St. Patrick's Day Still Not Gay, Quake Hits Los Angeles, US Navy Grabs Libyan Tanker: P.M. Links

|

  • NOT GAY!
    Credit: Hada del lago / Foter / CC BY-NC-ND

    It's St. Patrick's Day! That means booze, parades, and the continued controversial exclusion of gay groups in them. Meanwhile, in actual Ireland, same-sex couples have civil partnership recognition and 75 percent of the citizens support extending full marriage recognition to gays.

  • There was a 4.4-magnitude earthquake in Los Angeles, which wasn't big enough to do much damage, but was big enough to make sure nobody in Southern California talked about anything else for the rest of the day. A larger earthquake hit Chile, but did it trend on Twitter?
  • U.S. Navy SEALs boarded an oil tanker to prevent a Libyan militia group from selling the crude and returned the ship back to the country.
  • U.S. Army Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair has been cleared of sex assault charges, but pleaded guilty of several lesser offenses that revolve around an extramarital affair with a junior officer.
  • Former Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards (D), who served eight years in prison for racketeering, is running for Congress.
  • A third person injured in the crash of a car last week into a crowd at the South by Southwest festival in Austin, Texas, has died today. The driver faces capital murder charges for the other two deaths.

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

Advertisement

NEXT: David Cameron Outlines Proposed Changes to UK-EU Relationship

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. It’s St. Patrick’s Day! That means booze…

    Don’t erin go tase me, bragh.

    1. Do you lift and support bragh?

    2. Lepre-KHAAAAAAAAANNNNNNN!!!

  2. Hello.

    1. Sawubona.

    2. Quit posting inane chatter, Rufus. Leave that up to Episiarch.

      1. HA!

        Your Epi ad hominem is so much better then your “christfag” and “keynesian” garbage.

        1. Odd. That comment he made was exactly the kind of thing Mary was spamming the boards with up using six different handles this weekend. Hmm…

  3. Has the earthquake ended CNN’s wall to wall Malaysian Air coverage?

    1. They keep hoping something will spring up to link it to the Tea Party or Bush.

    2. “Next: Could the Malaysian Air incident have contributed to the earthquake? This is CNN.”

      1. Dammit!

    3. “Now on CNN, did the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 cause today’s earthquake?”

      1. I think we can tell from the show Lost that yes, the two events are related. I blame Benjamin Linus h

    4. Seriously. I was up early enough, had some spare time, and decided to put on the news for a bit. Reminded me why I haven’t regularly tuned to any news station on TV for years.

      1. The real travesty is that you put on CNN and thought that you were watching “news.” Sadly, plenty of other people haven’t caught on to their bullshit yet.

        1. Heard one of the anchors say ‘you know what I mean’ while talking about that fucking plane. No, sparky. I don’t know what you mean. Earlier he said, “this is what we kinda know.” Now that’s stellar journalism right there.

        2. I realize this. It was a weak and unfortunate moment where I thought I might be informed slightly this morning. See you in two years CNN.

        3. Are there any straight news channels since CNN-HN mutated from being a constantly repeating news feed to whatever Nancy Grace fueled monstrosity it is now?

          1. I thought you were making a gay v straight reference at first.

            I was confused as I didnt realize channels had sexual preferences.

            1. CNN does have that young man Rachel Madcow if that means anything to you.

              1. Hey! Retards everywhere KNOW that Rachel Mancow is the smartest, most insightful journalist on Earth.

    5. They just don’t want any more stories about the failures successes of ObamaCare. It’s just so embarrassing! *blush*

  4. Meanwhile, in actual Ireland, same-sex couples have civil partnership recognition and 75 percent of the citizens support extending full marriage recognition to gays.

    They really hate the Americans’ version of their holiday.

    1. This American hates it too.

      Horrible, horrible. I hate accidentally going out to eat on 3/17.

      Its a friend of mines birthday and we cant celebrate it properly.

      I may got to Holy Grale tonight and see what time some douchebag tries to sneak in a Bud Light.

  5. B.C. family furious teen vaccinated without parental consent

    Bootsma said he had no idea children are allowed to make their own medical decisions in B.C.

    Under the B.C. Infants Act, however, parents do not need to sign a consent form for children 14 years of age and older to be inoculated, as long as a doctor or nurse believes the child is mature enough to understand the risks and benefits of the treatment.

    Totally unrelated…

    100 measles cases reported in Fraser Valley outbreak

    1. Are we bringing back pox parties?

      Hey kids, your friend Roxanne has measles. Give her a hug and suffer now rather than suffer later!

      1. What was that book I read as a kid about Mormons and mumps where they did that?

        1. It was supposedly common with Chicken Pox back in the day. That was when getting it as an adult was deadly and they didnt have a vaccine and they didnt know about the connection to shingles.

