar but Colbert is busy snarking and carrying water for the administration trying to pitch how it’s such a great thing that post-menopausal women, men and the otherwise childless are now forced to pay for maternity care and that Catholic organizations are forced to violate their ethics by paying for birth control. He then segues to cutting fresh new ground in a “Fox News is evil” segment, where he claims that Fox viewers are too stupid to operate computers.

    He has no argument, it’s just pure attitude and “we’re so much smarter and compassionate than those other guys” red meat. Man, I remember when I actually looked forward to watching him and was regularly entertained. Has he always been this bad recently or is this Obamacare damage control?

    1. He and Stewart have always been that bad. They stopped being funny the moment the Dems won in 2008. At that moment they went from making fun of the man to shilling for the man. The latter is never funny.

      1. No, I remember Colbert making silly Dungeons and Dragons jokes and stuff that wasnt’ all 100% Two Minutes Republican Hate all the time. Pre-2008 that is. Post-2008 I can’t disagree at all.

      2. I don’t like him, but at least Stewart occasionally skewers the left. It’s not very often, but it happens.

        Colbert should have done a 180 when Obama won and parodied Maddow rather than O’Reilly. But then he would have lost most of his audience, so it would never happen.

        1. That is what I thought. He would have been the only one doing it. But he didn’t have the balls.

      3. Colbert is kind of a douche, but he can be extremely funny and clever, and Leibowitz is never either of those.

        I also give Colbert major props for being honest enough to admit that he owes his entire career to Bill O’Reilly. Have to respect that kind of self-awareness.

      4. I’ll be honest, I watched two complete episodes of Stewart’s show a few years ago and didn’t even crack a smile. And I’m a guy who enjoys a good laugh, even at my own expense. I just don’t find the guy funny.

    2. Something happened to Colbert along the way. He was absolutely hilarious back when he was an integral part of Strangers With Candy and even before that on Exit 57. Somewhere along the way he went from an irreverent, offensive (in a good way). equal opportunity comedian to a partisan hack. I don’t know exactly what caused it, but it was a real shame.

      1. The Dems getting into power. You can’t be funny defending the government. It is just not possible. Once the Dems got power, Colbert decided he had to do his part and became a propaganda organ.

        1. Colbert’s career started and was funniest during the Clinton administration. That’s not the answer.

          1. Did he do political stuff back then?

            1. No; one of the best parts of those shows I linked was that they were completely apolitical and just did tons of offensive shit (offensive to all sides of the political spectrum; they constantly violated PC “rules”, often really strongly), which made them frequently hilarious.

              My guess is that success just got to his head.

              1. Not success, but the New York crowd telling him and Stewart that they are the Walter Cronkite of their era. That bullshit is what got to them.

              2. There’s nothing funny about being Establishment, and Stewart and Colbert are nothing if not pillars of the Establishment.

              3. Yeah, I can easily see massive amounts of smoke blown up his ass during the Bush years about how brave and courageous he was to criticize him when Faux News deathsquads were violently silencing all opposition. Or something of that nature.

                Some on-air Peabody preening comes immediately to mind.

      2. He’s a popular satirist with an established audience. I think his primary concern is still to be funny, but he’s insulated enough and successful enough that, to him, funny means making jokes about FOX and the stupid things conservatives say.

        1. And part of this, of course, is that Colbert is not spending most of his time on a project like Strangers with Candy or The Dana Carvey Show. Put him in a movie or a non-political series, and I’m sure he’d be as funny as ever. His more apolitical taped segments can still be really good.

          1. I’d actually like to see if that’s still true. Often times when someone’s ego gets too big, they cease being able to be funny because they no longer make fun of themselves.

            1. I’d be very depressed if it wasn’t true. Strangers with Candy is a goddamn classic.

              1. Yup. But, since the movie was pretty good, maybe that bodes well for him still being funny. I wasn’t sure what to expect when I went to see the movie in the theater, but I was worried.

