Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

A.M. Links: Cantor Loses to Tea Party Rival, U.K. Banning Synthetic Drugs, Robbery Caught on Gamer's Live-Stream

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 6.11.2014 9:00 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
  • Sajadene/Facebook

    Tea Partiers never say die: Following a string of bad primary luck, Tea Party types have something to crow about after last night, when their guy—economics professor David Brat—defeated second-ranking House Republican Rep. Eric Cantor by 11 percentage points in Virginia's primary.

  • Facing stern condemnation from the American Cheese Society, the Food and Drug Administration backed down (at least for now) on a proposal to prohibit aging cheese on wooden boards.  
  • A decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday supports a fair use justification for mass book digitization. 
  • The UK is banning synthetic substances that mimic the effects of LSD and heroin. 
  • Life imitates Law & Order: Police were able to at least partially thwart an attempted robbery when it was caught on popular gamer Sajadene's live-stream.  
  • California's San Quentin State Prison is building a 40-bed inpatient mental health program for death row inmates. 
  • Bullet-resistant security blankets. You know, for kids. 

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. You can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up here.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Sheldon Richman on the Media's Dishonest Bergdahl Narrative

Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason.

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (469)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Fluffy   11 years ago

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/.....8678.story
    Eric Cantor's primary loss an 'apocalyptic moment' for the GOP
    Right, but which GOP?

    1. waffles   11 years ago

      Who won? Did I win?

      1. sloopyinva (previously -inca)   11 years ago

        Cantor lost, which means we all win.

        1. Mongo   11 years ago

          Are you in Virginia or a VA hospital, Sloop??

          1. sloopyinva (previously -inca)   11 years ago

            We're in Virginia now. Chantilly for a few more days till our apartment in Alexandria is ready.

            1. Fluffy   11 years ago

              Once in Alexandia go into the Penalty Box and have a beer for me...assuming it's still there, which I guess becomes a longer and longer shot as I get older.

              1. sloopyinva (previously -inca)   11 years ago

                It's changed names, but I'll give it a shot.

                http://www.bugsyspizza.com/aboutus.htm

                1. NoVAHockey   11 years ago

                  It's a fun spot.

                  1. Kaptious Kristen   11 years ago

                    I'm glad you all providing him with watering hole options, because the only one I ever frequented closed last year and I've been bereft ever since.

                    1. NoVAHockey   11 years ago

                      what closed?

                    2. Kaptious Kristen   11 years ago

                      Tiffany Tavern

                    3. Rhywun   11 years ago

                      I think we're alone now...

                    4. Clich? Bandit   11 years ago

                      There doesn't seem to be anyone around?

                    5. Kaptious Kristen   11 years ago

                      Not exactly that kinda place...

          2. An Innocent Man   11 years ago

            He's commenting thus he's alive thus clearly not in a VA hospital.

            1. Fluffy   11 years ago

              He could be on a waiting list, waiting to die without being seen by a doctor.

            2. sloopyinva (previously -inca)   11 years ago

              Question: is the wait longer in a VA hospital or here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj_inlzsDhQ

    2. KDN   11 years ago

      "Eric Cantor's loss tonight is an apocalyptic moment for the GOP establishment. The grassroots is in revolt and marching," said Brent Bozell, a veteran conservative activist and founder of the Media Research Center and ForAmerica.

      Really, couldn't include the one extra word, Trib?

      1. sloopyinva (previously -inca)   11 years ago

        "Eric Cantor's loss tonight is an apocalyptic moment for the GOP establishment cocksuckers. The grassroots is in revolt and marching," said Brent Bozell, a veteran conservative activist and founder of the Media Research Center and ForAmerica.

        Is that the extra word you were looking for? If so, FIFY,

        1. KDN   11 years ago

          Just pointing out the Tribune's sensationalism. It's a pretty important part of the quote.

          1. sloopyinva (previously -inca)   11 years ago

            I stand behind my accurate, if unflattering, edit.

          2. Ted S.   11 years ago

            Nobody was this sensationalistic when Ned Lamont beat Joe Lieberman.

            1. Virginian   11 years ago

              The politics were different. The GOP in CT is essentially a castrated Theon Greyjoy, and they eagerly lined up to support Lieberman instead of supporting the actual Republican, who could have won a three way race.

              VA has a sore loser law, so Cantor would have to run as a write in, not as an independent. It would be funny to see if he goes full Charlie Crist.

              1. AlexInCT   11 years ago

                The name is Reek, damn it!

    3. Rufus J. Firefly   11 years ago

      Hello.

      Scale of one to 10. Rate Cantor's defeat in the political scheme of things.

      1. Scruffy Nerfherder   11 years ago

        Meh. Wake me when they actually eliminate something from the federal government.

        1. Doctor Whom   11 years ago

          This. I'd love to draw all sorts of conclusions, but something something one data point.

      2. Bee Tagger   11 years ago

        Hold on, let me count my yawns and get back to you.

      3. Fluffy   11 years ago

        I give it a 6. 6 Santorums.

        1. SugarFree   11 years ago

          I believe that's a liter.

          1. gaijin   11 years ago

            I believe that's a liter.

            when shaken

            1. db   11 years ago

              Foamy!

              1. Ska   11 years ago

                Cappuccino never sounded so unappealing.

                1. Ted S.   11 years ago

                  Cappuccino has never sounded appealing.

                  /drinks coffee black, no sugar

                  1. gimmeasammich   11 years ago

                    Cappuccino has never sounded appealing.

                    /drinks coffee black, no sugar

                    As my grandfather used to say to the waitresses on many road trips to Colorado I took with him as a kid, "I like my coffee like I like my women: hot, black, and first thing in the morning."

                    1. Clich? Bandit   11 years ago

                      MY favorite is a Navy Lt friend of mine when at some Officers gathering with his black girlfriend (he is white) he said "I like my coffee like I like my women. Bitter."

                      I would have paid to see the reactions.

                    2. gimmeasammich   11 years ago

                      That was his other response. "Cold, dark and bitter."

      4. sloopyinva (previously -inca)   11 years ago

        I'd say right now it's a 6. If Brat wins the general, I'd say it's an 8 or 9.

        1. robc   11 years ago

          He is in a strong R district, hard to believe he will lose general.

    4. PBR Streetgang   11 years ago

      Until recently I lived in the 7th District and this is nothing short of stunning to me. I know nothing of Brat, but good on him.

      1. Steve G   11 years ago

        yeah, and here I thought being outspent 10 to 1 makes election unpossible!

        1. gaijin   11 years ago

          I thought being outspent 10 to 1 makes election unpossible!

          only Koch money has magical powers

        2. PM   11 years ago

          Note the conspicuous absence of Tony from any thread since the news broke...

          1. Restoras   11 years ago

            He'll be around.

          2. Scruffy Nerfherder   11 years ago

            He's still downloading his talking points.

    5. entropy_factor   11 years ago

      not saying this guy is gold standard libertarian, but I will take 90% ..

      1. BakedPenguin   11 years ago

        [Brat] wrote that "the government holds a monopoly on violence" because it enforces the law.

        Yeah, I'd vote for him.

        1. entropy_factor   11 years ago

          yeah and I love how WSJ was simply shocked to hear this kind of rhetoric LOL

          1. TANSTaaFL   11 years ago

            Also the WSJ felt the need to publish this headline,
            "David Brat's Writings: Hitler's Rise 'Could All Happen Again'"

            The fairly innocuous and uncontroversial quote was in the context of how christians should have more concern for and be proactive in standing up to injustice done to others.

            Specifically, "We appear to be a bit passive. Hitler came along, and he did not meet with unified resistance. I have the sinking feeling that it could all happen again, quite easily. The church should rise up higher than Nietzsche could see and prove him wrong. We should love our neighbor so much that we actually believe in right and wrong, and do something about it. If we all did the right thing and had the guts to spread the word, we would not need the government to backstop every action we take."

            Was the "this-guy-thinks-Hitler-is-[insert something crazy here]-insinuation really necessary, WSJ? I thought it was a Salon article at first glance that was so bad.

            1. TANSTaaFL   11 years ago

              Could do without the Jebus talk, but am willing to tolerate it because of this oh-so-important-and-rare disclaimer he included:

              Can Christians force others to follow their ethical teachings on social issues? Note that consistency is lacking on all sides of this issue. The political Right likes to champion individual rights and individual liberty, but it has also worked to enforce morality in relation to abortion, gambling, and homosexuality. The Left likes to think of itself as the bulwark of progressive liberal individualism, and yet it seeks to progressively coerce others to fund every social program under the sun via majority rule. Houston, we have a problem. Coercion is on the rise. What is the root word for liberalism? (Answer: Liberty)

              He speaks in a surprisingly sane and libertarian fashion.

              It's funny to think liberal media is in panic mode about a republican who thinks he shouldn't force his morals on US citizens and is therefore liberal on homosexuality, gambling and abortion.

        2. robc   11 years ago

          At best, the government has an oligopoly on violence.

          And long as self defense laws exist, they dont have a monopoly.

          #libertarianmemesthatihate

          1. Whahappan?   11 years ago

            It would be more (but not perfectly) accurate to say the government has a "legal" monopoly on the INITIATION of violence.

      2. Restoras   11 years ago

        90%? Sounds like Purity Test Fail. What does the Arbiter have to say about this?

        1. Fluffy   11 years ago

          I am suspect of the Divinity School stuff, but like what I have read of his writings so far.

          1. Ted S.   11 years ago

            What do you have against divinity?

    6. Lord Humungus   11 years ago

      Suck it, Cantor /and then LH slinks back into the shadows

      1. sloopyinva (previously -inca)   11 years ago

        A "suck it Cantor" divided by you slinking back into the shadows = ?????

        Could one of our resident mathematicians complete the equation, please.

        1. UnCivilServant   11 years ago

          We got a divide by zero error, the wasteland has no shadows from the harsh, 24-hour sun and level terrain.

        2. Lord Humungus   11 years ago

          harsh crowd

          *slinks back into the shadow on the ground, underneath his nitrous oxide murder machine*

  2. Fluffy   11 years ago

    YAH BITCHEZ

  3. Snark Plissken   11 years ago

    The UK is banning synthetic substances that mimic the effects of LSD and heroin.

    AKA blood pudding.

  4. Fluffy   11 years ago

    Top 3?

    1. Fluffy   11 years ago

      No.

      1. Snark Plissken   11 years ago

        Intercepted!

