A.M. Links: Congressional Republicans Not Fans of Iran Nuke Deal, Prosecutor Expected To Release Sandy Hook Police Report, Syria Peace Talks To Be Held Early Next Year

|

Credit: Marco Verch/wikimedia
  • Congressional Republicans are not fans of the Iran nuclear deal announced over the weekend. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has said that some European Union sanctions on Iran could be lifted next month.
  • The United Nations has announced that peace talks between the Syrian government and opposition groups will take place on January 22, 2014 in Geneva.
  • A prosecutor is expected to release a report relating to last year's massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School later today.
  • NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander reportedly offered to resign after Edward Snowden began leaking classified information.
  • Microsoft sold one million Xbox One consoles within 24 hours of its release.
  • An Amtrak train partially derailed overnight in South Carolina, there are no reports of serious injuries.

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: Mark Zuckerberg on Spying Scandal: US "Continuing to Blow It," Should Be More Transparent

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

  1. A prosecutor is expected to release a report relating to last year’s massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School later today.

    Hopefully the report makes clear that if only there was a law…

    1. I rather imagine the report is going to be a wee bit short of people to….prosecute. WTF is a “prosecutor” preparing a “report” for?

      1. Exactly. And it took nearly a year to craft the report. I can only imagine how much evidence they had to wade through to conclude that Adam Lanza committed the crime.

        1. Someone provided his mother him the military style assault rifle, the military style assault handgun, the military style assault sedan, the military assault internet…

          1. Don’t give the bansturbators ideas.

            1. bansturbators

              Excellent.

      2. Is he running for higher office?

    2. Dunno ’bout you guys but as a father Sandy Hook still bothers me. I can only imagine the parents.

      1. Serious or sarcastic?

        Doesn’t bother me any more than if it was a post office, but I don’t irrationally value the life of a child over the life of anyone else.

        1. Serious. To me there’s a difference in slaughtering innocent children in that manner in a classroom than the post office. Am I not entitled to feel empathy at this level?

          1. I will add, however, I do not agree with the the response by the government and people who demand gun control. That’s just one large appeal to emotion.

            1. not that adults are any less “innocent” or “defenseless” but I think you get what I’m driving at. The description of that classroom filled with the bodies of dead kids…for me, it was profoundly tragic. I can’t explain why.

              1. Kids are especially defenseless, and we do value them more than adults.

                Imagine you are adrift in the ocean with two little kids, another adult and a small raft. Who are you going to put on the raft?

                1. Well I’m going to eat the children, of course.

          2. You can feel, however you choose.

            I just don’t see how a child has more value than an adult. Objectively, the trained adult would usually be of more value to society than an untrained child.

            I suspect, this phenomena is the same thing going on when you have people who wouldn’t dream of killing Bambi or a snuggly little bunny wabbit but have no problem smacking a snake or an insect. It’s the cute factor.

            And, no, to your next question. I don’t own any little screaming poop machines other than the orphans working in my diamond mines.

            The ages of the victims should certainly not have any bearing on policy (not that you said it should).

            1. Then I’m sure you feel the same way when everyone gets up in arms when a cop kills a dog, right?

              1. Then I’m sure you feel the same way when everyone gets up in arms when a cop kills a dog, right?

                Feelings are different. Yes, I FEEL bad for the dog because of the cute/innocent thing. I don’t value the dog’s life over that of a human. And I certainly wouldn’t consider my irrational feelings when crafting policy.

            2. Objectively, the trained adult would usually be of more value to society than an untrained child.

              NPV value? I don’t know that “usually” would be correct but, in any case, it ignores that much more of the adult’s opportunity to provide value has passed.

              1. And yours fails to take the cost of training into consideration.

                Do the airlines hire people and train them to be pilots or do they prefer to hire their pilots already trained?

            3. “I just don’t see how a child has more value than an adult.”

              Their little hands are ideal for the harder-to-reach nooks and crannys in my diamond mines

            4. Here is the way to look at this.

              There are two spools of thread, both useful. One is half empty, the other is still new.

              You can only have one

              Which do you pick?

  2. Microsoft sold one million Xbox One consoles within 24 hours of its release.

    So many gamers inviting the NSA into their home.

    1. More like ignorant Moms.

  3. Police officer arrested for ‘raping 19-year-old woman in back of his car while on duty’ in THIRD complaint of sexual misconduct
    San Antonio police officer Jackie Neal, 40, was arrested Saturday on charges he raped a 19-year-old in the back of his squad car while on duty
    This is the third complaint of sexual misconduct against the 11-year police veteran
    A few years ago a woman said he attacked her, but wouldn’t cooperate with investigators
    In September, Neal was suspended for three days following a revelation he was dating an 18-year-old in the police youth program
    Neal was released on $20,000 bail and is currently on paid administrative leave pending a formal indictment

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..nduct.html
    I wonder how many years he’ll be on paid leave. Two? Three?

    1. A cop in his 50s in my hometown married a 17-year-old girlfriend the day after she graduated from high school. He went on to be the chief of police.

      [mumble, mumble] pressures of the job [mumble]

      1. That story would have more impact if it wasn’t out of Kentucky. I’m just surprised they weren’t previously related.

        1. She was his 7th or 8th wife. Because this time, “I Do” means forever.

          1. That’s what he loves about these high school brides, man. He gets older; they stay the same age.

      2. 16 is age of consent.

        I fail to see the problem.

        Sure, its creepy, but its following the law, as far as we know.

        1. For the time being it’s still illegal for him to give her the post-coital cigarette.

        2. The implausible part is that they never had sex before getting married. Age of consent or not, a cop in his 50s sleeping with a girl in high school would have been a scandal, at least in Western Kentucky. :-p

            1. What are people in Kentucky planning to do for Thanksgiving?….

              Pump-kin…

      3. I think it was L. Sprague DeCamp, but maybe some other author of that “Golden Age” era, who married a student like the week after she graduated HS.

      4. My eighth grade science teach, in his late 40s, married a thirteen year old student. He went on to be president of the Kentucky Teacher’s Assoc.

  4. NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander reportedly offered to resign after Edward Snowden began leaking classified information.

    Yeah, the leaks were the problem with his job performance.

  5. Family of cop’s girlfriend who ‘shot herself dead with his pistol’ claim she was murdered and his colleagues covered up the crime
    Michelle O’Connell, 24, from St Augustine, Florida died from a gunshot wound to the mouth in September 2010
    A weapon belonging to her boyfriend, deputy sheriff Jeremy Banks, was found by her side
    The Sheriff’s office ruled it was suicide based on Mr Banks’ account but a subsequent investigation by state police found it was murder
    They found the sheriff’s office failed to test any evidence, interview family and neighbors or download data from Mr Banks’ cellphone

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

    Investigator: “What happened?”

