A.M. Links: Obamacare Website Subject to Cyberattacks, Snapchat Rejected $3 Billion Deal, US Jobless Claims Fall

|

  • Credit: Screencap

    A top Homeland Security Department official testifying before Congress stated that HealthCare.gov has been subject to approximately 16 cyberattacks and one unsuccessful "denial of service" attack. This was the first time an administration official publicly acknowledged that there have been any cyberattacks on the Obamacare website. So, it's not just the feds who want to steal your medical records.

  • Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) said approval for the U.S. Congress is so low even his 101-year-old mother no longer supports the legislative branch.
  • A law banning undetectable firearms is set to expire, which has thrown federal law enforcement officials into hysterics about the potential security threats posed by 3D printed plastic guns.
  • Mobile messaging startup Snapchat rejected an acquisition offer from Facebook that would have valued the company at $3 billion or more.
  • A U.S. aircraft carrier and two cruisers have arrived in the Philippines to help communities devastated by Typhoon Haiyan, one of the deadliest typhoons on record.
  • The number of people who applied for unemployment benefits fell by by 2,000 to 339,000 last week. 
  • Former German President Christian Wulff is going on trial accused of receiving and granting favors in office. 

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: Eurozone Economic Growth Slows in Q3

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. …and one unsuccessful “denial of service” attack.

    A DoS against Obamacare? How ironic.

      1. It’s worse – it FAILED.

        How do you fail to DoS a site built for so few users?

        1. How do you fail to DoS a site built for so few users?

          It was an inside job?

          1. *** rising intonation ***

            Snowden!

            1. Take it easy there McBain!

          2. It’s probably the one thing they planned on, kulaks and wreckers. I imagine they’ve got plenty of traffic diverters for ping requests, etc…

        2. If they’d only got a seventh guy to try to log in.

        3. They were trying the DoS attack, but the site was already down.

    1. I wonder if they’ve fixed the bit where it DoS’s itself.

  2. A top Homeland Security Department official testifying before Congress stated that HealthCare.gov has been subject to approximately 16 cyberattacks and one unsuccessful “denial of service” attack.

    The official said they’d would ask for more money to monitor and clean their cyber-pipes.

    1. approximately 16 cyberattacks

      +/- 15

      1. Attacks or successful logins?

        1. What difference, at this point, does it make? 🙂

        2. My understanding is that the way the site was constructed, each login attempt was in effect a DoS attack.

          1. Nice. Also, nice handle.

    2. “cyber-pipes”

      They’re tubes, man. Get your terminology right. I bet you say clip in stead of magazine, too.

  3. Boeing machinists reject labor deal on 777X by 67 percent

    International Association of Machinists members voted 67 percent against a deal that would secure an estimated 20 years of work building Boeing’s 777X jet, but a deal that would have terminated their pension plan and raised their healthcare costs.

    The decision means Boeing will consider building key parts of the 777X, including the wings, in non-union U.S. states or in Japan, where it has already received an offer.

    A crowd of more than 100 people erupted in cheers when the vote was announced amid a charged atmosphere at the union’s main hall in Seattle.

    1. So, they actually cheered because they essentially voted themselves out of jobs? Holy shit.

      1. Older workers (who get full benefits to a not-so-distant retirement) fucking younger workers (who really want job security for 20 years).

        1. What a lovely “brotherhood” they have.

      2. It preserved the pension. Easy choice; labor places that above all else.

      3. Actually they wanted to boo, but decided it would make for an embarrassing headline, ‘Boeing machinists booing labor deal’

      4. Pension uber alles.

    2. I’m guessing that crowd was entirely IAM leadership, local state reps, and journalists. No way the rank and file are that dumb… but maybe they are.

    3. all you need to know about unions in one tidy package. But it’s those evil corporations exporting our jerbs.

  4. …federal law enforcement officials into hysterics about the potential security threats posed by 3D printed plastic guns.

    Have they made plastic ammunition yet?

    1. Hysterical at the thought of losing their monopoly on force?

      1. I wish people would stop with the “monopoly on force” bullshit.

        They dont have close to a monopoly on force.

        Hell, a certain high profile case in Florida proved that.

        1. Monopoly on unquestioned legal force?

        2. Really? Try using it without their permission.

    2. It’s really something how willfully ignorant people are about this. You still hear fairly often how there have been other plastic guns on the market since the 80s (presumably referring to Glock, which of course have plenty of metal in them).

    3. Airsoft. Those little buggers sting!

      1. Can you print a plastic pressure vessel and valve to avoid use of a spring?

        1. You betcha. Its cheaper to just go an buy a 1L bottle of Moutain Dew!

    4. Because laws banning things stop criminals from using them.

    5. Is there anything…anything at all …..that doesn’t send our valiant boys in blue into hysterics these days?

      1. Overtime.

        That just gives thema warm fuzzy.

        1. Okay LTC…you found the one thing! I was also going to suggest blowjobs from the cleaner looking hookers they bust but that’s just me!

          1. You mean the hookers they don’t bust.

            It’s a professional courtesy, quid pro quo, kinda thing.

  5. Former German President Christian Wulff is going on trial accused of receiving and granting favors in office.

    I’m having trouble thinking of any other former German leaders that people would have liked to have seen on trial.

    1. You know what other politician received and granted favors in office?

      1. Which politician didn’t receive or grant favors in office?

      2. *** raises hand ***

        Was it an *oval* office?

        1. No, an oval orifice.

          1. Todd Hitler, my town’s dog catcher. That guy was a crook.

            1. He did know how to work a gas chamber though. But what was with that weird mustache?

              1. He was a Charlie Chaplin fan. He didn’t know Chaplin was really a J-O-O.

            2. I thought his name was Todd Schicklgruber …

    2. I’m having trouble thinking of any other former German leaders that people would have liked to have seen on trial.

      Schnappi, das kleine krokodil?

  6. A Noble Lie?
    Why ObamaCare is worse than just a case of pathological altruism.

    For one, adding a weaselly phrase like “in most cases” does not constitute “extra frankness.” Quite the opposite: It turns a shining promise into a foggy assurance with no clear meaning. Imagine if Obama tried that with his wedding vows:

    Jeremiah Wright: Will you, Barack, take Michelle to be your wife, to love, honor and cherish, forsaking all others, in sickness and in health, as long as you both shall live?

    Obama: Yeah, most likely.

    1. If it were even remotely well-intentioned, they’d be suspending or repealing it now because of the massive problems its causing and will cause in the future.

      1. That’s the kind of thing they said to Stalin in the 20s. But did he give up? Did he buckle? No!

        1. Mister, we could use a man like Josef Stalin again.

          1. Didn’t need no market state
            Everybody lost some weight

            1. Gee, our Five Year Plan ran great.

    2. …a case of pathological altruism.

      It’s only altruistic if there is some cost to the giver.

      Spreading around the proles confiscated tax dollars at gunpoint like a greasy Chicago ward heeler in order to secure another 4 years in the White House fails as altruism on every level!

  7. Road-legal Batmobile based on car used in iconic 1989 Batman film has 3.2litre Jaguar engine and comes complete with working FLAMETHROWER
    Replica of car driven by Michael Keaton will be auctioned on 30 November
    Built in UK on a custom chassis, it goes from 0-60 in under five seconds
    It took a year to build, but visibility from the driver’s seat isn’t too good
    The Batmobile will be sold at the Historics car auction in Weybridge, Surrey

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-sale.html
    What was that Barnum quote? There’s a dork born every minute?

    1. They don’t seem to have put much effort into the interior.

      1. Why is the steering wheel on the wrong side?

    2. Very cool except for that nipple/pecker thingy at the front.

    3. Flamethrowers are street legal?

      1. Not just street legal….mandatory in places like South Africa!

  8. The number of people who applied for unemployment benefits fell by by 2,000 to 339,000 last week.

    It’s a lot less hassle just to get on welfare.

  9. Man’s screams of agony after police shock him with Taser for 42 seconds straight when he tried to flee car crash scene
    Lantz Day had been a passenger in a car that hit five parked vehicles in Fredericksburg, Virginia
    Police Tasered him after he stood up and started to run from officers
    The police department has launched an internal affairs investigation into the use of force

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-flee.html
    Like someone said in the comments, he’s lucky they didn’t pump him full of lead.

    1. They had to keep tasering him; after they started tasering him he refused to obey their lawful commands.

      /Tulphy

      1. We had to tase him to find out what sort of resistance was in him!

        /Nancy Pelosi

          1. I see what you did there…

            …and I don’t approve.

        1. +1 megger

      2. I shock myself each morning to build up a resistance to tasing.

          1. What doesn’t electrocute me makes me stronger. I also deadlift baby cows until they become adults. Soon, I’ll be juggling cows.

            1. Soon, I’ll be juggling cows.

              Then it’s off to Vegas!

              1. Yep. I want to open for Penn & Teller.

                1. Funny…that’s exactly who I was thinking of when I posted the response!

  10. Tenn. Coach Charged With Vandalizing His School

    A Tennessee assistant football coach was arrested Wednesday, accused of painting his team’s field house with vulgarities and making it seem like the work of a rival high school, according to investigators.

    The Chattanooga Times Free Press reported that Marion County High School teacher Michael Schmitt was charged with vandalism.

    1. He later admitted that he got the idea to work his team up for the big game from a late night teen movie.

      1. Did the movie include a character by the name of Jeff Spicoli?

        1. All he said was that the movie had many instances of the word “dude” in it.

        2. His last great acting job?

  11. Vladimir Putin officially tougher than Chuck Norris after being awarded highest rank in Taekwondo (?despite the fact he studies Judo)
    Mr Putin has a ninth-degree, compared to Norris’s eighth-degree, black belt
    On receiving honour, he said: ‘I don’t think I have earned such a high Dan’

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

    1. Ever since the Obama Peace Prize, they’ve been lowering the standards for everybody.

    2. Vladimir Putin officially tougher than Chuck Norris after being awarded highest rank in Taekwondo (?despite the fact he studies Judo)

      Like an honorary degree then??

  12. What do riding a bike in a pool and carrying an ice cream cone in your back pocket have in common? They are both illegal in certain states! The illustrated guide to America’s most bizarre laws

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..erica.html
    Land of the what?

    1. Most of those “crazy law” lists are BS.

      1. I’ve never seen one that cites the actual laws.

      2. Did you know that “crazy law” lists are illegal in Pawtucket, Rhode Island?

        1. Did you know that the President arbitrarily ignoring or changing laws passed by congress was illegal?

          THAT’S JUST CRAZY!

  13. The number of people who applied for unemployment benefits fell by by 2,000 to 339,000 last week.

    And I’m sure once those tiny states who estimated their numbers come in with actuals it will be even better news for the autumn of recovery!

  14. School bus driver ordered to surrender license plates on his car that read ‘NOT SEE’ to sound like NAZI below a swastika

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

    1. Was his wife allowed to keep her plates that read

      IDO NOTSE

  15. Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful
    …Human resources departments tend to be staffed mostly by women. Indeed, in the Israeli study, 93% of those tasked with selecting whom to invite for an interview were female. The researchers’ unavoidable?and unpalatable?conclusion is that old-fashioned jealousy led the women to discriminate against pretty candidates….

    1. No wonder I get so many interviews.

      1. You’re a hot dude or an ugly chick?

        1. Exactly. I think the beard makes both.

    2. I think it has more to do with the touchy-feelie aspect of HR and the appeal it has to so many sociology and gender studies majors.

    3. Archer: Why do we have so many damn dolls in here?
      Pam: For sexual harassment complaints so people can non-verbally indicate where stuff happened on their bodies.
      Archer: That takes like one doll.
      Pam: Not if there’s ever a gang rape. (fingers crossed)

  16. Premier Inn guest hurled racist abuse with fire extinguisher hose up his bottom

    A hotel guest emerged naked from a storage cupboard of a Premier Inn with a fire extinguisher hose up his bottom, a court was told.

    Joseph Small, 20, stripped off and grabbed the appliance on the fourth floor corridor of the budget hotel.

    He then put the hose between his buttocks and began touching himself, Westminster magistrates’ court heard.

  17. Former German President Christian Wulff is going on trial accused of receiving and granting favors in office.

    What’s German for duh?

    1. Americans can only look on and dream.

  18. Rule Britannia! Taylor Swift wears a Union flag-print mini-dress and tiny top hat as she takes to the catwalk to perform at the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..dress.html
    If you are offended by skinny girls showing lots of skin, DO NOT CLICK THIS! THAT MEANS YOU, JOHN! DO NOT CLICK THIS!

    1. I’m just generally offended by Taylor Swift.

      1. She’s OK on mute.

        1. I don’t have a bad word to say about her. Like her looks, like her music, and she seems to be a genuinely nice person.

          1. Her music is bland pop if you ask me.

            1. Country girl pop…different.

              Didn’t realize she was that tall though.

          2. And she’s probably a member of 4chan, which is kinda neat.

    2. I just don’t find her particularly interesting to look at. Adriana Lima (whoever that is), on the other hand…

    3. She looks very British in that picture. By which I mean skinny, over made up, and still plain. Although her teeth would obviously make her a UK 9.

      1. But her tits are way too small.

        1. Probably because she’s on a Hollywood-type diet of malnourishment and no exercise. I’ve been in the same room with Miss Swift (used to work for touring arena shows) and she is very pretty but with an unhealthy-looking lack of muscle tone.

          1. Yes, I think she is probably very pretty. It takes a certain type of misogynist, apparently rampant in the fashion industry, to make her look bland.

  19. Mobile messaging startup Snapchat rejected an acquisition offer from Facebook that would have valued the company at $3 billion or more.

    I guess they’re not done cornering the market on internet curmudgeons.

