More Reporters Complain About Controlling White House, Jack Lew Perplexed at Bitcoins, Boehner Has No Presidential Ambitions: P.M. Links

|

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

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

NEXT: South Carolina State U Apparently on Lockdown After Student Injured in Shooting, Police Looking for Suspect

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. Going in Fist first again!

    2. Hello.

        1. Angry…grrr.

            1. Have you been reading the news?

              Everything!

      1. Wings and Habs playing tonight for the first time in four years.

        1. Well, I don’t hate the Red Wings…

          1. But you hate the Habs?

            1. They are one of two teams. French Canadian fans. What’s not to hate?

              1. So much hate in this world.

                Yeah, well the Habs don’t belong to just the French-Canadians.

                  1. You heartless bastard – just by typing his name, I bet he has flopped to the ice/ground wherever he is.

                  2. Bah. The NFL is filled with Subban’s and the NBA has worse.

                    Truth is, the NHL can use some spunk.

                    Not crazy about some of his antics but, lord, the hate is too much in my view.

            2. There are people who don’t?

        2. That’s nuts.

          The NHL is ridiculous.

          Habs-Wings is classic. In fact, they should always work the Original Six angle.

        3. The fuck is a Habs?

          1. Montreal Canadiens. Now, before you ask what the fuck is Canadiens, it’s Canadians spelt wrong.

            1. And thus upon one little letter unity hinges.

            2. Les habitants.

  1. House Speaker John Boehner is not running for president, he says.

    The GOP will have to try harder to get the Oompa-Loompa vote.

    1. Well that settles it. I’m sitting out that election…

    2. Wait, what? Anyone in this dimension thought he might consider such a thing? Why? I mean, it’s not like he could get elected. I don’t think his own family would vote for him for the presidency.

      1. Speakers of the house haven’t done well as presidential candidates, IIRC.

        1. Neither have senators, yet we have the current jackass.

          1. None of the other senators knew the winning rules of ‘always vote present’ and ‘be half black’.

            1. Truly, his is the superior bullshit.

    3. Boehner knows the establishment already has its nominee (and eventual loser) picked out and it ain’t him.

    4. That news brought a tear to my eye.

      1. There’s a tear in your eye,
        And I’m wondering why,
        For there ne’er should…

    5. Given that half the Republican voter base wants to primary his ass right out of office altogether it is nice to see he has a realistic assessment of his prospects

  2. NBC White House correspondent Chuck Todd is the latest to complain about the White House is extremely controlling and obsessed with leaks to the media…

    When the dog humps its owner’s leg, it’s not the owner’s fault, no matter how much he may enjoy it. Do something about it, Todd.

    1. Hey, Chuck, maybe if you thought of the government as the enemy and not a giant teddy bear that you can have sex with, you wouldn’t care how it abuses you.

    2. build stuff, the end. I don’t get it.

      He did. He spoke about it loud and clear on a cable news network channel that no one watches.

      1. build stuff, the end. I don’t get it.

        should be

        Do something about it, Todd.

        For some reason i forgot to cut in cut and paste and instead used an old cut to paste

  3. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is “incredulous” at the growing popularity of bitcoin and says the feds need more time to examine it.

    IT DOESN’T HAVE MY SIGNATURE ON IT.

    1. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is “incredulous”

      Yeah, he’s alot of things. Incredulous is the least offensive thing he is.

    2. How can it be money if I can’t swim in it?

  4. Has anyone gotten the newly released Netflix documentary “Mitt” to stream? Every time I open the info screen, it pretends to be loading indefinitely.

    1. So just like Mitt, there’s no content? Sounds like an accurate documentary to me.

      1. Give him a big hand, folks. He’s here all week…

    2. It was working on my PC, but then the picture of Mitt kept flipping to then left, then flopping to the right….

      1. Why is this one of the recommendations if you watch ‘Mitt’?

        A Hole in My Heart
        2005NR98 minutes

        While his dad (Thorsten Flinck) shoots an amateur porn film in their squalid flat, disaffected teen Eric (Bjorn Almroth) withdraws to his room and listens to blistering industrial music to block out the progressively decadent proceedings. But as events move toward violence, young Eric intercedes. Helmed by Lukas Moodysson, this unsettling metaphorical critique, which takes aim at reality television and modern culture, isn’t for the fainthearted.

      2. You’re saying it went all ‘flipflopney’ on you?

    3. If Netflix payed their internet bill instead of bitching about net neutrality this sort of thing would not be happening.

  5. If you like watching tires burn and Molotovs fly, have I got a live stream for you.

    1. Awesome. Not much coverage by the MSM.

    2. squeeeee!

      needs more flipped Citro?ns

      1. You mean Ladas.

    3. I don’t understand.

      Are they protesting to stay in the EU or protesting to get out of the EU?

      1. Never mind.

        It looks like they are protesting to get away from Russia.

        I have always told people I am one quarter Russian but to be honest I think my Grandma’s parents were from around Kiev. I guess I should start saying I am 1/4 Ukrainian.

  6. Everybody on Twitter wants you to know that Gmail was down for a while.

    And so millions of people spent the outage trying to remember their AOL passwords.

    1. And yet the link isn’t to Twitter, but 24/7.

      1. What’s 24/7?

        1. A lie.

    2. I spent it fielding calls from staff members telling them that their inability to get to Gmail was in no way my fault.

    3. I don’t use Twitter and knew that.

  7. An Oklahoma lawmaker trolled gun-grabby pundit Piers Morgan by naming legislation loosening gun controls after him.

    Fucking awesome.

    That is all.

    1. It was a Dahm good idea.

  8. CNN’s Piers Morgan was not happy about the bill filed in his name. The TV host took to Twitter Thursday and invited Dahm to debate him on his show if he has the “guts.”

    I so hope Dahm’s idea catches on big time.

    1. Better to ignore him.

      1. Oh, ignore *Morgan*, of course!

        I’m talking about stuff like “The Nancy Pelosi ACA-Repealment Act”.

  9. An Oklahoma lawmaker trolled gun-grabby pundit Piers Morgan by naming legislation loosening gun controls after him.

    Do we need new legislation for that? Can’t you just start repealing gun control laws and not remind me that Morgan still exists here in the U.S.?

  10. Jezebel becomes self-aware.

    It’s an incredibly self centered and self-pitying way to externalize one’s own mistakes or shortcomings

    Oh, wait, my bad, they’re complaining about men.

    1. Haha I knew that would be the post you linked to. I had someone send it to me approvingly today.

      1. Projection is a really, really harsh mistress.

        1. Harsher than the moon?

      2. The multiple “Women can get friendzoned too! I can never get anyone to fuck me!” comments are a nice touch.

        I can’t tell who’s more pathetic – the sad-sack losers who make a whole culture out of their hurt feelings that they can’t get their dicks wet, or the harpies that get outraged about it.

        1. Two sides of the same pathetic coin, dude. They’re people who instead of going “you know, I’d like to get with the opposite sex more than I do. I’ve decided I’m going to think about it, work harder, and try to figure out what I’m doing wrong.”, they go “it’s all everybody else’s fault! Especially that horrible other gender!”

          Good luck with that, losers.

          1. I’ve decided I’m going to think about it, work harder, and try to figure out what I’m doing wrong.”

            Yeah, but you mock people for doing that, too.

            1. Um, no. I mock people for thinking women are some monolithic set of robots who will want to fuck you if you just treat them a certain (shitty) way. The fact that you can’t see the difference between the two is my entire point.

              1. Um, no. I mock people for thinking women are some monolithic set of robots who will want to fuck you if you just treat them a certain (shitty) way.

                Interesting, who are these people? Do you have a link? Or are you misrepresenting the concept of playing the odds to try to make a point?

                1. Are you denying the existence of misogynistic idiots that Episiarch describes pretty accurately? Have you ever been the RedPill subreddit?