      3. Same thing happened to Letterman.

  27. Democrats robocalling telling voters Cuccinilli supports Obamacare

    http://freebeacon.com/democrat…..-abortion/

    1. Other browsers are too mainstream.

  28. Canada should nationalize the oil industry like all the cool countries do.

    A couple of other examples come to mind — nationalizing the oil industry and establishing a public, commercial bank to compete directly with the big six private banks. O utrageous? Impossible? Any time soon — of course. But even a cursory examination of the crises that face Canada suggests that these ideas are not unthinkable ? they will actually be necessary to save the country from further rapid decline to a de-industrialized and corrupt petro state.

    If we don’t nationalize the oil industry (it is already nationalized in almost every other oil producing nation) it will continue to wreak havoc with our economy and our democracy. The longer we keep the idea tied up in the back room the longer it will take to get it “accepted.” The same applies to the banks. In addition to strict regulation (well within the window even though not fully implemented) we must have a national, publicly owned consumer bank that competes directly with the big six private banks — forcing them through vigorous competition and progressive policies to change their anti-social behaviour. Besides dealing with consumers and home-buyers in a fair manner such a bank could challenge the private banks’ notorious refusal to finance small and medium sized businesses and innovation.

    1. The oil industry is evil and immoral right up until the moment the Left figures out they can loot it.

      1. And once they loot it, they start violating the same pesky environmental/financial regulations they themselves passed.

      2. When they start decrying the windfall profits of Big Solar, I’ll know it’s time to invest.

    2. Fuck rabble.ca

    3. If we don’t nationalize the oil industry (it is already nationalized in almost every other oil producing nation) it will continue to wreak havoc with our economy and our democracy.

      Because it’s a given that the energy industry wreaks havoc with the economy and democracy, at the same time and even when those two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

      The longer we keep the idea tied up in the back room the longer it will take to get it “accepted.”

      Heard it here first, folks: The soundness of an idea is contingent upon its novelty and not its logical consistency or cogency.

    4. “De-industrialized … petro state”? Will they dig up the oil with shovels?

  29. Anybody know the skinny on the most libertarian candidates in the Houston election today? Doing research now, but it’s slow going.

    1. I know my parents are voting for Ben Hall because they are pissed at Parker about the drainage tax, but I haven’t researched them because I don’t live in CoH anymore. Pretty sure my sister doesn’t vote.

    2. Who would want to live in Houston? :-p

      1. Gary Kubiak.

        Oh, you meant line in Houston, not live in Houston.

    3. I’ll be giving the mayoral vote a pass and only bothering to go (maybe) to vote against all the bond proposal. That said Mayor Parker isn’t terrible which is about as good as it gets I suppose.

      1. She brought the TSA in. She needs to go down for that alone.

  30. So, the Socialist Worker is still a thing. And they are all over climate change

    That’s heavy stuff. But he’s not alone. Werner is part of a small but increasingly influential group of scientists whose research into the destabilisation of natural systems ? particularly the climate system ? is leading them to similarly transformative, even revolutionary, conclusions. And for any closet revolutionary who has ever dreamed of overthrowing the present economic order in favour of one a little less likely to cause Italian pensioners to hang themselves in their homes, this work should be of particular interest. Because it makes the ditching of that cruel system in favour of something new (and perhaps, with lots of work, better) no longer a matter of mere ideological preference but rather one of species-wide existential necessity.

    [Snip]

    But there are many people who are well aware of the revolutionary nature of climate science. It’s why some of the governments that decided to chuck their climate commitments in favour of digging up more carbon have had to find ever more thuggish ways to silence and intimidate their nations’ scientists.

    [Snip]

    It’s not a revolution, but it’s a start. And it might just buy us enough time to figure out a way to live on this planet that is distinctly less f**ked.

    1. It’s nice to see the Green position stated honestly.

  31. From the reality-based community:

    Michael Gove held talks with ‘IQ genes’ professor

    Michael Gove held talks with a leading scientist who believes that genetics, not teaching, plays a major part in the intelligence of schoolchildren, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

    Professor Robert Plomin, the world’s leading behavioural geneticist, met the Secretary of State for Education and ministers at the Department for Education in the summer. Mr Gove’s policy adviser, Dominic Cummings, provoked outcry yesterday when it emerged he had backed Professor Plomin’s research that genes accounted for up to 70 per cent of a child’s cognitive abilities.