    1. I’m also holding out for my versions of Snapchat called Dick Pic and Rack Track…
      Seriously how much can Snapchat be worth?

    2. They’ll never corner me!

  20. Large Runaway Crabs Roam German Train

    A number of large crabs escaped from a box on a German train and not all have been found, police said on Tuesday.

    Staff on the ICE high-speed service from Hamburg to Stuttgart noticed that the crustaceans, known as Shanghai Hairy Crabs because of their furry claws, were crawling down the corridor.

    “They were able to round up 10 crabs. Others weren’t found and remain at large,” transport police in the northern town of Hanover said in a statement.

    1. Are they combing the train?

      …for the crabs?

    2. Thank god the cops are involved with such harrowing incident.

    3. GET ME SAMUEL L. JACKSON STAT!

      I AM TIRED OF ALL THESE MUTHAFUCKIN CRABS ON THE MUTHAFUCKIN TRAIN….NOW STRAP IN!

  21. THE GLITCH

    The Elegant Kathleen Sebelius complete with Web Sites for Dummies booklet (front and back cover only) 1500 units will be made Only 29.95

  22. Relatives of Whitey Bulger’s victims speak at his sentencing hearing. Bottom line: They don’t like him.

    “Many of the impact statements were heartfelt, showing little sympathy for Bulger, 84, and often wishing ill upon him. Words like “rat,” “sociopath” and “Satan” were used, while others said Bulger brought shame upon the Irish for his actions as a ganglord….

    “Not all remarks were directed at Bulger. Daivd Wheeler, the son of murdered Oklahoma businessman Roger Wheeler, directed much of his ire during his impact statement time at the FBI….”

    http://www.masslive.com/news/b…..ing_1.html

    1. The FBI let Bulger terrorize Boston so they could get easy cases against the Italian Mob. Absolutely pathetic. And don’t forget the entire FBI rank and file thinks John O’Conner, the FBI dirtbag who tipped off Bulger to anyone who was about to cooperate is a hero who got a raw deal.

      1. I thought John O’Conner led the resistance against Skynet……wait….never mind!

        1. That’s in the *other* timeline. After Sarah destroyed the Cyberdyne offices and the recovered research materials (along with Dyson’s death) effectively stopped the creation of Skynet and the future war.

          So in *this* timeline, John grew up and used his skill at being an annoying douchebag to get into the FBI.

          1. So in *this* timeline, John grew up and used his skill at being an annoying douchebag to get into the FBI.

            So your saying that even nuclear annihilation has an upside?

            1. No, ONLY nuclear annihilation has an upside.

    2. I’m rather ambivalent about victim impact testimony. I think it’s good that victims get to say their bit in public, but I don’t know that it should have much to do with the actual sentencing. Why should someone be punished more because their victim happened to be well loved, or had a wife who makes a good emotional appeal. Or, perhaps more importantly, be punished less severely because the victim was a dick, or had no family.

      1. I agree. If I were a judge or on a jury, I wouldn’t give it any weight. If you do, you are saying that the well loved father is somehow more of a human than the old widower with no kids or family who lives alone.

        The other thing is that these victims were mostly hoods themselves. Doesn’t make Bulger any less of a murderer or scumbag. But it is not quite like he is Ted Bundy out raping and killing sorority girls.

        1. I would prefer that victims be able to at least testify as to the damage caused by the criminal’s actions so the judge can order compensation – sort of like the civil party in a French court. And I see no reason why victims can’t make sentencing recommendations, too.

          1. The problem I have with this sort of thing is – the *jury* is supposed to determine fact. All this stuff comes out after the jury is dismissed and its left to the judge to determine whether any of these people are lying (or not) along with how it should affect sentencing.

          2. They can and I think it is good for people to have the experience of facing the guy who victimized them. I just wouldn’t put a lot of weight to what they say in how I sentenced.

        2. The woman he strangled was dating Bulger’s partner, nicknamed “The Rifleman”. He killed her because she found out he was an informant. It in no way excuses her murder to say that she was putting herself at great risk by associating with someone she knew to be a gangster.

          1. Bulger is the worst. I am not defending him or saying some of his victims were not involved in the same rackets he was. I am just saying, not all of them are like the woman you mention. I hope he gets death.

          2. Bulger deserves anything he gets. But he would deserve it even if no one liked the people he killed.

  23. A US aircraft carrier and two cruisers have arrived in the Philippines to help communities devastated by Typhoon Haiyan, one of the deadliest typhoons on record.

    “Never fear citizens of the world, the global police are here! Wait, was there violence to be done? Well, we’re not built for non-violent operations, but we can give it a try. Maybe we can bomb the shortages!”

    Broken sarcasm detector warning – I’m not mocking the people on the ground, who will probably try to help, but the absurdity of sending an aircraft carrier instead of say, seabees, who might be better suited to fixing the damage to infrastructure needed for long term recovery.

    1. An aircraft carrier is a mobile hospital that can produce enough electricity to power a small city. There’s nothing absurd about that.

      1. So what, we’re going to rig some transmission lines to it? How much of that is actually surplus electicity not used for the ship’s own systems?

        And “Empty deck or cramped crew quarters” does not a hospital ship make. Do we still have hospital ships, or did we decommission all of them. Those would still have been a better choice than a vessel whose primary purpose is to launch fighter-bombers.

        1. For one thing, carriers are relatively fast. So they can get to these places before most other ships. They’ve got a fleet of helicopters which comes in handy when the roads are fucked. They can purify water which comes in handy when the infrastructure is fucked. I already mentioned that they can take care of the injured, and yes they can and do run transmission lines. There’s a lot that they can do.

          1. A global force…for good!

            1. Oh God do I hate those ads.

              1. Yeah but the brand is getting pretty tarnished…this probably doesn’t hurt!

                We’re not launching drones off the carrier are we?! Cause that would be kind of counter productive.

                1. We’re not launching drones off the carrier are we?!

                  Might as well kill two birds with one stone. Who’s nearby we can mess with?

                  1. “I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn, the more you kill and burn the better it will please me. I want all persons killed who are capable of bearing arms in actual hostilities against the United States.”

                    General Jacob H. Smith

                  1. There is a small ongoing part of GWOT still being carried on in the Philippines and Indonesia, so…

                    If someone happens to spontaneously explode, then they were obviously Al Quaeda; just like the women and children standing around them.

        2. There is a fair amount of excess capacity/capability built in the desalinataion and power – the hospital is not deck space or such and the helos on the ship are more than useful.

          Agreed that a hospital ship and somesuch would be better – but the carrier can move a lot of stuff and happens to be closest right now.

          Since we don’t seem to be using the Navy to destroy pirates, they might as well do something for what we are paying them…

        3. If they aren’t moving there is an enormous amount of surplus capacity.

        4. “So what, we’re going to rig some transmission lines to it?”

          They did in Haitii

          “How much of that is actually surplus electicity not used for the ship’s own systems?”

          Quite a bit actually, sitting at a dock or anchor all of the power which would have been used for propulsion could be used to generate extra electricity

          Also SeaBees need some way to get there, and with most of the infrastructure damaged or destroyed the aircraft carrier presents a handy base of operations with machine shops and a functioning airfield/Air traffic control tower and a fleet of Helicopters.

          Basically once the carrier is onsite you can fly the relief personel directly to the carrier

          1. Funny, I thought standard mode of operation for seabees was to be dropped on impassable terrain and build the airstrip for the plane that dropped them to land on.

            Or has the navy gone soft?

            1. I don’t think this is the first time this has happened, and I’m pretty sure the carrier can provide quite a bit of electricity with its reactor and has medical facilities to boot.

              1. Keep in mind that for ships, the reactor is not hooked to a generator that then is hooked to the propulsion system.

                The reactor feeds into a steam turbine that directly runs propulsion. A tap on this feed is diverted to a generator to produce electrical power for needs. These generators are not designed to handle a large percentage of the reactors rated output – even if you could push that much steam through the piping to the SSTG’s is would destroy them.

                So a lot of the reactor’s output is reserved for the propulsion system and can not be diverted to other uses.

                This is the main reason the Navy has been looking into ‘electric-drive’ propulsion systems – here advances in size-reduction for electric motors means that they are becoming suitable for propulsion systems. In this set-up *all* the output of your powerplant is run through a generator and then split between propulsion and other needs. This means that potentially *all* of your powerplant’s output is now available for either propulsion of advanced weapon systems like lasers and EM cannon.

                1. The TGs are over-rated, by a lot. During normal operation either TG on a sub is producing maybe a 1/3 of the total power being consumed by the ship. If you have all of the forward systems shut down that means there is 50-60 MW surplus. That’s for a sub.

                  While I was on the Tennessee we actually did backpower the entire waterfront, the LockMart facility and the NucWeps storage after a major thunderstorm/tornadoes fucked up SE Georgia. Two boats (us and I believe the West Virginia) powered much of the capacity of the base.

                  And the same hoses that bring on shore water can work in the other direction, though I never actually lined up that procedure there was one in the OPM to do just that.

        5. So what, we’re going to rig some transmission lines to it? How much of that is actually surplus electicity not used for the ship’s own systems?

          Yeah, shore power cables work both ways.

          Most of the power the plant creates is used for propulsion. If it isn’t moving and the ops aren’t up (which they won’t be while in port) the ship produces a shit-ton of excess electricity.

          After Hugo the 2 MTSs at Prototype powered the entire Naval Weapons Station, including housing.

          The plants on these ex-submarines have far less power generating capacity BTW.

      2. An aircraft carrier is a mobile hospital that can produce enough electricity to power a small city. There’s nothing absurd about that.

        Not really – they have a better equipped suite than anything smaller than an amphib, but they’re a small town clinic at best.

        And there’s no way to get that electricity ashore (along with the fact that some 80% of their generating power is locked into the propulsion system).

        What they do have is 5,000 people onboard and the ability to get them to and from the ship along with a portable airfield and an excellent link into what is probably the world’s best logistics system.

    2. I think they can produce something like 100k gallons of clean water a day. That’s something.

      1. Plus, I’m sure the carrier group carries a lot of food and has a few hundred Marines that can provide some amount of security. It’s definitely something.

      2. Again, there’s no way to get this water ashore.

        Amphibious Construction Battalion 1 or 2 (my 2nd to last duty station) http://www.public.navy.mil/sur…..fault.aspx may deploy – they *do* set up the infrastructure to transport water/POL from sea to shore.

        1. So there’s no helicopter/boat/VTOL system that could possibly do it without your people being there?

          1. What are you going to do – put the water in 55 gallon drums – that you don’t have?

            1. I take that back – If there’s a deep-water port and they can moor the carrier at a pier then they can pump the water into local tanker trucks (assuming they’re available to transport the water).

              Power can be used to support a camp set up onshore but that power isn’t going to be hooked up to the municipal grind. And they’re still going to need someone to fly in the parts – the carrier has cable to connect to shore power but is not equipped for distributing its own power ashore.

              1. And they’re still going to need someone to fly in the parts – the carrier has cable to connect to shore power but is not equipped for distributing its own power ashore.

                You pretty clearly aren’t/weren’t a nuke.

                Politely, you should stick to your own wheelhouse. The fact that there is a procedure laid out in the OPM to do precisely what you said a boat cannot do tells me you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

  24. A top Homeland Security Department official testifying before Congress stated that HealthCare.gov has been subject to approximately 16 cyberattacks…

    Officials credit the SQL injection with improving site performance.

  25. Another NAP question

    Man arrested for bathroom camera

    On November 12, 2013, Schultz was arrested following an investigation into an unlawful surveillance that occurred in the Town of Greenville. The investigation revealed that Schultz had placed a video recording device in the bathroom of his residence and recorded a female without her knowledge. Schultz was not related to the victim.

    Scummy, but illegal? What if the guy had a weird thing about taking selfies in the bathroom?

    1. Expectation of privacy.

      1. Civil tort, then, if that’s where we want to go. And if he had a sign…

    2. He claims that he knew nothing.

      1. You know who else claimed he knew nothing?

    3. Slimy but it is his property. Unless he explicitly gave her a guarantee that she would not be recorded I can’t see how it is an initiation of force.

      The correct course here is to name and shame him, the law should not be involved.

      1. Does “shame” even work anymore?

        1. Have you never watched day time television?

  26. Officer fired after shooting at squirrel in dollar store

    According to the documents, a Dollar General employee said they walked down the toilet paper aisle, and the squirrel started running toward them.

    According to the police report, he shot at the squirrel but missed. The police report the squirrel took off again toward a female with a baby. According to the report, Putnam had his gun out when he approached the female with the child.

    The squirrel then ran up to the buggy where the report says Putnam stepped on the squirrel’s tail and knocked it out. That’s when witnesses say employees covered the squirrel in a towel and took it out of the store.

    1. Probably because of a threatened PETA suit rather than the potential harm to citizens.

    2. In his defense, it was one of those pitbull/squirrel mixes.

        1. The most important thing was him getting home safe to his family.

  27. Italian prosecutor says Italian criminal gang might take out a hit on the Pope, who has been cracking down on Mafia money-laundering:

    http://www.catholicherald.co.u…..dge-warns/

    1. Wait, he’s not a prosecutor, he’s some kind of investigating magistrate.

      1. I think Italy is a “civil law” jurisdiction. I’m not entirely sure if the prosecutor is separate from the judges there. There are a lot of oddities about “civil law”.

      2. Although not an expert, my understanding is that in Italy the magistrates perform prosecutorial functions.

    2. Rather ironic considering the historical connections between the Vatican and mob finances (Banco Ambrosiano, anyone?).