                  1. Not that particular one, no. But I’ve seen other sites he’s mocked, and they’re all about playing the odds.

        2. It is a tough contest.

          1. Why won’t you let me fuck you even though I’ve never told you I want to fuck you??? YOU BITCH!!! *writes PUA manual*

            1. Didn’t her mother tell her that it is only the pretty girls who don’t have to ask? When you are fat and homely, you just have to be bold.

              1. “Everything I know about women I learned from Warty”.

                1. “Everything I know about women I learned from Warty”.

                  I take it your looking to be a coroner?

        3. I can never get anyone to rape me!

          1. I was wondering about the various levels of victimotology. Hre’s one: white woman college student goes on date with black man college student. They have drinks with dinner, and end up having sex. Next day, woman feels she was raped because the alcohol impaired her ability to give true consent.

            Does this woman make a report and a stink about it? Or is white privilege a bigger crime on campus than date rape? If reported, how will the Department of Wymyn’s Studies and the Department of African-American Studies each view the incident?

            1. They were pissed that the FSU quarterback got off. There’s your answer.

              1. They were pissed that the FSU quarterback got off. There’s your answer.

                Yeah, but he’s a celebrated, high-profile jock. What if the guy was some preppy African-American/P.E. studies major that never got closer to a playing field than his copy of Madden?

        4. Friendzone is a real thing. It’s just they the guys are putting the blame on the wrong party. It’s something you do to yourself, not something that’s done to you.

          1. It’s like when women get mad when guys look at their cleavage. Yes, he’s taking advantage of an opportunity. One you provided him.

        5. Actually the saddest ones are any woman who complains that she can’t get anyone to fuck her.

          Any woman, no matter how ugly on the inside or the outside can get laid by someone in a minimum of 72 hours. She might not like the guy or find him attractive but she can get laid.

          Guys who look like movie stars and/or have a heart of gold cannot be guaranteed of getting laid at any point (unless they are willing to consider another guy, in which case the same 72 hour rule applies)

    2. Last I checked they were complaining about cheerleader pay, which seems odd.

    3. The jezebel problem is that every piece of advice given by guys to guys who have been put into the friendzone is to go after someone else.

      Jezebels hate the idea of their nerdy infatuated pets getting off the leash.

      1. Bingo. “I know I rejected you, but I still want you to looooove meeeeeee.”

      2. Pretty much this.

        “even though I wouldn’t sleep with you being my friend means running my errands, helping me move, killing spiders, and any other icky tasks I don’t want to dirty my hands with because that’s what friends are for and if you ever stop doing all those things for me it means you were never really my friend at all and just hanging around hoping to have sex with me becuase we both know no guy in history has ever had emotions or felt anything other than an orgasm”

    4. That is some funny shit right there.

    5. That article and its comments are really indicative of the political differences between progressives and libertarians. A libertarian realizes you can’t control what other people do (unless they’re actively doing it to you). Progs seem to want to make people think and act they way they want, so you get things like “Don’t girlfriendzone me” and bans on e-cigs because they kind of look like smoking.

  11. Parking lot greenhouse goes bankrupt in Vancouver

    A high-tech greenhouse company supported by the City of Vancouver has gone bankrupt and one city councillor is wondering if taxpayers may be left on the hook.

    Alterrus Systems Inc. leased a downtown parking lot at a cut rate price to run a so-called “vertical farm”

    1. Perhaps the fucking politicians shouldn’t give bennies to the politically connected.

      AHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!

    2. Downtown Vancouver real estate is some pretty pricey farmland.

      1. In discussions of zoning laws, I always (without fail) get that argument about a pig farm downtown. The answer is always, that’s the most expensive, least profitable pig farm ever.

    3. When the Zombie Apocalypse happens and the city is cut off from the many, many acres of farmland within easy trucking distance from the city, they’ll wish they still had this urban garden to sustain them.

      1. Something something Godzilla

        1. Yes, but it’s Canada, so it ought to be a giant radioactive fire-breathing beaver.

          1. Let’s not bring Pelosi into this.

  12. I finally understand the reluctance of SJWs to have sex.

    Warning, mental images story conjures up are NSFL.

    1. Way to take the whole GGG concept completely out of context.

      1. GGG? Since you’ve changed your name, maybe you should google GGG and german. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

        1. Ha, I hope HM knows about that.

          1. Heroic Mulatto is into golden gangbangs? We should hang out.

        2. Ah, I had known what that was. Scrubbing my work browser history now…

          1. You might have to get the bleach out for that one.

        3. KIWI SNOCONZ!!11!

          in New Zealand, where publishing anything promoting or supporting urolagnia is an offense punishable by up to ten years in prison, and possessing films depicting urolagnia is punishable by up to 5 years in prison.

          1. But it’s sterile!!!

      2. GGG? Is that like a really big cup size or something?

    2. Melissa brings up the very real harm that Dan Savage’s crappy advice can do. The way Dan presents it, GGG means that no one has a right to say no to their partners, and if we want to be a good partner with a lasting relationship, we will acquiesce to all of our partner’s sexual desires. He is saying this without regard to the ways that abusive partners use language like the GGG rule to manipulate and control their partners, and without regard to a rape culture that privileges the sexual desires of men to the point of entitlement.

      I know it’s been a while since I read Savage, but umm that seems like an inaccurate picture of Dan Savage’s advice.

      Sure abusive partners can use the language of being GGG, but by being manipulative shits they’re putting the lie to the ethos, no? Like Obama and transparency/privacy.

      1. Yeah, exactly.

      2. I don’t read Savage, but isn’t he just saying that unless you are morally opposed to an act or its illegal or physically harms you, you should do it because it makes your partner happy? Basically that “honey I don’t like that” is a sorry excuse?

        Why am I not surprised the self absorbed harpies at Jezebel have a problem with that.

        1. That still makes it sound like it’s a hard and fast rule. It’s more about willingness and openness to new things you might dismiss immediately.

          1. Which is pretty good advice especially for women. Men are emotional about sex just in a different way than women. When a woman says “honey I won’t do that” to the man that is her saying “honey you are just not important enough to me for me to do that”.

            1. No, no, no. Don’t you understand? Going to see that stupid chick-flick, or going on a vacation when you want to stay home, or absolutely anything else you do in a relationship is completely different than sex. Because patriarchy.

        2. I think even more so, he’s saying you should be willing to at least try things–you know, “game.”

          1. I agree with him. If you won’t try it, you are just telling your partner they are not important enough to you for you to do anything you don’t absolutely like.

  13. Whiskey River, take my mind.

    Glen Catrine Bonded Warehouse Limited were ordered to pay ?12,000 for polluting the River Ayr, when 6,600 litres of whisky spirit fell into the water.

    A road tanker containing 27,500 litres of whisky spirit was pumped into the wrong vat, leading to an overspill into the roadway by the river.

    1. I question the quality of any whisky transported in a tanker.

      1. “Look at me! I’m a fancy lad! I only drink liquor that comes in at least a plastic jug!”

        1. If you’re not drinking liquor out of an old fruit jar, you’re a massive pussy. Elvis said so, and that’s good enough for me.

          1. Wait, why are you transferring the liquor from the bottle it came in to something other than your mouth?

            1. Glen Catrine Bonded Warehouse Limited were ordered to pay ?12,000 for polluting the River Ayr, when 6,600 litres of whisky spirit fell into the water.

              It should be the other way around. The river polluted the whiskey. Friggin’ Brits. No surprise that people who drive ass backward, get this ass backward.

        2. If it doesn’t say “Ripple” on the label, I’m not drinking it.

          1. Label? Well La-dee-da lookit’ Mr. Fancypants.

            1. Ok, that there was funny, I don’t care who you are.

  14. [T]he White House is extremely controlling and obsessed with leaks to the media.

    It’s like 1972 all over again.