          1. So what’s the demarcation line for back in the day? My parents did that to me in 1989.

            1. Apparently somewhere after 1989.

            2. My sister picked it up in preschool at 3 and my mom made sure she passed it on to me (9). That was in 1992.

              Wikipedia says the US started vaccinating for chickenpox in 1995.

              1. Yeah, my brother picked it up in third grade and my mother and aunt conspired to have him infect the rest of their children (aged 3 – 6) since we were likely to get it anyway and they didn’t want to have to deal with it ever again.

                I would have thought the vaccine was earlier. I remember my pediatrician basically saying, “it’s a shame they got infected, if you would have held out a little longer they could have just gotten a shot.”

                1. My parents probably wouldn’t have let me get the chickenpox vaccine at that point. I’d gotten the basic ones before I moved in with them, and had pushed for some of the later ones even though they’d been wobbling ever closer to the anti-vax position. By the time my brother was born in 1996 they refused to vaccinate him and he ended up getting measles or mumps (I can’t remember which).

        2. It was The Great Brain, guys. Come on people, I rely on you all.

          1. Dammit, I was just logging in to answer this one! Loved the Great Brain books.

          2. I remembered it was Great something. Been a long, long, long time since I read any of them.

          3. Yep, I think it was the third one in the series. JD was griping that he was always the last of the Fitzgerald boys to get sick, so when his friend got the mumps, he had his buddy cough in his face so he’d be the first one to get sick instead.

            Loved them as a kid, but haven’t read them in a while. Might be time for a library trip…

            1. Great Brain, Hardy Boys… ah good times.

    2. Sounds like the nurse made the decision not the child.

      1. If the girl signed a form, then she signed the form. Like I said, there are literally no “damages” here.

        1. there are literally no “damages” here.

          Providing medical treatment without good informed consent is assault. If it is an invasive treatment (like sticking a needle in somebody), you can easily get to aggravated assault.

          Here, it looks like the statute would protect the school, nurse, etc.

          1. Except for abortion of course.

    3. Tell that guy he can sue for all the “damages” it caused I guess.

  6. Former Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards (D), who served eight years in prison for racketeering, is running for Congress.

    Should convicted politicians be allowed to run again?

    1. You can’t vote or get a gun, but you sure can run to be an elected criminal.

    2. Fuck no. Ditto if they’re merely removed from office and not actually charged with any criminal acts.

      Caesar’s wife, dammit.

    3. If they’ve served their time, sure. Because that’s the same slippery slope that leads to indefinite detention even after sentence is served.

      If the people are stupid enough to elect a corrupt SOB, that’s their problem.

      1. I dunno, I think we now know for a fact that we need limits on all kinds of power, including what the fucking people want. No offense, but we the people are morons.

        1. But a law disqualifying crooked candidates is just another power that can potentially be abused. I am very wary of any law that limits franchise or ability of a citizen to run for office. Especially as we are probably all technically felons if some federal prosecutor really wants us to be.

          1. The franchise is a different question, but limiting the “rights” of politicians caught committing felonies is a whole ‘nother matter. Let them find another career.

            1. Problem is, almost everything is a felony now. All an opponent in power would have to do is get his cop underlings to follow someone around for a couple of days.

          2. As long as the law explicitly states that the disqualifier is crimes committed while in office and related to their powers of office then fine.

      2. ^^^This^^^

        And Tonio, you are free to have St P’s day, because this straight sure the fuck doesnt want it.

        My last name is of Irish origin, so I can tell all of you who celebrate this day to go to hell. But I wont.

        1. My This was aimed at Tonio, but PL got in the way. Stupid threading.

        2. “Top of the morning to ye on this gray, grizzly afternoon. Kent O’Brockman live on Main Street, where today everyone is a little bit Irish, except, of course, for the gays and the Italians.” Kent Brockman.

          That never gets old.

          1. Ahh, the old days of GOOD Simpsons episodes.

            This site is getting more & more relevant:

            http://deadhomersociety.com/

      3. “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” – H. L. Mencken

      4. Yeah, I know, PL. Common sense says they ought to be banned for life. Tough question.

        1. I’m not suggesting there aren’t instances where this could backfire, but why we hold politicians to a standard much lower than that we hold anyone else to is beyond me.

          1. If a felony conviction can get one disbarred, or in other words banned from practicing law, then a felony conviction should prevent one from making law.