  5. invisible furry hand   11 years ago

    Obama Praises Australia's Gun Confiscation

    http://www.nationalreview.com/.....-c-w-cooke

    1. Jordan   11 years ago

      MOST 2nd AMENDMENT FRIENDLY PRESIDENT EVAR!!1

      /shriek

    2. WTF   11 years ago

      And yet the proggies will claim "no one wants to take your guns! That's just hype!"

    3. wareagle   11 years ago

      an article that the typical progtard gun grabber will either miss or agree with, though I'm leaning toward miss because one thing about progtards is their reluctance to be honest about their goals on things like gun control.

    4. KDN   11 years ago

      Nonsense. Why, yesterday afternoon I just heard him say that he respects gun rights, which means he would never stoop to such a policy. Are you calling POTUS a liar?

      1. Shirley Knott   11 years ago

        Isn't everyone in the reality-based community?
        Truth is an absolute defense against libel and slander.

      2. gaijin   11 years ago

        he respects gun rights

        where gun rights means the right people (aka cops) have the guns.

        1. gimmeasammich   11 years ago

          Except when they are in Cambridge and "act stupidly."

    5. Rich   11 years ago

      It is beyond astonishing that a president who considers his failure to reform the background-check system to be the defining low-point of his presidency has not yet bothered to acquaint himself with how that system actually operates.

      "There's no advanced, developed country on earth that would put up with this."

    6. Rufus J. Firefly   11 years ago

      Just the other day he said this sort of thing (shootings) don't EVER happen in any civilized country. Which of course, is beyond astonishingly disingenuous and not factual. Only a lying sack of shit would make a public claim like that since there have been shootings around the world from Norway to Germany to Dumberlane (remember that one?) and even here in Canada where we've had three.

      Now he's realized Australia had a shooting? All to pimp his lazy-assed gun-control narrative?

      Unreal.

      1. Rufus J. Firefly   11 years ago

        That's the quote I heard, Rich.

        Here's a list of shootings. I can't believe he would make such a statement.

        http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

        It doesn't include the Polytechnique massacre in Montreal in 1986. That was pretty bad.

        May as well add the latest shooting in Moncton. Canada has had its fair share I reckon.

      2. Medical Physics Guy   11 years ago

        (Dunblane.)

        1. Medical Physics Guy   11 years ago

          I might add that UK has a long history of knife crime epidemics, including London today, and Glasgow pretty much since always, which are no joke. No, knives can't mow down a room full of people at once while standing in one position. Other than that, they're deadly and silent.

          1. sloopyinva (previously -inca)   11 years ago

            Yeah, little bit of pain never hurt anybody. If you know what I mean. Also, I think knives are a good idea. Big, fuck-off shiny ones. Ones that look like they could skin a crocodile. Knives are good, because they don't make any noise, and the less noise they make, the more likely we are to use them. Shit 'em right up. Makes it look like we're serious. Guns for show, knives for a pro.

            1. Medical Physics Guy   11 years ago

              Had to look that one up.

            2. Ska   11 years ago

              Fucking northern monkies.

              1. sloopyinva (previously -inca)   11 years ago

                Fucking southern fairies.

            3. Slumbrew   11 years ago

              I'm not sure what's more worrying. The job or your past.

        2. Rufus J. Firefly   11 years ago

          Yes. Shit, sorry. Dunno where that came from.

      3. Suthenboy   11 years ago

        "...beyond astonishingly disingenuous and not factual."

        Has he ever been different?

    7. Rufus J. Firefly   11 years ago

      By the way, hasn't there since been a backlash against gun confiscation in Australia? I believe there was a report that showed gun crime went up after it took place.

      1. invisible furry hand   11 years ago

        No-one's really sure what the effect has been on homicide or suicide rates. There have been no mass shootings since the buyback, but that's about all that anyone can say with any certainty.

        1. Raven Nation   11 years ago

          And the whole thing was bizarre anyway. To the best of my knowledge, the number of mass shootings prior to the Port Arthur massacre was zero.

          Unless, of course, you count some of the Aboriginal massacres in the 19th century.

          1. invisible furry hand   11 years ago

            Off the top of my head there were Milperra, Hoddle Street, and Queen Street, plus a few sprees and family killings in the 1980s. But yeah, and also in response to Rhywun below, they weren't that common anyway

            1. Raven Nation   11 years ago

              SHIT, my memory is screwed. Thanks for the reminder. Milperra to me seems not an outlier but something a little different to the average mass shooting.

              BTW: day before I came back to the US I caught the first part of a documentary on police violence in Victoria in the 1980s (?). I think on ABC - did you see that.

        2. Rhywun   11 years ago

          The population of the US is more than 12 times that of Australia. IMHO the lack of "mass shooting" since then doesn't prove anything.

    8. Suthenboy   11 years ago

      What he fails to mention is that Australia's crime rate is off the charts and mass shootings in the US are down.

      Lying liars lie.

      1. invisible furry hand   11 years ago

        Australia's crime rate is off the charts

        Where did you get that from?

        1. Raven Nation   11 years ago

          Did you decide to go to Dark MOFO?

        2. Raven Nation   11 years ago

          Yeah, that surprised me too. Hard to find accurate info, but this:

          http://tinyurl.com/meao6hl

          suggests a measurable decline in homicide rates.

          1. Virginian   11 years ago

            Do they track homicides UK style?

            1. Raven Nation   11 years ago

              Not sure of the distinction - clarification?

              One of the tables did make a distinction between murder and manslaughter but the link above shows both rates on the same chart.

              1. Virginian   11 years ago

                In the UK, they only count the solved ones as homicides. Here in the US, unsolved homicides go on the books as homicides.

                1. Raven Nation   11 years ago

                  Did not know that. I assumed the Australian numbers were all but now I'm not sure.

                  1. Virginian   11 years ago

                    Yeah. Some people, and I'm among them, think that if you measured UK murder stats with the American system, they'd have a lot more murders.

  6. Jordan   11 years ago

    In the interest of public health, the FDA's current regulations state that utensils and other surfaces that contact food must be "adequately cleanable" and properly maintained. Historically, the FDA has expressed concern about whether wood meets this requirement and has noted these concerns in inspectional findings. FDA is always open to evidence that shows that wood can be safely used for specific purposes, such as aging cheese.

    Sounds like they're just biding their time.

    1. Fluffy   11 years ago

      FDA is always open to evidence that shows that wood can be safely used for specific purposes, such as aging cheese.

      Other than the evidence of the three millennia when people have been safely using wood shelves to age cheese.

      They mean some OTHER kind of evidence.

      1. RBS   11 years ago

        Those are just anecdotes Fluffy. The American People deserve hard, scientific facts like those produced by the government.

        1. Rufus J. Firefly   11 years ago

          How many anecdotes does it take to make a hard pattern.

          Dumberlane. Wtf?

          1. R C Dean   11 years ago

            One, if the pattern is the Narrative.

        2. Trouser-Pod   11 years ago

          The American People deserve hard, scientific facts like those produced by the government.

          ^This. I would pay good money to see Kennedy use this line at some point on TI

    2. invisible furry hand   11 years ago

      Who wants aged cheese on their erection?

      1. Scruffy Nerfherder   11 years ago

        ewwwwwwww

      2. Pope Jimbo   11 years ago

        Dude, check you intact privilege.

        The circumcised shouldn't be othered just because they no longer have the means to age cheese on their wood.

        1. entropy_factor   11 years ago

          magnificent, simply superb. +1

      3. sloopyinva (previously -inca)   11 years ago

        So you're gonna turn this into a circumcision thread, IFH?

        1. invisible furry hand   11 years ago

          I imagine myself striding away purposefully while AM Links explodes behind me.

          It could have been worse sloopy - I could have linked it to pizza too

          1. sloopyinva (previously -inca)   11 years ago

            Linking to pizza is fine. I think everyone here of decent moral fiber agrees with me on that.

            Linking to deep-dish, on the other hand...

            1. UnCivilServant   11 years ago

              +1 New York Foldable slice

      4. Ted S.   11 years ago

        For any sexual kink you can think of, somebody else will find it a fetish.

        1. Brett L   11 years ago

          An implied corollary of Rule 34.

    3. Scruffy Nerfherder   11 years ago

      Someone please give me the statistics on all of the cheese deaths.

      1. invisible furry hand   11 years ago

        eleventy thousand hundreds every month. All of them really cute children with big sad eyes.

        1. UnCivilServant   11 years ago

          Yay! We need to remove our surplus sad-eyed chilluns. They can't then be used in annoying heartstrings adverts.

          1. Rhywun   11 years ago

            The ones who aren't already working in our factories, you mean.

      2. RBS   11 years ago

        I;m sure it would include all cheese related deaths like guy who choked on a cheese ball at 3AM, guy who was gunned down in a mass shooting while buying cheese etc...

      3. Doctor Whom   11 years ago

        Statistics? Listen, you heartless bastard: If only one cheese-related death is prevented (or you can't prove that it hasn't been), it will all have been worth it.

        1. Scruffy Nerfherder   11 years ago

          The FDA unveiled its new 7 billion dollar program designed to fight the scourge of accidental popsicle chokings today.

      4. kinnath   11 years ago

        Everyone that eats cheese aged on a wooden board dies eventually -- 100% fatality rate.

      5. Trouser-Pod   11 years ago

        Philip Jenkinson probably has those.

        1. Trouser-Pod   11 years ago

          ^That was for Scruffy.

  7. WTF   11 years ago

    Bullet-resistant security blankets. You know, for kids.

    It would definitely help when the cops throw flash bangs through your window and bust in your door shooting at 3 AM.

    1. Ted S.   11 years ago

      **** you, WTF!

      (This is what happens when you click "Preview" to make certain the server squirrels aren't acting up.)

    2. hamilton   11 years ago

      We all know the only real security blanket is the warm, calming, burning embrace of our beloved overlords in government.

      1. gaijin   11 years ago

        Government issued woobies for the kids. Safety and security blankets for the win. Liberty for the loss.

  8. Ted S.   11 years ago

    Bullet-resistant security blankets. You know, for kids.

    Are they flash-bang grenade-resistant, too?

    1. Restoras   11 years ago

      Sure Sure!

  9. SugarFree   11 years ago

    Are you ready to be scolded and sexted?

    1. WTF   11 years ago

      So "Ready for Hillary" is a real slogan they are going with. I guess because Obama got everyone all lubed up and loose.

      1. Scruffy Nerfherder   11 years ago

        ewwwwwwww

      2. waffles   11 years ago

        I read on here that she may have dong of a clit. A clitdong.