    1. Or maybe 2010 or 2011 when all the media knew this but covered up for their boyfriend.

  15. Objectivist stomps on Ancaps.

    1. I think he has a definition problem, but I’m mildly confused by the article.

    2. Not nearly as much fun as anti-libertarian screeds at Salon.

    1. Are there any other people that Objectivists can quote besides Rand? Those interstitial quotes sprinkled throughout read more like citations to Gospel than a marshalling of ideas to sustain an argument.

    2. He starts off a little confused but this:

      The wielding of force is not a business function. In fact, force is outside the realm of economics. Economics concerns production and trade, not destruction and seizure.

      Ask yourself what it means to have a “competition” in governmental services. It’s a “competition” in wielding force, a “competition” in subjugating others, a “competition” in making people obey commands. That’s not “competition,” it’s violent conflict. On a large scale, it’s war.

      and everything afterward absolutely trashes the basis of any ancap argument. I will be annoying people here with quotes from that for a long time.

      1. That should be fun…

        1. It will be. For me.

      2. Please explain to me in your own words Cytotoxic how he trashes the basis of Ancap arguments. Please oh please enlighten me

      3. The wielding of force is not a business function.

        I’m pretty sure mercenaries would disagree…

        1. Or the IRS. Or the local Sheriff’s office. Or the court system.

        2. So would rent seekers.

      4. Yes, seeing this circular drivel re-posted will certainly be annoying.

      5. The seizure of resources and exclusion thereof by force is not a business function. In fact, seizure and force is outside the realm of economics. Economics concerns production and trade, not seizure and force.

        Ask yourself what it means to have “property” in resources. It’s “property” by wielding force, “property” by subjugating others, “property” in making people obey commands. That’s not “property,” it’s violent conflict. On a large scale, it’s war.

        Oh shit, I just refuted property rights in resources and all I had to do was assert a bunch of bullshit. #partialcommunism

        The world exists in a state of polyarchy in which force is a commodity. “Bu bu but warfare” refutes the feasibility of a nation-state capitalist order to the same extent as an anti-state capitalist order. But what’s the point given that your understanding of anarcho-capitalism still doesn’t extend beyond it’s confusing label? “Oh, they define archy differently than i do? Let me ignore that and attack a bunch of straw men, durr.”

      6. First – I think morally, ancap is the correct stance. As if we believe morally, that each person has a right to live under a government of their choosing, and that even if we all love what the US & Constitution once were, none of us were able to vote to agree to any of it – it seems the logical argument leads one to say a “government of one” is the perfect moral ideal.

        However, violence is truly minimized when a society can give the monopoly on use of force to an agreed upon entity – still under control of the people – but like the article says, in doing so it removes the need for vigilantes, etc, etc, etc.

        Aside from that though – I think anarchy is unworkable in human society.

        I look at it this way – a thought experiment:

        Let’s suppose, somehow we all woke up tomorrow and the vast majority of people in the US agreed with anarchy, the government is disbanded, and other than the government not existing, the US is mostly like is today – only that we have to replace those institutions ourselves.

        So for courts – arbiters – security in place of police, etc, etc, etc.

        It seems at some point, say for arbiters in contracts disputes, even if there were a great deal of competition, since most people would just want their contracts arbitrated accurately – the end result would most likely be significant merging of those groups to the point were very few exist and they’re all basically the same.

        1. IE – in the end, private arbiters will merge into something which looks, from the outside, exactly like a court system.

          Move forward a little longer & I think the incentive would be to allow one group to monopolize that area of society, simply to keep things stable; as businesses need stability to grow (among other things).

          Meaning I think even if anarchists had their perfect society right now – it would meld over time into a mini-government society, not a no-government society, because there are several societal areas, such as policing and contract disputes, which demands very consistent behaviors which aren’t generally seen in private industries which enjoy normal competition.

          Of course I could well be wrong – but it does seem to me anarchy would “fail” as incentives for a small government are too strong for most humans and any society which starts with anarchy, will eventually “evolve” into a society with a government.

          Though maybe it’s still the correct starting point – our founding fathers tried to give us a mini-governmental system and it didn’t take long at all for all our genius Top Men? throughout history to screw that up.

          Maybe starting with a charter/Constitution which just says “government is evil and should be avoided at all costs” would at least allow a mini-governmental system to last for maybe twice as long as the US 🙂

          1. Economic marxism by way of dialectical ideaism:
            People just want their needs satisfied and will give/trade their capital to the most productive capitalists – the end result would most likely be significant merging of those groups to the point were very few exist and they’re all basically the same.

            IE – in the end, capital will merge into something which looks, from the outside, exactly like a socialist state.

            Move forward a little longer & I think the incentive would be to allow one group to monopolize that area of society, simply to keep things stable; as people need stability to grow (among other things).

            Meaning I think even if capitalists had their perfect society right now – it would meld over time into a socialist society, not a capitalist society, because there are several societal areas, such as health, housing, and food, which demands very consistent behaviors which aren’t generally seen in private industries which enjoy normal competition.

            Of course I could well be wrong – but it does seem to me capitalism would “fail” as incentives for socialism are too strong for most humans and any society which starts with capitalism, will eventually “evolve” into a society with a socialist government.

          2. You’re arguing for marxism applied to law through dialectical ideaism. Is that your intention? Consolidation of firms is not antithetical to ancapism any more than it is to capitalism. Ancapism requires that a critical mass of individuals desire associations to be voluntary and the economic implications thereof. I don’t find assuming away the critical mass by appealing to unavoidable growth of psychological concerns for monopolistic stability any more persuasive than appealing to an unavoidable plummeting marginal product of labor as a justification for socialism.

    3. He has a definition problem. Then he moves the goal posts from “initiation” to “wielding”. Then concludes that because violence is wrong, we need a big strong violent daddy to love us.

      1. STRAWMAN DOWN

    4. The wielding of force is not a business function. In fact, force is outside the realm of economics. Economics concerns production and trade, not destruction and seizure.

      Except for taxes and eminent domain.

      1. Except for taxes and eminent domain.

        Color me confused… as are you saying that taxes and eminent domain are business functions or economic functions?

        Because I think in both cases the answer is “no” – at least the article is making the point that regardless of whether force can be used to effect economics, force is not a part of capitalism economics/private enterprise.

        Also not a part of private enterprise is eminent domain or taxes – as both represent the use of force which private business in a free market aren’t using (or shouldn’t be and shouldn’t be allowed to use).

        But maybe I missed something – can you elaborate?

    5. I’m going to agree with one of his basic premises: anarchy is pretty much unworkable. But I think he’s wrong to say that you can’t have a free market unless there is a central monopoly on force. Just because two competing businesses have the capability to go to war with each other without a more powerful third party coming in a squashing both of them for fighting doesn’t mean they will always go to war. Maybe the people in those organizations value their lives or life in general and would lay down arms out of principle and self-interest. I also can’t believe that he brings up Somalia as an example of anarchy. Somalia is not anarchic for pete’s sake.

      1. A good example of this is criminal organizations (most of the time). Sure, there are times when they have outbreaks of large-scale violence between groups, but most of the time they tend to get along well enough – making money is *why* they exist in the first place and fighting each other just gets in the way of that.

  16. Paid political hacks are now telling gamers that the world is coming to an end without net neutrality.

    http://kotaku.com/net-neutrali…..1507677978

    They are saying data caps are a huge problem….of course net neutrality would not fix data caps but who cares when you can scare people into accepting more government control.

    1. I really don’t understand aspects of the whole net neutrality argument. I know why Netflix wants it, because they are bandwidth hogs, but doesn’t Netflix have to pay $$$$ for their net access anyway? If their provider gives their packets “priority,” is that really going to screw the provider’s other customers, who are sending email and surfing websites? Would they even notice?

      1. If you look at who wrote the piece you will see they are political hacks working for huge companies like Microsoft and Amazon and google and netflix.

        It just costs less money for these companies to pay some hack firm to scare gamers into asking for regulatory capture then it is for them to build out their own networks and compete.