    Officer/Ex: “Fucking cunt tried to break up with me, so I shot her in the fucking mouth.”

    Investigator: “You sure about that?”

    Officer/Ex: “I mean, then she uh, she went into the other room and shot herself. Yeah, that’s what happened. She shot herself.”

    Investigator: “Good enough for me. Nothing to see here. Investigation is over.”

    1. Where’s Dunphy these days to offer ‘on the other hand’ perspectives?

      1. He only graced us with his presence because he was home with an injury. I’m sure he’s back to collecting twenty hours a week in overtime. Remember that being a policeman isn’t a job, it’s a lifestyle.

        1. Unlike being gay, Dunphy can choose to quite being such a fa?

          Er, maybe I overdid the HBO comedy specials this weekend.

          1. Spell it.

            FAG.

            We don’t hold back here.

            We have to put up with enough PC bull shit outside these walls.

    2. To me, the biggest giveaway is that she was shot in the mouth. Women rarely commit suicide that way. Men are twice as likely to aim for their face or head as women. Could it be a man thought “hmm, got to make this look like a suicide. Where would I shoot myself?”

  6. Congressional Republicans are not fans of the Iran nuclear deal announced over the weekend.

    Neither will be the Iranians once they realize they have to first create an account on a unusable website to get their sanctions lifted.

    1. If you like your sanctions, you can keep them.

  7. Why is there a picture of an old VCR in the AM links?

    1. That is the level of technology to be employed monitoring Iranian compliance?

    2. No kidding. Microsoft and Sony need to fire their console designers. Both look awful.

      1. You’re supposed to look at the screen, not the box.

        1. When you stare into the box the box stares into you.

          1. I like to stare into the box with my 3rd eye, IYKWIMAITYD.

              1. Controller is designed for one handed operation.

                1. “the box” was also metaphorical and not literal.

  8. The United Nations has announced that peace talks between the Syrian government and opposition groups will take place on January 22, 2014 in Geneva.

    Unless this announcement was sent via fistagram by Putin, consider me skeptical.

  9. Microsoft sold one million Xbox One consoles within 24 hours of its release.

    Spoilers!!! The third part of the South Park trilogy hasn’t come out yet.

    1. BRACK FRIDAY BUNDURU!!!

      1. “They keep promising dragons but all I get are more floppy wieners in my face!”

        1. Would you rather they were turgid weiners?

  10. New York State Police Acquire 32 SUVs to Target Drivers Who Text

    Those SUVs will probably cause more accidents than the texters.

    1. Those SUVs couldn’t wait.

      1. Well, only the SUVs with computers in the front seat.

  11. A prosecutor is expected to release a report relating to last year’s massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School later today.

    And the professional victims will bask in the limelight again.

    If only we could get rid of the tyrannous minority and melt down all the gunz into a sculpture of a gigantic weeping Statue of Liberty vagina, this nation could attain true greatness.

    1. Melt them down into an iron throne for God Emperor Barackus Targaryon.

    2. How about melting down the professional victims?

  12. Libertarian-leaning Republicans need to take control of the foreign policy debate, before these Israel-firsters blow their Obamacare political advantage for 2014.

      1. I don’t think we owe anything to our Gulf Cooperation Council client states, either. Those Sunni monarchies seem more motivated by supremacy than Iran or any other Shi’ite movement.

    1. Don’t fret. I’ve seen the ME playbook. This is 3-dimensional chess the State Department is playing. All part of a strategic move to install a new head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard who is actually a US spy. Once installed, the lifted sanctions will enable us to send a marine into Tehran as a guest of our IRG operative who will then assassinate the Ayatollah, thereby enabling us to negotiate a lasting peace in the middle east.

      1. What could possibly go wrong?

        1. It might lead to another awful Dana storyline

          1. +1 season 3

      2. sadly, I have no problem believing that someone within this administration would actually cobble somethign like that together.

        1. I have no problem believing that someone within this administration would actually cobble somethign like that together.

          or they could just watch Homeland, and they would have everything they need scripted out for them 🙂

  13. victims’ families, some of whom have … complained of being harassed by conspiracy theorists.

    Of course, they were told by the government to make these complaints.

  14. Amazing time-lapse video captures comets that look like swimming tadpoles racing towards the sun ahead of spectacular meltdown this week

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci…..-week.html
    They look more like sperm to me.

    1. And that is how new planets are born.

      1. When a solar system and its comets love each other very much, they get certain . . . feelings. . .

  15. Implications of nuclear agreement with Iran

    I believe that the nuclear program that Saudi Arabia and Israel really fear is the Iranian nuclear energy program.

    Iran, with its 70 million citizens demanding better living conditions, burns the equivalent of about a million barrels of oil per day in the form of internationally valuable hydrocarbons (oil and methane) to supply domestic electricity. If it continues to add to its nuclear energy capacity, it will free up supplies that it can sell in the world market. That increased supply will inevitably lead to lower prices as a result of the well understood relationship between supply and demand.

    If Iran does not build its domestic nuclear energy capability, growth in domestic oil and gas demand might eventually result in it not being able to export any oil at all. There are good historical reasons why Iranian leaders believe that their country must have domestic nuclear fuel capability; the international market has not been a reliable supplier of any important products to Iran over the years.

    Interesting take, I still think Iran’s ultimate goal is a weapon though.

    1. I like this take. I don’t think Iran is crazy enough to use a nuclear weapon but I do think Israel thinks they are. It’s rational that Iran wants a weapon to prevent Israel from nuking them. It’s super rational that nuclear power will allow more oil exports. I’m not sure continually fucking Iran is good for anyone but war agitators.

      1. Of course Iran has been quite vocal about wiping out the Jooooos, so I sort of don’t blame them for being a bit wary (to the point of existential fear) of the “peaceful” Iranian nuclear program (centrifuges ahoy!).
        I am sure the grandkids of the people who were putting them in ovens in Europe have cut a deal with their best interests at heart…

        1. Iran hasn’t been vocal about wiping out the Jews.

          In fact, there is a significant Jewish community living in Iran.

          It’s irritating how often people conflate Israel with Judaism.

          1. OK, tarran, certain figures in the Iranian hierarchy. I know the difference.

            Cannot one snark in peace here?!!!

            1. Surely you know people here are going to come down hard on your ass if you get facts wrong! 😉

              1. I was indulging myself in a little whining self-pity.

                This is the Octagon of Commentary!