          2. Because if we didn’t hold em to such a low standard, no one would take the job.

      5. If the people are stupid enough to elect a corrupt SOB, that’s their problem.

        I hear you on that, but the idea of restraining power has me leaning more toward the idea that term limits on ‘public service and governance’ jobs might be something different than constitutionally protected freedoms. Filtering out the convicts seems like a small step to protect those who did not vote for the convict, but would have to live under his/her governance.

        1. Howsabout saying that you can’t run for office unless you are a registered voter in the district you want to represent?

          1. Hows about saying that you can’t run for office unless you are a registered voter in the district you want to represent?

            I think that works…carpetbaggers are another form of cynical power grabbing imo. I am not a big fan of campaign finance laws, but I might even support one that said only people in the area being represented could contribute to a candidate. i.e., hollywood and the kochs can only influence where they have a primary residence…except presidential elections. maybe.

        2. Under constitutional government, we place limits on democratic and other kinds of power all day. The reason we’ve gotten closer to real tyranny (and have it in plenty of ways, of course) is at least in part due to lifting those limits.

    4. I respect that 1) it’s in the open and 2) his conviction is relevant to the skills required to perform the job.

      Hell – racketerring – he’s TOTALLY QUALIFIED!! How does Louisianans vote for anyone else?

    5. I have a bit of a hard time with that one. If we are supposed to have democratic elections, then whoever people want to vote for should be it. On the other hand, if they have actually been convicted for political corruption, there is a fairly strong argument for disqualifying them. But, on yet another hand, that could easily be used as a tool to disqualify political opponents if the system becomes only slightly more fucked up than it is now.

      1. Common folk can’t even vote when they’re convicted of felonies in some places, and voting is far less dangerous than holding office.

        If you can’t meet some minimum standards of appropriate conduct, you are not suited for office, no matter how much you can con voters into thinking otherwise.

        1. I think disenfranchising felons is a terrible thing, so that doesn’t help convince me.
          The problem with standards is that some other crooked politician who hasn’t been convicted yet gets to make them up.

          1. Look, we catch these jokers all too rarely as it is, but when we do, we need to keep them as far away from the trough as possible.

            1. But do you think that the ones who do get caught are the really bad ones? I have a suspicion that they are just the ones who are inconvenient for the truly corrupt ones.
              I certainly understand where you are coming from, but I think that the only real solution would be to make the government minimal enough that there is little opportunity for major corruption.

              1. Of course, I agree–make government small and weak enough, and these problems mostly go away–but as the system stands, we need to nail the ones we catch committing crimes to the wall and leave them hanging there for the other policriminals to see.

                It only gets worse when they think there is no accountability at all.

          2. I dont have a problem with disenfranchising felons until their jail/probation ends. But at the end of that, they have served their time and should be able to vote, carry firearms and not be on sex offender lists.

            1. I wouldn’t if only things that actually should be criminal were felonies.

              1. The same could be said about prison.

                Im not opposed to the concept of prisons just because we have criminalized too many things.

        2. I loathe politicians, but I don’t like where that leads. Any restriction at all is a means for politicians to exclude all sorts of people from running against them. We all commit a few felonies a day. Should a guy be disqualified from office because he has drug arrests and convictions?

          1. Yeah, that’s what I’m saying.

            1. I’m not sure about excluding all “felons” from office, given how overused felonies are, but I am totally in favor of banning politicians from office who have been convicted of felonies while in office, especially when those felonies represent a misuse of the power of office (e.g. racketeering, bribery, vote fraud, etc.).

              1. No reason you couldn’t define what is a bar to office–e.g., felonies involving moral turpitude or something like that.

                1. But even something like that can, and has been in other countries at least, be used to exclude political opponents.

                  I’m really not dead set against a law such as you propose, but I am highly ambivalent.

                  1. The risk of exclusion of some candidates seems far less than the risk of including candidates who are known abusers of power. Let’s can the ones we catch at least.

                    1. If the opposition is so shitty that they can’t beat someone who was convicted of bribery in office, they shouldn’t hold it either.

                    2. We have other restrictions on office, though, like age and residency requirements. Why not NEVER CAUGHT TAKING BRIBES or the like?

                    3. I just see that as another part of the system they’ll game. If restrictions X and Y are allowed, let’s add Z too. For the children, of course. For example, I wouldn’t think dividing the country up into 435 districts would cause problems at first glance, but the unlikely ways they gerrymander the dividing lines is amazing. Adding restrictions on who can stand for election invites politicians make up further rules excluding their opponents. And those rules will almost never be rolled back. In the end, I think potential abuse outweighs the benefits.

      2. One of the ways the People’s Action Party stays in power while trying to look democratic is to do just that. They have the judges in their pocket convict a popular opposition candidate of something and then say they are ineligible.