        Net neutrality is nothing more then astro turf. The sad thing is that among gamers (at least from reading the comments) it is working.

      2. Dude, its like income inequality – sure, your service isn’t any slower, but that guy was able to pay for priority. That’s just not fair.

        Nevermind the technical innovations that will push up the data speeds will reduce the costs of already existing technology. Trickle-down economics obviously doesn’t apply in the real world, plus there will *still* be people who have faster internet than others. That’s just so unfair.

  17. Holy fuck is SadBeard stupid and mendacious

    A Gallup survey released Thursday showed a large and sudden decline in the share of Americans lacking health insurance. It’s a potent reminder that despite the problematic launch of HealthCare.gov and continued discontent around many aspects of the Affordable Care Act, it is fundamentally succeeding in providing health insurance to people who previously lacked it. And that progress is likely to continue.

    You will recall that this “large and sudden decline” was by…1.2%, which puts us below the level of insured persons in 2008.

    One of the main means through which Obamacare is expanding access to health insurance is to give states the money they need to expand their Medicaid programs. Many Republican-controlled states have so far declined to do so. But as Jonathan Bernstein points out, GOP gubernatorial candidates in the states that have expanded aren’t promising to roll the expansion back. As Paul Pierson and other political scientists have argued, social welfare programs exhibit a strong ratchet effect whereby once expanded they rarely shrink.

    In other words, starting in 2014 and continuing in years to come, more Americans are going to be able to get health care services.

    You can read the rest if you have the stomach for it.

    1. No.

      Canada has enough Sadbeard’s.

    2. As Paul Pierson and other political scientists have argued, social welfare programs exhibit a strong ratchet effect whereby once expanded they rarely shrink.

      And when the next economic cycle tears through us like the Oklahoma tornadoe we will see that ratchet put to the test. I suspect it will break.

      1. As Paul Pierson and other political scientists have argued, social welfare programs exhibit a strong ratchet effect whereby once expanded they rarely shrink.

        Not really true – all social welfare programs in their current inception are (internationally) and will (the US) eventually shrink, because the reality is the ponzi scheme is unsustainable.

        But this author seems to be saying – since it hasn’t happened recently – it will never happen.

        When in fact we know it will happen – either through voters moving in the right direction or through bankruptcy.

        & the longer we forestall it – the larger the burden will be to fix it.

        They’re basically questioning reality – which always fails as reality doesn’t give two shits if the government, the voters, or even if every single last human alive doesn’t want these programs to shrink – the numbers are obvious and the end is as well.

        See Greece.

    3. Oh just wait until the middle of the year when people like me will drop off the roles because they’re being priced out of the market.

    4. In other words, starting in 2014 and continuing in years to come, more Americans are going to be able to get health care services.

      So… “Yes! We got more people on welfare!”

  18. The White House in the photo doesn’t look very transparent.

  19. Rawstory article about Peter Schiff.

    Commenters are not amused:

    Skipdallas ? an hour ago
    This motherfucker should be one of the first ones to be put up in front of a wall and shot in the coming revolution.
    3 ?Reply?Share ?
    Avatar
    LiberalJarhead Skipdallas ? an hour ago
    Although Che is hated by a lot of people, he dealt with the opposition in such a wY that they would never pose a threat or exploit people again.

    1. Such eliminationist rhetoric! Shocking!

      1. They are all such tough guys. Funny how they only ever act on it when doing so involves killing the defenseless.

        1. John, if they weren’t attacking the defenseless they might get hurt!

    2. Now ask them their opinions on gun control. Pro, I bet, given its a means to control their bourgeoisie class enemies.

    3. I’ve decided that at some point in the next week I’m going to go to Rawstory and pretend to be a psychopathically violent progressive who wants all my enemies to be murdered, all their children to be smothered in their beds, and every CEO to be sent to the gallows.

      What are the odds that anyone at Raw Story would have a problem with that?

      1. You will have many supporters. The comments above are proof of that.

      2. It’s a thought experiment worth exploring.

        Didn’t someone in England do something similar?

        1. I don’t know. I’m just legitimately wondering if even one person would criticize me if I started arguing in favor of lynching rich people.

          I know for a fact that most of them would be on my side, but is there even one who would have a problem with that kind of murderous fantasy?

          1. Try it. I’m even tempted.

          2. Just use a good passage from Mein Kampf, put “the 1%” wherever it says Jews and you should be good to go.

          3. An interesting, yet modest proposal.

            1. Please do – and share 🙂

      3. How will they tell you from the rest?

      4. so basically, what American does here?

    4. The comments are incredibly violent and ignorant. No wonder the country is so fucked up.

      1. It’s funny. Unless I’m unaware of it, I don’t see that kind of violent rhetoric on libertarian/conservative sites. But I see enough of them on lefty ones.

        1. And yet it’s always the left talking about how violent the right is. Their capacity for unwitting projection is truly awesome.

        2. It’s funny. Unless I’m unaware of it, I don’t see that kind of violent rhetoric on libertarian/conservative sites.

          I did wish earlier that Chuckie would sit on a can of four loko. Unless he’s really experienced, that would be pretty violent.

    5. This motherfucker should be one of the first ones to be put up in front of a wall and shot in the coming revolution.

      Why does the left in the US always think they have the guns?

    6. Slacktivists are soooo mad, they might… link to Facebook with some angry words.

  20. http://online.wsj.com/news/art…..2225570548

    He always bored me to death.

  21. From — I’m not making this up — The TSA Blog:

    “This year’s tragic incident reminds us that being on the frontline also comes with a great risk.”

    One disgruntled commenter points out:

    TSA screeners have contact with about 1.6 million travelers each day, 584 million travelers each year, and in 10 years 5,840,000,000 travelers. While even one death is unfortunate to call this loss a great risk is just silly TSA spin. The math tells the truth! 1 death in 10 years/total travelers = 0.00000000017. If anything the risk to TSA employees is miniscule. They face far greater odds of injury or death just getting to an airport.

    1. Not to mention the fact that the incident showed the TSA isn’t protecting anything. One nut with a gun got past them.

      1. They certainly didn’t protect the guy whose skull fragments were found in checked baggage.

      2. Make the TSA agents safer by disbanding the agency!

  22. Of course the White House is controlling and secretive! You can’t advance socialism in the USA without some secrecy. Duh.

    1. Obama should just say he’s not secretive, he just knows people love surprises.

  23. Chuck Schumer explains the Tea Party

    The second deep-seated force that fueled the emergence of the tea party is the rapid pace of change in America’s cultural, technological and demographic makeup. Let me draw a historical analogy here to the temperance movement.

    In the 1880s the U.S. was a rural country and people were on farms and small towns living a clean life. By 1920, America had been urbanized and diversified because of manufacturing, immigration, and so many other forces. And the cities were a totally different way of life with slums, bars and dance clubs, emerging suburbs and country clubs.

    Prohibition was not simply about abolishing alcohol; it was an attempt by rural Americans to pull their country back to an agricultural ideal that was being rapidly replaced by a new cultural and economic order.

    Just as the temperance movement at the turn of the last century convinced its millions of followers that if you simply got rid of alcohol, America would almost magically revert back to the American they preferred, the tea party elite have manipulated their millions of grassroots followers to believe the same about government at this moment in time.

    Projection: it’s not just for progs with blogs. More to follow…

    1. Doesn’t Chuck support the WOD? Is he really this fucking obliviously stupid? Wait, I already know the answer to that.

    2. Holy shit!!! Banmiester McMantitties is comparing people in favor of less gov. regulation to the temperance movement. Fucker needs to sit and spin on a can of Four Loko.

      1. I knew I shouldn’t have looked for a link. 🙁

        1. Doesn’t matter. You couldn’t have topped “Banmiester McMantitties” anyway.

    3. To the plutocrats and their allies who run the tea party, government is the enemy. These people are wealthy, hard right, selfish, narrow; people who don’t want to pay taxes and don’t want government interfering with their companies no matter what damage their companies may do to their workers, to the environment or to anybody else. They gave people a phony explanation for why their incomes were declining, why good paying jobs were dwindling, why society was changing — and they called it all “government.”