            2. No one can snark in piece…

              Except Shriek and Tulpa, since I have them blocked in reasonable. 🙂

          2. Iran hasn’t been vocal about wiping out the Jews.

            Nah, certainly not. Iran hearts j000s. It’s only those fascist Zionists they hate, as everyone right should, and does.

        2. Wait are you saying Persians and Nazis are one in the same?

          If you are Iran and you want to stop other countries from enforcing sanctions on you the best way would be to have a nuclear weapon. Sure Israel says, “build a nuke and we will attack you” but it’s really the opposite. They can’t attack a nuclear Iran.

          I think it’s extremely rational for Iran to want the bomb.

          1. I think their building a weapon will draw an attack – kind of the opposite of deterrence. I don’t see the US or the IDF lining up to attack otherwise.

            Maybe we could just have the Chinese dump cheap solar panels on them?

          2. “Wait are you saying Persians and Nazis are one in the same?”

            Oh, and I was referring to the Frog FM rushing to say the EU may lift some sanctions.

      2. I agree. Russia seems to be persuing a similar path. They claim they are speeding up their nuclear investment to achieve 50% electricity production from nuclear by 2050 and 80% by 2100.

        Rosatom’s long-term strategy up to 2050 involves moving to inherently safe nuclear plants using fast reactors with a closed fuel cycle and MOX fuel. The country’s federal target program envisages nuclear providing 45-50% at that time, with the share rising to 70-80% by the end of the century.

        1. So they can sell all their oil and gas to European countries who supposedly care about the environment?

          1. Bingo. Europe doesn’t really care about the environment, Germany’s reliance on fossil fuels is increasing to make up for shutter their nukes. Interesting that the former German Chancellor is now the board chairman of the Russian-German pipeline projects for Gazprom. And wouldn’t you know it, the perfect backup for windmills is quick start natural gas generators.

            The windmill/solar thing is just really the best way to assure fossil fuel dominance but at a much higher price point.

        2. Yeah, yeah, what do you know about nuclea…. *reads nametag* …oh..

      3. “I don’t think Iran is crazy enough to use a nuclear weapon…”

        Yes, they are.

        “It’s rational that Iran wants a weapon to prevent Israel from nuking them.”

        Or, they could just quit screaming for Jewish blood and swearing they are going to wipe Israel off of the map. They might also back off on their rhetoric about nuking europe. Just a thought.

        “I’m not sure continually fucking Iran is good for anyone but war agitators.”

        Iranian leadership are the war agitators, and they dont give a flying shit about nuclear power. They want a bomb.

        1. Iran is a lot more rational than you suggest. They want a nuke to sit at the big kid table, not to use it. If they had a nuke, I’d expect their rhetoric would change significantly.

          1. Actually Iran likely wants the bomb so it can escalate its acts of terrorism. They figured if Pakistan could piss on our legs and tell us it was warm rain, and we wouldn’t do anything about it, it had to be because they had the bomb, and we feared that. The Iranian leadership is gambling on the fact that with a bomb they can cut all their proxies loose to cause havoc, not just on Israel, but on the Arab states not aligned with them, and nobody would fuck with them despite the carnage. That’s also why the Saudis now want their own bomb and are even willing to work with the Joos to go after Iran to prevent that.

      4. Israel is not scared of an Iranian nuke, they are scared to lose the deterrent advantage.
        Iran getting a nuke will force them to grow the fuck up on on the world stage.

    2. Interesting take, I still think Iran’s ultimate goal is a weapon though.

      Why not both…energy AND the capability of weapons? Wouldn’t that be the smartest path?

      1. I think so. But nuclear power is easy and they can get that going at any time. The fact that they have been pushing enrichment over 5% goes against their claim that they only want nuclear power.

        1. You are right Joe. Remember Baghdad Bob? That kind of over-the-top lying their asses off is the rule rather than the exception for those cultures.

          Whatever they say, the opposite is true. Bet on it.

    3. so a nation sitting atop vast fields of natural gas and oil is suddenly going to nuclear energy? Seriously?

      1. You are right; it doesn’t make sense.

        Iran’s petrochemical sector is a fucking disaster. The mullah’s like to claim it’s because of American sanctions and Israeli sabotage, but the big culprit, frankly is that the state skimped on maintenance, and installed politically reliable incompetents/enablers-of-corruption, meaning that the state oil company has been looted and run into the ground.

        Nuclear power is great for making electricity, but with the rugged, earthquake-prone terrain of Iran, having an infrastructure based on local generation using fossil fuels is far more economical.

        The nuclear power push has little to do with economics and is largely driven by geo-political/strategic considerations.

        1. They will likely be able to build nuclear for cheaper than we do. It is worth more to export oil than use it themselves if they can build nuclear at a low enough cost.

        2. An almost more important question is when do the alt-text sanctions lift?!

        3. So they can’t do something as simple as fossil fuels, but they will get it right with “nukular” power? What could go wrong there?

          This has never been about energy production and all about getting a bomb, and then, as a deterrent to prevent what happened to Saddam from happening to them when they start flexing their muscle in that region.

    4. I still think Iran’s ultimate goal is a weapon though.

      Why?

  16. WTF is a “prosecutor” preparing a “report” for?

    Excuses were made.

    Asses were covered.

  17. The First Selfie (there is no duckface, fortunately.)

    Although it’s current rampant incarnation is quite recent, the “selfie” is far from being a strictly modern phenomenon. Indeed, the photographic self-portrait is surprisingly common in the very early days of photography exploration and invention, when it was often more convenient for the experimenting photographer to act as model as well. In fact, the picture considered by many to be the first photographic portrait ever taken was a “selfie”. The image in question was taken in 1839 by an amateur chemist and photography enthusiast from Philadelphia named Robert Cornelius. Cornelius had set his camera up at the back of the family store in Philadelphia. He took the image by removing the lens cap and then running into frame where he sat for a minute before covering up the lens again. On the back he wrote “The first light Picture ever taken. 1839.”

    1. You have quite the proclivity for linguistics Mister Splenda.

  18. Afghanistan ‘plans to reintroduce public stoning as punishment for adultery’

    Next year: Afghanistan ‘plans to give up public stoning as bargaining chip for acquiring nuclear weapons’

    1. Yeah, a nuke is much faster than stoning.

    1. I love that she thinks the illegal immigrants living off tax money is somehow morally different from her living off tax money.

    2. You cant hold someone with that kind of ambition back. No way, no siree. She will accomplish great things.

      I wonder, someone like that, what are they thinking when they are laying on their death beds? They spend their whole lives just breathing and indulging their pettiest whims. Are they glad it is over?

      Fucking waste of skin.