    1. That’s an extremely sloppy article. Of course “teaching” doesn’t play a major part, or any, in the intelligence of schoolchildren. Teaching imparts knowledge; intelligence determines how efficiently that knowledge is acquired by the brain.

      1. This was my favorite bit.

        A spokesman for Mr Gove refused to respond when asked three times whether the Education Secretary also believed intelligence was genetic.

        What a dumbass question.

        1. Well, the question is stupid in that it is impossible to give an accurate answer to that question without first making a distinction between genotype and phenotype. Secondly, the true question is where does the Ed. Sec. stand on how much phenotypic plasticity is inherent in the trait of intelligence?

      2. That’s true for shitty teaching, which is nothing but imparting rote knowledge, as you say. Good teaching, on the other hand, forces the student to learn to think analytically. It seems to me that good teaching makes one more intelligent, but who can really say?

        1. Good teaching, on the other hand, forces the student to learn to think analytically.

          That’s true, but think of it this way, a good personal trainer can help a person become stronger, but the source of muscle growth is the person’s own physical reaction to the stimuli of exercise. Similarly, the engine for increasing intelligence, if one believes that intelligence is fluid is the student’s own learning and desire to learn what is being taught. Even the best teachers can’t “force” someone to learn something they don’t want to learn. Just as I won’t become stronger if I sit on my ass all day, even if I have Eliot Hulse screaming in my ear to squat more.

          In short, the acquisition of knowledge is a learner-centered activity.

          1. Sure. I don’t think we disagree about anything here.

  32. “The president, as awesomely powerful as the office is, can’t go back in time,” Carney said Tuesday.

    He can, however, step on his staff, Jay.

  33. In the wake of his plagiarism scandal, Sen. Rand Paul acknowledged that anecdotes in his material had not been properly “sourced and vetted” and will be implementing a new process.

    Good thing he didn’t have his book ghostwritten by an ex-terrorist from the 60s.

  34. [FORBIDDEN TOPIC ALERT – AVERT YOUR EYES]

    Religious Repression Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan –

    “The religious affairs official in Kazakhstan’s capital Astana who initiated a case against local businessman Pyotr Volkov – which led to a fine for selling religious literature without a state licence ? has insisted to Forum 18 News Service that: “He was told not to sell religious literature.” But Adiya Romanova denied that this is state censorship. Volkov has tried to gain a state licence, and is appealing against both the fine and the failure to process his licence application. Nine of the twelve fines known to Forum 18 to have been imposed in 2013 on book sellers are of about two months’ average salary. In May, four books confiscated from a bookseller in East Kazakhstan Region ? including two with prayers to Russian Orthodox saints Serafim of Sarov and Sergius of Radonezh ? were ordered destroyed when the bookseller was fined. If it was carried out, this would be the first known time that a court-ordered religious book destruction has been carried out in Kazakhstan.”

    http://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=1892

    1. Weird. Is Kazakhstan now officially anti-Orthodox, or is this just a general “we want to license the sale of books because we can” thing?

      1. It’s an avowedly secular state with a Muslim majority.

  35. Context matters, sometimes.

    AdamSerwer ?@AdamSerwer 3 Nov

    US Senator threatens to kill his critics via @jbarro http://m.nationalreview.com/co…..ew-johnson ?

    AdamSerwer ?@AdamSerwer 3 Nov

    Sounds awful, but I’d like to see the context for that RT @mckaycoppins Obama: I’m “really good at killing people.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..print.html ?

  36. Queer Justice Means More than Gay White men having public boyfriends

    That’s something. But it’s not enough to have token gay representation and to not be constantly declared icky in prime time. Bill O’Reilly’s tacit approval of gay and lesbian marriage does not satisfy me.