      Government is just an innocent bystander. Pay no attention to the ever-increasing regulatory state.

      I’ll skip the part where the Senator invokes the ROADZ argument.

      It is up to us to answer the tea party and expose its fundamental contradictions. Here are four ways to make that happen:

      We must stop playing defense and go on offense when it comes to the need for government. We must state loudly and repeatedly that we believe government is often a necessary force for good.
      We must focus, this year, on four or five simple but compelling examples of where government can help the average family, like:
      Raising the minimum wage
      Making college more affordable
      Renewing our commitment to revitalizing our national infrastructure
      Ensuring equal pay for women
      We must address the damage done by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.
      We must look at electoral reform — gerrymandering and top-two primaries.

      Because none of those things contradict each other.

      1. Did Schumer actually write this?

        1. I assume someone on his staff actually wrote it, but it is in his name.

      2. Yeah, the Democratic Party is going to save us from “plutocrats”! George Soros, save us from plutocrats!

      3. We must state loudly and repeatedly that we believe government is often a necessary force for good.

        ^This^ is the fundamental problem. There is no reading of history that demonstrates governments to be necessary forces of good. In fact, most of history and current political realities in various countries today proves that governments are mostly forces of evil.

        What he meant to write, but won’t because it proves all this crap to be projection (SOP), is that he believes the current government, with it’s current makeup, consisting of people who agrees with in positions of power, must be a force of good, since after all – it’s full of people like Chuck and how would any of them do anything bad?

        Example #whatever that the US’s downfall isn’t going to be stopped/reversed anytime soon as it’s impossible to fix any problem if you cannot correctly identify it.

        It’s like trying to start your car and it doesn’t turn over – no lights, no radio, no electrical power.

        Chuck’s solution – add more gas, because the right people built the electrical system so it’s simply not possible, not thinkable, that it could be at fault.

        Nope – the right people in the right places is all that’s needed – so long as that’s true – then we can give those people dictatorial powers and infinite control over every individuals decisions no matter how small and it will all be perfectly fine.

        Just ignore the 150 million dead in the last century – those weren’t Top Men?.

    4. Just as the temperance movement at the turn of the last century convinced its millions of followers that if you simply got rid of alcohol Four Loko, America would almost magically revert back to the American they preferred,

      Fixed it for you, Fuck Schumer.

    5. Chuck Shumer: Freelance Professor of History

    6. Here’s his neice’s tits. Better than his. Probably.

      1. I don’t think I want to look.

      2. Not bad, but I think his are bigger.

      3. Is she really his niece? If so, that’s disturbing and I don’t know what to make of it.

        1. Looked it up. Her dad is Chuckie’s cousin. Not sure what that makes her.

          1. First cousin once removed, in that case. I thought she was his niece.

    7. Funny how so many members of the temperance movement also supported labor unions, universal suffrage, strikes and political violence, anti-Catholicism, indoctrination in the schools, centralized power, pressure politics, eugenics, anti-tobacco crusading, “social hygiene”… It’s almost like they were progressives or something.

      1. Of course the largest bulk of Temperance people were absolutely convinced that once we rid America of alcohol all social ills like poverty and wife beating would disappear. And just like our current crop of progressives, when prohibition did not show that result they claimed that we weren’t doing it strictly enough.

    1. Worst job on the Enterprise is the holodeck splooge-wiper.

      1. I just assumed Troi did that, she seemed to have a lot of free time.

        1. Was she actually paid, or was she on some sort of unpaid internship on the Enterprise?

          1. I don’t think she was paid. If she had been she could have afforded that nose job.

          2. I assume the same thing that collects food scraps and your poo, to turn it back into replicated food, would handle holodeck cleanup.

            Hmmmm… this burger tastes like Riker splooge….

            1. I assume the same thing that collects food scraps and your poo

              That would be the toilet and the replicator. I don’t think there were any poo robots, but it would have made for an interesting filler episode.

          3. Money didn’t exist in TNG because they had perfected the New Soviet Man or some shit.

            1. They had money on TOS and referred to people being rich, so something went terribly wrong between that time and TNG. Probably all after Kirk’s ridiculously impossible “death.”

              1. Kirk was the last remaining capitalist in the Star Trek universe? I can see that.

                1. I believe that’s canon.

              2. Loki is correct. I think Picard mentioned this fact in Lost Contact or in one of the later seasons of TNG

          4. Weren’t you paying attention. They had at least one episode where Riker was dealing with some alien race (possibly the Ferengi) and they mentioned being paid and he patiently explained that Hummanity had evolved past that and now people did things for personal enrichment.

            Funny thing is if you presume the level of technological advancement the Federation had then a post scarcity socialist state probably would naturally evolve

      2. I asked a friend who worked at an adult bookstore if the splooge ever bothered her. She didn’t consider cum that gross and it cleaned up easier than most other type of stains. Better than the motel clean up job she had previous before that.

        1. Got a phone #?

          1. She’ll be sixty this year. By friend, I meant a pal, a buddy who happens to be swinging a vagina.

      3. “Sorry guys, let me know when you’re done; I’m the guy that wipes down the loads.”

    2. Fucking idiots. All matter left in the holodeck gets reconstituted in any of the replicators about the ship. That space soup you’re enjoying? Why, that’s from Wesley’s prom night simulation.

        1. But unusually high in zinc.

  24. Haidt reports on the following experiment: after determining whether someone is liberal or conservative, he then has each person answer the standard battery of questions as if he were the opposite ideology. So, he would ask a liberal to answer the questions as if he were a “typical conservative” and vice-versa. What he finds is quite striking: “The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who describe themselves as ‘very liberal.’ The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives.” In other words, moderates and conservatives can understand the liberal worldview and liberals are unable to relate to the conservative worldview, especially when it comes to questions of care and fairness.
    In short, Haidt’s research suggests that many liberals really do believe that conservatives are heartless bastards–or as a friend of mine once remarked, “Conservatives think that liberals are good people with bad ideas, whereas liberals think conservatives are bad people”–and very liberal people think that especially strongly. Haidt suggests that there is some truth to this.

      1. SF’d, which is a pity because I like Haidt’s work.

    1. “Conservatives think that liberals are good people with bad ideas, whereas liberals think conservatives are bad people”

      Pretty damn close to how I see it as well.

      1. You really think people like Sad Beard and Friedman are good people?

        1. There are exceptions. Some people are just assholes and insufferably smug.

          But for the most part I think people are decent, they just appear worst posting anonymously comments on the internet.

          1. I think they mean well. But most people who do evil do.

          2. Sad Beard proudly said he was happy Andrew Breitbart was dead. He is a seriously nasty and deranged person. Liberalism more than conservatism or libertarianism seems to attract such people.

            1. Agreed there. But it depends on how ideologically committed you are. If you just think that government should do this, this, and that but don’t give it much thought you might still be progressive but are not defined by it.

              It’s the ones who are committed to changing the world by any means necessary that are the dangerous ones. But they are pretty easy to spot because they make EVERYTHING about politics.

              And SadBeard is way out there in Aspie land, so I don’t think it’s fair to extrapolate anything about progs from him,as fun as it is to mock him.

              1. Maybe if Sad Beard ever went outside he’d be more normal.

                1. I can’t believe that gets past an editor’s desk.

                  This passes off as good civic writing, huh?

                2. That’s what sold me on the Asperger’s diagnosis. Not just because he referred to the people who invited him outside as “colleagues” rather than “friends” and not even because he would rather eat indoors alone.

                  No, it’s the fact that he had no qualms about posting that story for the internet to read that convinced me he has no conception of shame and embarrassment.