        1. SugarFree   11 years ago

          It's actually a pseudo-penis, or reversible vagina, like a hyena.

          1. waffles   11 years ago

            So that explains Whoopi Goldberg's voice role in The Lion King.

          2. Tejicano   11 years ago

            Well, she does seem to have the right attitude to be a hyena so... ...yeah.

          3. Medical Physics Guy   11 years ago

            TIL...something I wish I hadn't.

      3. RBS   11 years ago

        I will not give her my enthusiastic consent.

      4. VG Zaytsev   11 years ago

        "what difference does it make"

    2. Ted S.   11 years ago

      Some people would find that a turn-on.

    3. invisible furry hand   11 years ago

      You can't post that and not give us some Hilldog sexts

      1. SugarFree   11 years ago

        Even I am not that cruel.

      2. gaijin   11 years ago

        Hilldoggy-style

    4. Bee Tagger   11 years ago

      So they *want* the phrase "it can wait" to immediately jump to mind when someone sees ReadyForHillary??

      1. SugarFree   11 years ago

        Or the equally doubting "but are we?"

        The only evidence of "readiness" for Hillary is that Obama can't run again. "Ready For Hillary" is just another way she stomping her hooves and scream-weeping "It's MY turn!"

        Hillary Clinton is little more than a horribly aged Veruca Salt.

        1. BakedPenguin   11 years ago

          She is definitely a Seether.

        2. EDG reppin' LBC   11 years ago

          Veruca Salt

  10. Bee Tagger   11 years ago

    The UK is banning synthetic substances that mimic the effects of LSD and heroin.

    Doesn't banning things give most legislators a high that mimics the effects of LSD and heroin?

    1. PD Scott   11 years ago

      Side effects include shoulder strain (from patting one's self on the back), smugness, irrationality and re-election.

  11. Rich   11 years ago

    Facing stern condemnation from the American Cheese Society

    "There is no whey we will stand for this!"

    1. Fluffy   11 years ago

      Thread over.

    2. hamilton   11 years ago

      I am in awe.

    3. Swiss Servator, CH yeah!   11 years ago

      *narrows gaze, grumbles*

    4. Pro Libertate   11 years ago

      Blessed are the cheesemakers.

  12. Snark Plissken   11 years ago

    California's San Quentin State Prison is building a 40-bed inpatient mental health program for death row inmates.

    Dead man sharing.

  13. Aloysious   11 years ago

    Thanks, ENB, for beating the server skwerls into submission. Now if you could just do something about the little grey squirrels that are eyeing the artisanal corn I planted in my garden...

    1. R C Dean   11 years ago

      .22 rifle. Sub-sonic ammo. Fun for the whole family!

  14. Virginian   11 years ago

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breit.....rgara-Case

    A Los Angeles Superior Court judge has struck down teacher tenure as unconstitutional, ruling in the highly-anticipated Vergara v. California case that such protections "disproportionately affect poor and/or minority students." Judge Rolf Treu found that laws granting tenure after two years, prioritizing seniority in layoffs, and making it difficult to fire teachers violate state constitutional guarantees of adequate public education.

    This is fucking huge. I'm stealing analysis from Ace.

    This decision puts three critical blocs of the Leftist Coalition in direct and unavoidable conflict: Wealthy and Middle Class Suburban and Urban Liberals (who want to keep their own schools good), Poor Minorities, and the Teachers Unions.

    Only two of these three can "win" here. For years the two winners have been the Wealthier White Liberals and the Teachers Unions. Wealthier White Liberals supported the Teachers Unions incompetents, and pretended not to notice that all those incompetents were being assigned to minority schools.

    Now a judge says that Poor Minorities cannot be the loser -- which means one of the other two must be the loser. Either Wealthy White Liberals take their fair share of these incompetent teachers, or the Teachers Unions will have to lose them as teachers.

    1. wareagle   11 years ago

      "disproportionately affect poor and/or minority students."

      this describes most of the failings of the public school system, which has to be the plan. Hard to have a base of support for ever-expanding govt and entitlements if you don't have a class of people to whom that would appeal. That this class fails to realize it is voting against its own interests is just part of it.

    2. WTF   11 years ago

      The salty ham tears will be delicious.

    3. Ted S.   11 years ago

      Nobody taking their share of the incompetent teachers would be the best. For the children, you know.

    4. gaijin   11 years ago

      Either Wealthy White Liberals take their fair share of these incompetent teachers, or the Teachers Unions will have to lose them as teachers.

      Sounds like a job for Busing 2.0!

      1. Restoras   11 years ago

        Why do I feel like incompetent teachers will just end up in other school districts, just like incompetent cops end up in other PDs?

        1. Virginian   11 years ago

          At least the fuckers will have to move to find another cushy job.

  15. Virginian   11 years ago

    http://www.roadandtrack.com/ca.....2-on-gta-v

    Terminator 2 chase scene recreated in Grand Theft Auto.

    1. R C Dean   11 years ago

      I am in awe.

    2. gimmeasammich   11 years ago

      That was pretty awesome.

  16. Jordan   11 years ago

    Dad Arrested For Picking Up Kids At School By Foot

    A Tennessee father was arrested recently by an overzealous officer for picking his children up at school by foot. The school's policy is that children can only be picked up by parents driving cars or kids can board a school bus.

    1. invisible furry hand   11 years ago

      No correlation between enforced inaction and childhood obesity, of course

      1. Restoras   11 years ago

        Food deserts, duh.

    2. Rich   11 years ago

      Meh. LBJ picked his dogs up by ear.

    3. Bee Tagger   11 years ago

      Would Romney have been arrested for strapping them to the roof of his car?

    4. Scruffy Nerfherder   11 years ago

      That's a fist in the face moment right there.

    5. Virginian   11 years ago

      So they're fighting against childhood obesity, but also banning walking?

      Typical government.

    6. Jordan   11 years ago

      Corrected link...

      1. Certified Public Asskicker   11 years ago

        2013?

        1. Jordan   11 years ago

          Is there a statute of limitations on A.M. links?

          1. UnCivilServant   11 years ago

            It has to still be online.

            Otherwise, it's hard to link to.

          2. Certified Public Asskicker   11 years ago

            We need Ted to confirm, but I think it is a duplicate link anyway.

            But, since it seems to be new news to at least 5 people, I will let it slide.

          3. Clich? Bandit   11 years ago

            I do recall this from last year

    7. R C Dean   11 years ago

      Since when is violating school policy a criminal offense?

    8. MJGreen   11 years ago

      That got a fair amount of attention here last year.

  17. SugarFree   11 years ago

    The UK is banning synthetic substances that mimic the effects of LSD and heroin.

    Because LSD and heroin are naturally occurring.

    1. KDN   11 years ago

      Bayer is a subsidiary of Gaia herself.

    2. Rich   11 years ago

      "Without chemicals, life itself would be impossible."

      1. SugarFree   11 years ago

        "Without chemicals, he points."

    3. Brett L   11 years ago

      Well, I would say both are distilled essences of nature (ergot and opium poppies, respectively).

      1. SugarFree   11 years ago

        But distilling is a "synthetic" process.

        1. Brett L   11 years ago

          Actually, I don't think either uses even starter chemicals from the plant (cocaine would have been a better example, as it is derived directly from the plant). Heroin is definitely a synthetic opiate. Pretty sure LSD was synthesized from organic compounds that don't come from ergot. I'm just being a dick.

          1. SugarFree   11 years ago

            So was I. 🙂

          2. BakedPenguin   11 years ago

            Heroin breaks down into morphine in the body. Heroin is just a delivery system for morphine.

            From what I've heard, an awesome delivery system, but still.

        2. Pro Libertate   11 years ago

          If everything man does is bad, does that mean that human biological processes are also inherently bad?

          1. UnCivilServant   11 years ago

            Well, we are carbon emitters.

            1. Pro Libertate   11 years ago

              Why not ban carbon dioxide and, just to be sure, all carbon atoms? Or, at least, make it a controlled substance?

              1. Homple   11 years ago

                The EPA is trying.

      2. invisible furry hand   11 years ago

        Actually heroin is not natural - you're thinking of morphine. You have to add two acetyl groups to morphine to get Heroin (which is a trade mark)

        1. UnCivilServant   11 years ago

          (which is a trade mark)

          Not in the US, we got it genericized as war reparations from WWI, along with Aspirin.

    4. PM   11 years ago

      I was hoping I wouldn't be the only one to realize how retarded that sounds.

  18. Jordan   11 years ago

    From Canuckistan:

    Cyberbullying law would let police 'remotely hack into computers, mobile devices, or cars'

    OTTAWA ? The Harper government's new cyberbullying legislation includes little-noticed provisions that would allow police to remotely gain entry to computers and track cellphone users' movements, privacy experts warn.

    1. Scruffy Nerfherder   11 years ago

      Foreseeable consequences are not unintended

      1. R C Dean   11 years ago

        [smiles, nods]

    2. wareagle   11 years ago

      yup, no potential for anything going wrong there.

      1. db   11 years ago

        But self driving cars? Totally different.

    3. Rufus J. Firefly   11 years ago

      These conservatives are for all intents and purposes neo-cons.

  19. Virginian   11 years ago

    http://pjmedia.com/davidsteinb.....ic-cantor/

    Most importantly ? do not undersize the significance of this ? Team Brat just put together the playbook for using the grassroots and new media to win as a conservative, because no challenger will face a more experienced, well-funded, by-any-means-necessary incumbent team than Brat just did.

    If you can make it in Cantortown, you can make it anywhere.

  20. sarcasmic   11 years ago

    Hillary told secret service agent who refused to carry her bag to 'get the f*** away from me,' and treated her detail like hired help but Bill was a softie . . . says former agent in bombshell book

    Dan Emmett was a Secret Service agent with the Presidential Protective Unit and guarded George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush
    Hillary was said to have hurled a book at the back of the head of one agent
    Bill was always friendly with the agents, inquiring about their families, making small talk, posing for pictures
    Out of shape agents were expected to keep up with the extremely fit Clinton on his daily runs, as well as carry a pistol and a radio
    Agents travel on a special plane with the limos and Suburbans and do not have to go through customs
    One agent brought home a brass bed, another a large supply of wine; many more unmentionables came home

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....xpose.html

    1. Virginian   11 years ago

      the extremely fit Clinton on his daily runs

      Clinton was extremely fit? Huh?

      1. waffles   11 years ago

        Dude ran a marathon in like 5 hours.