    3. That’s like Grade A pron for FoxNews viewers.

  19. The United Nations has announced that peace talks between the Syrian government and opposition groups will take place on January 22, 2014 in Geneva.

    If Obama hadn’t threatened all-out war months ago, they never would have come to the negotiating table now. The Teabaggers nearly wrecked the whole thing by singlehandedly damaging Obama’s credibility on the world stage.

  20. j0000000s

    Yeah, whatever.

    1. No pill can stop gargantuan fertility.

    2. Feminists hardest hit.

      1. Feminists hardest hit.

        Isn’t pregnancy only a risk if you can actually attract a partner and get laid?

        1. Some guys will–literally–fuck mud.

          1. I….really don’t want to know….about that.

          2. Gives new meaning to the phrase “ugly as a mud fence”

            1. And to “built like a mud brick shithouse”.

          3. I knew someone that would fuck a pile of stones on the off chance there was a snake in there….

    3. “Take two, and call me in the afternoon.”

    4. Thin privilege is getting to have unsafe sex and taking pills to keep from getting pregnant.

      1. Should have stopped at “sex”.

    5. Pill to pill: We’re gonna need a bigger boat.

    6. Once again, fatphobic drug companies show the need for more regulation.

  21. doesn’t every nation sitting atop fields of oil and natural gas need the capacity to enrich uranium? Sure, they do.

    1. I suppose it’s helpful if they want to sell the oil and gas instead of burn it themselves.

      1. They have to sell the oil and gas to finance the development of nuclear development so they can sell the oil and gas.

        1. Um… so? Once the nuclear development is done, they can sell the oil and gas to finance other things.

          1. Right… I think that’s what I said. It’s just a little economically circular to blow your comparative advantage so you can develop replacement technology so you can exploit your comparative advantage.

            1. Unless providing nuclear power is cheaper than providing oil power.

              1. We need one of nuke SMEs here to measure how much building the nuke program up would cost.

              2. In the short run it definitely isn’t. In the long term it probably is. Comparative advantages exist in the short term.

                Then again, North Korea, India and Pakistan are all nuclear powers with their people predominantly living in abject poverty without basics like adequate sanitation. Priorities, I guess.

            2. Russia will supply the reactor tech., Iran will build these for cheaper than what we are building reactors for.

              Building nuclear to produce electricity over oil makes perfect sense if you can build nuclear for cheap enough.

              As I posted above, Russia is following this exact path. They are betting that oil/gas prices are going to continue to rise on the world market. Nuclear has a much more stable price when you don’t have insane regulatory hindrances. Russia seems to be betting that selling their oil/gas will be much more profitable than burning it themselves.

              1. True, I neglected to account for how much the regulatory structure in the US contributes to development costs for nuclear.

    2. This is the same ridiculous argument as “why do you need a magazine of over 10 rounds?”

      1. None of your business
      2. For whatever reason I want
      3. Go mind your own business.

      Sovereign nations will develop weapons regardless, and it is ultimately hypocritical to make arguments against them based on “need,” especially when those arguing against are similarly or more heavily armed.

      1. have all those other armed nations frequently talked of using nukes offensively? And do they also have lengthy records of sponsoring terrorism abroad?

        1. have all those other armed nations frequently talked of using nukes offensively? And do they also have lengthy records of sponsoring terrorism abroad?

          The U.S. has done both, in addition to invading two of Iran’s neighbors.

          1. Has a US offensive nuke strike ever actually been on the table since WWII? Aren’t we actually signatories to a no-first-strike nuclear treaty?

            1. Yeah, but we’re on there as the country that won’t do it again, which would make me a little nervous if I wasn’t an American.

              1. It’s been nearly 70 years. I think the US should probably be on the “unlikely to re-offend” list.

                Besides, look how post-war Japan turned out. If anything, you’d think we’d have countries lined up asking us to drop nukes on them.

                1. If anything, you’d think we’d have countries lined up asking us to drop nukes on them.

                  You are a fucking idiot. Why don’t you do something useful with your life and go volunteer as a bayonet training target somewhere.

                    1. How you do that?

                2. With vaporized windows there isn’t even any glass to sweep up!

                3. That’s the plot for the upcoming comedy “The Mouse That Glowed”

            2. It was on the table until 1950. Johnson and Truman completely hollowed out the Army since we would just nuke anyone who pissed them off in the future. Then the North Koreans and Chinese called their bluff and they chickened out.

            3. The U.S. policy throughout the 1950’s for a conventional Soviet Invasion of Europe was to use nukes to smash the Russian armor formations.

              Col Hackworth’s first set of memoirs has a chapter devoted to the insanity of the U.S. government’s military planning.

            4. I don’t think we’ve ever taken the option off the table.

              1. It is still supposedly our response to a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack. But not a response to conventional attacks.

        2. North Korea kinda does.

        3. If you listen to some of the things I’ve said about my wife’s cousin, they sound remarkably similar to things Iran has said about Israel. I maintain, however, that it shouldn’t disqualify me from buying a gun.

        4. have all those other armed nations frequently talked of using nukes offensively? And do they also have lengthy records of sponsoring terrorism abroad?

          Actually, every nuclear power other than India and Pakistan has an extensive history of attacking their neighbors and other countries around the world and engaging in open conquest.

          How many times has Iran tried to conquer the world? Fewer times than Britain and France, that’s for fucking sure.

          1. How many times has Iran tried to conquer the world? Fewer times than Britain and France, that’s for fucking sure.

            I recommend you research Persia. And the current crop of leaders sure wishes they could go back to those days….

      2. I pretty much agree with this. You have to sort of accept that sovereign nations, even those ruled by unfriendly and despotic people, get to do what they want short of starting wars with other countries. Otherwise, someone has to play World Police, and that always works out well.

        1. Nuclear weapons are to nations what firearms are to individuals.

        2. Also, from an IR perspective, there is a stability benefit to reducing the defense gap between states. An Iran surrounded by enemies (or at least rivals) and wildly outgunned is more prone to take risks, even from a rational perspective. However, an Iran that can essentially prevent invasion (at least invasion without heavy, heavy cost) and re-engage with the world economy has too much to lose from severing those ties to behave as a rogue state.

          1. So, a nuclear armed world is a polite world?

            1. I’m not sure…. Kruschev had nuclear arms, and he was very ill-mannered regarding keeping his shoes off the table.

          2. I can’t remember where I read it, but I remember reading that during the cold war the US would routinely “leak” certain technological details about their sub program to Russia as to make sure they didn’t think they were falling too far behind the US and backed into a corner.

            Sort of a way to keep them from doing something irrational because they felt like they were backed against a wall.