        One way they do it is to sue the opposition candidate for libel/slander for normal political statements (aka “such and such PAP candidate sucks!”) and then the judge gives a judgment for a sum of money that person can never possibly pay. Then they either jail them for not paying or say they are ineligible to run until the SOL on the debt runs out.

        This is the risk you run by banning candidates for “corruption” or debts or whatever.

        1. PAP = single party government in Singapore.

  7. What? PM links before the ‘Tonight on The Independents’ link?

    Hoooo.

    1. Trying to keep us on our toes.

  8. Former Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards (D), who served eight years in prison for racketeering, is running for Congress.

    Is there a difference between a criminal and a politician anyway?

    1. The politicians are mostly lawyers too?

    2. The sentencing?

    3. I know criminals that I can trust, so there’s that.

    4. “open and notorious sexual acts”

      Would someone *kindly* translate this into civilian?

      1. I don’t know, but it sounds like fun.

      2. I don’t know, but it sounds like fun.

    5. At least mobsters have the sense and decency to racketeer behind the scenes.

  9. B.C. fracking challenged by environmental groups in court

    A coalition of environmental groups will be in B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver Monday arguing against the use of river and lake water for hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, for natural gas.

    1. But how to they feel about vaccination?

  10. I hope everyone is having a good White Folks Kwanzaa and/or Holi, as the case may be.

    1. Come on, baby, light my fire

  11. Jeffrey Sinclair? I thought he was out commanding Babylon 5.

  12. Former Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards (D), who served eight years in prison for racketeering, is running for Congress.

    He probably recognizes he has about as much chance this year as any other Democrat.

  13. Derranged janitor who savagely murdered a “sweet” 17 year old mother of two and another 19-year old good boy may still face charges.

    All they wanted to do was drink tea and eat skittles… Crazy gun owners! ANOTHER STAND YOUR GROUND MURDER!!!

    1. Were they just turning their lives around?

      1. FTA: “He wasn’t a bad kid. It’s just ? everybody makes bad decisions in their life. Things don’t go as planned. I wish the outcome would’ve been better,”

        Because good kids hold down an innocent man and beat him with a baseball bat.

        The comments are even better:
        “She wasn’t a thug! Unless you know her don’t even try to say anything! I knew her and she was one of the nicest people I met! She would do anything to make others happy! Don’t even try to say anything bad about her!!!”

        1. Things don’t go as planned. I wish the outcome would’ve been better…

          Like they would have killed the maintenance man? They would have gotten away with the murder of the maintenance man? That they would have been free to murder any person they perceived to have wronged them or their friends?

          Frankly, I think the outcome was pretty good.

          1. Two out of three ain’t bad, I guess. But it could have been better, yes… if all three thugs were put down.

        2. She would do anything to make others happy!

          That seems to be the problem.

          1. 17 and 2 kids. Yeah, probably.

    2. The first of your links is SF’d

        1. “Apparently, these people were mad that a friend of theirs was getting evicted. They thought ? apparently ? that he was the manager,” Braun said.

          So they beat him with a bat, nice.

          1. but they’re not thugs!

    3. It appears you SF’d the link. For shame, Sir.

    4. Oh and A vigil was held for the victims
      Look at those sweet, innocent faces! Robbed of life sooo young!

    5. Of course, carrying a gun is not about self-defense, it’s about asserting one’s rights to carry.

  14. Having charges dropped as part of a plea bargain != Being cleared

  15. A larger earthquake hit Chile, but did it trend on Twitter?

    California is finally using the Chilean model that Newt so pushed.

    1. “Small earthquake in Chile, not many dead.”

    2. I would love it if California adopted more Chilean models. Preferably in their prime and scantily clad.

    3. LA has plenty of people who aren’t from there and have never experienced an earthquake, so they overreact to minor ones. I remember my neighbor freaking out after a 2.5 years ago, having just moved from the east coast he was calling his friends at 1am saying “turn on the news!”

  16. I understand politicians are rats but what kind of rodent is Reid? Man, is there no end to his dirtiness?

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/…..d=22905068

    Apparently the FBI won’t help out in the investigation?

  17. Print the constitution on any receipt printer. HANDY!

    CONSTI2GO looks like a buzzer you might use as a contestant on Jeopardy, with a long cord at the end attached to a serial port (the big kind you once used to plug your printer into your computer). What’s unique about the device is that it actually has the entirety of the U.S. constitution built into it, with one purpose: When plugged into a standard receipt printer, it’ll override that printer’s interface and tell it to print the Constitution immediately.

    1. We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more PC Load Letter

    2. Would still be shorter than a regular CVS receipt.

      1. But does it come with valuable coupons?

        1. Mine seems to have an annual bill in the neighborhood of 24% of my annual income (fed taxes only).

        2. “Assert your Fourth Amendment rights get ONE DRUG DOG SEARCH FREE!”