        1. Virginian   11 years ago

          Is that good? I mean, Clinton has always been chubby to fat, from what I remember. W was always running and cycling, he's a lean dude. But I don't recall Clinton being in what I would call good shape ever.

          1. Brett L   11 years ago

            It ain't bad for someone who took up the sport after age 40.

          2. UnCivilServant   11 years ago

            4 hours is Kenyan upland speed. 5 Is fantastic for an American.

            1. Medical Physics Guy   11 years ago

              Bzzt! Competitive Kenyans hit around 2:10. Lance Armstrong was one second under 3 hours and, jokes aside, he's a major cardio athlete.

              1. UnCivilServant   11 years ago

                I cede the point, my memory was flawed.

            2. Rufus J. Firefly   11 years ago

              Hang on.

              5 is a bit high.

              4 (stretch to 4:30) is better.

              It 'should' be done in 3 to 3:45.

            3. Restoras   11 years ago

              4 for a Kenyan is a National Disaster.

              1. waffles   11 years ago

                More like 4 for a Kenyan is walking to school.

                1. UnCivilServant   11 years ago

                  I get it, I screwed up.

                  1. Brett L   11 years ago

                    Grovel, Servant!

                    1. UnCivilServant   11 years ago

                      You haven't filed the proper forms, I need a P1-550(f) subsection f with an attached ID-10(t).

      2. db   11 years ago

        He was the first President I.can recall who ran frequently.in.public. I seem to.remember there was some.controversy about concern trolls being shocked at the risk he was taking, and the.extra effort he.put the Secret Service.through, back.I. the.'90s.

        1. db   11 years ago

          There was even a scene in a popular movie.of the.time,e (guess which.one) that referenced it rather shockingly.

          1. Florida Man   11 years ago

            The professional?

            1. db   11 years ago

              Yep.

    2. Ted S.   11 years ago

      I can't wait to read what they'll have to say about Michelle Obama.

      1. Certified Public Asskicker   11 years ago

        Can curl more than her husband.

        1. WTF   11 years ago

          Pretty low bar.

          1. Homple   11 years ago

            No, he meant "weights that are heavier than her husband".

      2. BakedPenguin   11 years ago

        Barry, too. I can't believe either of them treat agents as anything other than hired help.

        1. sloopyinva (previously -inca)   11 years ago

          My BiL was commander of the MP's at Belvoir for a while when Obama was first elected. His treatment of the soldiers there that assisted the SS guys was horrific.

          I will spare you all the details but will give one anecdote: there were two units there and one was rotating to Iraq in two days while the other just rotated back a couple of days earlier. Obama came to play golf and that required all of them to be present the entire day (since he did not tell them when he was coming) and be away from their families the entire time. That day was Fathers Day.

          1. invisible furry hand   11 years ago

            Did he know that's the effect of this? Just want to know if he's a moron or an arsehole.

            Oh, and it's interesting a father of two young kids bailed on Fathers' Day

            1. sloopyinva (previously -inca)   11 years ago

              Oh, he had to know. The SS liaison apologized to my BiL profusely. Apparently they asked O to please go play somewhere else for that specific reason and he said no because (no shit here) he can kick everybody out of the or shop at Belvoir so nobody can see him on the practice tee because it annoys him.

              Oh, and one of my nieces with a foul mouth said she was happy "that asshole" wasn't going to be around anymore when they moved to PHX and he was out in charge of a reserve unit.

              Of course, he's Provost Marshall at West Point now, so they had the pleasure of seeing him last week. And let's just say that his commencement speech wasn't well-received by the officer corps there or by the newly commissioned cadets.

          2. BakedPenguin   11 years ago

            Class act.

    3. Scruffy Nerfherder   11 years ago

      The anecdote I got from an acquaintance who has an ex-Secret Service buddy is that Hillary screwed around more than Bill, only with more tongue.

      1. sarcasmic   11 years ago

        I heard something similar, about lesbian perfume parties or some other weird shit.

        1. Libertymike   11 years ago

          A high school buddy who enlisted in the Marines was assigned to Camp David where he claims to have regularly sniffed Nancy Reagan's undies.

          1. invisible furry hand   11 years ago

            What did they smell of?

            1. SugarFree   11 years ago

              Death.

          2. Brett L   11 years ago

            where he claims to have regularly sniffed Nancy Reagan's undies.

            Was he bulimic? I mean, Marines have a certain reputation for not being wired to spec, but that...

            1. John   11 years ago

              I will have to tell my dad that one. He is a former Marine and I am pretty sure that will gross even him out, but it won't surprise him.

        2. WTF   11 years ago

          Anthony Weiner's wife, Huma Abedin, was widely rumored to be Hilldog's squeeze.

    4. UnCivilServant   11 years ago

      Adipose doesn't stop bullets very well, what good is an out-of-shape bodyguard?

    5. Aloysious   11 years ago

      Hillary Clinton.

      Class. Act.

      1. sarcasmic   11 years ago

        Like school at five in the morning.

    6. John   11 years ago

      That Hillary was totally insufferable and despised by the Secret Service has been known but unpublished for a bit. If you know SS agents, they never tell tails but they will hint about who is a decent person and who isn't. Both sets of Bush's husband and wife were universally loved. Bill was not loved but respected and generally liked and Hillary was universally loathed. That is the impression I have always gotten.

    7. MJGreen   11 years ago

      I saw the Clintons at a small Christmas caroling performance at the Met museum. And it looked as you imagine it would and how this guy describes it: Bill looked happy and just going with the flow, kinda silently working the crowd, while Hillary was uptight and impatient.

  21. sarcasmic   11 years ago

    Dog's best friend: Hero cop braves murky lake to rescue Moochie the chihuahua from inside a submerged pickup truck

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....truck.html
    I'm sure he's the butt of ridicule at the department being that he's supposed to shoot dogs, not save them.

    1. Virginian   11 years ago

      We found the good cop!

    2. invisible furry hand   11 years ago

      He put the dog in the submerged pickup truck first, so honour is maintained

  22. Rich   11 years ago

    DC looking at implementing a 5.75% tax on gyms, yoga studios & health club services

    Paging FLOTUS ?.

    1. Ted S.   11 years ago

      They could just use the YMCA across the street.

      1. SugarFree   11 years ago

        Jogging around Anacostia is free.

        1. Certified Public Asskicker   11 years ago

          Obviously we need a running tax. I mean, you can't run on sidewalks without also paying for them.

    2. Swiss Servator, CH yeah!   11 years ago

      Now we will see the revolt of the SWPL masses!

    3. Kaptious Kristen   11 years ago

      This is nothing but a money grab, related to this. They started salivating and hallucinating piles of cash the moment they read it.

  23. Brett L   11 years ago

    This will certainly not get the same coverage as school shootings, but one dad is glad he practices with his pistol. Good shoot, dad.

    The girl's father and mother witnessed the abduction, and both retrieved their guns. When McClinton and Johnson entered, the father fired several shots, hitting both men. The girl's mother fired one shot but missed.

    1. Ted S.   11 years ago

      The man is a good shot; the woman isn't. This is why there are no female libertarians, or something....

      1. Restoras   11 years ago

        Unclear? The father fired 'several' shots but how many found their targets? Granted if the woman fired once and missed her hit rate is zero, but better to fire once and be sure than to just unload a magazine in a general direction?

        1. Brett L   11 years ago

          He didn't hit his daughter and wounded both targets. That's good shooting in my book.

    2. Auric Demonocles   11 years ago

      Well of course not. Why would you cover it? It didn't turn into a spree killing!

    3. WTF   11 years ago

      And Mothers Demand Action will continue to insist that a good guy with a gun never stops a bad guy with a gun.

    4. All-Seeing Monocle   11 years ago

      Weird, the article doesn't mention what the homeowners were charged with. It doesn't even have the obligatory police admonishment that protecting themselves is not something that most people should do, even if by some fluke it happened to work out this one time.

  24. Rich   11 years ago

    It's a mysterious brain illness that triggers psychotic and violent behavior.

    No, it's not Progressivism.

    Seriously, that's some scary shit.

    1. Fluffy   11 years ago

      If we can weaponize this...

      1. SugarFree   11 years ago

        Sounds like someone has found the idea for his next book.

    2. Scruffy Nerfherder   11 years ago

      Similar to an Asperger's outburst

  25. Fluffy   11 years ago

    Is Fist dead or something?

    How am I supposed to enjoy my victory when he fails to post at all?

    You fucker. You're like some kind of Hit N' Run Pompey, running away and getting your head cut off instead of facing my victory like a man.

    1. Virginian   11 years ago

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmeCru4n0yg

      1. Restoras   11 years ago

        What a great series.

      2. TANSTaaFL   11 years ago

        Ciar?n Hinds was awesome as Caesar. I am a classical history addict and whenever I read something that references Ceasar I can't help but picture Hinds.

        This was a great scene. Extremely accurate according to the best info available to historians. HBO just did a great job of portraying Rome and that time period in a manner that we could relate too (for example, using modern slang and highlighting crude and crass behavior). It took the luster and polish off it but still kept the grandiosity that it deserved.

        and fucking Pullo was spectacular in just about every scene

    2. SugarFree   11 years ago

      He's been arrested for cannibalism.

      1. invisible furry hand   11 years ago

        Police in Tennessee have arrested 37-year-old Gregory Scott Hale

        This can't be right - no-one involved is German

      2. Rich   11 years ago

        Hale told police that he beheaded Hyder's corpse, then cut off her hands and feet and placed them into separate buckets.

        "The suspect is cooperating in the investigation."

      3. Fist of Etiquette   11 years ago

        I wish I had the discipline to grow a beard like that.

    3. Swiss Servator, CH yeah!   11 years ago

      You had best be ready for a Parthian shot instead...

    4. BigT   11 years ago

      Rehab.

  26. Warty   11 years ago

    OH NOES STEEROIDS

    Bonus points to the author for opening with a Milton Friedman quote. Even more bonus points for moving to Mexico for steroidal reasons.

    1. RBS   11 years ago

      John Romano used to be the only reason I would buy MD back in the day. His other TNation steroid article about crossfit is good too. He gets bonus points for not shilling for Biotest.

      1. Warty   11 years ago

        T-Nation cracks me up. 1 part decent advice, 1 part garbage, 3 parts Biotest ads, 1 part Plazma ads.