      2. I think progressives are bad people, I just understand how they think of themselves.

        They’re bad people who can rationalize away their evil. As a result, I would probably do pretty well pretending to be a liberal because I know they see themselves as good and just, even though that’s a filthy lie.

        1. It’s not so much that they are actively evil, just remarkably sanctimonious, smug.

        2. To wit, and I’m serious, just watch the Parti Quebecois ans its supporters rationalize their evil Charter.

          Progressive bull shit run amok.

    2. This is very, very true, and very important. In my experience leftists have mental caricatures of conservatives and libertarians. The converse is not true, perhaps because conservatives and libertarians are constantly exposed to left/liberal ideas in the mainstream media, school, etc.

    3. …”In other words, moderates and conservatives can understand the liberal worldview and liberals are unable to relate to the conservative worldview, especially when it comes to questions of care and fairness.”…

      Not surprising. That view point is literally filling the airwaves, the pipe and the paper every day in every location of the US.
      It’s clear from the trolls we get that any viewpoint other than liberal is poorly understood and largely stereotyped by lefties.

    4. Non-leftists have a better understanding of leftism, because they are constantly exposed to it. Even if you live in a very conservative area, and everyone you know is very conservative, if you consume virtually any media whatsoever, you are exposed to leftism. It is much easier for a leftist to insulate themselves in an echo chamber.

    1. Not that I was going to watch the Grammy Awards, but they’re going to use it to push a political message at us?

      1. they’re going to use it to push a political message at us?

        Of course they are, it’s what smug leftie celebutards always do. I wonder how many of them would be willing to part with their millions in the interest of “fairness?” Rhetorical question – I already know the answer.

  25. New libertarian/nerd (they’re the same thing, really) collectibles:

    Get your Kronies; they’re connected.

    http://thekronies.com/

    1. I saw this last night, it was fucking hilarious and I really hope they make a cartoon out of it.

  26. Little Sisters of the Poor: 1
    Obamacare anti-religious mandate: 0

    Supreme Court stays enforcement of HHS mandate on Little Sisters of the Poor until the 10th Circuit rules on it. The nuns must attest to their opposition to the mandate, but are specifically exempt from using the form supplied by the government or notifying 3rd party payers.

    http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/…..-24-13.pdf

  27. Shocker: The Panderer-in-Chief is good at pandering, has said the word ‘gay’ 274 times in his five years in office

    The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay rights group, did some digging and found that President Barack Obama has used “gay” 272 times since taking office in 2009, far more than any of his recent predecessors: Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

    Only Clinton comes closest to Obama, having used “gay” 216 times during his two terms, says a new report from the advocacy group.
    [snip]
    Neither George H.W. Bush nor Reagan used “gay” in any of their presidential remarks.

    George W. Bush used it twice in a public speech or remark, including one in which he disavowed marriage equality. He issued no proclamations on the subject.

    Obama also has used “lesbian,” ”gay,” ”bisexual” or “transgender” a total of 421 times, the report found, a linguistic feat that the Human Rights Campaign says has played a big part in the American public’s acceptance of LGBT people and marriage equality because of a president’s power to influence public opinion.

    “Words matter an enormous amount, and when President Obama uses his platform to declare that LGBT people are just as American as anyone else, it has a huge and historic effect,” said Chad Griffin, the organization’s president.

    Some people are easy to impress I guess.

    1. But he used those words! He used words!

  28. Stephen Hawking ruins science fiction: Black holes do not exist!

    Most physicists foolhardy enough to write a paper claiming that “there are no black holes” ? at least not in the sense we usually imagine ? would probably be dismissed as cranks. But when the call to redefine these cosmic crunchers comes from Stephen Hawking, it’s worth taking notice. In a paper posted online, the physicist, based at the University of Cambridge, UK, and one of the creators of modern black-hole theory, does away with the notion of an event horizon, the invisible boundary thought to shroud every black hole, beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape.

    In its stead, Hawking’s radical proposal is a much more benign “apparent horizon”, which only temporarily holds matter and energy prisoner before eventually releasing them, albeit in a more garbled form.

    “There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory,” Hawking told Nature. Quantum theory, however, “enables energy and information to escape from a black hole”. A full explanation of the process, the physicist admits, would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature. But that is a goal that has eluded physicists for nearly a century. “The correct treatment,” Hawking says, “remains a mystery.”

    But how do you explain Washington? Hey-o!

    1. Wow, when Hawking loses a bet he really sells out.

    2. It’ll help when we can actually directly detect one. Or visit one. Or make one.

      1. We have detected them, we have just never directly imaged them

        1. Which is what I meant. We’ve picked up, what, some X-rays and radio emissions from the matter around a black hole, right? Which is really indirect. Ditto the gravitational effects we can see in nearby (visible) stars.

          1. How can you see a thing that gives off no light and absorbs any light that hits it?

            Also why are gravitational effects and ex-ray and radio emissions indirect but visible-to-the-human-eye electromagnetic effects direct?

            It is like saying the earth is hollow cuz we can’t see it and only have indirect gravitational effects telling us it is not hollow.

          2. Uhm, well – by definition you can never actually *see* one, right?

    3. In its stead, Hawking’s radical proposal is a much more benign “apparent horizon”, which only temporarily holds matter and energy prisoner before eventually releasing them, albeit in a more garbled form.

      This is actually pretty old. I remember reading a book by Hawkings in the 90s that said black holes evaporate. essentially at any given time 2 particles which are anti to each other can appear spontaneously. normally they cancel each other but near an event horizon one will fall into the black hole but the other will escape.

      1. Originally, black holes were thought to only have mass, charge, and angular momentum – Hawking added a fourth attribute, Temperature to the mix.

        Basically – the intense gravitational field allows virtual particle pairs to occasionally steal energy and become *real*. The vast majority of time they annihilate each other but occasionally they form with just the right trajectory that one of the pair flies back into the hole and the other escapes, taking with it a tiny amount of the energy contained within the hole.

        This reduces the mass of the hole and if conditions are right (ie not enough mass infalls to make of for this loss) the hole ‘evaprotates’ (ie its mass drops below a critical threshold and can no longer be gravitationally contained and it explodes).

        All holes do this and the smaller the hole, the faster VP pairs are generated, the faster they evaporate.

  29. Conversation I had today at the grocery story with a 20ish male cashier.

    Me: So, is the Superbowl this weekend?

    Him: Not sure. I’m really not into sports.

    Me: Yeah, me neither. There are other more interesting hobbies.

    Him: I’ve been reading a lot about Edward Snowden. You know about him? I don’t think people realize what a hero he is.

    Me: I agree. He’s done us a real service.

    Him: You really think so? (high-fives me).

    Me: I’m a libertarian; civil liberties are big with libertarians. You should check out reason.com if your interested in Snowden and libertarian issues.

    (close scene)

    And, thus, hopefully, another libertarian is initiated.

    1. Good for you.

    2. And, thus, hopefully, another libertarian is initiated.

      I believe the initiation involves Warty, right?

    3. Way to friendzone him.

      1. So, she put him into a zone of some kind?

        1. She?

          Didn’t we establish Lady Bertrum is a guy? Or am I confused, again (even more than normal)?

          1. Didn’t we establish Lady Bertrum is a guy? Or am I confused, again (even more than normal)?

            I realize that on a website that once had a man commenting under the name “Stormy Dragon” it is sometimes hard to tell the gender of commenters.

            LB is definitely a woman though.

            1. I always thought stormy was a lesbian.

            2. I could have sworn either Serious or GBN got all embarrassed for making that assumption and getting called on it about a month ago?

              Or maybe he/she was just fucking with them. Or maybe I have LB confused with someone else?

              LB, jump in here and set us straight.

              1. I’m late to the discussion and don’t remember the prior conversation. Sorry.

                I have boobies and a vajayjay. Make of that what you will.

            3. Even if Stormy was a woman, I would still not have any respect for them. The only type of person who should use “Stormy Dragon” as their handle is a 12 year old girl.