      3. yes, but what about ‘crazy’?

      4. Also, like the gun grabbing debate, with better and better technology, uranium enrichment/bomb building will become a simpler and simpler task. I would rather see nuclear weapons not spread, but I think it will be forever more difficult to stop their proliferation as it becomes easier to build them.

        1. Nanotech is going to make enrichment much easier.

          Right now centrifuges are used as a sort of Maxwell’s demon. I imagine much the same could be accomplished using specially engineered proteins that prefer elements in the Actinoid family with atomic weight 235.

          1. There is a patent, I believe, for something of the sort. Some bacteria, notably members of the Geobacter genus, couple the oxidation of organic molecules to the reduction of metals, and some of those species can reduce certain Uranium ions, conveniently from a soluble form to an insoluble form. Due to the kinetic isotope effect, these bacteria will reduce isotopes at different rates. This was from a while ago, so now with a better (albeit still not so great) understanding of proteins and genetics, it could possibly be optimized.

            1. Nevermind, it’s actually a more recent patent. For those interested:

              http://www.google.com/patents/US7452703

            2. That is really interesting, I’ve never heard of this technology. Do you have a link?

              1. Patent link above, I’ll see if I can find any journal articles as well.

                1. Thanks, posted that before I saw the link. I am going to take a look at that.

      5. They want nukes to sit at the adult table. Until then they will act like kids on the world stage.
        With great (nuclear) power, comes great responsibility. They will operate differently once their standing in the region and world changes. And if they don’t, I’d expect a conventional response will always be a possibility.

        1. We do treat them like adults. Like violent, cruel adults who’ve repeatedly endorsed genocide. I’m skeptical that having giant bombs will magically make a despotic theocracy into a responsible world power.

  22. Amazon workers face ‘increased risk of mental illness’

    Prof Marmot, one of Britain’s leading experts on stress at work, said the working conditions at the warehouse are “all the bad stuff at once”.

    1. It’s hard to imagine how every previous generation of workers has managed to survive long enough to procreate working in the exact same fucking occupations.

    2. Experts have told Panorama these ten-and-a-half-hour night shifts could breach the working time regulations because of the long hours and the strenuous nature of the work.

      If there’s anything Brits are experts on, it’s working too much.

    3. They should try unemployment if it is that bad.

  23. David Bernstein asks, why are the political murders of the 1960s attributed to a “”culture of violence” and “hatred” that showed that America was going nuts in the 1960s”? A Commie killed JFK, a professional criminal killed MLK, and as for Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin of Robert Kennedy,

    “was a Palestinian refugee with Jordanian citizenship. He murdered Kennedy because the latter promised to send advanced fighter planes to Israel. The PLO terrorist group Black September demanded his release in exchange for hostages in 1973, recognizing that he was “one of theirs.”

    “Yet of 5755 hits for “Sirhan Sirhan” in the ALLNEWS database on Westlaw, only four of them refer to him as a “Palestinian terrorist” or “Palestinian extremist;” three of these sources are the Jerusalem Post, and one is the New York Jewish Week.”

    http://www.volokh.com/2013/11/…..ssination/

    1. If anyone was going nuts in the sixties it was the lefties, and the lefties are the masters of psychological projection.

    2. If anyone was going nuts in the sixties it was the lefties, and the lefties are the masters of psychological projection.

      1. Are they masters of double-posting too? :-p

        1. In honor of Sirhan Sirhan!

  24. Activists want to put a religious-freedom initiative before Oregon voters. This law would provide that religious conscientious objectors who own private businesses will not be required to assist at same-sex “weddings.”

    http://www.oregonlive.com/mape…..hat_w.html

    1. “Jeana Frazzini, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon, the state’s major gay-rights organization, said in a statement that “while we are all entitled to our religious beliefs, those beliefs don’t entitle any of us to discriminate against others, or disobey laws that are already in place to ensure that everyone is treated equally.””

      1. “while we are all entitled to our religious beliefs, those beliefs don’t entitle any of us to discriminate against others”

        Wait, is that statement a religious belief or not? I confused.

        1. You can have religious beliefs, just never act on any of them.

          1. If you like your religious belief, you can keep it.

            1. …to yourself.

        2. Chick Fil-a should try to hire him for consulting work and sue him for refusing to sell his services to them.

          1. Oooh, that is good! Are you available for a deviousness retainer?

      2. or disobey laws that are already in place

        Right. That’s why they are trying to change the law.

        Why can’t these people just be happy about the amazing cultural shift toward gay acceptance that has happened over the last 20 years or so largely without any force of law behind it?
        That’s possibly the most annoying thing about progressives (or whatever you want to call it). They seem to actually believe that it is better to force people to be good than to allow them to figure out how to be good on their own.

        1. or disobey laws that we approve of that are already in place

          Now with extra derp!

      3. Religious beliefs don’t entitle you to “discriminate against others”, or, as a business owner, determine with whom you’ll do business? Glad to hear it. I’m going to march down to the kosher butcher, loudly declaim my atheism, and demand a side of bacon. Dipped in milk.

        1. The Swedish government is interested in your ideas and would like to hear more.

        2. I don’t think that they are suggesting that you can force a photographer to bake a cake for your gay wedding.

    2. Awfully specific to same-sex weddings. SLD applies, of course, but it’s funny that religious freedom only comes into play with sex.

      1. Well, there’s also homeschooling and the right of asylum for homeschoolers, the Rasta and their marijuana, the zoning disputes involving churches, conscientious objection in the military, and the most fruitful source of religious-freedom claims, prisoners demanding religious accomodation. Just to name a few off the top of my head.

        1. And if the govt chooses to attack religious freedom on sexual matters, it’s a bit much to tell the victims, “why are you so hung up over sex?”

        2. I would hope you would be defending the homeschooling, conscientious objections and marijuana freedoms of atheists too. This is a freedom of association issue.

          1. Of course I defend the rights of followers of all *religions.*

            1. Won’t take the bait, eh?

            2. I know your snarking but the point is it shouldn’t matter if your objections are religious or not. Even a Christian should be able to object for non-religious reasons.

              1. Maybe it shouldn’t, but the public discourse is currently unfriendly to secular freedom-of-association arguments. ENDA is more popular than SSM, meaning there’s people who don’t want the state to recognize gay unions but *do* want the state to dictate who you can hire and do business with in the sexual-orientation field.

                Religious dissenters can either light a candle or curse the darkness. They can either whine about the loss of freedom of association or they can invoke our remaining religious freedoms to appeal to courts and/or voters to at least respect *their* rights.

        3. conscientious objection in the military

          Then why join the military in the first place?