        1. RBS   11 years ago

          For only $500 a month you too can become unbreakable

    2. John   11 years ago

      It is flat out discrimination against men. A woman can get estrogen replacement by just asking her doctor for it and any insurance will cover it. A man in contrast has to beg a doctor to get testosterone treatment and insurance will only pay for it as an erectal dysfunction medication. If your dick works, no hormone replacement for you. From what I have read low level testosterone replacement is damn near a fountain of youth for men. But since we hate men we can't have that.

      1. invisible furry hand   11 years ago

        Come to Australia, our Government subsidises it

      2. Medical Physics Guy   11 years ago

        Duly noted. I wonder if I can get it in Europe.

      3. Fluffy   11 years ago

        That's because medicine is only supposed to be about fixing something that has gone wrong with you, John.

        You can't be allowed access to anything that might, you know, make you better or stronger or faster or smarter. Because that's not what medicine is for.

        If taking estrogen made women hot, they wouldn't let doctors prescribe it. For the same reason Adderall became a crisis once kids took it to do better on tests.

        "You want to be better than you 'naturally' would be? What are you, some kind of Nazi?"

        1. Restoras   11 years ago

          "You want to be better than you 'naturally' would be? What are you, some kind of Nazi and/or Chicom/DDR/CCCP athletic trainer?"

          Don't forget about these other eugenicists!

        2. John   11 years ago

          And sex is the ultimate good. All estrogen treatments usually do is give women their sex drive back. And even men can get testosterone if they need it to have sex.

          Feeling better and being stronger faster and smarter are as you point out illegitimate ends for medicine. Ensuring people can screw of course is, because sexual pleasure is the ultimate societal good these days.

      4. Warty   11 years ago

        Not only that, but a ton of AIDS patients are only alive because anabolic steroids reversed their weight loss. And even for people who don't need them, who really cares if they use them? The whole internet is shitting itself lately about Hafthor Bjornsson. He juices his fucking face off and everyone knows it. So what? We love supermen.

      5. Warty   11 years ago

        Andrew Sullivan is better than useless sometimes. Here he is writing about juice.

        1. John   11 years ago

          It has to affect Sullivan personally for him to support the issue. Had he not had HIV and needed steroids, he would be aghast about them.

      6. kinnath   11 years ago

        At least DHEA is available over the counter.

  27. Steve G   11 years ago

    I believe I know why Sajedene is so popular...

    1. Rich   11 years ago

      Sheesh, Steve -- Don't leave us in suspense!

    2. Ted S.   11 years ago

      The target demographic faps to her?

      1. Steve G   11 years ago

        She's as rare as the elusive female libertarian.

        Of course, I'm not sure many people would watch a webcam of our resident uniforns pounding out H&R comments

        1. Steve G   11 years ago

          *unicorns!

  28. Auric Demonocles   11 years ago

    I see what you're doing Ms. Brown. You're trying to use the picture to distract me from the lack of alt-text. You almost got away with it, too.

  29. Virginian   11 years ago

    http://thefederalist.com/2014/.....ic-cantor/

    For almost as long as I've lived here, which is coming up on 20 years now, the purpose of the seventh district has been to re-elect Eric Cantor every two years. It's a strongly Republican district that spans across a very conservative stretch of rural Central Virginia, from the Richmond suburbs to Culpeper. So what were we going to do, vote for a Democrat? No, we were going to vote for Cantor.

    And Cantor knew it. Because he didn't have to worry too much about getting re-elected every two years, his political ambition was channeled into rising through the hierarchy of the House leadership. Rise he did, all the way up to the #2 spot, and he was waiting in the wings to become Speaker of the House.

    The result was that Cantor's real constituency wasn't the folks back home. His constituency was the Republican leadership and the Republican establishment. That's who he really answered to.

    1. Restoras   11 years ago

      Good on VA for showing these assclowns who they work for.

  30. BigT   11 years ago

    Diane Sawyer goes after Hildabeast.

    In an interview with Clinton that aired last night on ABC News, anchor Diane Sawyer threw the ARB right back in the face of the former secretary of state. In defending her work on this front, Clinton stressed that she had delegated the particulars of security to the experts in the field "I'm not equipped to sit and look at blueprints to determine where the blast walls need to be, where the reinforcements need to be. That's why we hire people who have that expertise," said Clinton."

    Sensing an opening, Sawyer cited the document that Clinton herself has so often cited: "This is the ARB: the mission was far short of standards; weak perimeter; incomplete fence; video surveillance needed repair. They said it's a systemic failure."

    Clinton replied, "Well, it was with respect to that compound."

    The anchor continued pressing, asking Clinton whether the people might be seeking from her a "sentence that begins from you 'I should have?'?" Clinton sort of ducked that one. The accountability-heavy moment came when Sawyer's slow and steady line of questioning on Benghazi security prompted Clinton to utter this self-contradictory and sure-to-be-repeated statement: "I take responsibility, but I was not making security decisions."

    1. VG Zaytsev   11 years ago

      What difference does it make, Dianne, whether a coked up SoS failed to read the pleas for increased security, or the her staff failed to give them to her

    2. All-Seeing Monocle   11 years ago

      What the hell? Did Diane not get the memo that her job is to help get the First Woman President shooed in?

      1. UnCivilServant   11 years ago

        The memo said "It's not Billary"

    3. Suthenboy   11 years ago

      What Benghazi shows is the breathtaking incompetence of the Hildebeast. I suspect the same is true of Obumbles. They are slicker than shit, good at scheming and conniving and ladder climbing, but grade school children could perform the actual job better.

    4. cw   11 years ago

      I take responsibility, but I was not making security decisions.

      A new President Not-My-Fault?

  31. Lord Humungus   11 years ago

    Eric Cantor Blew $168K at Steak Houses; Brat Spent $122K Overall

    According to FEC campaign finance data, Cantor's campaign spent $168,637 in 17 payments to both Bobby Van's Steak House and BLT Steak up until May 21.

    Brat's campaign had spent a total of $122,793 in that same amount of time.

    Until May 21, Cantor's campaign had raised $5,447,290 and spent $5,026,626. Brat raised a total of $206,663.

    This would be the classic movie montage: as the big wigs enjoy steaks, the plucky challenger is going door-to-door.

    1. Fluffy   11 years ago

      $10k on one visit to a steakhouse?

      Did they bring 100 people each time?

      1. Restoras   11 years ago

        The markup on wine is insane at restaurants in general, and worse at places like Bobby Van's.

    2. Auric Demonocles   11 years ago

      This is unpossible! Money is the only determining factor in politics!

    3. PBR Streetgang   11 years ago

      This simply cannot be true. Per Citizens United, whoever raises the most money wins EVERY TIME. I've read and been told this many, many time. Have I been lied to?

  32. SugarFree   11 years ago

    Gasp! Rich people we don't like fund lawsuit we don't like!

    The comments are filled with rich, creamy butthurt from teachers.

    1. waffles   11 years ago

      Ending teacher tenure is a huge win for anyone who cares about education. The butthurt is just icing on my cake. Maybe I'll get to eat it too!

      1. Pro Libertate   11 years ago

        Tenure in anything but research in higher ed makes no sense at all. It doesn't make much sense in higher ed, either, but at least there's an argument to be made to preserve "academic freedom," though we can see quite clearly how much of that there is in universities today.

        But for K-12, it's just union bullshit by another name.

    2. Virginian   11 years ago

      The best kind of butthurt. Teachers are bar none the single most likely people I hear complain about their job. Warehouse guys? Coal miners? Garbagemen? Never hear them bitch. But teachers are always complaining about everything.

      Their tears are delicious.

      1. Certified Public Asskicker   11 years ago

        This. Sure, I hate my job, but I generally only voice frustration to family and close friends.

        Teachers will tell anybody about how terrible it is being a teacher...yet how much they love it and deserve to be paid more.

        1. WTF   11 years ago

          Teachers bitch and moan because they don't want everyone else to find out that teaching is an easy fucking job. I know, I used to be a teacher many years ago.

      2. Jordan   11 years ago

        I've noticed this too. If your job keeps you in a permanent state of butthurt of that magnitude, then just fucking quit already. It's like they blame everyone else for the fact that their job sucks.

    3. invisible furry hand   11 years ago

      And this:

      For about 30 seconds when I lived in MN, I was in an elementary school band class- maybe 6th grade or so.

      I vividly remember the teacher actually physically kicked one of the students out of frustration, then told the student to "Go ahead and cry to your parents about it- they can't touch me, I have tenure." Direct quote.

      My mom happened to work in the front office as a secretary. Apparently, the administrators tried to fire the guy, but some combination of the band teacher and the teacher's union sued for wrongful termination. He was teaching next fall.

      Last I heard, some girl claimed she was fondled by him.

      Although in his defense, who wouldn't want to kick an elementary school band member.

    4. Fluffy   11 years ago

      Let them bitch.

      I actually like it when they attempt to drag the name of these guys through the mud because it increases their prominence.

      I only wish they had decided to demonize David Koch 30 years ago. If he was 50 instead of 74 the LP might be able to draft him for a run again. "Hey, thanks for giving me high name recognition to go with my billions of campaign dollars, dickweeds."

      1. John   11 years ago

        I agree. You only worry about notoriety if you are trying to stay out of politics or if you are trying to do something underhanded or dishonest. The Kochs are neither. All the Progs are doing by trying to demonize them is letting millions of people who otherwise would not have, know who they are and possibly listen to their message out of curiosity if nothing else.

    5. Restoras   11 years ago

      Love this one:

      Why can't rich douchebags be happy being rich without fucking in the lives of everybody else? Why couldn't this guy take his riches and just enjoy his life. Do things need to get changed in the educational system? Sure. But this douchebag doesn't need to be the one changing it since he's not changing it to get better for those 9 kids. He's making it good for 9 or more rich douchebag circle jerk buddies who are going to rip off the system and make people feel worse.

      I hope he spills McDonald's hot coffee on his crotch. Doubt it will destroy anything of value.

      Do you smell that? It's fear and panic in the hearts and minds of enemies of freedom, and it is wonderful.

      1. PD Scott   11 years ago

        It's always about penises with them, isn't it?

        They can be so Victorian.

      2. R C Dean   11 years ago

        Why can't rich douchebags be happy being rich without fucking in the lives of everybody else?

        You mean, like these rich guys?

        http://ballotpedia.org/Net_wor.....sentatives

    6. Matrix   11 years ago

      Comments:

      Why can't rich douchebags be happy being rich without fucking in the lives of everybody else? Why couldn't this guy take his riches and just enjoy his life. Do things need to get changed in the educational system? Sure. But this douchebag doesn't need to be the one changing it since he's not changing it to get better for those 9 kids. He's making it good for 9 or more rich douchebag circle jerk buddies who are going to rip off the system and make people feel worse.