              1. How about “The Last Unicorn”? Because I was thinking of changing my handle to that. This one has too many negative connotations attached to it.

                1. I would go with “Sparkly Unicorn Bieber Fan”.

                  1. “Princess Sparkly Bieberfan” it is.

                    1. “Princess Sparkly Bieberfan” it is.

                      Starting with something that has horrible connotations so there is nowhere to go but up?

                      Clever girl.

                  2. EpiLovesTehBeib

                2. Whatever username you choose will end up with negative connotations attached pretty quickly.

                3. Wishmagic: The Horse Who Wrote Poems

    4. Fool. He was an NSA plant. All grocery store cashiers are. Why do you think there aren’t more self checkout lanes?

      1. Because of unions?

        1. Uh, I don’t think self checkouts are even unionized. Use your head.

    5. Did you warn him about…us? Especially Hugh?

      1. Why would you scare them off before the blood oath?

        1. I’m not as into coercion as you, jesse. I only have a fraction of the whips, chains, dog collars, and gimp suits that you do.

          1. Why would you only have a fraction of a gimp suit? Who has the space to keep more than one around?

            1. jesse, I live in a two-story apartment. I have plenty of room. But I mostly use it for my life-size cutouts of the Next Generation crew. I have two Wesleys and a Traveler for when I want to get really freaky.

            2. For the fraction of the gimp he keeps in the meatlocker of course.

            3. Isn’t a gimp suit fraction just another name for a zipper?

        2. Flies and honey and all that. We need to sucker him in before…..you know…Warty (mumble, mumble)..and Hugh (mumble, mumble).

          Epi – are you super proud to have been featured in the two minutes of hate on The Independents?

          I wonder if Matt realizes that it’s now a competition to see who can come up with the most horrifying comment to get on the show. Because it’s on!

          1. Wait, what did I miss when I tuned out early?

            1. You missed the Two Minutes of Hate? Go look for today’s Independents post, Welch linked the segment.

              Basically they read angry Tweets, emails, and pull some negative comments from Hit & Run show threads. Pretty awesome even if made Epi even more insufferable.

              1. They really could’ve pulled more interesting comments from Epi, but that was entertaining. Who is Dry Gin Wet Farts?

          2. I’m pretty pleased, because I WIN. Or something.

            Matt realizes it’s a competition now, and said something to that effect that night. However, the comments of mine that they quoted were actually pretty mild. It shouldn’t be hard to top them, and I intend to do so.

            1. Unfortunately, the best insults are not going to be Fox Business appropriate.

              1. You just have to get creative. One can be insulting without being vulgar. Unlike your mom.

                1. Who suggested the communist be beaten to death? Sounds strangely similar to maybe 30 or so of my comments while live-posting during his appearance. (I was drinking)

              2. Well maybe Kennedy and Co. can make exceptions for us

    6. And he didn’t hit on you? Because we already have plenty of Creeper-tarians, thank you very much.

      But really, nice little story. Thank you for that.

    7. Nice work.

    8. You should check out reason.com

      Oh fuck!!!

      Quick someone put away the laudanum and sweep warty under the rug.

  30. Boehner Has No Presidential Ambisions

    At least it wasn’t all bad news today.

  31. Now, on a less depressing subject — 50 beers, 50 states —

    http://www.seriouseats.com/map…..very-state

    I have had, maybe ten, one I’m not so sure about. Sounds like a delicious pils I had on tap once. The Victory BC Prima.

    The Dogfish Head Indian Brown Ale, Maui Brewing Company Coconut Porter, Zombie Dust, Two Hearted Ale (Jesus, that one is tasty), and of course, Heady Topper, get my juices flowing. They all sound delicious in the descriptions given.

    1. I have a refrigerator full of the Minnesota representative, including the Abrasive Ale pictured. Awesome stuff.

      1. Tried the Baba Black Lager recently (UT) and it is great. More of these are showing up locally. Of course the Edmund Fitzgerald Porter (OH) is fine, and I agree about the Two-Hearted Ale – it used to be on tap at a bar within walking distance when I had a second home in Columbus.

    2. The particular beer they selected for Texas isn’t my fave but they definitely could have done worse for what brewery they chose.

      1. The ale they had for Arizona is all right, but I would much prefer Kiltlifter from Four Peaks Brewing in Tempe

    3. I’ve had four: Two Hearted Ale, Smuttynode Scotch, Yeti, and Indian Brown.

      I’ve had some beers from some of the breweries mentioned (Cigar City, Great Lakes, and Allagash) but not their beers that made the list.

  32. Still with this shit

    Last week I wrote about the fact that in spite of racking up $20,000 worth of damages by egging a neighbor’s house, Justin Bieber is in no real danger of being deported. Not because the crime doesn’t merit it (that’s not a judgement I’m interested in) but because he’s white, rich, and famous.

    Well, it looks like JBiebs wanted to test his luck, because he was charged this week with driving under the influence of alcohol and marijuana, driving without a valid license, and resisting arrest. And yet the Canadian-born singer was released on $2,500 bail. And still not deported. Meanwhile, as Prerna Lal explained at Racefiles, Miguel Morales Patzan, an undocumented worker, spent ten days in jail for just driving without a license ? and now faces deportation.

    All three of those things are different, and they make a campaign about guess which word? I’m honestly suprised they didn’t say it was because he (probably)has a penis.

    1. Um, didn’t the Beeb’s blood alcohol level end up being so low as to be essentially alcohol free, and certainly not up to the 0.08 drunk driving requirement? That might have something to do with it.

      1. Yup. 0.014

        1. In many states when you are under age that is still a DUI

          1. That may be – but anyone with Bieber’s money can easily mount of a defense showing that one can produce the same reading by simply taking too much of certain types of cough syrup.

            Which is why people with means are never charged with ridiculous laws which say .014 BAC is evidence of anything – only those unable/unwilling/not smart enough to mount a fight will be charged.

            Just like when someone with means gets a ticket for running a stop light when they weren’t driving – they start by asserting their rights to go to court, where they want to specifically argue against the law on two fronts – a) how can someone who was not driving get ticketed for a moving violation and b) running a stop sign, whether video captured or seen and enforced by an actual LEO should have the exact same penalty.

            Any guess as to what happens the same day said person makes it known s/he is going to fight the ticket?

            Charges dismissed.

      2. You seem to know an awful lot about this. You know his nick name, you even know about his blood. Are you some sort of Canadian sympathizer?

        1. (punches Rufus and Archduke)

          Of course not!

          1. Heh.

            1. Make that…

              Ow!

              1. More like “Ow! Eh.”

      1. I posted this yesterday. It seems like something out of the Onion News

      2. It makes me happy that the premier left wing statist channel broke an interview with a congress-critter to talk about the drug use of a pop-star.

    2. Not that I care to stand up for Bieber but I find it bizarre that the “author” simply tip-toed around this little fact : “Miguel Morales Patzan, an undocumented worker”

      I dunno but my bet would be that the singer probably has his immigration paperwork in order.

      You don’t have to like or even agree with our immigration laws but it doesn’t make a lot of sense to bring up an issue like this if you kinda have to acknowledge them.

      1. bleah..

        “…but if you are going to bring up an issue like this you kinda have to acknowledge them.”

  33. I thought the commentariat would enjoy this letter-to-the-editor in yesterday’s Contra Costa Times (SF Bay Area, CA):

    Nutty system with inequality built in
    Responding to a Jan. 13 letter “Being responsible for own behavior” consider this description: One percent of the squirrels take ownership of the most productive trees. They also claim all storage facilities. They hire desperate, hungry squirrels to collect acorns and pay them with starvation rations.

    By winter, the 1 percent own 48 percent of the acorns. The 1 percent hire squirrels, called government squirrels, to collect taxes, build jails and give the impression they are protecting the population.

    In their quest for even more acorns, the 1 percent send acorn collectors to other areas, which infuriate the squirrels there. This is solved by sending army squirrels to protect the collector squirrels.