        1. If hypocrisy suits you better, run with it.

  28. Chuck Norris Indicts Porn for Fueling Sex Trafficking

    -The irony for many among the socially conscious younger generations is that they are often passionate about fighting against sex trafficking but often overlook its connection to pornography’s supply and demand — something the majority of them feed in their digital world. According to a 2008 Brigham Young University study noted in World magazine, 87 percent of men in college and 31 percent of women in college watch porn.

    World also cited Layden, who is also co-director of the Sexual Trauma and Psychopathology Program and contends that porn’s easy accessibility sets the foundation for its entitlement. She said: “I hear men say, ‘Sex is a need. I have a right to it.'”

    Despite its legal legs, the porn industry, in fact, aids and abets sex trafficking. Porn fuels trafficking and vice versa.

    http://townhall.com/columnists…..3-n1736426

    1. Chuck Norris’s nose is sexier than Harrison Ford’s entire body.

      You are more likely to survive getting shot by an AR-15 than to servive Chuck Norris’s frown.

      The sun checks the weather reports to see if there will be an eclipse of Chuck Norris.

      1. The storm which hit the Philippines wasn’t caused by global warming, it was caused by Chuck Norris sneezing.

        1. Earthquakes are no longer measured on the Richter Scale, they’re measured in Chuck Norrises.

          1. When Chuck Norris catches the flu, he beats it to death.

            1. Chuck Norris’ tears can cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried….

              1. Ron Jeremy Indicts ‘Walker, Texas Ranger’ for Fueling Cheesy Violence?

      2. Man-crush Eddie?

    2. “Chuck Norris is a douche” is not breaking news.
      Hasn’t been for well over a decade, in fact.

      1. Bo’s excuse is he is brand new to the internet or some bullshit like that.

      2. Should it be noted once, then never mentioned or something? The article is recent.

    3. I just read on here the other day that fewer and fewer men are paying for sex and the very obvious conclusion presented in the article is that porn and free hook up websites are ridiculously common, well reviewed, and easy.

      Chuck Norris may be a tough son of a bitch and can sell a Total Gym like nobodies business, but it doesn’t mean he’s smart.

  29. 3-D industrial printers that can create plastic models and prototypes can make workable guns that can’t be picked up by metal detectors, and officials say they could pose a threat to countless government institutions, schools and other buildings.

    I call bullshit on this.

    Pretty sure government institutions are *countably* infinite.

    1. Okay, smart guy. Count them.

      1. That’s what I pay the GAO for.

      2. 1,2,3, few, many….more than the number of stars in the sky.

        There, counted them for you.

  30. Yellen to defend Fed’s ultra-easy monetary policy

    Janet Yellen, President Barack Obama’s nominee to lead the U.S. Federal Reserve, will offer a stout defense on Thursday of the central bank’s aggressive monetary easing before a Senate panel that includes some tough Republican critics.

    At a Senate Banking Committee hearing on her nomination to be the first woman to run the nation’s central bank, Yellen is likely to remain vague on future Fed actions.

    But she will look to head off calls for the Fed to back away from its muscular efforts to spur stronger economic growth and lower unemployment.

    1. Janet Yellen, President Barack Obama’s nominee to lead the U.S. Federal Reserve, will offer a stout defense on Thursday of the central bank’s aggressive monetary easing before a Senate panel that includes some tough Republican critics.

      They only have one arrow in their quiver, and damned it if they will continue to use it until they strike home.

      Leave aside the fact that Yellen is a Keynesian and a partisan hack – she believes her own claptrap, no question about it; Peter Schiff had predicted her nomination to her new job by asking “who could possibly be the worst person that Obama can choose to lead the Fed at this time?”. Leave aside all of that; the fact is that the Fed is stuck in the trap of their own making. The Fed cannot stop the easing without risking a new (and bigger) correction as it would be a tacit admission that their monetary policies were wrong. So the only thing left to do is continue to print money, buy treasuries and hope that the economy improves enough to finally achieve parity with inflation. Unfortunately, that will never happen because it never happens; the more the central bank inflates, the more misallocation of capital towards less productive endeavors and the lower the supply of capital and consumer goods, ergo higher prices.

  31. Facebook Patented Making NSA Data Handoffs Easier
    …”In June, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg blasted ‘outrageous press reports’ about the PRISM surveillance program, denying that Facebook was ever ‘part of any program to give the U.S. or any other government direct access to our servers.’ What Zuckerberg didn’t mention, and what the press overlooked, is that the USPTO granted Facebook a patent in May for its Automated Writ Response System. Like the NSA-enabling systems described by the NY Times on the same day Zuckerberg cried foul, the patent covers technical methods to more efficiently share the personal data of users with law enforcement agencies (LEAs) in response to lawful government requests via APIs and secured portals installed at company-controlled locations. ‘While handing over data in response to a legitimate FISA request is a legal requirement,’ the Times noted, ‘making it easier for the government to get the information is not, which is why Twitter could decline to do so.'”…

    1. Zuckerberg really seems to be a textbook example of someone not being particularly smart or interesting who stumbled on to just the right idea at just the right time. When you think about it anyone could have and would have thought of FACEBOOK. Zuckerberg just won the lottery by being the first guy who did. Good for him and he certainly has rightful claim to all of that money. But his doing that doesn’t mean he is in anyway any smarter or more important than anyone else. He is not Bill Gates or Rockefeller or an industrial titan who is of historical significance. He is a douche bag who got lucky.

      1. Bill Gates also stumbled onto the right idea at the right time.

        1. True. But he mercilessly pursued that idea. Gates managed to beat his rival Apple even though he had what was by any measure an inferior product. That is pretty remarkable.

          1. Gates managed to beat his rival Apple even though he had what was by any measure an inferior product.

            Was it really inferior. Microsoft Windows became so wildly popular because most (all?) of the major corps. were using IBM-compatibles already. He (and a load of programmers) developed a program that gave radically increased functionality over a wide array of IBM-compatible platforms with varying degrees of capability.

            Apple required the end user to buy a completely different machine that was more expensive and (in the the beginning) had data transfer problems with any non-Apple system (which was, like all of them).

        2. Yes, there’s not even a slight comparison between the two. Facebook is already facing a serious problem, because kids don’t want to use it. And I bet they screw things up in working with retailers to bury users in product.

    2. I’m not sure which irritates me more, the data handoff or that the government granted a patent on something do fricking stupid.

      1. so fricking stupid

  32. You know those infuriating commercials where tehy have some kid try to sell you something by being a little smarmy, smartass?

    Here’s one to throw a beer can at.

    1. Wouldn’t it be better for law enforcement to have criminals buy guns from a reputable source where the serial number was recorded than breaking into someone’s house and stealing them, or buying them illegally? Why does the Brady Campaign want criminals’ guns to be harder to trace?

      1. Here’s the kicker, even if there isn’t a background check it’s still illegal to sell/buy a gun if the buyer is prohibited. All that a new law would do is make presently legit sales illegal.

        1. Yeah, but 40% of the time, the guy takes the gun and shoots some kids balloons with it!

    2. In an effort to have an “adult conversation about guns” the Brady Campaign uses a child to narrate a video posted to YouTube and disables the ratings and comments functions. Very adult-like.

  33. The Upton Bill Is No Small Matter

    At the same, the Upton legislation is not a panacea. It provides no guarantees, and it certainly doesn’t try to force insurers to reopen cancelled plans like the bill sponsored by Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu. No matter what House Republicans do at this point, there will be some casualties from the Obamacare train wreck. But strong support for the Upton bill would show voters that Republicans are doing whatever they can to minimize the casualties.

    The defenders of Obamacare know full well that the Upton legislation represents a serious threat to the viability of the law. It would provide a lifeline for a viable insurance market outside of Obamacare’s rules and suffocating structure. Millions of Americans would flock to a revitalized insurance marketplace that offered lower premium products with better coverage. The end result would be one more step toward fully reversing the catastrophic mistake of Obamacare.

    1. why is it up to Repubs to do anything here? I’m not stumping for them but when the other side rams something through on a party-line vote, even bribing some of its own, and spends teh entire time calling you names, why would you toss a lifeline?

      1. when the other side rams something through on a party-line vote, even bribing some of its own, and spends teh entire time calling you names, why would you toss a lifeline?

        They’re not called “the Stupid Party” for nothing.

      2. Maybe they don’t want people to get crushed by this?

        Or, they want to campaign on a “we actually are trying to help people!” theme?

        1. This is what I think. They want to look like the good guys.

    2. Kate Upton is in Congress? I thought she was too young to serve.

      1. that’s one campaign I could get behind.

  34. Remember how that crazy bastard Ted Cruz was destroying the GOP in Congress?

    In just six weeks, Republicans have completely erased a 9-point deficit in a generic congressional ballot question and are now running even with Democrats.

    1. But Suderman wants cocktail party invites.

      1. He’s not getting any more of those until the next administration, at the earliest.

  35. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) said approval for the U.S. Congress is so low even his 101-year-old mother no longer supports the legislative branch.

    She should watch it. Her son’s membership in that organization will be the only thing keeping her from standing in front of an Obamacare death panel.

    1. I do not approve of congress. But I wish they would do more.

    2. To be fair, what she said was ‘Any organization that would have my son as a member deserves what it gets’.

  36. Police use ‘nose telescope’ for cannabis odour mapping

    This is one of the most fucking ridiculous things I’ve seen in a long time.

    1. “If a dog craps anywhere in the universe, you can bet I won’t be out of the loop.”

    2. Hilarious and scary at the same time.

    3. Farnsworth’s Smell-o-scope! From Science Fiction to Science Fact!

  37. Chinese confuse Sweden with Switzerland
    Sweden and Switzerland have launched a joint awareness campaign to help Chinese tourists tell the two countries apart

    The problem largely stems from the fact that both nations’ names are written similarly in Mandarin – Ruidian (Sweden) and Ruishi (Switzerland) ? which begin with the same symbol, according to the Swedish Consul General Victoria Li in China.

    In an effort to put an end to the mix-up, the Swedish and Swiss consulates in Shanghai have launched a competition on the Swedish Consulate website, asking Chinese people to come up with funny ways to help differentiate the two countries. Submissions can be accepted as a blog post, cartoon, photo, short film or in any other format.

    1. In other news, Austria would like to remind Americans that there are no native kangaroos within its borders.

      If we don’t act soon, we’ll lose the ignorant tourist dominance we’ve held since the 1950s!

      1. But they do cook shrimps on the barbie in Vienna, right?

      2. I don’t know man, if you’ve ever heard a Brit talk about his plans to tour America…I don’t think we’re all that bad, is what I’m saying.

    2. It’ll probably get even worse, given that the domain for Chi, uh, *Switzerland* is .ch.

      1. Hey, the Confederatio Helvetica got there first!!!!

    3. I’ve always wondered how country names get so morphed from one language to another. i.e., why don’t we english speakers just call Germany, Deutschland? Where the hell did “Germany” come from?

      1. My wife is Dutch and she constantly has to explain to people what exactly the Netherlands are. Not to mention people also assume that “Dutch” is her way of saying “Deutsch” so they assume she’s German…

        1. And most of these people are… college students that are her employees

  38. I don’t know who this person is, but I like her style

    1. Apparently a “fashion flub” is when a bunch of gay men and women who probably aren’t remotely as attractive as her criticize her outfit.

      1. “Fashion flub”?

        That pic’s giving me more a fashion chub.

  39. Man held for didgeridoo attack on S. Calif. cab

    A Southern California man has been arrested after police say he whacked a taxi with a didgeridoo in an argument over the fare. Police Lt. Phil Collum says when they arrived, the man got into an argument with the cabbie over the fare.

    Collum says he went into the house and came out with a didgeridoo ? a long, wooden instrument from Australia.

    Collum says the man threatened the driver with it. The cabbie drove off, but the man allegedly chased the cab and whacked it several times with the didgeridoo, denting the vehicle.

    1. Must have been listening to Chakra Attack
      HIT ME WITH THE RAIN STICK CHERYL!

  40. Christian Women Wrestle With Porn

    -In 2007, Nielsen/NetRatings found that approximately 13 million American women click on pornographic sites each month. They make up an estimated one in three visitors to adult entertainment websites.

    When we don’t talk about women and porn, women everywhere hide in the shadows with this deep-rooted secret. Thousands, perhaps millions, of Christian women struggle with sexual sin, and we must speak openly about these temptations.

    Women, you are not alone in this struggle with temptation to sexual sin. You aren’t the only one ashamed of the sexually explicit material in your browser history or on your e-reader. For all who face these temptations, the power of the gospel enables you to say no to sin.

    http://www.christianitytoday.c…..paging=off

    1. Christian Women Wrestle With Porn

      Rule 34 really does cover everything.

      Sounds hot.

      1. Somebody’s an Ultimate Surrender fan.

      2. The Papists are Packing: Hot Catholic-on-Protestant Action

          1. NEVER TOO SOON

        1. There was actually a whole sub-genre of literature of this sort in British Canada around the time of the US revolution. Good Protestant orphan girl sent to a convent and “abused” by priests and nuns until her long-lost family from overseas came and rescued her just before the “final insult” could occur, but way after she had witnessed it in tiresome detail on other poor girls.

            1. Project Gutenberg probably has a bunch of them. And the HRC at UT-Austin, which is where the professor who told us about them did her research. But I think the HRC is steadily digitizing their catalog.

      3. I’d like to subscribe to this website.

      4. I’d like to subscribe to this website.

    2. And anyone should find this surprising or interesting why?

      1. You do not find the talk of ‘women hiding in the shadows, struggling with sexual sin’ hilarious?

        1. No, not at all.

          1. If this were equivalent overwrought nonsense from a feminist I guess you would be upset as well?

            1. I asked you the other day to point out an example of me doing that.

              Im assuming you have still failed to come up with one.