          You can request an early discharge or resign your commission if you have a crisis of conscience/religious conversion while serving.

          1. Conscientious objection was more of a thing during the draft.

            I only hear of it now from religious conversions that occur during active duty.

          2. Regulations dating back at least to JFK, PBUH, allow even volunteers to get a CO discharge if they develop scruples after joining.

            Sometimes a person joins the military at 18 and develops sincere conscientious opposition to military service later. That’s the risk the military takes by recruiting people at such young ages, when their religio-social views are possibly still undeveloped.

      2. There is sex at weddings?

        Ive been going to the wrong ones.

        1. Me too, although I did once pull off the screw one of the bridesmaid tricks once. Desperation and jealousy on her part made for a pretty good time all and all.

    3. So a ballot initiative that says the State can force citizens to obey, except in this one specific situation…

      Pretty damn depressing.

      1. Ah, no, it says the Stat *cannot* force citizens to obey in a particular situation.

        Kind of like those initiatives limiting the state’s power of coercion regarding, say, marijuaua, without legalizing cocaine or heroin.

        1. So it just insinuates that force is okay otherwise.

          1. Ah, do the MJ initiatives insinuate approval of the war on other drugs?

              1. Interesting…

                1. “Let’s decriminalize MJ but keep all those other drugs prohibited.” The referendums aren’t for ending the drug war.

    4. 1. I would vote for this initiative if I lived in Oregon.

      2. Nevertheless, I would understand that the spirit of the initiative is very mean spirited.

      3. How come homophobic business owners are apparently unable to say, “I’m sorry, we’re fully booked that weekend.”?

      1. 3. It would be like a conscientious objector faking a medical condition to get out of the military – not consistent with the honesty you expect from a CO. And if the business owner was sued for discrimination, the plaintiff’s lawyer (if he’s competent, which many plaintiff’s lawyers are) would demand broad discovery and carefully check business records, emails, etc., to check for evidence contradicting the “fully booked” story. If they can show the story is BS, then they may well be able to win sizable damages.

        1. Has this happened? Is there actually a case where some horrible, agenda driven homosexual has seen through somebody’s white lie and turned their own marriage into a fiasco of litigation?

          1. I said it *could* happen. It already happens in race cases. Do you think employers and real-estate people blurt out, “I’m sorry, but your’re the wrong race?” No, if they’re discriminating, they concoct an excuse.

            To deal with real-estate discrimination, they send out “testers” – similar white and black applicants seeking to buy the same property. If they show the property to the white guy but tell the black guy “sorry, that’s not available,” they have a case for discrimination.

            People who are motivated enough to sue bakers when they can just go down the street to another baker will be motivated enough to smoke out “pretextual” discrimination.

      2. “the spirit of the initiative is very mean spirited.”

        Know what’s also mean-spirited? Involuntary servitude.

        If people want to get married to each other, that’s nobody’s business but their own. If someone declines to participate in a wedding, for any reason or no reason at all, then that’s also nobody’s business but their own.

        1. I agree, of course. As I said, I would vote for this initiative if I could. However, the spirit of this initiative and others like it has nothing to do with freedom, it’s just gay bashing. The bulk of people who support these kind of things don’t give two shits about personal freedom.

  25. Thousands of Porn Spambots Follow San Diego High Schooler’s Twitter Account

    Is she hot? Is she over the age of consent?

  26. Krugabe pulls a rhinoceros out of his hat. Again.

    Finally, the California authorities have been especially forthcoming with data tracking the progress of enrollment. And the numbers are increasingly encouraging.

    For one thing, enrollment is surging. At this point, more than 10,000 applications are being completed per day, putting the state well on track to meet its overall targets for 2014 coverage. Just imagine, by the way, how different press coverage would be right now if Obama officials had produced a comparable success, and around 100,000 people a day were signing up nationwide.

    “Completed applications” not same as “signed up”.

    Then:

    Again, Obamacare’s rollout was a disaster. But in California we can see what health reform will look like, beyond the glitches. And it’s going to work.

    “Insurance policy” not same as “health care” you mendacious knob polisher.

    1. Would anyone whose career depended on actually being right trust any data produced by the State of California that produced results that State officials wanted?

    2. So the measure of success is enrollment?

      Not delivering care, not keeping the state solvent?

    3. Even if you accept the numbers inside of Krugnuts fantasy, they don’t work.

      8.36M uninsured
      10K apps per day x 180 open enrollment period= 1.8M people

      Assuming those are entirely previously uninsured and not moving off of other plans(!), that’s not a success story right there.

      1. 8.8 million people are on Medicaid in CA.

        If they have 20% turnover a year (and it’s probably higher) they have to do 4800 Medicaid signups every day just to stay even.

        People really underestimate the normal amount of statistical noise thrown off by existing health insurer, Medicaid, and Medicare transactions.

  27. “Seeking Shelter

    “Why I am filing for asylum in my own country, Sweden.

    “By Annika Hernroth-Rothstein

    “…Kosher slaughter has been outlawed in my country since 1937, and a bill is now pending in parliament that would ban even the import and serving of kosher meat. Circumcision, another pillar of the Jewish faith, is likewise under threat. In my job as a political adviser to a Swedish party, I have dealt with two bills on this issue in the past year alone; a national ban is rapidly gaining political support in the parliament and among the Swedish public. When it comes to our religious traditions, those on both the Right and Left in Swedish politics find common ground; they take pride in defending both animals and children from the likes of us, and from what one politician has called our “barbaric practices.”…

    “…out of fear of violence, a majority of European Jews avoid going to Jewish events or wearing identifiably Jewish items of clothing….

    “And so today, November 18, I am legally filing for refugee status and asylum?not in America, not in Israel, but here in Sweden, my own country.”

    http://mosaicmagazine.com/supp…..g-shelter/

    The Religion Clause blog says the author is “a Jewish political adviser to the Swedish party Folkpartiet.”

    http://religionclause.blogspot…..es-in.html

    1. How is asylum in the country with all the stupid laws going to help?

      Ban on Kosher slaughter? If it is from the 30’s, I’d guess that law had more to do with antisemitism than animal rights.

      1. I get the impression it’s a political gesture for the benefit of, say, the media.

    2. I invite her to move to America. Jewish women are kind of a thing for me.

  28. From the comments: “The middle class is being beaten up by corporate greed, not by taxes, and not by the needy. Gross income disparity was created by corporate welfare, not by health reform. You can continue believing the lie that government is the problem, or you could open your eyes and find that being a functioning, contributing member of a caring society is a good feeling.”

    My God. Just, my, Lord. They walk among us.

    I don’t even know what ‘corporate greed’ even means.