      Because, as I was reminded by the CEO of an innovation incubator/think tank/startup at the Univeristy of Chicago Business School, these people really believe in their calling to change the world with what they are doing. I guess I was foolish to believe that it wasn't the untold riches that they could garner if they hit the big one?

      But I bet they are all Team Hope & Change and all that bullshit.

  33. Lord Humungus   11 years ago

    Goodbye and thanks for all the fish laughs.

    1. db   11 years ago

      Not.forever! Say.it.ain't so!

    2. Swiss Servator, CH yeah!   11 years ago

      ?

    3. sloopyinva (previously -inca)   11 years ago

      WTF?

    4. db   11 years ago

      OK, at first, I assumed this was a joking reference to LG 's statement a couple of weeks ago.about his.upcoming workload preventing participation here for a while, but I'm beginning to worry a bit.now.

      1. db   11 years ago

        LG s/b LH

  34. John   11 years ago

    So this Brat guy seems pretty good. He seems to be a no kidding economic literate and an actual human being who decided to run for office rather than a politician who tries to pretend to be human. More importantly, he has from what I can see a spot on populist message arguing for small government and freedom as an antidote to crony capitalism and the various elites looting the country. He seems to have a small government message that actually speaks to voters' interests and lives. The message is "the economy sucks and your taxes are high because various cronies are bleeding the country dry by manipulating big government for their interests and against you." That has both the benefit of being true and appealing to people on a personal rather than abstract level.

    1. Virginian   11 years ago

      Reason is already working on the articles criticizing him for his immigration stance.

      1. John   11 years ago

        That is the thing. The open borders message is not going to resonate with the people that the anti-crony capitalism message will resonate with. The people who support open borders generally love big government and are totally okay with crony capitalism. The people who are pissed about crony capitalism don't want open borders.

        So Reason needs to choose which it wants and try to achieve something. Sadly, they won't do that and will insist on calling the voters most receptive to the anti crony capitalism message ignorant racists.

        1. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

          John, if we wanted to pick and choose among our principles we could have been Republicans anytime.

          1. John   11 years ago

            If you want to never compromise and expect everything or nothing, you will get nothing, which is what Libertarians have always gotten.

            If you have millions of people who are ready to listen to a hugely important part of your message, you should take the opportunity instead of bitching and moaning how those people don't agree with you about everything. If you are unwilling to compromise and find common ground with other people, don't form a political movement.

            1. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

              You have a point there John, it's a perennial one for libertarians, the tug between principle and pragmatism.

              But it's a point that I think is at its weakest today. You don't just change things by winning elections, you can change the political debate. The Socialist Party in the US won few elections, but much of their old platforms have been adopted. Libertarianism has changed the political debate in the US. The Kochs, Cato, the Pauls. Glenn Beck pushes Hayek on his show and Rush used to have Walter Williams on. There is no Tea Party without libertarian ideas, and libertarian ideas are featured in such movements more prominently than ever.

              Add to this that one of the frontrunners for the GOP nomination, Rand Paul, currently is one of the most explicitly libertarian politicians on the national scene and I think your argument becomes really weak.

              1. Virginian   11 years ago

                Socialist Party in the US won few elections, but much of their old platforms have been adopted.

                They took over the Democratic Party. If libertarians want to win, they need to take over one of the parties, and accept half victories and compromises.

                To take the issue du jour, Brat is miles better than Cantor on basic principles and ideology. The things that we disagree on we have a much better chance of changing his mind because he's not a politician, he's a citizen who will listen to reason.

                1. John   11 years ago

                  Exactly Virginian. Who do you want the people who voted for Brat last night voting for, someone like Brat or someone like Rick Santorum? Make no mistake, if you turn on Brat and run him out, someone will come along and try and get those votes and the next guy is likely to be someone like Santorum or if we are not lucky even worse.

                2. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

                  I'm all for being pragmatic in the voting booth and picking the lesser of two evils, and all for supporting politicians who, while not always following the LP platform for example, seem to be more than not libertarians.

                  But I don't see that as translating to what John is talking about. Reason and organizations like the LP should be places for libertarians to sell their product, so to speak, not to compromise for temporary partisan gain. I think in the long run we advance libertarianism as a philosophy by having some institutions that do just that.

              2. John   11 years ago

                You don't change by winning elections. You change by getting the government to actually change how it is. And you don't do that unless you can get voters to both agree with you on issues and vote on those issues. And you are not going to get all of your issues at once. You if you are lucky can get some of your issues as you are able to build a national consensus on a few things. That is what is happening now with big government and crony capitalism. People are disillusioned and tired of it and are willing to vote for candidates who are willing to do something about it. But they are not willing to do that at the price of open borders, which they see as part of the crony capitalist problem. So if you are not willing to compromise on borders, you are not getting those people's votes and you are not building a consensus to put a stop to it.

                Worse, if Libertarians and small government advocates won't listen to these people's concerns, someone else will. And that someone else is likely to be the worst sort of populist demagogue. This may be the last chance the country has to address its issues without the population turning towards some very ugly and radical people. And concern trolls like you and those at reason want to pass it up because you just can't stand working with people you don't like.

                1. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

                  I like how you paint people who want to stick to principles as 'concern trolls.' I mean, who would be a better concern troll than what you are doing 'oh, libertarians, you really should soft pedal the immigration stance of voters are not going to like you!'

      2. R C Dean   11 years ago

        I'm not super-thrilled with his "Snowden is a traitor" thing, but hey, anytime an establishment TEAM BE RULED poohbah takes a dirtnap, I'm happy. I don't even care who beats them.

    2. Fluffy   11 years ago

      Reason thinks it's important for you to know that his campaign manager once retweeted something from lewrockwell.com.

      NEOCONFEDERATE TIES REVEALED, reports Reason Magazine

      1. John   11 years ago

        Gee you mean a politician representing a district of suburban and rural voters around Richmond, might have some staffers who occasionally say things sympathetic about the Old Southern cause? I am shocked Fluffy. Just Shocked. I would never have seen that coming.

        1. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

          Look, squaring libertarianism and the Confederacy is like squaring a circle. Not only it is philosophically crazy, it's the kind of thing that gives libertarianism a really bad name. "Hi, we're for freedom and against the slavery of income tax and minimum wage, but oh, that actual slavery the Confederacy enacted, that was all about tariffs and no big deal!"

          1. Pro Libertate   11 years ago

            It's not much different from trying to square libertarianism with the Founders, you know.

            1. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

              It's pretty different. The Founding was not based on slavery, the Confederacy was. The number one thing the Confederacy claimed as its raison d'etre was the protection of slavery and that is the number one thing it is known for today. The Founders allowed slavery and some engaged and supported it (while others hated and fought it), but it was ancillary to their main values (it's not mentioned in their Constitution explicitly).

              1. sarcasmic   11 years ago

                Just because the South seceded because of slavery doesn't mean that everyone who supports the right to secede supports slavery.
                Likewise, pointing out that the war was not to end slavery but to preserve the Union is not an endorsement of slavery.

                1. Virginian   11 years ago

                  Just because the South seceded because of slavery doesn't mean that everyone who supports the right to secede supports slavery.
                  Likewise, pointing out that the war was not to end slavery but to preserve the Union is not an endorsement of slavery.

                  No no no Lincoln was a pure lightworker who only did good things for good reasons. There is no moral ambiguity in the Civil War. Blue is good and grey is bad.

                  1. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

                    Well, there is no moral ambiguity in that chattel slavery, which was the raison d'etre of the Confederate cause, has got to be the unqualified worst to a libertarian or else that term has no meaning and is rightfully up for ridicule. I'm happy to talk about Lincoln's many violations of civil rights and mixed motives, but any discussion that tries for moral equivalence between the North and the South strikes me as incorrect and terrible PR for libertarianism as a movement.

                    1. Virginian   11 years ago

                      Well, there is no moral ambiguity in that chattel slavery

                      No, it's an unspeakable evil, and unspeakable evil that was legal in both Union and Confederacy.

                      See, if there was no slavery in the North, that would be a real argument for the moral high ground. But there were in fact thousands of human beings held in chains throughout the North. There was a slave market not a mile from the US Capitol.

                    2. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

                      It's just foolish to argue that the North was as defined by slavery as the Confederate South. So foolish it invites the charge of apologia for the South and its institutions, which I think it downright terrible to libertarianism's respectability. If libertarians, of all people, cannot say 'the North had its problems, but the South was a slave state through and through and the greater evil' then we defame our very title.

                    3. Virginian   11 years ago

                      It was legal in the North, it was legal in the South. You want to talk about feelings, and perceptions, and all this other bullshit.

                      I'm talking about actual facts. Your feelings are worthless.

                    4. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

                      I'm not talking about feelings, but the 'actual facts' that slavery was small in numbers and in influence in the North but was much more common and fundamental in the South. These are 'actual facts' easily demonstrable with reference to statistics, laws, proclamations, etc., of the time for both areas.

                    5. Virginian   11 years ago

                      that slavery was small in numbers and in influence in the North but was much more common and fundamental in the South.

                      So what. Slavery is an unspeakable evil. Period. Full stop. The Union doesn't get a pass because the Confederacy was worse, anymore then FDR's concentration camps become OK because the Nazis had death camps.

                2. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

                  "Just because the South seceded because of slavery doesn't mean that everyone who supports the right to secede supports slavery."

                  Sure, but it is a major part of our history. At the least, when you talk about secession it is good politics to make sure you address, denounce and distance yourself from the most famed historical example, which as Fluffy says was a monsterously evil one, of it in your history.

                  1. sarcasmic   11 years ago

                    Since when did I give a fuck about good politics?

                    1. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

                      Well, the start of this subthread was John talking about good politics for libertarians, so I'm working in that area.

                  2. Virginian   11 years ago

                    distance yourself from the most famed historical example

                    Why would I want to distance myself from Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin?

                    1. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

                      I see where you're going, that our country is an example of secession. It's a case you can make, but at least popularly I'm guessing most people don't make that connection.

                      I'll ask the commentariat here, is there a difference between the Revolution and the Confederacy in that (apart from the motivations)?

                    2. Virginian   11 years ago

                      I'll ask the commentariat here, is there a difference between the Revolution and the Confederacy in that

                      The difference is that if the people who voted to leave win, it's called a "struggle for independence", and they get called "patriots" or "freedom fighters".

                      If they lose, it's an "armed rebellion" or an "attempted secession" and they get called "criminals" or "traitors" or "terrorists".