        2. I mostly find it sad. Sex is a great thing and even married of couples of faith have realized that. But the church frequently equates it with sin and human nature says the more you tell someone he/she can’t or shouldn’t do something, the more interested they will be in it.

          1. Well said.

        3. It is the same as some man trying to avoid the temptation of “the male gaze”. It is sort of funny I guess.

          1. Now you are getting it!

        4. Why do you?

          1. That’s for Bo.

      2. Yeah. Im trying to figure this one out.

        Bo has veered from libertarian to libertine with this post.

        There is no talk of laws banning porn in his quote. Merely discussion of sin.

        I think Bo is pulling off his mask here (although it was transparent so it wasnt hiding anything).

        1. robc, you really do not like poking fun at SoCons, do you?

          Talk about masks 😉

          1. show us on the doll where the socon wouldn’t let you touch him.

            1. Look, I understand that for several posters here it is very important not to point out the silliness of their political bedfellows, the SoCons, but please, try not to be so touchy about it!

              1. you’re the one obsessed with them Bo. to the point of weirdness. point out where I defend them.

                1. -point out where I defend them.

                  You certainly seem to get touchy when I criticize them though.

                  I am a libertarian. SoCons threaten liberty quite a lot. I post about that and their silliness. When people here (rightly) post about the silliness and threats from progs do you criticize them for being obsessed with that?

                  1. SoCons may threten Liberty but don’t they have the right to do that?

          2. You really are new around here. Can’t say that I see you as a welcome addition though.

            1. Like I said, I get it.

              A lot of ‘libertarians’ see SoCons as perhaps a ‘lesser of two evils’ or even ‘people we can work with.’ A lot of libertarians ally themselves with the Republican Party and conservatives, and SoCons are a big part of that group. So they tend to shy away from criticism of them.

              But I am sorry, I am going to criticize them when they are silly and threatening to liberty.

              1. That’s not my point.

                robc, you really do not like poking fun at SoCons, do you?

                I’m saying you’re too new to understand who the regular commentors are.

                1. Ive suggesting he read archives, but he refuses.

                  1. Uh, which archives exactly, robc, and how much of them. Srsly, get granular with that. Tell us explicitly exactly what someone has to have read for you to take them seriously.

                    1. They should have read enough to know my posting history before criticizing me.

                      I think people should lurk 3-6 months before posting.

                      Bo came in first day and made statements that were silly to anyone who has read any of my posts from the past.

              2. But I am sorry, I am going to criticize them when they are silly and threatening to liberty.

                Nothing in todays post is a threat to liberty.

              3. Never apologize, Bo. Keep up the good work.

                Remember that socons are scared shitless of libertarians and will do anything possible to discredit them. They also like derailing discussions of libertarian policy.

                1. Ah, has Don Quixote found his Sancho Panza?

                  I kid because I care.

                2. Never apologize, Bo. Keep up the good work.

                  Trolls of a feather flock together?

                  Remember that socons are scared shitless of libertarians and will do anything possible to discredit them. They also like derailing discussions of libertarian policy.

                  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

                  That’s rich coming from a hypocritical lying sack of shit like you.

          3. While I oppose the laws they try to pass, Im generally in agreement with them wrt my personal life (but not on booze, or gambling, or porn, so ummm…yeah, other things).

            My point is, when laws arent involved, like in this case, live and let live.

            1. What Rob said. If those women feel like porn is bad for them, who are we or anyone else to say they are wrong?

              1. Yes, the main difference between SoCons and feminists when they’re not being statists is simple.

                SoCons turn their criticism inward (porn is bad for me, extramarital sin is a sin against self)

                feminists turn their criticism outward (partriarchy, male gaze, rape culture)

                I see that as quite a bit different. People who castigate me and everybody around me should be made fun of. People who hold themselves to a different moral standard than myself have no complaints from me.

                I’m cool with Bo’s articles where the SoCons are trying to pass stupid laws. The ones that are built around “personal growth” and “denying yourself sinful behavior” fall into my “nothing wrong with that” folder.

                1. No. Socons are just as guilty of trying to impose their own values on feminists. Total fail.

                  1. Socons are just as guilty of trying to impose their own values on others as are feminists.

                  2. Maybe they are Tonio. But they are not guilty of that here.

                    You really don’t think very clearly do you?

                    1. The very heart and soul of Libertarianism is tolerating people different than you. So what if these women have different sexual mores than you? If they weren’t advocating using force against you Bo, then fuck off slaver.

          4. Im fine with poking fun at them. I do it all the time.

            You are randomly quoting.

            Write something interesting.

            1. he can’t. he’s boring. he tries to derail every thread to socon talk.

              1. The anti-EvH. They should have a “Socons talk abortion thread every day so the two could go at each other and not fuck up otherwise decent threads.

                1. I actually think that Bo IS EvH. They both insist on posting about shit that no one cares about and when told no one cares they get defensive.

        2. And people here veer from libertarian to full socon here all the time and then act shocked when someone calls them on it.

          1. Have people here advocated bans on porn (as opposed to sharing their favorite sites) gambling (as opposed to sharing mourning for lost online gambling sites) demon rum (as opposed to rather extended discussions of beer, homebrewing, whisky, etc) drugs (!)?

            I am pretty sure that whenever anyone tries to legislate morality they get the ever popular “fuck off, slaver” from us here. The SOCONZ!!!! sounds too much like Tony or shreik for most folks – kind of the BOOOOSH of social issues perhaps?

            1. Have people here advocated bans on porn (as opposed to sharing their favorite sites) gambling (as opposed to sharing mourning for lost online gambling sites) demon rum (as opposed to rather extended discussions of beer, homebrewing, whisky, etc) drugs (!)?

              Tonyo is a liar who relies on putting words in peoples mouths and then viciously flogging them for them.

          2. And people here veer from libertarian to full socon here all the time and then act shocked when someone calls them on it.

            Thank Science no one veers to the Left here!

    3. maybe the faith’s “leaders” should treat sex as dirty and shameful, which some of these women have no doubt discovered is bullshit. Folks act in different ways when those claiming to care for them are actually lying to them. Good god, the country is like a batch of 12-year old boys when it comes to sex.

      1. Maybe it’s not about “dirty”, or “shameful”, but more about what’s appropriate vs. what’s not.

  41. Wisconsin Man Called 911 Because Sex Partner Was “Snoring Like A Train” In His Bed

    When officers arrived at Duddles’s Waukesha residence, he revealed they “drank together, had relations and she fell asleep.” After repairing to his living room, Duddles returned to his bedroom and could not roust the snoring woman, “so he called police,” according to a Waukesha Police Department report.

    The unidentified woman was “found to be fine medically, just has sleep apnea.”

    Cops advised Duddles that a snoring woman in his bed was not a police matter since he had allowed her into his home. Duddles, who was not arrested, was “provided the comfort of his couch for the evening” and directed to “work out the ‘issue’ in the morning.”

    1. “Benjamin Duddles” – Hawt.

  42. Nerd fight! Should quadcopters have 4 equal fans or one large rotor and three smaller maneuver rotors? It could mean up to 20% flight-time in the spy/murder drone industry.

  43. “This was the first time an administration official publicly acknowledged that there have been any cyberattacks on the Obamacare website.”

    See!

    It wasn’t Obama’s fault.

    It’s the hackers! The hackers were the ones to blame!

    There’s nothing wrong with the law…

    It’s all going according to plan.

  44. Disgusting hamplanet Lindy West mocks efforts to raise awareness about men’s health issues.

    Yes, yes, mustaches. I get it. You’re growing a mustache. It’s for charity. Charity is good, men’s health is good. And it’s November. Movember. Yes. What you did there, I see it.

    But if you must make November a themed month (MUST YOU?) why not think outside the box a little bit?

    1. Tell me again why feminism for people like West isn’t just a vehicle for her to express her hatred for men and ultimately probably her own self hatred.

      1. Shorter John: silly feminist, vehicle for hatred, silly SoCon, why is this worth notice?

        1. Are SOCONS making fun of people who trying to raise money to cure a fatal disease?

          Bo, false equivalence really is your move isn’t it?

          1. Are SOCONS making fun of people who trying to raise money to cure a fatal disease?

            Ever hear one get started on a charity which is raising money for AIDS treatment? I’d say there’s direct equivalence.

            1. All of the time.

              http://www.chaa.info/

              http://www.christianaid.org.uk…..-aids.aspx

              Those are just the first two that came up on google. And last I looked George W. Bush is a self professed evangelical and did more for HIV in Africa as President than any other US President.

              1. Yes, and I’ve also seen and heard downright gleeful comments about “Sodomites” getting what they deserved.

                1. Yes, and I’ve also seen and heard downright gleeful comments about “Sodomites” getting what they deserved.

                  I have heard a lot of Libertarians call old people leaches. Does that mean liberals are right when they say Libertarians don’t care about the old and the sick?

            2. Re: Hillary’s Clitdong,

              Ever hear one get started on a charity which is raising money for AIDS treatment?

              Is that the litmus test for true charity, H? A cure for AIDS?

              1. I think you and John are talking past Mr. Cl*tdong, who I took to be pointing to the fact that some Christians criticize efforts to raise awareness about AIDS.

                1. Re: Bo Cara Esq.

                  who I took to be pointing to the fact that some Christians criticize efforts to raise awareness about AIDS.

                  Criticizing is not the same as mocking. Where many Christians disagree with the efforts to prevent or cure AIDS, in some instances, have to do with methodology and Christian doctrine and not with the intentions, leaving aside the nuts and the cooks. Plenty of Christian charities give comfort and help to AIDS sufferers but will not go as far as violating their own religious beliefs, which is their right.

                  HC’s contention is that the lack of a specific Christian charity that funds research for a cure for AIDS is prima facie evidence of a complete lack of empathy by Christians towards AIDS sufferers which can become justification for calling John a hypocrite; which is why I am asking for a clarification: Is that supposed to be the litmus test for true charity, funding for AIDS research?

                  1. And that’s totally ignoring the fact that there are way more women and children AIDS patients in Africa than dirty, dirty homo AIDS patients in USA. Those children mostly got AIDS during the birth process, so truly blameless victims. The women mostly got AIDS during heterosexual sex, so somewhat more arguable.

                    Try debating the actual points raised instead of trying to change the subject.

              2. No, but it is a charitable cause which is “trying to raise money to cure a fatal disease”. And so yes, I’ve seen socons mocking charities which raise money to cure fatal diseases, and AIDS charities seem to bring out the most Sodom and Gomorrha loons.

                Is that the litmus test for true charity, H? A cure for AIDS?

                The litmus test for “true charity” is whether or not you’ll give to the “Buy Hillary’s Clitdong a 95-foot Power Yacht Organization”.

              3. Is that the litmus test for true charity, H? A cure for AIDS?

                No. That’s not the issue he raised. But please do continue to set a shining example of socon dishonesty and subject-changing.

                1. Sure, Tonio, I get it now. Anyone who disagrees with you is a SoCon.

                  That explains the huge number of them supposedly posting here.

                  1. Listening to you guys bicker is like listening to this

          2. What I am getting at is the need you seem to have to apply a double standard to silliness from feminists and silliness from SoCons. With the latter you are tending to say ‘oh, why mention that?’ I understand you are a Republican and conservative rather than a libertarian, and the SoCons are a critical faction in your group, but to a libertarian they often come off as silly as feminists with their overwrought pearl clutching and rhetoric.

            1. I am not applying a double standard at all. Making fun of a fatal disease is not the same as having a neurotic fear of porn. The latter may be funny or strange but the former is downright hateful and nasty.

              1. Do you think those of us who criticize the NFL’s ubiquitous pink gear for breast cancer awareness routine are being hateful and nasty?

                1. It makes the uniforms look ugly. Especially my beloved Skins, they look awful with pink added to the noble burgundy and gold.

                  1. To be fair, your beloved foreskins have awful all season.

                    1. looked awful…

                2. God, I hate all that pink shit. It has made me less sympathetic if anything.

                  1. God, I hate all that pink shit. It has made me less sympathetic if anything.

                    Not much difference between this and what Miss West is saying. I kinda agree though, it’s beyond played out.

                    1. And I really don’t have much problem with what she said. I don’t think she was mocking prostate cancer, just silly crap like growing mustaches for charity and special months for things. And I pretty much agree. Though I’d bet she is not totally consistent about that.

    2. Lindy WestULindy West191L
      There, you guys. I changed the headline to make it clear that EVERYONE SHOULD CARE ABOUT BOTH PROSTATE CANCER AND DINOSAURS, BUT ESPECIALLY PROSTATE CANCER. My dad died of prostate cancer. I still am tired of mustaches as a meme. Yesterday 3:54pm

      1. Jesus Christ. This person is evil.

        1. Her pancreas will carry out its work soon enough.

          1. Or, rather, stop carrying out its work. I wonder what color ribbon the Jezzies will wear to support her when she has to get her feet cut off?

            1. It will really be a race between diabetes and breast cancer in those sweaty, pus-filled flabjacks hanging over her gunt.

              Diabetes will probably win out, considering injections are so patriarchal. It’s like she’s raping her own skin with hollow metal penises. And Western medicine is all bunk anyway.

      2. Her dad died of the disease and she mocks people who try to do something about it. I honestly can’t imagine being that cut off from humanity.

        1. Perhaps he did. Or perhaps she is just being sarcastic and ‘edgy’, you know in order to raise more awareness about the terrible burden of the patriarchy.

      3. I still am tired of mustaches as a meme.

        I bet she would love pink mustaches.

    3. Didn’t they do this last November too?

      And shit like this is why I hate the pink ribbon bullies.