    I don’t mean to downplay the significance of marriage equality for many people. In a way, too, it indicates progress that a famous gay white man can hang out at a bar with his boyfriend and that no one bats an eye when a widely-read blog publishes a story about that man’s sexuality. But pieces like Carr’s cause damage because they encourage straight allies and queers to raise a drink (perhaps a gin and cucumber like the one Smith was drinking in the bar) in celebration of a fight fought and won.

    The journey toward queer equality and justice includes so much more than marriage, and so much more than the social stability of famous white gay men. It includes promoting mental and physical safety for queer youth like the transgender high school student being persecuted by the California Justice Institute. It includes fighting for laws guaranteeing nondiscriminatory access to housing and employment.

    1. “the transgender high school student being persecuted by the California Justice Institute”

      Does anyone get that reference?

      1. “the transgender high school student being persecuted by the California Justice Institute”

        Is that anything like the Justice League? Perhaps they are talking about AquaBoy.

        1. Maybe this is the case from *Colorado* where the *Pacific* Justice Institute complains that a male student is being allowed access to girls’ locker rooms and bathrooms:

          http://www.bizpacreview.com/20…..ents-86595

          1. You know, I’ve suddenly realized that my true identity is that of an 18-year-old coed at Arizona state. So I expect them to let me into the Arizona State girls’ locker rooms.

    2. The journey toward queer equality and justice includes so much more than marriage

      Lemme guess… 40 acres and a mule???

      1. New meaning to “plowin’ the back 40?”

  37. “Experiencing sticker-shock at the price of insurance on ObamaCare exchanges?”

    “That’s more likely if you live in a “red state” that didn’t vote for Obama, according to price data compiled by the Heritage Foundation. In red states, premiums for 27-year-olds rose an average of 78% on ObamaCare exchanges, whereas in “blue states” that voted for Obama, premiums rose a smaller 50%.”

    1. So the Obama administration created a program which has the effect of punishing his political enemies? Color me shocked.

      1. I think this is a side effect of blue states already having more health insurance regulations, and thus higher rates. So the even higher Obamacare rates don’t make blue state rates jump as much.

    2. I think you have to consider that the blue states already had a shit load of mandates

    3. I live in MD. Deep blue state. I’m getting fucked by Obamacare. My premiums will rise a minimum of 100%.

  38. “…The Affordable Care Act may have been designed to be a socialized monstrosity of health care displacement and governmental control, but it need not have been….

    A) Begin where you are: Why should all roads lead to Washington DC when local communities are best able to identify those in need and to reach out?…

    “B) Invite-in can still avoid federal intervention…

    “C) Open the markets: Perhaps because it is both the simplest and the most commercial of ideas, and the least political, there appears to have been no discussion of allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, which would have immediately broadened the market competition and thereby lowered costs for everyone, across the board. Rather than opening coverage availability, the ACA appears to narrow it….

    “While not pretending to any sort of expertise, this column has just offered three alternatives, common sense ideas meant to solve the initial problem we were told necessitated the ACA: getting affordable coverage to people who needed it, including those with pre-existing conditions?which many group policies do cover. These are only frameworks, of course, and doubtless there are dozens of other ideas that can and should be explored, and quickly.”

    http://www.firstthings.com/ont…..e-care-act

  39. In other Paul-related news, he’s working with fellow Sen. Mitch McConnell to try to append national right-to-work legislation to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

    Wait one fucking minute. So Rand would not have voted for parts of the Civil Rights Act because that would be the Federal Government violating someone’s freedom of association, but then he turns around and writes legislation that would violate freedom of association? Dems will just use this to say that he’s a hypocrite that is ok with discrimination against blacks AND hates the working middle class (or something like that.)

    1. I think saying that right-to-work violates freedom of association is a stretch.

      1. The employer is now forbidden to make certain types of contracts with a union. That violates his freedom of association.

        1. More like, these state laws ban contracts which the majority of employers make only under pressure from the feds. If the scales were held evenly, only a small number of employers who currently are pressured into closed-shop contracts would actually make such contracts. So these state laws actually affirm the free-association rights of most employers.

        2. The union is now forbidden to act as de facto owner of the labor of people who are not affiliated with the union and to make contracts as if it is.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.