                    3. sarcasmic   11 years ago

                      It all depends on who writes the history books.

                    4. Hawk Spitui   11 years ago

                      Not really. And this might be a good place to point out that if slavery is your gold standard for secession, if the US hadn't seceded from Britain, slavery would have been eliminated in the 1840s, when the British banned it in the rest of their colonies.

                    5. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

                      I see that point, but the Founders were not seceding from Britain to retain slavery.

                  3. CatoTheElder   11 years ago

                    In 2014, there are more Americans who believe in David Icke's lizard-people theory than believe in the legitimacy of chattel slavery. Which is to say: no sane person in 21st Century America argues the legitimacy of chattel slavery.

                    I pretty much subscribe to the idea of libertarian class theory which posits that there is an elite ruling class that uses the State to its benefit. David Icke asserts the something similar, though he says that it is comprised of lizard-people or something. Is it really necessary for me to explicitly reject Icke's ridiculous before advocating the libertarian class analysis of Say, Comte, Rothbard, and Codevila? Are you stupid, or disingenuous, or just perfectly indoctrinated in political correctness?

              2. CatoTheElder   11 years ago

                Just because the Constitution uses a euphemism does not mean that it is not explicit.

                Slave = "Person held to Service or Labour"

            2. John   11 years ago

              Pretty much. And God knows there are tons of Libertarians who view the Union's rejection of slavery and the effective end of state sovereign equality with the federal government as an evil that we still live with today and one that was not worth enduring to end slavery.

              How many Liberty Mike Civil War threads have we had on here? About one a month for over ten years in my estimation.

              1. RBS   11 years ago

                How many Liberty Mike Civil War threads have we had on here? About one a month for over ten years in my estimation.

                Reason should just have an open thread for this already.

                1. CatoTheElder   11 years ago

                  If the North was so supremely moral and upright with regard to the loathsome practice of slavery in the South, why didn't it secede?

                  Principled abolitionists like Garrison correctly argued that there should be no union with slaveholders, and advocated dissolution. The fact is that Northern ruling elite had a greater interest in maintaining the Union, slavery or no.

                  If the North was genuinely concerned about justice for slaves, why did it allow millions of them to starve and waste away from disease immediately after the war. Under the libertarian homesteading theory, the liberated slaves should have received title to the plantations that they had built. Instead, the North allowed Yankee carpetbaggers and sundry opportunists to obtain title rather than the rightful owners.

                  The State, and its ruling elites, North and South, were just as rotten in the mid-19th Century as they are today.

              2. Virginian   11 years ago

                who view the Union's rejection of slavery

                The Union which had slavery throughout the Civil War? That Union?

                1. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

                  I've always thought this is such a silly point. The Union tolerated some slavery, yes, but slavery was rare and under some attack from the North while it was embraced as fundamental by the South. Heck, the South saw things that way. So I'm not sure what rhetorical points are scored when people jump to point this out.

                  1. Virginian   11 years ago

                    The Union tolerated some slavery, yes, but slavery was rare and under some attack from the North while it was embraced as fundamental by the South.

                    Look, yes the US had concentration camps. But it was rare, and we felt really bad about it. Oh, and we didn't kill the ethnic minorities, we just took all their property and left them penniless. Nazi Germany embraced far worse things as fundamental.

                    /Things Bo believes.

          2. Fluffy   11 years ago

            It was incredibly unfortunate for the history of mankind that an absolutely critical tool for the defense of liberty (secession) was employed in the service of a monstrous evil.

            The 1830's version of US federalism was actually in pretty damn good balance. The states would have reliably served as a buffer against federal centralization and power essentially forever, as long as they could credibly threaten secession. Unfortunately, the Original Sin of slavery on the North American continent destroyed that balance by putting the naked economic interest of the southern aristocracy at odds with the natural and orderly advance of liberty under that system.

            1. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

              "It was incredibly unfortunate for the history of mankind that an absolutely critical tool for the defense of liberty (secession) was employed in the service of a monstrous evil."

              I'd agree fully with this statement.

            2. Virginian   11 years ago

              It was incredibly unfortunate for the history of mankind that an absolutely critical tool for the defense of liberty (secession) was employed in the service of a monstrous evil.

              Bingo. But we don't throw out the right to remain silent because it is used by criminals. We don't throw out the right to free speech because it is used by the Westboro Baptist Church. We don't throw out the right to due process, even though having it guarantees that some guilty men will go unpunished for their crimes.

              Secession is not a bad thing. If you're not free to leave, then you're not free.

              1. John   11 years ago

                Secession is not a bad thing. If you're not free to leave, then you're not free.

                True. But that fact doesn't make the old South any less loathsome.

                1. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

                  Absolutely. If you want to make the case for secession, by all means make it, but distance yourself from the old South. We're talking about people who embrace the South instead.

                  It makes me wish that New England had carried out its secessionary intent during the War of 1812 or maybe Kentucky and Virginia over the Alien and Sedition Acts, just so we'd have other, less ugly examples to point to.

                  1. Kaptious Kristen   11 years ago

                    Vermont had a small but vocal secession movement during the Bush II presidency and lots of people cheered them on. The same people who are now shocked and horrified that anyone would want to seceded during the current Admin.

                  2. Virginian   11 years ago

                    We're

                    You got a mouse in your pocket?

                    talking about people who embrace the South instead.

                    *Looks around* who are these imaginary enemies of Purity that you see, oh grand inquisitor?

                    1. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

                      Maybe like a guy who dresses in a Confederacy mask? We're talking about political operatives and staffers here, I think you may have heard of some of these real life examples if you will get off your snark for a second.

                    2. Virginian   11 years ago

                      We're talking about political operatives and staffers here

                      So no one I give more than two fucks about?

                      Maybe like a guy who dresses in a Confederacy mask?

                      What the fuck are you babbling about? A Confederacy mask?

                    3. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

                      You remind me of the quote from Big Lebowski about a child wandering into a film and asking questions about it.

                      You never heard of the Southern Avenger flap with Rand Paul? You know, the political operative for Paul who wore a Confederate wrestling mask and had to be let go.

                      Did you just wander into the libertarian movement a few days ago?

                    4. Virginian   11 years ago

                      wore a Confederate wrestling mask and had to be let go.

                      I can't believe I missed such a weighty and important moment in the history of the libertarian movement.

                    5. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

                      This entire discussion is about political operatives being old South apologists, and there is some ugly history of that being mixed up with libertarianism for decades.

                      If you're new to the movement and its history that's great, we welcome you, but try not to lecture those who are not on things you are ignorant of.

                    6. Restoras   11 years ago

                      Did you just wander into the libertarian movement a few days ago?

                      Smugness and condescension are not optimal qualities for The Arbiter...

                    7. sarcasmic   11 years ago

                      *Looks around* who are these imaginary enemies of Purity that you see, oh grand inquisitor?

                      They're over there in the field, dressed up in flannel shirts and overalls.

                    8. Virginian   11 years ago

                      They're over there in the field, dressed up in flannel shirts and overalls.

                      I think you mean gray homespun and the dreaded Confederacy masks.

            3. Pro Libertate   11 years ago

              Yes. But even though the result of that war was to taint the idea of secession in the U.S., it's still a right, regardless if people are willing to kill others to prevent its exercise. I mean, read the Declaration of Independence.

              1. sarcasmic   11 years ago

                I mean, read the Declaration of Independence.

                But the DoI isn't a legal document! It doesn't count!

                1. Pro Libertate   11 years ago

                  I remember in law school when a friend of mine cited the Declaration of Independence as the basis for some legal decision. She was abused thoroughly.

                  Of course, the one thing you can say about the Declaration is that it's a love letter to secession. Our entire justification for existence as an independent polity is based on that principle, which you may note that Jefferson stated was a fundamental right.

                  1. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

                    "the Declaration is that it's a love letter to secession" Well, sort of. It also talks about the 'Prudence'...'that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes' and the fact of the lack of representation was key to justifying secession. One can argue these were violated by the Confederacy.

                    1. sarcasmic   11 years ago

                      One can argue these were violated by the Confederacy.

                      Yes, Bo, you can and do argue all kinds of really stupid shit.

                    2. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

                      So, you'd like to argue that the Confederacy was motivated by the fundamental concern over the Rights of Man? Because that is what the Declaration says justifies abolishing Governments long established.

                    3. sarcasmic   11 years ago

                      So, you'd like to argue that the Confederacy was motivated by the fundamental concern over the Rights of Man?

                      No, but thank you for proving my point.

                    4. Virginian   11 years ago

                      No, but thank you for proving my point.

                      Bo is really really good at putting words in other people's mouths.

                    5. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

                      The DOI says that Prudence suggests not to rebel against long established governments, but that it is justified when done in protection of the basic rights of man. I said it can be argued the Confederacy violated that. Sarcasmic said it would be stupid to argue that.

                      Which part of that is wrong?

                    6. sarcasmic   11 years ago

                      Bo is really really good at putting words in other people's mouths.

                      He truly is a magnificent straw man slayer.

                    7. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

                      The DOI says that Prudence suggests not to rebel against long established governments, but that it is justified when done in protection of the basic rights of man. I said it can be argued the Confederacy violated that. Sarcasmic said it would be stupid to argue that.

                      Which part of that is wrong?

                  2. John   11 years ago

                    I remember in law school when a friend of mine cited the Declaration of Independence as the basis for some legal decision. She was abused thoroughly.

                    There was one teacher at my law school who was a total Vulcan smart guy and a real constitutionalists and conservative. He considered the Declaration to be a part of positive American law and a guide to interpreting the Constitution. The rest of t he faculty thought he was a nut and he never made tenure, despite being of Univ of Chicago alum and the smartest man on the faculty. I loved that guy. I should look him up.

                    1. Pro Libertate   11 years ago

                      It's certainly an important foundational document and can serve a similar purpose as The Federalist Papers, but it's not really part of U.S. law. It's really a legal brief justifying our secession from the British Empire.

                    2. John   11 years ago

                      It was passed by Congress Pro. It is more than a legal brief. It is an actual law passed by a lawful Congress declaring the US to be sovereign nation. Therefore, the language in it should be looked upon as law. Sure, it was passed before the Constitution of 1789, but so was the Northwest Ordinance and it is positive law. The Declaration is the law that says we are a sovereign country. And therefore, the other claims it makes, specifically those in the preamble, are positive law. The first piece of positive law in the nation's sovereign history is the declaration that all men are created equal and have natural rights. All subsequent law should be read and interpreted consistent with that proclamation.