    4. JennyWennyatFriendfaceULindy West111L
      Ok forgive my emergence from under the rock where I’ve been dwelling…but I didn’t know Movember is to benefit prostate cancer. And now that I do, I am CERTAIN that my husband and his idiot work friends are all growing revolting mustaches without giving a THIN RED DIME to the cause.

      I should put a jar in my kitchen. Each time I refuse to kiss him with that shit on his face I can drop in a dollar. Someone must benefit from this.

      Imagine the shitstorm on Jezebel if he refused to go down on her because she wouldn’t shave off her pubic hair.

      1. That poor bastard…married…this creature.

        1. He’ll wake up one day, leave her, and water anew the roots of her glorious grievance-privilege tree.

        2. That poor bastard idiot…married…this creature.

        3. And now that I do, I am CERTAIN that my husband and his idiot work friends are all growing revolting mustaches without giving a THIN RED DIME to the cause.

          Seems true for me. Hipster cause-heads do this shit all the time.

        4. I don’t believe he exists.

    5. C’mon guys, I’m sure she finds wearing pink equally as repulsive and unproductive for promoting women’s health issues.

      /sarc

    6. I started growing a beard. It began as a stupid argument, “who grows a patchier beard.” I then noted it was November, so if we did it now people would just think we are part of the cause.

      To know that it annoys feminists? I am growing one every November!

      1. Such twelveth-hearted commitment. I grow one year round.

        1. I shaved twice in 2013. There won’t be a third time.

          1. I don’t even recall shaving for my job interview. Maybe. Definitely not for my wedding.

        2. It has been pretty itchy since the one week mark, does this get better?

          1. Use a trimmer on it as soon as it is long enough, CPA. Cuts down on the itching considerably.

          2. I have a friend who hasn’t shaved or trimmed his beard in two years, and is about halfway to ZZ Top status. He swears by putting conditioner in it to stop the itchiness.

            1. I’ll try that first then. I need it to grow more before I can trim it (it really is a bit patchy).

            2. I started off the month already having a ‘Ron Swanson’ so for Movember, I’ve quit trimming it. It’s now getting in my food and bugging the household commander.

              So I might keep it like this.

          3. In my experience, it’ll stop itching in another week or two whether you keep it trimmed or not. The itching is just your brain not being used to face-hairs rubbing against each other.

          4. Yes – up until it gets long enough to end up in your food. I try to cut it back before then. Of course, there’s probably another equilibrium when it’s long enough to hold permanantly out of the way as well.

          5. By three weeks the itching is mostly gone.

          6. I’ve had a beard for many years now and it never itches. I think it probably only itched for a few weeks after I gave up shaving. Hair growing back after shaving makes you itch, not having hair on your face.

        3. It’s no fun when the beard comes in white.

          1. But the white beard was 2/3rds of my Grumpy Cat costume for Halloween, so it can have an upside.

            1. (the horror, the horror)

              *fades into the shadows*

          2. That started about 25 for me. But so far it has stayed on my chin.

          3. Are you kidding? Chicks love the salt-and-pepper flavor saver.

            1. I look twenty years older when I let my beard grow up (I wore a full beard for about 12 years). It’s bad enough being 56, I don’t need to look 76.

              1. My dad had the same thing. His head hair was not gray at all, but his bear was and he grew it every winter and looked 10 years older.

              2. It’s bad enough being 56, I don’t need to look 76.

                Tell me about it. I’m 44 and my hair and beard have been full-on white since I was about 35. I shave both now to an even stubble.

          4. You know what else cums in white…

      2. I wasn’t aware of this “Movember” bullshit, I just heard about “No Shave November”. I only participated because I didn’t bother shaving for a few days around Halloween and someone asked if I was doing the whole “No shave November” thing. I figured, “Hey, I never actually tried growing a beard out so why not?”

    7. I wonder if there is a training course to become as clueless as you need to be to post a comment there.

      Loose_SealULindy West131L U
      We do need a November-themed month, one that reminds us why Thanksgiving is so f*cked up. And it makes me sad the Movember overshadows Native American Heritage month.

      I am ok with stuff like fairies and Santa, but I try not to cross the line into stuff that spreads misinformation – they learned dinosaurs are extinct. I am not gonna pretend there are dinosaurs around. And I gave my aunt a piece of my mind when she told the kids that the sun “goes to sleep” at night – they’re learning how the planets work. The sun doesn’t “go to sleep”, it rotates to the other side of the planet.

      These women do more to hurt their cause than any misogynist ever could.

      1. “it rotates to the other side of the planet.”

        Um. OK. Just stick with “goes to sleep at night”.

        1. Maybe she’s a Catholic. From the sixteenth century.

    8. I’m not pro-any-cancer. But I hate the mustache thing and I hate NFL players wearing pink crap.

      Do I pass all the purity tests? I’m confused.

  45. House Republicans to try to impeach Holder

    “If the attorney general refuses to provide answers, then Congress must take action.”

    And if Congress takes action, then the administration must refuse to provide answers.

    1. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

    2. I have been saying this for a while. Don’t impeach Obama. That is a dead end. Impeaching a President is canceling the result of an election. Absent a dead girl or a live boy in the Oval office, the public won’t go for that. But no one elected Holder or any of the rest of the cabinet. The public won’t object to that if you can make the case that he is a real dirt bag, which of course you can with Holder. Go after the cabinet. Have trial in the Senate and make Holder answer for himself.

  46. Jonah Goldberg: Obamacare Schadenfreudarama
    It feels pretty good to watch the whole thing fail.

    First, the obligatory caveats. It is no laughing matter that millions of Americans’ lives have been thrown into anxious chaos as they lose their health insurance, their doctors, their money, or all three. Nor is it particularly amusing to think of the incredible waste of time and tax dollars that has gone into Obamacare’s construction. And the still-unfolding violence that this misbegotten legislation will visit on the economy and our liberties is not funny either. This very magazine has been downright funereal about the brazen and unconstitutional seizure of one-sixth of the economy, and rightly so.

    But come on, people.

    If you can’t take some joy, some modicum of relief and mirth, in the unprecedentedly spectacular beclowning of the president, his administration, its enablers, and, to no small degree, liberalism itself, then you need to ask yourself why you’re following politics in the first place. Because, frankly, this has been one of the most enjoyable political moments of my lifetime.

    1. If you can’t take some joy, some modicum of relief and mirth, in the unprecedentedly spectacular beclowning of the president, his administration, its enablers, and, to no small degree, liberalism itself, then you need to ask yourself why you’re following politics in the first place.

      Jonah, Jonah, believe me: I’m laughing my pants off, but only because I have company-sponsored health insurance. And I will probably continue to enjoy the whole comedy that unfolds before my eyes until the next mandates kick in and then it will be my turn to cry.

  47. Hmm, McCain’s mother is 101. Does that mean we could be stuck with him for another 3 or 4 terms?

  48. Democrats try to put Humpty Dumpty together again:

    “The political calculus is straightforward, Democrats say. Voters are uncomfortable with the ACA, but private polling shows they are receptive to a “mend it, don’t end it” message. If Democratic House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates can show they want to fix the law proactively, the party believes voters will forgive some bungling by the administration. And if some Democrats are inching away from the president in an awfully public fashion, lawmakers say they have felt little pressure from the White House and other party leaders to make the existing text of the ACA a political hill to fight and die on.

    “”This is not about loyalty to the White House. It’s about getting the health care law right for the American people,” said Vermont Rep. Peter Welch. “This is a situation where good implementation is good politics.””

    http://www.politico.com/story/…..z2kd698Yzl

    1. There is no way to “mend it”. If you let people keep their insurance, you have to get rid of the mandates or there the insurance industry goes broke. The only way to “mend it” is to repeal the entire law and let the market over the course of a few years shake itself out so that people get back the plans they like. Even then so much damage has already been done repealing it won’t immediately stop the harm.

      The insurance lobby will never agree to just letting people keep their plans. So that idea is a no go. So in other words, they are fucked.

      1. I certainly would like to see the list of “mends”. If they’re within the HHS Admin ability to change the law at a whim, then why haven’t they?

        1. Because the law only works if you get people to pay for coverage they don’t want. That is why HHS effectively destroyed the grandfather rule by regulating that any “significant change” constituted a new policy and killed your grandfather rights. They had to or the insurance companies would go broke.

          The bottom line is that people are losing their insurance because the insurance industry was paid off in the form of coverage mandates and community rating in order to get them to take pre-existing conditions and insure a bunch of poor people. That is the essence of the law. You can’t mend it without repealing it.

          1. My question, of course, was rhetorical, but as far as I can see it – in my limited understanding of markets – is Obamacare will fail in some shape of form. It could only succeed with a massive infusion of subsidies, but that’s a hard road for the Dems, especially if they don’t control the House.

            1. Yes, it could succeed if you would put in a massive infusion of subsidies and make it effectively a middle class entitlement program. That is what neither the Democrats nor the doomsayers on the Right never got. Obamacare is not a middle class entitlement program like Medicaire and Social Security. It is the opposite. It robs the middle class to support the insurance companies and a small group of uninsured and poor. It was never going to be popular or get more popular. It is just going to fester and cause more and more anger and resentment

      2. -There is no way to “mend it”.

        True, but it will be fun to watch the Mary Landrieu’s of the world squirmingly try.

      3. It’s amazing how quickly this is turning into a devastating political problem. If it doesn;t turnaround really soon the Democrats could really be fucked for a long, long time. They own it 100%, rammed it through, no buy in from the Republicans to give them cover. Incredibly hubristic.

        1. I keep saying that the Dems are going to be the ones who end up repealing it. They are intriducing these laws to let people keep their insurance because they don’t really understand the law and how impossible that is and even if they do they hope that passing the law will give them a talking point to duck responsibility. As this goes on, I think they will realize that there is no way to amend the law enough to save their asses and start talking repeal.

          Look at it this way, a month ago even asking to delay it was called treason. Now they are actively introducing bills to kill one of the bill’s vital provisions.

          1. Funny that even though the democrats rammed it through with no Republican support or participation, the common meme in the non-Fox, non-AM-radio media is that the republicans screwed up the healthcare law. The reasoning as to why this would be the case has morphed over the last couple of years, but it has been their consistent charge.

            Because they wouldn’t negotiate in good faith, the president was forced to give in to the extremists in his party. Because they were so crazy he was forced to cave in to all of the right-wing demands and compromise his vision. Because the republicans have been sabotaging the healthcare law at every turn, it has problems. etc., etc., etc….

        2. -It’s amazing how quickly this is turning into a devastating political problem.

          Unless the GOP candidates start offering up ‘legitimate rape’ type soundbites I can not see how Hagan, Landrieu, Pryor or Begich keep their seats.

          1. It is incredible how blindingly fast these assholes run for cover when their positions of power are threatened. There really is nothing more craven than a politician.

            1. They have no principles other than wanting power, you hit the nail on the head.

              Look at Obama, can it actually be argued that that man believes in anything other than winning elections and rewarding his friends? What, if anything, do you think someone like Mary Landrieu actually believes other than the same? Landrieu comes from a political dynasty that just thinks it is owed power for its own sake and as a matter of right.

              1. “Look at Obama, can it actually be argued that that man believes in anything other than winning elections and rewarding his friends?”

                Sure.

                He believes that the right group of top men can solve all of societies problems

                He believes in globalist solutions over nationalist

                He believes in collectivist rule over individual rights

                He believes in an economy managed in a partnership between government and large corporations over both free market capitalism and Socialism

                That’s about it however

          2. Unless the GOP candidates start offering up ‘legitimate rape’ type soundbites I can not see how Hagan, Landrieu, Pryor or Begich keep their seats.

            The Republicans earned the Title of The Stupid Party a long time ago. They’ll run a candidate who spends the entire campaign shrieking about the need to stop teh gays, or else they’ll run The Tubby One and piss off both the socons and the libertarians.

            1. Really, exactly who in the GOP will run shreeking about the gays? Paul? Cruz? Jeb Bush? The Republicans have never run a national candidate who said shit about the gays. What makes you think they will start now, especially when there isn’t a serious candidate who would do that?

              1. It is plausible, given the way the primary system is rigged/works, don’t you think? At this juncture I bet Fatso gets the nod. He’s the Un-Obama but still appeals to people that want to feel a little bit good about government.

                1. Fatso is unacceptable to 3/4 of GOP voters in the last poll I saw. I can’t see him winning. But FAtso winning is at least possible. Republicans have run Northeastern Rinos in the past. But whoever they run, it won’t be someone shreeking about the gays. There has never been a SOCON nominee. I don’t understand why people on here pretend the SOCONs run the Republican party.

              2. It’s true. Shrieking about the gays is a non-starter at the national level. But the GOP can still use it to get oot the vote at the state level with congress candidates and ballot measures about gay marriage.

      4. so what should the R’s try to get out of this?

        It’s a hard question, because they’ve already demonstrated they don’t have the political will or strength of their convictions to insist on repeal of the whole damn thing. But if they just allow crappy band aids to be applied to this they are contributing to the boiling frog syndrome-ness of the whole situation.

        so at a minimum I think they should shoot for:

        1) raise the crap out of the officially acceptable deductables. to like 20K (per individual). And get it indexed to inflation.

        2) get rid of all coverage that obviously can’t ever by used. (e.g. Birth Control for a post-menopausal woman).

    2. “This is not about loyalty to the White House. It’s about getting the health care law right for the American people trying to save my political career.”

      FTFY

    3. There’s no sugarcoating it – this law has a couple issues that need to be addressed.

      1. There’s no sugar-coating it. Some people in the Phillippines got a little drenched by the recent storm.

  49. This article is a few days old and I don’t know if it has been posted here before. (feel free to mock me if it has)

    Jindal Cancels SNAP cards for free for all abusers.