    1. Comment from Kroooooogman’s article.

    2. If you add it all up, I pay close to 50% of my income in taxes. Since, I still have something left over, it seems unlikely, that corporate greed is stealing more of my income than government.

      1. But everything else you think you are spending on things you want or need is just the evil corporations tricking you with false consciousness.

        1. If it wasn’t for the greedy corporations, I wouldn’t have a car or electricity or heat or a computer, or a cell phone, or anything to eat I didn’t grow myself. Yeah, all that stuff that doesn’t matter.

          1. How anyone can believe Marxist bullshit is beyond me.
            I’m trying to think of another mocking fake-commie response, but everything I think of just sounds too silly.

          2. None of that stuff matters. Only good feelings, like it says above.

      2. If I add in property and sales taxes, I’m way over 50%. Greedy cooperate fucks.

        1. I probably am too.

    3. Corporate greed means you are in business to make money. In other words, the entire basis for an advanced, wealthy society such as we have.

      And if the greed enabled by corporate welfare is the problem, wouldn’t that mean that the government IS in fact the problem?
      It’s amazing how close these people can get to seeing what the problem (or one of them) is and yet still completely dismiss the huge role the government plays in all of it.

    4. Who cares about some “income disparity?” Is that not to be expected in a society with equal opportunity?

      1. Yeah, I’m still waiting for someone who goes on about how inequality is a terribly thing to explain how, in and of itself, it is a bad thing.

        1. Yeah, I’m still waiting for someone who goes on about how inequality is a terribly thing to explain how, in and of itself, it is a bad thing.

          It’s a matter of fairness. Inequality is bad because it’s bad, m’kay? It’s bad because it results in hurt feelings. No further explanation is necessary. If you don’t get it then you are a bad person.

    5. Well duh! I mean, the whole problem is that the corporations have taken control of the government! That’s only because the government, we the people, do not have enough power! If the government, that’s us the people, had more power then we could control the corporations! So we need more government power to fight corporate power! Except that whenever more power goes to the government, it ends up being taken advantage of by the rich and the corporations! But that’s only because government doesn’t have enough power! More power to the government because the government is us!

      1. Sadly, that’s about what their logic is.

  29. So according to the new CNN poll,

    Obama’s woes are not limited to honesty and his managerial skills. Fifty-six percent say he is not a person they admire, and an equal number say he does not agree with them on important issues. Fifty-six percent also say he does not inspire confidence, and 53% don’t view him as a strong and decisive leader.

    Yet seven in 10 say he is likable.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.c…..?hpt=po_c1

    Tell me again how white guilt didn’t get this clown elected and re-elected?

    1. The racists are clearly starting to gain the majority again. We all need to pray and fast in these troubled times to the gods of progressivism. We must stand firm, double down. Despite Glorious Leader’s stumbling, we must support him even more by completely ignoring any points made by our opponents and continue to knock down the strawmen we make of our opponents’ positions. We should repent for ever having doubted the Chosen One. – Yglesias

  30. Guess what I saw on my drive in?

    an “I’m Ready for Hillary” bumper sticker!

    I hurt the driver’s feelings by bursting out in audible derisive laughter.

    1. I was seeing those before the 2012 election. Give it a while. The hardcore progs are going to remember how much they hate the Clintons and find their own champion for the 2016 primaries. The anger and butt hurt among the breed of boomer hags that make up Hillary’s base of support over this betrayal is going to be priceless.

      1. I forgot to add that the car was festooned with Obama bumper stickers.

        Which is what made it especially delicious… because if I were a huge hillary supporter, my regard toward Obama would be slight and paired with heaping doses of contempt and scorn.

    2. How embarrassing for them. I’ve never been able to understand why people want to slap the names of two-bit politicians on their $35,000 cars. Democrat or Republican, it doesn’t make a difference, at the end of the day you’ve decorated one of the most expensive things you own with the name of a politician.

    3. I’ve seen a few down here as well. The ugh is just beginning.

    4. For several months now I have been in a driving pattern where I see someone with a “HIL4PRES” personalized license plate. Not a sticker, but a plate. That’s some dedication.

  31. !!!!!!!!!!

    While President Obama headlines a string of fundraisers this week, he told one group of Democratic donors that “I’m not a particularly ideological person.”

    I just…

    1. As far as I can see, that part, at least, is true. He doesn’t seem to have any ideology beyond “look at me! I’m the president and I’m doing shit”.

    2. He’s not ideological, he’s dogmatic.

    3. “I’m not a particularly ideological person.”

      Translation: I have no concept of right and wrong.

    4. That’s like when an Alabamian tells you *you’re* the one with the accent.

      1. “Who you callin’ a yokel?”

      2. Well…..you are.

  32. NSFW Hanukkah VIDEO. Sample lyric: “spin my dreidel”

    http://www.cracked.com/video_1…..rc=fanpage

    1. two girls, one kiddush cup.

  33. In calling for a Democratic takeover of the House after next year’s elections, Obama told donors he is “incredibly optimistic” about the nation’s future. “But I’m also mindful of the fact that we have some barriers, some impediments, to change and progress,” he added.

    “The biggest barrier and impediment we have right now is a Congress — and in particular a House of Representatives — that is not focused on getting the job done for the American people, but is a lot more focused on trying to position themselves the next election or to defeat my agenda,” Obama said.

    Those evil motherfuckers want to defeat my (totally non-ideological) AGENDA!

    1. Sounds like he’s blaming his own party as well.

    2. The “why won’t my political opponents just let me be a dictator?” routine does grow tiresome, but the scary thing with Obama is that the question actually seems genuine.

    3. Maybe he should go “Bullworth” and give another 15 speeches. That oughta do the trick.

    4. “The biggest barrier and impediment we have right now is a Congress — and in particular a House of Representatives — that is not focused on getting the job done for the American people, but is a lot more focused on trying to position themselves the next election or to defeat my agenda,” Obama said.

      Kind of the way the implementation schedule of Obamacare’s features and website wasn’t focused on making either work, but was instead focused on positioning the Act politically and protecting its supporters during various election cycles?

      1. One of the talking points now is that the only reason Obamacare is failing is because the Republicans didn’t help enough. Their total lack of shame never fails to amaze. The same people who spent 2008 and 2009 saying “we won” and “our time is now” and “the Republicans are too incompetent to have a voice in government” and shoved Obamacare down the country’s throat without a single Republican vote are now saying that it is only failing because the Republicans didn’t do enough to help.

        1. Those sneaky Republican governors! Obviously we need to diminish the power of the states relative to the Fedgov more!

          Yeah, color me shocked.