        3. The right to keep and bear arms — 50% infringed

    3. serial port (the big kind you once used to plug your printer into your computer)

      The connector isn’t shown but that description sounds like a parallel port which used really big connectors. Serial printing was common during the very early days of home computing but had been overtaken by the parallel interface by the time of the IBM PC.

      1. Oh, and it’s not overriding the interface, it’s simply squirting data out the interface and the printer is doing what printers do and printing that data. Bad description.

        1. It’s an art project trying to describe itself in technical terms. That’s half the fun of it.

      2. They did use 25 pin connectors for serial ports too, but the opposite gender, I think. And not so much for printers.

  18. There was a 4.4-magnitude earthquake in Los Angeles, which wasn’t big enough to do much damage…

    Had it caused some destruction we could have taken the opportunity to blame Climate Change.

      1. hah! I nearly fell over.

      2. This one is even funnier
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiB7ny52-xw

        But that was the first somewhat serious earthquake in my life, so it made an impression.

        1. My friend in Boston IMed a still of that guy with “I heard you had an earthquake today,” but I hadn’t seen the video. I’d love to know how long that guy’s been in LA.

          Congrats on your first real quake. It’s one of the more fun features of living in CA.

          1. I actually slept through the Northridge quake when I was a kid. And that was 6.8 magnitude. It doesn’t register for me until it crosses into the 7.0 territory.

            1. Perhaps you were not in Northridge. I was. This morning.

              1. I’m downtown and live on the ninth floor of a building constructed in 1918. In theory, I should’ve felt this one.

                During the Northridge quake I was living in Agoura. It didn’t wake me up, my parents running into my room screaming like the world was ending (they’re NYers) did.

            2. When Northridge happened I was still terrified of earthquakes after the Loma Prieta quake in ’89. I would wake up when heavy trucks lumbered past, and was up before the shaking had really started. Now I just roll over and get more sleep.

      3. The VA earthquake one is better, IMO.

    1. Don’t forget how California’s economy would become a world-beater, what with all the stimulatin’

    2. isn’t climate change already responsible for the Malay airliner caper?

  19. Bolton: US Sanctions ‘So Weak It’s Embarrassing’

    Translation: “My war boner is stiff as a penny nail”.

  20. You know who else spent time in jail before running for national office…

    1. Nelson Mandela?

      1. excellent

    2. Nelson Mandela?

      1. Yeah, I didn’t refresh.

        1. You Ted S.’ed that up good.

  21. Speaking of piece of work progs:

    “Scott Brown may have moved to the Granite State, but we’re not going anywhere,” Warren wrote, according to TPM.

    This from an Oklahoma chick claiming to be part Cherokee.

    Let’s talk about American manufacturing but lemme first rev up my Bimmer, bitches!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..71017.html

  22. “”””the continued controversial exclusion of gay groups in them”””

    Are heterosexual groups allowed in the parade? Hetero Pride!!!!

    1. So, is Reason now taking the position that a privately organized parade should be required to include any and all comers?

      Or is Reason going to go all Total State and say that, since the parade is using the ROADZ, there’s nothing private about it and the State should dictate who marches, when, and how?

      1. Or possibly just reporting accurately that controversy exists over the exclusion of gay groups from the parade.

    2. Parades are fairly gay anyway.

  23. Former Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards (D), who served eight years in prison for racketeering, is running for Congress.

    Sounds like the perfect candidate for the job.

    It’s St. Patrick’s Day! That means booze, parades, and the continued controversial exclusion of gay groups in them.

    Gay “groups”?

    Is Reason turning collectivist all of a sudden?

    1. I don’t see what is controversial about excluding a group of people from a catholic celebration whose very lifestyle is anathema to catholic doctrine.

      1. I don’t think it’s an explicitly Catholic celebration, Sudden. The official website for the Boston St. Patrick’s Day parade squares it as a secular celebration of the expulsion of the British from Boston on St. Patrick’s Day.

        1901 was the very first celebration of Evacuation or St. Patrick’s Day Parade. It was on the 125th Anniversary, on the day General George Washington and the Continental Army forced the British to end the occupancy of Boston.

        1. Re: jessee.in.mb,

          No, it IS a Catholic and now a multi-denominational holiday.

          The origin of the parade may be secular but the celebration itself is 100% Catholic-Christian.

          1. Yes. Saint Patrick’s Day. I am familiar with St. Patrick and the bringing of Christianity to Ireland.

            The parade is secular and the “controversy” is over inclusion or exclusion in a parade with secular origins commemorating a military event that fell on a religious holiday run by a non-religious group.