    I wonder if they’ll be getting calls on their Obamaphones from Karma trying to make appointments for all the bitchslaps she has to hand out.

    1. “As always, it’s the children who will really pay the price for the irresponsible actions of their parents.”

      Wont somebody please think of thems?!?

  50. A U.S. aircraft carrier and two cruisers have arrived in the Philippines to help communities devastated by Typhoon Haiyan, one of the deadliest typhoons on record.

    Nothing says “humanitarian relief” quite like the presense of three U.S. warships.

    1. whoops – “presence”

      It’s too drunk in the morning to be this early! Wooo hoo!

    2. Right now that place is quite a Danger Zone.

      1. We’d build a highway to there if we weren’t libertarians who don’t believe in ROADZ

    3. Actually, that is true. They bring enormous amounts of helicopter lift and such.

    4. As it was discussed in a thread above, aircraft carriers produce electricity, desalinate water, carry food, marines who can provide security, a fleet of helicopters which come in handy when roads are washed out, not to mention medical facilities. They can provide quite a bit of humanitarian aid.

      1. BUT THE OPTICS!!!

  51. Zenon Evans is a 2013 intern at Reason.com.

    So AM Links have been pushed off to the slave labor?

    1. He’s better than Feeney, he remembered the alt-text.

      1. Feeney can fuck off back to Albion as far as I’m concerned.

    2. It’s okay, he’s an orphan.

      1. He’s telling a terrible story, which will tend to diminish his glory.

  52. I’m still waiting on the power transformer I need to finish the DIY tube amplifier. The company in question – Edcor – builds to order and have a 5-6 turnaround time. All this to save $30.

    1. 5-6 weeks that is. I picked the wrong time to switch to decaf.

    2. Gawd!!! Real audiophiles wind their own transformers you pussy.

    3. I gave up on tubes 30 years ago. Even my Marshall guitar amp is a solid state poser. Just so much cheaper and less fuss…and it’s still power fucking loud.

      100W through 8 Celestion speakers – still the standard!

      1. Having once owned a Marshall stack back when I was cool and single, it’s not about the loudness but that fat tube amp sound. But you know this already and are dead inside, like me, you just can’t admit it to yourself.

      2. I tried to give up on tubes by using this monster amp:

        Threshold S/500
        http://www.audio-teams.com/web…..161840.jpg

        but even with 250Ws of power per channel, and the ability to practically weld with the 22 output devices per channel, it still didn’t sound as good as a cheap-o Chinese Yaqin amplifier.

        1. There really is no way to get that fat sound without a tube amp. Plus I don’t remember it being particularly hard to maintain a tube amp. Not cheap, though.

          1. But you can never get that fat sound without another horn. Forget it. Mr. Fabulous is the top maitre d’ at the Belle Cuisine Restaurant. He’s drawing three hundred bucks a week.

            1. How much for the little girl?

  53. Professor Cass Sunstein has an explanation for the Tea Party. It wasn’t about out-of-control spending and taxes or Obamacare, it was about Whittaker Chambers’ anti-liberal rhetoric, which metastasized through the body politic and turned conservatives into big meanies who distrust liberals.

    The professor does make a gracious concession, however:

    “Most of those who have carefully studied the case, and who have explored evidence emerging long after the trial itself, have concluded that Chambers was telling the truth and that Hiss did indeed perjure himself” about spying for the Soviet Union.

    You see, the jury verdict that Hiss was guilty was simply a tentative hypothesis, which was only confirmed when liberal writers and professors in the next few decades acknowledged Hiss’s guilt.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..party.html

    1. And the fact that big-shot “liberal icons” testified in Hiss’s favor and saw Hiss’s prosecution as an attack on the entire New Deal didn’t give conservatives any legitimate cause to doubt the awesomeness of liberals – no, it was Chambers’ divisive rhetoric.

    2. That got posted a while back. It is really an astounding example of projection. First, Sunstein seems totally incapable of understanding how his side could be at fault. Yeah, the Right felt very angry and betrayed by the Hiss case. But that wasn’t because they thought the entire government was full of Communists. It was because the Left defended Hiss and tried to personally destroy Chambers even though they knew Hiss was a communist. High level and respectable people in the Left told bald faced lies in defense of a Stalinist agent and personally destroyed a truthful whistle blower because the communist was on their side. And Sunstein is puzzled why those on the Right stopped believing anything the Left said after that.

      1. Though I don’t think the Hiss case caused the Tea Party, the fact that liberals took so long to accept Hiss’s guilt, going through all the phases of grief before doing so, and that even after being forced to concede Hiss’s guilt they kept saying that Chambers was still a big meanie, is cause to doubt liberals’ intelligence.

        I mean, what things are liberals denying *today* which they will, over the next few decades, reluctantly acknowledge to be true, after smearing anyone who stood up for the truth when it mattered?

        1. Sunstein is right about the Hiss case being important. But he totally projects the reason onto the other side. It is important because that was the day the American left decided that they would always defend any good soldier on their side no matter how much doing that required them to lie. It was the birth of the paranoid left not the paranoid right. And the Left’s reaction to the Tea Party, a peaceful and fairly mundane grass roots movement demanding what amount to pretty small corrections in government, is right out the Chambers playbook; attack them personally and avoid having any serious discussion of the substance of what they are saying.

      2. Re: John,

        But that wasn’t because they thought the entire government was full of Communists.

        But… it was full of Communists.

        1. For sure. But not everyone was a communist. And no one on the Right thought that.

  54. Yikes.
    This whole, “OMG JANET YELLIN IS, LIKE, A WOMYN AND STUFF!!!! SQUEEEEEEEEEEE!” thing is giving me a brain ache.

    Yellin bears a disconcerting resemblance to the Danny DeVito portrayal of criminal mastermind The Penguin. I want to know whether she is planning to use her powers as Chairthing of the Federal Reserve Bank to further her plot to tunnel under Fort Knox and steal America’s gold supply in order to build a luxurious HQ for her vast criminal enterprise at the North Pole.

    Because then I could enthusiastically root for her.

    1. Sorry, just looks like the printinng presses will continue on overdrive for the foreseeable future. No cool tunnels or lairs.

  55. All this to save $30.

    When you’re lying in the gutter dying of a brain tumor because you don’t have a real insurance plan, you’ll be glad you have that thirty bucks.

    1. to drown my pain with the cheapest whiskey I can afford.

      1. The cheapest whiskey is $30 a pint – because taxes.

        Welcome to your dystopian future.

      2. Hah! 30 bucks will buy you a good-sized bottle of premium gin. You can die in piney bliss.

        1. premium gin

          A contradiction.

  56. Heritage makes a good point about the Upton “you can keep your insurance” bill.

    The defenders of Obamacare know full well that the Upton legislation represents a serious threat to the viability of the law. It would provide a lifeline for a viable insurance market outside of Obamacare’s rules and suffocating structure. Millions of Americans would flock to a revitalized insurance marketplace that offered lower premium products with better coverage. The end result would be one more step toward fully reversing the catastrophic mistake of Obamacare.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/…..67052.html

    So the bill is going to get out of the House with a lot of desperate Democrats telling Nancy Pelosi to fuck off. Then it goes to the Senate. So what does Reid do? Refuse to bring it to the floor and let the Republican Senate campaign run on “Because your Senator is Dem, a bipartisan bill to save your insurance won’t become law”? Or does he have a vote and desperate Dems pass it. But no way Obama is going to sign it. So Obama becomes the guy who took away your insurance and his entire party has to run for re-election next November on the platform of “I tried to save your insurance but that Son of a Bitch in the White House wouldn’t let me”. Yeah, that ought to work out well.

    1. Re: John,

      Yeah, that ought to work out well.

      A real-life comedy of errors.

      1. The great thing about this is that Obamacare is structured so idiotically that it is like a house of cards. You can’t just take away this or that provision without destroying the entire bill. So the usual way for the GOP to fuck up a situation like this, by selling out on some half assed bi-partisan reform that does nothing but let the Democrats off the hook, is not available. There is no way to reform it. You either keep the whole thing or you kill it.

        1. Re: John,

          The great thing about this is that Obamacare is structured so idiotically that it is like a house of cards.

          It is so idiotic that the excuse du jour is to blame the whole thing on the Republicans and the Heritage Foundation, despite the party-line voting and the three years of free positive advertising from the mainstream media.

          1. The average voter has no idea what the Heritage Foundation even is. So they are going to try and convince the voters that them losing their insurance is the result of Democrats being taken in by some evil conservative organization none of them have ever heard of. That sounds like a winning strategy.

    2. As long as they are at it, shouldn’t the bill include something about health insurance being able to be sold across state lines? Time to use the Commerce Clause for its actual purpose.

  57. PvP accidentally nails democracy. Except I don’t think Kurtz really does get it.

    1. If only I could see actual panda maulings of hipsters I’d be happier.

      Okay, I’d still be a miserable son of a bitch, but I’d be less miserable.

  58. Cops: Man fired cannon during dispute

    Authorities say a western New York man has been charged with harassment for repeatedly firing an unloaded Civil War cannon at the homes of his neighbors.

    The Chautauqua County Sheriff’s Office says 52-year-old Brian Malta fired the cannon at neighboring homes in the rural town of Kiantone, on the Pennsylvania border 60 miles south of Buffalo.

    Deputies say the cannon was fired with only a powder charge and wadding. Police confiscated the cannon.

    1. Police confiscated the cannon

      No fair, it was a single shot muzzleoader, those are still legal, even under the SAFE Act!.

    2. Uh, if it was unloaded how did it fire? Unless load means projectile.

  59. Nancy Pelosi: Obama to propose health fix

    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that President Barack Obama will offer a fix to Obamacare problems as soon as today.

    “I think it can be done administratively. The president will offer a proposal today, is my understanding,” Pelosi said at the World Ideas Forum, hosted by The Atlantic.

    Obama on Thursday is traveling to Cleveland to speak at a steel plant there.

    Pelosi seemed to suggest that Obama will propose an administrative solution, which is significant because a growing number of Democrats are supporting a legislative fix.

    I’m guessing subsidies for those who lost their insurance…

    1. Your guess is their command.

    2. But this thing is settled law Hummungus. I mean it was litigated all the way to the Supreme Court. Its the law. The President can’t go changing that law. I mean its the law, right?

    3. Pelosi said at the World Ideas Forum, hosted by The Atlantic.

      I’m guessing the old about the Holy Roman Empire would apply here.

    4. I don’t know if they can hand out subsidies without Congressional authorization. Or is he going to start ordering the IRS to only collect 95% of what a taxpayer legally owes in order to create a de facto subsidy? “Contact the President and he’ll tell his agencies how much of your taxes they can collect” is straight out of a banana republic.

    5. from the Drudge headline:

      The White House is going to allow people to keep their existing insurance policies in an attempt to head off a revolt among Democrats over ObamaCare.

      President Obama is expected to make the announcement at 11:35 a.m.

      The news comes one day before the House is scheduled to vote on a Republican-sponsored bill that would accomplish essentially the same goal. Insiders predicted that dozens of Democrats who face tough re-election fights next year would support the measure.

      http://nypost.com/2013/11/14/w…..obamacare/

  60. People like killing and eating things. The NYT investigates. Comments ensue.

    RichardNYC
    Hunting is barbaric and unquestionably constitutes animal cruelty. The animals suffer horribly. The women featured in this article should consider the atrocities they are committing against other living beings. These animals have every right to live their lives as we do or our pets do. The life changes and crises these women are experiencing back home provide no justification for their horrific actions.
    Nov. 12, 2013 at 5:57 p.m.RECOMMENDED7
    READ ALL 6 REPLIES

    1. or our pets do

      My pets were an emergency food supply.

      1. These animals have every right to live their lives as we do or our pets do.

        These jackasses are welcome to stay overnight at my place and listen to the terrified screams of an animal that is getting ambushed by coyotes. Mother Nature is a vicious, sociopathic bitch.

        1. Which has absolutely nothing to do with what he was writing about.

          While I think the NYT commenter is an hysteric, I’m dismayed by the ongoing contempt here for anyone who tries to reduce suffering endured by animals at the hands of humans.

          1. These animals have every right to live their lives as we do or our pets do.

            What is that supposed to mean? Do animals in the wild have natural rights?

            1. I’m not sure what that NYT commenter means. Why don’t you ask him?

          2. I’m dismayed by the ongoing contempt here for anyone who tries to reduce suffering endured by animals at the hands of humans.

            They’re caricatures of themselves, and 99% of the time statists before anything else.

            There are good arguments for common sense reduction in factory farming practices. It just so happens that most people who would argue for that don’t use the good arguments.

            Besides, vegetarians and vegans (and animal rights types in general) tend to be worse about moralizing food than SoCons are about sex.

            1. Uh, you’re almost there. It’s not moralizing about food (weasel word alert). Nobody has a principled rights-based objection to soybeans or carrots, the issue here is human treatment of animals.

              1. Animals aren’t food?

              2. Nobody has a principled rights-based objection to soybeans or carrots

                Plants are just as alive as animals, and although they may not be able to feel pain, they obviously react negatively to harm. Therefore we should not deprive them of life or appendage.

          3. While I think the NYT commenter is an hysteric, I’m dismayed by the ongoing contempt here for anyone who tries to reduce suffering endured by animals at the hands of humans.

            Hooray, are we going to get to play another game of special pleading Tonyo!?!?!?

        2. Seriously. I bet any animal would take a well placed .30-06 bullet over being torn apart and eaten alive anytime. I know I would.

          1. If they were capable of understanding the choice, probably. And I have no trouble with hunting and slaughter, per se.

            1. You probably already know this, but libertarianism really doesn’t have anything to say about animals.

              Personally, I think anyone who inflicts pain either only for enjoyment or out of indifference is a scumbag – as bad as Ingrid Newkirk. However, if the animal is their property or a wild animal, it should not be a legal matter.