    Taxes from the 99 percent pay for the army, police, jails and tax collection. There is an illusion of popular influence in government decisions, but real decisions are made behind closed doors by the 1 percent.

    Because they own all the storage facilities, they can charge whatever the market will bear and claim it is a free market.

    John Bulger
    Walnut Creek

    1. Is this in response to tech workers gentrifying his neighborhood?

    2. One percent of the squirrels take ownership of the most productive trees.

      Sort of falls apart right there, doesn’t it? If those squirrels planted those trees, or bought them, then it’s a rather different story.

  34. Huh, The Atlantic: The GOP doesn’t need to change because it’s already winning

    Without changing a thing, Republicans are very well positioned for the midterm elections this year and even for the 2016 presidential election. As the University of Virginia political analyst Larry Sabato recently noted, Republicans are almost guaranteed to keep the House of Representatives in November; they have about a 50-50 chance of taking the majority in the U.S. Senate; and they are likely to keep their majority of the nation’s governor’s mansions. The erosion of public trust in Obama and Democrats spurred by the botched introduction of the healthcare exchanges continues to reverberate in public polling of contests up and down the ballot, erasing the public-opinion edge Democrats gained from the government shutdown and tilting more and more contests in the GOP’s favor, according to Sabato, who on Thursday revised his ratings of three Senate contests, tilting all of them more toward Republicans.

    At least some people are capable of recognizing that Obamacare is going to be a huge liability.

    The tears will be delicious if the GOP seizes the Senate.

    1. If? I’m pretty sure it’s a lock. I’ll be stunned if it isn’t.

      Obamacare is going to be years and years of butthurt for TEAM BLUE, and they’re just starting to realize that fact, after thinking it was their ticket to permanent majorities for so long.

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      1. I would be stunned if they didn’t as well, but you can’t discount the possibility of some so-con retard pulling an Akin.

        The media will be in full-blown panic mode if it looks like the Dems are going to lose big again so they’ll do their best to drag down the enemy.

      2. Republicans in 2003: We’re going to have a permanent majority thanks to the war on terror!

        Democrats in 2010: We’re going to have a permanent majority thanks to Obamacare!

        You’d think they’d learn eventually.

        1. But they never, ever do. Which is what we’ve learned.

          1. Really, these early years of the new millennium have been quite instructive.

    2. The idea that the GOP would lose the House in 2014 was always ridiculous. Second-term Presidents almost always lose seats there in their sixth year, and Obama is on track to undershoot the average, not overshoot it.

      1. But if all you read is the Huffington Post, Salon, ThinkProgress, and other left-wing sources of news you’d swear that Obamacare was working and the GOP was doomed because of their War on Women.

        Hell, today’s HuffPo front page headline is “OBAMCARE IS WORKING!” with 3 MILLION SIGN UPS!

        1. HuffPo’s front page after the Manchin-Toomey bill was defeated is still the funniest thing I’ve ever seen.

          They were basically calling everyone who voted against that gun bill a murderer.

          1. My favorite was ‘TO LIVE AND DIE IN NRA USA—NO END TO GUN VIOLENCE EPIDEMIC’

            Followed immediately below with a bunch of links to various shooting stories throughout the country.

        2. Hey man, if they want to stick their heads in the sand, why stop them?

        3. Are you fucking kidding me? They’re down to hysterical delusions? KEEP CLAPPING OR TINKERBELL DIES

    3. Comment from thread: “Just to be clear, very few non-Republicans are upset about healthcare exchanges (and the few that are will likely be over it by election time). Obama’s numbers aren’t dropping because he the very thing people voted him in to do and that he campaigned on. Obama’s polling numbers have dropped because of the NSA leaks, aka the things his constituents voted him in to fix that he’s lied to their faces about.”

      1. That’s part of it, but I think large numbers of Democrats and independents are ticked of about Obama messing with their health insurance.

  35. Lufthansa Heist arrests.

    http://online.wsj.com/news/art…..ding_now_2

    1. So which one was he in the movie?

      1. Good question.

        Certainly not Carbone.

        1. Stacks? Maybe he didn’t really die?

  36. I’m not gonna bother providing a link, but it is interesting to watch Argentina come unglued. Their central bank has literally given up on supporting the currency. In a day it fell 15% over a week it fell from 8 per USD to 12. The government was actually forced to loosen capital controls. Other emerging markets like Ukraine and Turkey and Venezuela are also going critical. It’s contagion.

  37. And for my last link I give you all porn for John

    1. That is someone who should go with a one-piece. At least.

      1. She could go with a one-piece or a two-piece as long as she isn’t going anywhere I can see her. Just go.

  38. CNN Op-Ed:

    “Because everyone agrees taxing the Rich is the path to ‘reducing income inequality…”

    :”…[there are] unmistakable national political indictors that suggest voters are ready for government action to help poor and working-class Americans. The Occupy Wall Street movement of 2011 that quickly spread across the country was one sign; so was the re-election of President Obama in 2012 and de Blasio’s victory in 2013.

    Blah blah blah…. summary = “Which progressive is more awesome? DeBlasio or Cuomo”?

    Ne’er once in the piece is there the slightest curiosity about where the connection between ‘raising taxes’, ‘throwing money into Pre-K’ actually does anything about “reducing inequality”.

    The unstated assumption is something like:

    1)Take More Money
    2)Get More Power
    3)….
    4)(End Profit!)
    5)Respect

    We need to get this word, ‘equality’ more clearly defined. Because the idea that ‘some people are poor’ BECAUSE ‘some people are rich’ is so fucking brainless that it hurts. There is very little in the way of actually talking about policy that ‘enables’ poor people to improve their lot. Its almost entirely about just sucking the blood out of private enterprise and empowering the state.

    1. de Blasio’s victory in 2013.

      Yes, because the rest of the United States is just like NYC.

  39. House Speaker John Boehner is not running for president, he says.

    Bummer. He is exactly the caliber of clown the republicans tend to go for. Luckily, they have no shortage of intellectually defective, self-worshiping, idiots to choose from.

  40. John, to further comment on one of your remarks yesterday, here’s an example of Catholics as well as Orthodox showing some courage in the Ukraine troubles.

    The Ukrainian government has threatened to revoke the legal status of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Catholic Church (UGCC) for alleged complicity in the demonstrations. This would return the UGCC to the illegal status it had under the Commies, so there’s historical precedent for this action.

    The head of the UGCC, Major Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk, responds to the threat:

    “The Church is not a participant in the political process, but at the same time, it cannot stand aside when its faithful ask for spiritual care….The presence of the priest there, where his faithful are, is a fundamental part of his pastoral ministry. It is the duty of the priest to be with his faithful, a duty that flows from the very mission of the Church. Our Church has always been true to this mission that Christ has entrusted to it, and will remain so in the future despite any threats.”

    http://en.radiovaticana.va/new…..en1-764254

  41. Holy shit.

    adorkablewifeUCallie Beusman41L
    My period tracker app was a little TOO accurate. I started using it because my cycles were like… 35 – 120 days apart, and over time it gets smarter and learns your patterns. The month it got it completely right, I decided to test its powers of predicting ovulation. I got pregnant. As an experiment. Hubby was not entirely pleased that I forgot to warn him, but as I didn’t think it would actually work, I kind of think I should be excused… Still, you can’t fault it, as we now have a perfect second child, and we know the exact day he was conceived. I just got my period back nearly a year after giving birth, and I immediately downloaded my period tracker. But hubby swears that he won’t have sex with me again without checking the app first to make sure I’m not accidentally on purpose getting up the duff. Today 2:55pm

    1. as we now have a perfect second child

      I like this lady.

  42. House Speaker John Boehner is not running for president, he says.

    Probably said already, but the sentiment bears repeating:

    Thank fucking god.

  43. Roll that beautiful bean footage.

    http://www.AnonWork.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.