            Sudden|3.17.14 @ 5:01PM

            I don’t see what is controversial about excluding a group of people from a catholic celebration whose very lifestyle is anathema to catholic doctrine.

            The parade is the celebration that Sudden is referencing. I’m sure you’d have a very hard time preventing gays from wearing green and downing Irish car bombs in the finest of religious traditions.

            1. The parade organizers are not excluding gay people, they are excluding organizations that explicitly gay.

      2. It doesn’t matter what you see. The controversy exists, so it is controversial. It’s one of those matter of fact thingies that doesn’t have to make sense to be true.

    2. Gay “groups”?

      Is Reason turning collectivist all of a sudden?

      Is it really that hard to understand? There are voluntarily organized groups of people who organize around issues related to gayness. People do form groups all on their own, you know?

      1. Re: Zeb,

        Is it really that hard to understand?

        To understand the existence of the groups themselves? NO. To understand why parade organizers don’t want to include certain groups in them? It would look like Reason can’t understand that people have the right to freely ASSOCIATE with whomsoever they wish.

      2. Re: Zeb,

        Is it really that hard to understand?

        To understand the existence of the groups themselves? NO. To understand why parade organizers don’t want to include certain groups in them? It would look like Reason can’t understand that people have the right to freely ASSOCIATE with whomsoever they wish.

        1. I don’t see Shackford or anyone else suggesting that the organizers of these groups do not have a right to exclude whomever they please (though I’d argue that in any case where public funds are used to support the parade, they don’t even have that).

          Just because they’re within their rights to do this doesn’t mean they aren’t assholes and horrible people for doing so.

          1. Doesn’t necessarily mean they are, either.

          2. Your version of free association lacks substance to the point of being useless.

        2. I haven’t seen anyone at reason suggest that the parade organizers ought to be compelled to include gay groups. They simply mention that they were excluded, which is true.

      3. Looks like the website squirrels are doing mischief again.

        1. Usually only happens to me at 3 PM.

  24. U.S. Navy SEALs boarded an oil tanker to prevent a Libyan militia group from selling the crude and returned the ship back to the country.

    While they were on board, did they ask if anyone had seen a plane from Malaysia? Geez do I have to think of everything?

  25. A third person injured in the crash of a car last week into a crowd at the South by Southwest festival in Austin, Texas, has died today. The driver faces capital murder charges for the other two deaths.

    When will it be the time to have a conversation about car control in this country? When will the insanity stop?

    1. In the AM links apparently Somalia now has a traffic commissioner.

      He says most cars should not be allowed on the roads.

      How Somalia has roads let alone cars was left unexplained.

    2. No one needs a car that can hold more than 7 litres of gas, right?

      1. Everyone should own a truck instead and if you have home invaders you should drive into your porch to scare them off.

  26. U.S. Navy SEALs boarded an oil tanker to prevent a Libyan militia group from selling the crude and returned the ship back to the country.

    The U.S. government will subsequently issue a bill to the current Libyan government asking for prompt payment for the taxpayer-funded services provided and… What are you guys laughing at???

  27. Im pretty sure when New Madrid lets go, a sinkhole is going to open up and swallow me.

    So Ive got that going for me.

    1. And I’ll be one of the early deaths when yellowstone decides to blow. Unfortunate I won’t get to witness the US embracing libertarian anarchy.

  28. Fred Phelps is on his way out, or so we hope.

    ESADIAF, already!!

    1. FRED PHELPS DIES, GAY-RIGHTS ACTIVISTS HARDEST HIT

      Patrick Fitzgerald of the LGBTQ Alliance, wearing a black armband, said, “it will be tough finding so perfect a hate figure. I suppose we could always use Rick Santorum…”

      1. “We can’t use Santorum, it may get too sticky.”

        1. Doesn’t that depend on the ratio of lube to shit? If the lube/shit ratio is too high I’d think it would be kind of slippery.

          In which case using Santorum could also be the first step on a slippery slope.

    2. You seem very angry today.

      You need some Black women hugging.

    1. Loki is a prankster, and he’s a badass.

      alternate joke: damn, it feels good to be a prankster…

    2. How much would it blow our minds here at reason to see the Obama administration had some genius end game in mind the entire time?

  29. TEQUILA!!!

    But stay away from 1800. That shit sucks.

    1. I’ve always found 1800 to be minimally acceptable.

    2. If you are going to drink Tequila make it an Anejo grade – or at the very least a Reposado. I don’t care what brand it is I don’t drink the standard grade (Blanco, silver, etc.).