              1. However, if the animal is their property or a wild animal, it should not be a legal matter.

                But that isn’t Tonyo’s position, and he’ll accuse you being a scumbag who enjoys inflicting pain if you disagree with him.

    2. The life changes and crises these women are experiencing back home provide no justification for their horrific actions.

      Why can’t they just go on sex tourist vacations to Bermuda like strong independent NY professional women do?

  61. Is anybody now calling John Roberts a political mastermind for helping the Derpocratic Party to lash themselves to the mast of the Good Ship Obamacare and set sail merrily off for Cape Horn?

    1. No. But if you are conspiracy minded or just want to believe that Roberts is some kind of super genius of Bond villain level, I guess you could.

      The better question is how long before Democrats start attacking Roberts for changing his vote and not preventing this disaster?

      Look Brooks, the Democrats were under so much pressure to do something and the evil Republicans wouldn’t ever agree to single payer. So they took this horrible unconstitutional Heritage Foundation plan and passed it and Roberts just wanted to help out his friends at Heritage and his investments in the insurance companies that he refused to declare it unconstitutional and force Congress to do the right thing and pass single payer.

      1. Don’t forget all the money they got for doing it from the Koch Bros.

    2. Wrong is wrong, dude. Finding this constitutional makes him terrible at his job. And the other 4 who voted aye as well.

  62. People like killing and eating things. The NYT investigates. Comments ensue.

    Yesterday’s news. Too bad.

  63. 10 arrows in less than 5 seconds: reinventing forgotten archery

    Andersen: “I discovered historical texts that [described] Saracens who fought with the Crusaders had a series of tests which had been preserved. For example, one test required, at a 60-bow distance, to shoot three arrows so quickly that the last shall be in the air before the first has hit,” added Lars. “That is three arrows in one-and-a-half seconds. That motivated me to accomplish it.”

    Fast forward several years later with heavy training under his belt, Andersen has now achieved an impressive shooting technique. Both fast and accurate, he accomplished what many thought was simply legend or folklore.

    At least for me, this casts a whole new light on medieval warfare. Until the arrows ran out, there could be a non-stop swarm of missiles in the air.

    1. Yes. And the armor stopped those arrows. But the armor didn’t stop the blunt force. Most of the deaths were from the accumulation of brunt force trauma not from an arrow cutting you in half like the movies.

      Also, notice how long it took him to get that good. This is why the age before firearms was so oppressive. You couldn’t have a popular rebellion. The military class would just slaughter you. The average person had neither the time nor money to train enough to take on the military class. But when personal fire arms came around they could. Sure, they couldn’t fight the army head on. But they could fight a partisan war, whereas without firearms they couldn’t.

      1. That depends on the bow, doesn’t it? The longbow, when used against the heavily armored French, seemed to work against armor.

        1. It worked. But it worked by blunt force. They have done experiments with armor and long bows. And the chain mail and quilted padding below it will stop an arrow from penetrating your skin. But what it doesn’t stop is the force behind that arrow. It may not draw blood, but it is like getting hit with an hammer. The new thinking is that the knights at Crecy or Agincourt didn’t die from arrow wounds so much as they died from multiple blunt tramas caused by arrows hitting their armor.

          1. when you have the chance, check out the video. There were special arrowheads made to puncture chain mail. And Andersen has a demo where, with a normal arrowhead, could puncture armor. Of course he’s pretty close and the arrow isn’t coming in an arc.

            1. That’s right, I saw these at the Tower of London. The arrowheads were basically nails.

            2. Re: Lord Humungus,

              There were special arrowheads made to puncture chain mail.

              Chain mail was not meant to stop bodkin-pointed arrows but to deflect glancing sword hits or stabbing thrusts. Chain mail was usually worn above quilted cotton or linen padded coats which distributed the hit on a much wider area, thus quickly absorbing the energy of the blow.

              However, bodkin arrows could only slightly penetrate PLATE armor at very close range, and even so, knights protected their bodies with quilted padded clothes that also absorbed the energy of the blow. Only crossbow bolts at close range could penetrate plate armor to the point of killing or incapacitating a knight. Most medieval fights with armored knights were not won by missile weapons but by reasonably disciplined infantry armed with paring weapons like poleaxes or halbeards and professional bodies of knights.

              What made archers and missile weapons effective in combat was in breaking down the cohesion of formations and in thinning down infantry. It was also effective against attacking cavalry as long as they were used recklessly.

          2. Have you ever read any Bernard Cornwell? His novel about Agincourt was a fun read.

            1. I’m a fan of the Sharpe books (and series).

              1. He’s really improved over the years. The Saxon Stories are my favorite. Just finished the latest one.

      2. What are you talking about? Bodkin arrowheads could pierce plate.

        1. Hit send too soon.

          Provided you were close enough and had a bow with a heavy enough draw weight, I mean. It’s why the French hated English longbowmen so much – peasants, even trained ones, weren’t supposed to be able to kill noblemen. And why one of the popes banned the crossbow, for that matter.

        2. Cross bows could, but long bow or short bow arrows could not. So absent a lucky shot that hits your neck or some exposed skin, the arrow hits the chain mail and the quilting underneath it but doesn’t penetrate your skin. You just get the blunt force, which quickly adds up.

          1. John I beleive at Agincourt the English longbowmen were wreaking havoc on the French knights.

            1. I glanced at some discussions about this on the web, and it sounds like this is still disputed somewhat.

              I need a ruling.

            2. Yes they did. But they did so by the force of those arrows not the arrow going through the body like you see in the movies.

              1. Do you mean to tell me that movies don’t represent reality? They are some sort of modern Plato Cave? I don’t believe it.

          2. Only a very strong man could draw an English longbow. They tested a bunch of longbows they found preserved in the mud in a 15th century shipwreck, and the draw weights were something like 120-180 pounds. There was a specific technique to it, you’d have to use your entire back to draw the bow and not just one arm.

            Other modern tests described by Bane include those by Williams (which concluded that longbows could not penetrate mail, but in Bane’s view did not use a realistic arrow tip), Robert Hardy’s tests (which achieved broadly similar results to Bane), and a Primitive Archer test which demonstrated that a longbow could penetrate a plate armour breastplate. However, the Primitive Archer test used a 160 lbf (710 N) longbow at very short range, generating 160 joules (vs. 73 for Bane and 80 for Williams), so probably not representative of battles of the time.

            So it could penetrate plate, from short range and with a strong bow. So I agree that most of the time, it was useless against knights, but not in circumstances like Agincourt, where the knights were dismounted and mired in mud.

            1. It wasn’t useless. You just couldn’t get a single kill shot. It took multiple hits.

              1. OK, sure. The tests seem to indicate that they couldn’t go through the thicker chest plate, and the chainmail underneath, and the coat under that. But the head was less protected, and the arms, and the legs. Even a little penetration would quickly immobilize one of these guys.

                I am so glad I live in a world with rifles.

                1. Dammit.

                  Before the “even”, insert a sentence about how the inch or half-inch of penetration you could get would be devastating against the arms and legs.

            2. Plate came after Crecy, right? So it’s a different answer depending on the period.

              Maybe we need to dig up some skeletons.

              1. Plate came after both Crecy and Agincourt. Plate didn’t get widely used until the middle of the 15th Century or later. Most of the beautiful plate suits of armor you see in museums come well after the medieval period.

                1. They most certainly had plate at Crecy and Agincourt. Just not good plate. All the plate you see in museums, like John says, comes from Italy and Germany in the 1500s and 1600s.

                  1. I meant (relatively) widespread use of plate.

          3. A longbow arrow carries more force than a crossbow bolt. The effective range was approximately the same penetration at double the distance.

            1. How do you figure? A crossbow had a higher draw weight. The drawback was that they were expensive and slow to load.

        3. http://www.currentmiddleages.o…..esting.pdf

          check this out.

          Most soldiers on the battlefield would have been at risk from the longbow. The average archer would have had the tools to wound or kill most armour types. Even with the advent of coat of plates, the archer would have had an impact on an advancing army. Only the most expensive and well made plate armour wearers would have
          had an advantage. Although even with plate, I only tested the impacts to major protected areas. The joints and
          gaps would all still be vulnerable being mostly of maille until the 16
          th century. Without significant metal to
          withstand the energies of an arrow or excessive padding to spread out the force,arrows of the 1400’s would
          have been deadly.

          It was the force hitting you, not the arrow penetrating your body.

      3. “Also, notice how long it took him to get that good. This is why the age before firearms was so oppressive. You couldn’t have a popular rebellion. The military class would just slaughter you. The average person had neither the time nor money to train enough to take on the military class.”

        Actually the English/Welsh longbowmen of the middle ages were peasants not professional soldiers. Similarly Pikewalls of peasant or urban millitia solders often defeated armies of professional military.

        That said victories of peasant troops over professional solders were rare

        1. They were trained though. That was one of the reasons the French didn’t just start making longbows and handing them out.

          1. Well they trained themselves which is the point.

            One of the brilliant things the English did was to set up a system of archery competitions with significant financial rewards to encourage their peasantry to continually hone their archery skills giving them a ready pool of highly trained archers to draft when needed without having to spend the time or money to have them trained as a professional military.

            1. A “well-regulated militia” you might say…

            2. Wasn’t that more the yeomanry, rather than the peasantry that supplied the longbowmen?

    2. Good read.

      Bows were more effective than guns until the breechloading rifle was invented. The only problem was that it took a lifetime of training to become proficient. Slings were even better than bows but took even more training.

      And you don’t even want to think about the damage a swordsman can do.

      1. +1 Syrio Forel

    3. Also, combat archery was different than hunting archery. Hunters used flat trajectories. Combat archers fired from the rear ranks and to avoid hitting their own troops used high trajectories. So while still very, very impressive getting the third arrow in flight before the first one hits is easier with high-trajectory archery.

      Forget which movie, but there’s a good scene where it shows people raising shields over their heads to deflect a flight of incoming arrows.

      1. Not always. Archers usually fired in a high trajectory, but point-blank shooting happened often enough.

        1. Well, yes, of course, when you were overrun and stuff.

  64. “I think it can be done administratively. The president will offer a proposal today, is my understanding,” Pelosi said at the World Ideas Forum, hosted by The Atlantic.

    the World Ideas Forum, hosted by The Atlantic.

    Don’t blink.

  65. Obama on Thursday is traveling to Cleveland to speak at a steel plant there.

    If you like your union, you can keep it. No, seriously.

  66. Catholic fringe group disrupts church service on anniversary of Kristallnacht (the night of broken glass, where the formal persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany began).

    1. A small group disrupted Tuesday night’s ceremony by shouting the rosary and the “Our Father” prayer, and spreading pamphlets saying that “followers of false gods must be kept out of the sacred temple.”

      Apparently they didn’t get the memo that it is the same god. Way to know your own religious history!

  67. Your daily socon butt-hurt: Hawaii extends marriage rights to same sex couples. If you like your current marriage you can keep it; it’s not the state’s duty to enable your feelings of specialness or superiority to others.

    1. It’s a crying shame that this movement didn’t go the other way, taking the state out of marriage to allow gay marriage or whatever. But it’s rare that anything goes from more state to less.

      1. This.

        We now have more state power. And libertarians support this.

      2. Well, the movement didn’t go that way.

        1. That was a response to PL.

          1. I know it was.

        2. I understand. Just wish it had. Like with everything else that doesn’t quite work out in a libertarian manner.

          One thing with this methodology, the state giveth but the state can taketh away.

    2. But it is totally the state’s right to but a boot on your throat and tell you that you have to recognize other people’s specialness right?

      If you really believe it’s not the state’s duty to enable your feelings of specialness or superiority to others, then why do you support state sanctioned gay marriage? You can get married without the state. The only thing the state can do for you is force people to recognize your marriage.

      Understand how you are projecting here? You can get a lover and swear fidelity to them and live with them now. But you can’t make anyone else recognize your ties. That is really what this is about isn’t it? Forcing everyone else to enable your feelings of specialness?

      1. There are plenty of things you get from being legally married that have nothing to do with forcing other people to accept you are making other people give you stuff. Not having to testify against your spouse and being able to get untaxed insurance from your spouses employer are two obvious ones. Stop pretending that it is only about forcing other people to accept you. There are plenty of other reasons. It’s an equal protection issue.

        1. Lots of employers offer insurance benefits that cover unmarried partners or same sex partners. Without gay marriage they can choose to do that or not. With it, they have no choice and must provide.

          It is all about forcing other people Zeb. The only thing you have is spousal immunity in a criminal case. And that effects how many people? Two or three a year?

          1. Then why do straight people get married if it’s only about forcing people to do shit your way? OR why is it OK for straight people to force people to acknowledge their relationship? It is no different. What if an employer doesn’t recognize the validity of marriages not performed in the proper religious context? They are forced to recognize my completely secular marriage.

            And it’s OK to force 2 or 3 people a year to testify against their spouses?

            I don’t think that employers must offer spousal insurance. They are much more likely to because of the special tax treatment, but it is not required.

            Why is it so fucking hard to understand that this is about equal protection of the law and not a secret desire to force people to do shit? Yes, many people do want that. But no one on here does. The problem is the public accommodation laws. They already exist and are bad with or without gay marriage.

            1. Then why do straight people get married if it’s only about forcing people to do shit your way?

              Tradition. From a purely rational standpoint they shouldn’t. Also, thanks to common law marriage, the state will often effectively force them to be married even if they never got the license.

              State marriage is not some great deal.

            2. I oppose licensing of straight marriages too.

          2. So as long as inequality before the law only affects a small number of people it is ok? How many people does it have to affect before it’s a bad thing?