        2. They aren’t lying though.

          Carefully parse the arguments, and they actually are admitting that absent Republican support, they had to make all sorts of compromises/unwise implementation sequencing/changes to the law to get it across Obama’s desk and to get Obama reelected.

          Like Peter Griffin screaming “Why did you make me do this!” as he buries the corpse of Kathy Ireland’s cutout, they are blaming the Republicans for making them do all the things that doomed the law.

          The fact they had the option to walk away never occurs to them. To them they had a right to implement some law, and the fact that the only law they had the ability to implement was a flawed one is entirely the fault of those who didn’t grant them more power.

          1. Okay as far as it goes. But wasn’t it their own people who made them make all of these unwise compromises to get their votes? So really what they are saying is that because the Republicans wouldn’t help, they had to compromise with their own insane base and thus created a law that couldn’t work.

            That is true as far as it goes. But I don’t think it means what they think it does.

            1. Exactly.

              They had the votes to pass anything they wanted. They didnt have to compromise with the GOP at all, so they cant really blame the GOP for failing to force them to compromise.

              “We would have compromised to a better law if you had forced us to!” comes across as really, really lame.

            2. PAthetically, I don’t think the law is workable in any form…

              They are trying to buy off everyone involved, without spending any extra money.

              Let’s assume that all 50 states has tried to set up exchanges. Would the system have worked at all? No, because the IT requirements were unworkable.

              Would the insurance have been priced more reasonably? Everyone is getting sticker shock, with the exception of overpriced markets like NY where the price increases were preloaded decades ago.

              In the end, lots of smart people were warning them that they were trying to build a castle in the swamp, and rather than trying to listen to them, they decided to prove them wrong by secretly building the castle. And because they were so adamant that the castle was going to sink into the swamp, they denied all the evidence showing the sinking had started.

              And now they have the gall to claim that if they hadn’t been secretive, had they felt free to be more honest, they wouldn’t have committed themselves so vigorously to disaster.

              Literally they are Peter Griffin sobbing as he buries the cardboard cutout for whom he left his wife. Pathetic and funny and amazingly stupid.

              1. The law was based on three lies that had no basis in reality; that people who didn’t have insurance wanted it, that people who had insurance hated theirs, and that making people buy insurance would lower overall costs. None of those three things are true. But the law was built around those three assumptions.

  34. Straight from the unintended consequences desk:

    Though many recent law school graduates have struggled finding employment, experts predict one area will be expanding: health care law. That’s thanks to the Affordable Care Act, the health care overhaul signed into law in 2010.

    “One of the nicknames for the Affordable Care Act is the ‘Lawyers Full Employment Act’,” says Alan Meisel, director of the health law certificate program at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. “There’s just so many possibilities for legal issues to arise.”

    Unforeseeable.

    I haz a surprize.

    1. Unintended? I thought the full name of the bill was the “Accountant, Lawyer, and Lobbyist Full Employment Act”

    2. Who will they work for if everyone is dropped?

    3. You mean a bunch of elected lawyers created legislation that will increase employment in their line of work? Unimaginable!

      1. But it’s the “unregulated” campaign money that make politics corrupt.

  35. Thanksgivukkah is bad for Jews and bad for America

    Okay, so for those who don’t know, the first day of Chanukah coincides with Thanksgiving this year. That’s an extremely rare thing.

    I don’t want my kids to think Thanksgiving is a “present holiday.” Only if you handle it stupidly would that happen. But I never liked the idea of giving gifts on Chanukah anyway. It’s not a fucking “Jewish Christmas”. It really irks me to see it being thought of and treated as such.

    Sweet and sour braised brisket with cranberry sauce is an abomination. Cranberry sauce is an abomination, period. Next.

    Because my favorite thing about Thanksgiving is that it’s secular Yes, and no. But who the hell are we thankful to if not some higher power?

    But no, it’s not bad. This article is just dumb, but what else would you expect from Slate?

    1. So her children are so stupid they don’t understand the difference between the two holidays and haven’t yet grasped that Chanukah, since it is based on a lunar calender jumps around on our solar calender? Either her children have very low IQs or she is a moron who didn’t have anything to write about this week.

      I am betting on both or the latter.

    2. Needs more whining.

      “I know, I know, we’re supposed to be giving thanks to “our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens,” as Abe Lincoln’s 1863 proclamation establishing the holiday put it.”

      And I suspect that many Americans make at least some gesture toward honoring the Big Guy.

      1. the Big Guy.

        Chris Christie?

    3. But who the hell are we thankful to if not some higher power?

      My Ma, for the 41 years I knew and loved her. My Pa, for being exactly what a dad should be. My friends, for understanding the hermit in me. My dawg for being so cute and obnoxious. And myself, for carrying on the carrying on, despite the shit that the fictional sky Monster throws at me.

  36. a writeup of my stereo tube amplifier build
    http://6streetbridge.blogspot……ntode.html

  37. So I was listening to Spotify the other night. “The National” came up. Back in ’08 they – the band – was completely in the tank for Obama, even dedicating a song “Mr. November” to him.

    In 2012 they played at fundraisers.

    Now I wonder if they have any regret for tying themselves to such a douchebag. Probably not.

    But The National lost a (minor) fan when they started getting political. Anyway, their music does suffer from the “it all starts to sound the same” effect.

    1. I bet they do. They dated themselves and did untold damage to their brand. If you sell records, your brand means a lot. Think about it. Roger Waters can hire all the top side men he wants and go sing all of the Pink Floyd songs he wants, but he won’t be selling out any stadiums because he doesn’t own the brand.

      There is a reason why few bands have attached themselves to politicians. Sure, musicians love to pontificate about politics. But if they are smart, they attach themselves to causes, not politicians.

  38. http://www.freerepublic.com/fo…..5238/posts

    Founder of Hollande Resign website arrested for insulting the president. I’d love France for the comic relief if nobody was getting hurt.

    1. If you lahk your free spahch, you cahn kep eet.

    2. I dont know about y’all, but I would never dream of insulting our lying, idiot shitweas….I mean, our esteemed presidente.

      1. Do naht be conzairned. In France, ve completely suppaht ze raht to critahsahs ze President…of ze Unahted Stets.

        (Peter Sellers French Accent)

  39. Via IJ – more assaults on self-ownership.

    1. I keep getting the Forbes main page, what is the article title?

  40. Am I not entitled to feel empathy at this level?

    You are most certainly entitled to feel empathy, but (your further qualifications having been noted) draconian restrictions on the rights of millions in order to ostensibly save the lives of dozens are unacceptable.

    1. You would think a former slave/colony would value freedom a bit more than that….sigh.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.