  30. You have got to be fucking kidding me.

    Two women, one of whom I work with and adore, and a friend of hers were hula hooping to some music. I didn’t have a problem with this. What I did have a problem with is the line of men sitting on one bench facing the hoopers and gawking at them. It looked like something out of a strip club. When I brought this up to male coworkers, they didn’t see a problem with it. But for me it felt unsafe and to be honest, really embarrassing. That was the moment I decided to finally leave GitHub.

    1. women do the same shit if they see a “hot guy”. But it’s sexist for men to do this? *eyeroll*

    2. “Unsafe”?

      If the hoola-hoopers felt unsafe or embarrassed, they didn’t have to keep going.

      1. Horvath is like the emperor of China. It is death for a commoner to gaze upon her.

    3. That post has red flags all over it. So this woman has problems with founders, partners, partners’ wives, co-workers and enough of the online community that they ‘cheered’ when she left, but everyone else is the problem? Yeah sure.

      Fuck reason and its squirrels.

      1. If what she says about the wife is true then the wife is a total d-bag.

        I am confused how one woman being a d-bag to another woman has anything to do a “unsafe work environment for women” though.

    4. Pretty sure women (or really anyone) hula hoop to music at a social setting in order to be seen.

    5. For me, the fact that she would call men “gawking” at women hula hooping in the fucking workplace “unsafe” calls her entire narrative into quesiton.

      “AgathaTheWitch” summed it up pretty well on HN:

      I’m not the first to mention it but for me the big issue is the wife having access to private company information. That type of thing really does make me start thinking about Bitbucket (any other good alternatives dudes?).

      I don’t see a ton of sexism here though. A developer removing her code because she didn’t want to date him isn’t sexism. It’s unprofessional as hell and possibly a fireable offense depending on the circumstances, but it’s not about a generalized animosity toward women.

      The hula hoop thing too seems dumb. Maybe you had to be there? Were the male developers’ tongues out? Were they making obscene comments? Two ladies hula hooping in the middle of an office is likely to attract attention. Are men supposed to immediately duck and cover and avert their eyes? Seems like she’s over-reacting.

      Still, assuming everything stated in the article is true, it does raise questions about the founders’ judgment. I really like Github and this situation certainly is disappointing.

    6. And it’s certain those hula hooping women were not in any way enjoying being gawked at. No, that never ever happens.

      1. More evidence of sexism. God. Men are such pigs.

  31. Pop Quiz: was this published by the National Review or the Ron Paul Foreign Policy Institute?
    a nation acting to protect what it perceives to be life-or-death national interests…..is both insane and suicidal if it refrains from acting because of a raft of documents

  32. Former Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards (D), who served eight years in prison for racketeering, is running for Congress.

    1. Speaks for itself doesn’t it?

    2. Fucking squirrels ate the rest of my comment (I’m sure it has nothing to with me fucking up the HTML tags).

      *Stay classy, Lousy-ana!

      1. It’s messed up here today. I’ve lost a few comments.

  33. A third person injured in the crash of a car last week into a crowd at the South by Southwest festival in Austin, Texas, has died today. The driver faces capital murder charges for the other two deaths.

    Pro tip: don’t drunkenly crash a car into a crowd in a state that has the death penalty.

  34. Just to keep you guys informed on issues you couldn’t care less about, but the immaturity and madness of Quebec’s ethnic nationalism continues.

    Parti Quebecois leader Pauline ‘The Hobbit’ Marois recently said that there will be no borders erected by Quebec in the event of separation and that, oh, Quebec will get to keep Canada’s currency and passport and that they will continue to receive Canada’s transfer payments arguing they paid into it so it’s only fair they keep getting some – even thought thye freely choose to leave the Federation. A federation they joined. In the past, Quebecois assholes in the PQ added the Canadian military would continue to serve Quebec.

    As if the rest of Canada doesn’t exist. As if they will have no say in all that.

    Nothing screams independence like asking for mommy and daddy to pay the rent.

    Something tells me this time, Quebec will be told to fuck off.

    Bunch of derelict, racist mental cases.

    1. Seriously, as much as Canada has bent over backwards and beaten its collectivized head with a giant iron skillet to cater to Quebec, if Quebec secedes, I suspect the rest of Canada will officially tell them to fuck off.

      1. if Quebec secedes, I suspect the rest of Canada will officially tell them to fuck off.

        Hopefully. I mean I think what is holding back Quebec is their belief that the ROC owes them a bunch of free shit for conquering and repressing them. This attitude contributes to corruption and economic malaise.

      2. They will (Alberta’s voice will be that much stronger) and I suspect the U.S. will likely not recognize Quebec.

        It gets messier when you consider what could happen internally. The Natives (Mohawk and Cree) want nothing to do with the PQ and are willing to use violence to defend their lands which they consider part of a deal with Canada – not Quebec.