          3. ‘It is all about forcing other people”

            You mean like forcing hospitals to recognize your spouse as your next of kin?

            1. Yes, like that.

              That should be handled via private contracts.

              And why should anyone be forced to acknowledge anyone as next of kin if they dont want to.

              If a hospital doesnt want to recognize gay marriage (or straight marriage or polygamous marriage or whatever) why should they be forced?

            2. It is called a medical power of attorney. Everyone, gay and straight can get one. If you don’t have a spouse or family and only have a friend to help you or don’t want your spouse making the decision, you have to get one of those too.

              The whole thing comes down to screwing people’s rights of conscience so a few gay couples don’t have to get a POA.

              1. Actually there have been at least a few cases where Hospitals ignored Medical POA’s excluded a critically ill/injured patients partner from medical decisions and barred them from visiting in favor of the patients birth family who were in opposition to the patients lifestyle/sexual orientation.

                Sure there’d probably be a pretty good lawsuit when that happened but it wouldn’t do you much good once your spouse was dead and you weren’t able to be there to say goodbye or ensure their wishes were honored

    3. Re: Tonio,

      Your daily socon butt-hurt: Hawaii extends marriage rights to same sex couples.

      Next stop: Turn perfectly free wedding photographers into the personal slaves of homosexual couples.

      1. And Tonio is happy to see it. Freedom is about is getting him his pony. Didn’t you know that?

        1. Because they are the exact same issue and you can’t have equality before the law without coercion over businesses selling their goods or services. How do you not see that you’re being incredibly obtuse over this issue?

        2. John, I challenge you to find where I ever said that. Put up or shut up.

          1. So you are against EDNA and other such laws which would do exactly that? If so, I stand corrected. But if you do, just state so here.

            1. Uh, not playing your BS games John. You attributed to me a view which I’ve never held or expressed. You can produce evidence that I’m wrong, admit you were bullshitting and apologize, or continue to be ignored. Your choice.

              1. What game? Do you or do you not oppose EDNA? If you are for it, then it seems to me you want your pony. If you are against it, then yes, I stand corrected. So what is it? Do you think people like those photographers should be forced by law to serve gays?

              2. I will apologize when you tell me you are against the EDNA. If you are, then you are right and I am wrong. If you are not, then you are exactly what I said you were. Which is it?

      2. The problem there is the public accomodation laws, not gay marriage

        1. Yes it is.

          But I dont see the gay rights movement fighting to end public accomodation laws.

          1. And I don’t see an organized movement to get the state out of marriage either.

            I grant that some people here are fairly consistently against state recognition of marriage.

            1. I am the organized movement.

            2. You do realize your two sentences directly contradict each other dont you?

              1. No, I don’t. Sorry.

                No, one person isn’t a movement. And how are you organized? Website? Billboard ads? Op-ed pieces? Anything?

                1. Op-eds on a website. Specifically reason.com/blog

                  1. I guess not technically op-eds, but you know what I mean.

                    1. Sure, you’ve expressed an opinion here. But what I’m saying is that there is a threshold which has not been passed. There are several organized groups to try to exclude homos from state-recognized marriage. But, remarkably, there are no organized groups that I know of that are trying to get the state out of marriage. Is this even part of the LP platform?

                      You’re claiming that the existence of you and a few others here means that there is organized opposition to state marriage. I acknowledge that you and those other individuals have consistently expressed that viewpoint. But IMO that doesn’t pass the threshold for serious organized opposition.

                    2. But IMO that doesn’t pass the threshold for serious organized opposition.

                      Ive quoted the LP platform below. Im guessing they meet your standard, so you can shut the fuck up with that argument now.

                      Although personally, Im more organized than the LP.

                2. one person isn’t a movement.

                  Bullshit.

                  1. Does the LP publicly call for the state exiting marriage regulation?

                    1. Does the LP publicly call for the state exiting marriage regulation?

                      I dont think Ive looked at their particulars since 2004 or so.

                    2. From the lp platform at lp.org:

                      Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

                      bolding mine.

                    3. Thanks for researching and posting that.

                      But it’s noteworthy that on a libertarian website nobody knew this.

                      Also, thanks for pointing out the inherent conflict between liberty and equality – gives me a lot to think about.

                  2. Besides which, I’m part of the ROBC movement

            3. so you can shut the fuck up with that argument now

              Not going to happen, robc. Hey, you wouldn’t be trying to restict my liberty to speak, now, would you?

      3. Turn perfectly free wedding photographers into the personal slaves of homosexual couples.

        Congratulations, OM, you’ve just crossed the my threshold of time-wasting dishonesty. I will no longer respond to you.

        1. Which part of it isnt true?

          Public accomodation laws make every business owner a slave (well, moreso than they already were).

          1. Really, Rob, you don’t see any dishonesty or hand-wringing emotionalism there? That’s…disappointing.

            Think about it. Are they personal slaves only to homosexual couples, or are they enslaved by the state to serve all couples.

            Also, I’m not going to let people merely re-state arguments made by others in bad faith just to get a response.

            1. Think about it. Are they personal slaves only to homosexual couples, or are they enslaved by the state to serve all couples.

            2. They are slaves to all couples. But at least previously, they were only slaves to heterosexual couples.

              And actually, they could probably get away with turning them down, as long as they werent black or handicapped or something.

              This makes the slavery worse.

              I think the issue is that I value Liberty more than Equality. When the two are in conflict, I side with Liberty.

              1. And the thing is, if done my way, we would get both Liberty and Equality. So I dont really have to choose at all!

        2. This one isn’t a gay issue–at least, I don’t see it at all as limited to it. We’ve got all sorts of compulsion going on with who can deny who service for whatever reason.

          This is one instance where the end–people shouldn’t discriminate for silly reasons–is fine, but the means are very dangerous.

  68. “Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) said approval for the U.S. Congress is so low even his 101-year-old mother no longer supports the legislative branch.”
    Because old people are all normally gullible and naive? Not in my experience.

  69. it’s not the state’s duty to enable your feelings of specialness or superiority to others.

    That goes both ways (pun intended). Its reason #473 the state shouldnt be licensing marriages at all.

    1. You are always going to have kids and property. What state marriage is is just a set of pre-ordained contractual rights that come with marriage.

      I am not going to rehash the long debates we have had about this. But, I will point out that the biggest obstacle to going to a contract based marriage system whereby everyone makes their own marriage terms via contract, would not be SOCONs but feminists. The entire body of family law has been largely re-written for the benefit of women over the last 50 years. A contract based marriage system would end all of that. Good luck getting feminists or women in general to agree to that.

      1. Gay couples also have kids and property. There’s another good example of other reasons people might want to get married besides forcing people to accept them and make them cakes.

        1. Gay couples also have kids and property.

          And by getting married they opt into state enforced contract provisions. Without marriage they are free to create their own contract provisions. And on top of that, they don’t have to go to the state to get a judge to sign off on them breaking up.

          As far as kids, the only time not being married makes a difference is where one of the gay partners doesn’t adopt the kid. IN that case, the person can walk away with no obligations to the child. Without marriage or adoption or biological connection, there is no legal obligation. That might be a good thing depending on who you are. But regardless, it is easily solved by both parties adopting.

          Again Zeb, it is nearly all about force. There are some drawbacks to not being married. But you could solve 90% of those by amending the immigration laws.

          1. Has being a government lawyer so destroyed your ability to argue and reason? You’re not even arguing the issue at hand anymore, just trying to win with proxy arguments. Feminists against marriage contract law? Possible workarounds for some issues regarding gay rights? Who cares. Your deflections do nothing to discredit the idea that gay couples deserve equality before the law.

            1. My ability to make an argument is fine. You ability to comprehend an argument seems a bit lacking.

              The point is that gays suffer fairly small harm by not having access to legal marriage and much of that harm can be addressed in other ways without redefining marriage and infringing on other people’s rights of conscience. So the answer is to change immigration law and a few other things to eliminate the harm.

              The other issue is that when Libertarians say “get the government out of marriage” they are really saying go to a contract based marriage system. And you can do that. But doing so will implicate a lot of things beyond just gay marriage. The family law system is an elaborate set of pre-defined contractual relationships that represent a lot of special interests, mostly but not all women’s interest. So, the objections to gay marriage is not the only or even primary reason the country is not going to the Libertarian preferred contract marriage system.

              It is a pretty simple argument. Why you can’t follow it is beyond me. I don’t care if you agree with it and would like to know why if you don’t. But I would appreciate it if you would make some effort to pay attention and follow it instead of just being a jackass and calling me names. Go fuck yourself if you are too stupid to follow the argument. I don’t know what else to tell you.

            2. And look you half wit, lots of couples don’t get “equality before the law” if you define that as meaning a marriage license. Why gay couples and not poly or brother and sister?

              It is not “equality before the law”. That is just begging the question.

              1. So again you make arguments that have nothing to do with the discussion and then hand wave away the actual premise we’re discussing.
                There is no such thing as a right of conscious and there is nothing in allowing gay marriage that would infringe upon such a thing. You don’t get to define marriage based upon your preferred definition, especially because it has had a much broader definition historically, and then deny the rights of others because you think it’s icky. A lot of people are or were against miscegenation, that doesn’t mean interracial couples should be excluded from legal marriage. No one here is saying any church or bakery or whatever should be forced to accommodate a gay couple, but they should have the same rights afforded to others.
                The Libertarian Contract Marriage is a separate issue, but just because some person or group of people don’t like it doesn’t make the premise invalid. What you are saying is gays shouldn’t be able to use the marriage system in place because some people don’t like them and also this other idea some of you had wouldn’t work because some people don’t like it. These are not logical arguments against the premise.
                Also you should look up what begging the question means, because it has nothing to do with what I said. I have no problem with poly or whatever marriage.

                1. There is no such thing as a right of conscious and there is nothing in allowing gay marriage that would infringe upon such a thing.

                  Yes there is, it is called freedom of religion. And creating a law forcing people to violate their beliefs by recognizing gay marriages does just that.

                  What you are saying is gays shouldn’t be able to use the marriage system in place because some people don’t like them and also this other idea some of you had wouldn’t work because some people don’t like it. These are not logical arguments against the premise.

                  No, what I am saying is that incorporating gay marriages into the current marriage system necessarily involves mandating people do things that are against their religion and that harm outweighs the benefits of changing the definition of marriage. The better way is to just change other laws to alleviate the harms suffered by gays who can’t marry.

                  Again, you don’t understand the argument.

        2. Gay couples also have kids…

          With two guys, family law courts are going to have real trouble deciding who to fuck over. They’ll probably just ask who the top is.

  70. Mayor decides SF rents are entirely too low, tries to enact “Anti Going Out of Business” law:
    “S.F. politicians: Restrict Ellis Act evictions”
    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/…..981974.php

    1. Coming soon: ‘SF politicians surprised by massive upsurge in Ellis Act evictions.’

    2. Lee’s staff said the idea is to make Ellis Act evictions so expensive for property owners that there is little incentive to pursue them.

      […]

      “San Francisco has an affordability crisis in housing,” Ting said in a statement.

      And the plan is to make it harder to get rid of squatters. Got it. Makes perfect sense.

      Just because you pay “rent” does not mean the property belongs to you. You must have a rental agreement that allows you to be in the property for as long as the agreement states and as long as you comply with the terms of the agreemnt. Sans an agreement (i.e. month-to-month tenancy) if the owner requires the property for other purposes which are not your business and you refuse to leave, you automatically become a squatter.

    3. Probably the biggest cause of real homelessness (by that I mean people who work and want to have a home being homeless versus people being mentally ill or just bums who like not having a home) is the fucked up rent laws in big cities. Thanks to it being impossible or very difficult to evict someone, landlords want outrageous deposits on apartments and won’t rent to anyone who has bad credit. So if someone has a run of bad luck and loses their job and ends up with bad credit, they can’t get anywhere to live even if they have a job. It is nearly impossible for anything but a middle middle class person to come up with with the two or in some cases three months worth of rent that many big city landlords demand in cash upfront as a condition of renting. And even if they can, many still can’t rent because they have bad credit. All of this because landlords are forced by the government to assume a huge risk of a tenant not paying and refusing to move out.

      1. Thomas Sowell should be mandatory reading before getting the right to vote.

        1. Strangely, even this guy:
          “On the other side, consider an article that appeared in yesterday’s New York Times, ”In San Francisco, Renters Are Supplicants.” It was an interesting piece, with its tales of would-be renters spending months pounding the pavements, of dozens of desperate applicants arriving at a newly offered apartment, trying to impress the landlord with their credentials. And yet there was something crucial missing — specifically, two words I knew had to be part of the story.”
          http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06…..ffair.html

          1. Previously, Krugman was not nearly as stupid. He’s gotten much worse as the insularity and cheer leading by lefties has encouraged the idiocy. I’ve seen other earlier columns where he actually made sense.

            Of course, rent control has been a known cause of housing shortages for a while now. Even an avowed socialist such a Gunnar Myrdal knew it.

            1. The SF gov’t people may not be as stupid as it seems, merely as venal.
              SF is ~60% renters, and just like the pub-sec unions, the sleazy politicos owe their jobs and retirement to them.

            2. This always happens once you set up an echo chamber. Remember the guy at LGF? He was kind of fun before he got all big-headed about the Dan Rather “fake but accurate” shit and set up an echo chamber. At this point I think LGF is his various sock puppets yes-manning his main identity.

  71. The number of people who applied for unemployment benefits fell by by 2,000 to 339,000 last week.

    Doesn’t it always do that this time of year?

    1. They said they were “seasonally adjusted,” with however many grains of salt you’d like to take that with.

      1. Oh, they’re adjusted all right.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.