        Montreal, for its part, has started its own secessionist murmurs – and one I support.

        The nationalists, dreamers they are, refuse to acknowledge any of this is possible.

        1. I like the idea of secessions within secessions within secessions.

          1. And how about some of the municipalities upset about the 2001 merger that didn’t demerge in 2005?

            1. Secede! If you don’t like a movie, walk out.

              1. Outremont will rise again!

          2. Reminds me of the states that attempted to secede from the Confederacy during the U.S. Civil War when they realized the whole thing was about to go tits up.

            “Yeah, well I’m gonna go start my own rebellion! With blackjack! And hookers!”

            1. That might’ve worked if they’d done it in the first place. “What happens in the South stays in the South.”

    2. I’m confused, what leverage does Quebec imagine it would have after it seceded in order to demand all of these things? If they leave the federation, the rest of the Canadian federal government would have both the incentive and prerogative to tell them to piss up a rope, right? Obviously they could get away with not having a military, but if they engaged in any other attempts to influence Canadian policy, why would the Canadians do anything but laugh in their faces?

      1. They have little leverage accept for empty words and threats and Hydro.

        Quebec will isolate itself.

        This assholes don’t realize how good they have it within Confederation. Already we’re a branch plant U.S. economy, imagine Quebec on its own.

        They think all the ‘rational’ diplomacy will come from the other side.

    3. Sounds like the CIA is fomenting a separatist movement. I imagine this is because the DNC would gladly take Quebec and its leftist voters.

      1. Sounds like the CIA is fomenting a separatist movement.

        Next LRC/antiwar.com editorial?

  35. As I read the GitHub “sexism” allegations (see Coeus above), all I could think was, “The tech industry: not just for socially retarded men anymore!”

    Ditto with the “skeptic community” wrt Elevatorgate and whatnot.

    1. Yeah.

      I imagine any internet news room is identical to what is described in GitHub.

      Basically everyone fucking everyone else both literally and metaphorically….has nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with inflated self worth no moral center and horny 20 and 30somethings coop up in the same building with each other for 8 hours a day.

  36. Man talk about revealed versus stated preference.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W…..tion,_1933

    it was held on the same day as the secession referendum, which was passed by 68% of voters despite their choice of a party to lead the State who had persistently opposed secession

  37. The NRA shoots down a qualified nominee.

    ROFLMAO, looks like the Vivek Murthy nomination is DOA. Remember when the dems got rid of the evil filibuster so that Obama’s radical nominees could get confirmed? Obama is so thoroughly toxic now that he can’t even get a majority with 56 senators.

  38. U.S. Navy SEALs boarded an oil tanker to prevent a Libyan militia group from selling the crude and returned the ship back to the country.

    If we’re gonna just send in the SEALS then what’s the point of all the VBSS training the rest of us go through?

    1. This story is weird and scant on important details. How did the “militia” come by all of this oil? The only justification the article presents for the Libyan government demanding it back is that the Libyan government apparently believes that all of the oil in Libya belongs to it. This may or may not be true, but that strikes me as a Libyan problem to be worked out by Libyans.

      Are the SEALs just bagmen for any rich monopolists trying to protect their racket, now?

  39. There was a 4.4-magnitude earthquake in Los Angeles, which wasn’t big enough to do much damage, but was big enough to make sure nobody in Southern California talked about anything else for the rest of the day. A larger earthquake hit Chile, but did it trend on Twitter?

    I felt a very tiny, almost imperceptible swaying in my office this morning. It’s down in Long Beach so I guess that’s far enough for it to be nothing.

  40. Oddest part of the St. Patrick’s Day thing:

    “Both the Boston and New York City parades have removed lists of sponsors from their websites.”

    Doesn’t that kind of defeat the whole point of being a sponsor?

    1. Nope. The list only serves to give the SJW morons a list of companies to bitch about. The people they’re advertising to don’t give a shit.

      1. Yeah, but if the sponsor list is now kept secret, in what sense are the sponsors still “advertising to”?

        1. The people who see the advertisements at the parade. Who else?

  41. “U.S. Army Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair has been cleared of sex assault charges, but pleaded guilty of several lesser offenses that revolve around an extramarital affair with a junior officer.”

    So did it happen before or after he was sent back in time with Babylon 4 to lead the Minbari war effort against the Shadows?

    1. NERD!

  42. “It’s St. Patrick’s Day! That means booze, parades, and the continued controversial exclusion of gay groups in them.”

    The right to free association is very controversial. Why exactly should the private organizations which run the parades have to let homosexual activist groups piggyback on their free expression again?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.