                    3. Suthenboy   11 years ago

                      Good grief. I actually read all of that and learned nothing.

                      Y'all go sit in the corner for an hour.

                    4. Suthenboy   11 years ago

                      Sorry John. I was not referring to your comment, but to the whole thread.

                      Now I see there is more below.

                    5. Pro Libertate   11 years ago

                      The 1789+ government had ratified some acts of earlier governments, but the Declaration cannot be said to be established law, especially since the Civil War, when pretty much everyone accepts that secession is no longer an option.

                      If the Declaration still stands as law, then, at the very least, states (and other groupings) still have the legal option of secession.

                      As a matter of natural law, I think people have this right, regardless of what other people think, but many do not agree and are likely willing to use force to back up that lack of agreement.

                    6. John   11 years ago

                      Succession is still valid. The Civil War only rejected secession for slavery. Secession for the reasons stated in the document are still valid. Moreover, the DOI stands for more than the right to succeed. It is a positive statement of the principles on which our entire nation is founded upon. Even if you take secession from oppressive governments out of that, the rest is still valid law.

                    7. sarcasmic   11 years ago

                      The Civil War only rejected secession for slavery.

                      Bullshit. The South could have seceded because Yanks talk funny and Lincoln still would have waged a war to preserve the union.

                    8. Emmerson Biggins   11 years ago

                      Ya. IANAL but I've always seen the DOI as the meta-document which authorizes the Constitution (assuming it was authorized, see Spooner, etc).

            4. Don Mynack   11 years ago

              Secession can be easily defended once you remind it's detractors that it's use was threatened by Northern abolitionist states as a reaction to the Fugitive Slave Act.

          3. CatoTheElder   11 years ago

            You're right: squaring libertarianism and the Confederacy is ridiculous. It's almost as stupid as when the left attempts to portray libertarianism as a right-wing extremist movement akin to the Nazis.

            But, other than leftist pundits and the boobs who follow them, who is trying to square libertarianism with the Confederacy?

            1. Virginian   11 years ago

              Apparently there was a masked man. The Grand Inquisitor, Bo Cara, saw him. He was very frightening.

              1. CatoTheElder   11 years ago

                Was the masked man advocating slavery?

                If so, he cannot be a libertarian. He can call himself a libertarian, like Bill Maher calls himself a libertarian, but he is not a libertarian.

                The Grand Inquisitor is right about one thing: the libertarian movement should shun the Confederate battle flag. It means different things to different people. Most of them are bad, and some are really, really bad. Secession as an abstract principle isn't bad per se, but the Confederate flag is not a terrible icon.

                1. CatoTheElder   11 years ago

                  correction: the Confederate flag IS a terrible icon.

                  I ought to preview before posting.

          4. R C Dean   11 years ago

            Think of it like this, Bo:

            You're doing something on your property that isn't illegal, but is immoral. Even highly immoral.

            The cops show up and demand entry. Even though they have no legal basis. You refuse.

            They shoot you in the head.

            Were the cops right?

            Because secession wasn't illegal, and neither was slavery in the South. The South did nothing that violated the Constitution as it stood in 1860. Yet the Union shot them in the head.

            To justify this, the Union basically had to pretend that the South was trying to take over the entire country, not withdraw from it (which they had the right to do).

            1. sarcasmic   11 years ago

              To justify this, the Union basically had to pretend that the South was trying to take over the entire country, not withdraw from it (which they had the right to do).

              Which is why it is called the Civil War. To imply that it was an insurrection as opposed to secession.

      2. waffles   11 years ago

        With friends like these...

      3. Restoras   11 years ago

        There it is, Purity Test Fail.

        1. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

          Restoras, you're a funny guy.

          You've been on this 'Purity Test' and 'Arbiter' kick after in a conversation with me you slipped and said you supported the 'right of a majority of voters to organize the community the way they see fit' (and in the direct context of local governments forbidding consenting adults from gambling). When I pointed out that that was closer to Tony than libertarianism you got all 'butthurt' and started this 'OMG you're the Arbiter! Purity Test! whining.'

          Look, there are lots of things that libertarians disagree over. Some believe in IP, some do not. Duties to children or animals are big issues of contention. But your comment was prety fundamentally at odds with any form of libertarianism I or you could point to. It's straight from Tonyville. And if one can't say Tony is not a libertarian then the concept really has no meaning. No 'Arbitering' about it.

          1. Fluffy   11 years ago

            I am the Arbiter. I have taken this burden upon myself.

            You need concern yourself with it no longer.

            1. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

              I never wanted that yoke, I happily leave it to you.

          2. Restoras   11 years ago

            Come now Bo we are just having a laugh at your expense! You need a thicker skin if you are going to get through life, especially in law!

            I think you are a good Arbiter, but if you don't care for it, maybe you should reconsider the wisdom of ideological purity. One thing you are certainly not good at is magnanimity in victory, I conceded my flawed view to you long ago but whatevs.

    3. sarcasmic   11 years ago

      He seems to be a no kidding economic literate

      That won't get him very far in Washington.

      1. John   11 years ago

        He won't be getting invited to many cocktail parties that is for sure. And yes, I already read in Salon last night describing him as a "special economist", (note the subtle retard joke) because he is not a Keynesian and thinks perhaps printing money and borrowing our way to bankruptcy isn't the best option.

        1. sarcasmic   11 years ago

          You see, there's a consensus among Keynesian economists that Keynesian economics is right, and all other schools of thought are wrong. That means anyone who disagrees is an economics denier.

          Science!

          1. waffles   11 years ago

            Sounds dismal to me.

        2. Virginian   11 years ago

          His published papers include "God and Advanced Mammon: Can Theological Types Handle Usury and Capitalism?" and "An Analysis of the Moral Foundations in Ayn Rand".[7]

          1. John   11 years ago

            The first one sounds pretty interesting. Without reading them, I can't say for sure, but I don't see anything objectionable about either.

    4. Restoras   11 years ago

      Sure sure, but what about teh Purity Test?

  35. sloopyinva (previously -inca)   11 years ago

    Some lady asked my what the babies names were on the metro yesterday. When I told her "Liberty", she smiled and asked what her middle name was (after going through explaining Reason's name to her. When I told her it was "Ordeth", she almost shit her pants.

    I'm going to like living here if for nothing else than to shock the local douchebaggery.

    1. Rich   11 years ago

      Beautiful.

    2. Restoras   11 years ago

      Indeed. I hope she appreciates it at some point in her life 😉

    3. Andrew S.   11 years ago

      You laugh, until she calls Child Services on you for being some kind of dangerous nutjob.

    4. db   11 years ago

      Sweet.

    5. Kaptious Kristen   11 years ago

      Heh. People rarely talk to me on the train (probably because I'm scowly and don't have cute kids to make me approachable). Would love to needle these DC fuckwads like that sometime.

      Can I borrow your kids?

      1. sloopyinva (previously -inca)   11 years ago

        Um, sure. But I thought you hated kids for some reason.

        1. Kaptious Kristen   11 years ago

          I do, but it might be worth it just for the needling opportunities. Since I can't bring my dog (Ben Franklin) on the train.

          1. Max Power   11 years ago

            Ha, my cat is named Ben Franklin.

          2. R C Dean   11 years ago

            Since I can't bring my dog (Ben Franklin) on the train.

            Sure you can. Just declare him your "emotional support dog", get him one of these:

            http://www.activedogs.com/prod.....5h0TWdOW3w

            And you're in.

          3. Suthenboy   11 years ago

            "...my dog (Ben Franklin)..."

            I laughed.

    6. Idle Hands   11 years ago

      the pantswetters and people that vote for their jobs in this area are insane. The biggest thing that pisses me off is asking people what they do and them saying nonprofit as if that's a job description and not a tax designation. The smugness level awful.

      1. sloopyinva (previously -inca)   11 years ago

        I have a buddy that does web design and IT management for a nonprofit here in DC. We've known each other for years and I know he's a hardcore leftist. But even he mocks those people.

        1. Idle Hands   11 years ago

          I honestly believe they say that because either they don't understand where the money comes from or they don't totally grasp what they do.

  36. Kaptious Kristen   11 years ago

    Did your name make the cut? Mine didn't and it's one of the most popular girl names form the 70's & 80's.

    I'm guessing this shizz ain't targeted to my generation.

    1. Andrew S.   11 years ago

      It's also targeted to South Africa.

      Mine's on there though.

      1. Kaptious Kristen   11 years ago

        Ah...the article I read didn't mention that! I want my Kaptious Coke, dammit!

    2. waffles   11 years ago

      You're in South Africa? That may be your problem.

  37. The Late P Brooks   11 years ago

    "Hi, we're for freedom and against the slavery of income tax and minimum wage, but oh, that actual slavery the Confederacy enacted, that was all about tariffs and no big deal!"

    Holy shit, you're a moron.

  38. Sevo   11 years ago

    So congress has told the executive to make war whenever it looks interesting, the executive now 'modifies' laws regarding expenditures, and:

    "New authority for FDA
    The FDA's clarification calls that into question, and the agency has new authority to make its position stick.
    The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011 gave the FDA additional powers to issue new food-safety regulations and demand recalls of contaminated foods."
    http://www.sfgate.com/food/art.....542497.php

    Regulations that can easily put businesses under? Let the executive do that!
    Our new three branches:
    The Executive, which does everything
    The Legislative which tells the Executive to do what it used to do, and
    The Judiciary that says 'Yeah, that's what they want. Constitution? What?'.

    1. Pro Libertate   11 years ago

      Can we just rise and spontaneously impeach the entire government? I call do-over!

      1. db   11 years ago

        Nope, you have to reform from within, using our existing institutions, which are totally responsive to public opinion and not corrupted at all.

  39. Steve G   11 years ago

    Pretty pointed piece:
    http://www.thenation.com/artic.....d-failure#
    "America at War: A Record of Unparalleled Failure"

    1. Virginian   11 years ago

      1. No matter how you define American-style war or its goals, it doesn't work. Ever.

      2. No matter how you pose the problems of our world, it doesn't solve them. Never.

      3. No matter how often you cite the use of military force to "stabilize" or "protect" or "liberate" countries or regions, it is a destabilizing force.

      4. No matter how regularly you praise the American way of war and its "warriors," the US military is incapable of winning its wars.

      5. No matter how often American presidents claim that the US military is "the finest fighting force in history," the evidence is in: it isn't.

      Well that's just wrong. You'd have to do something totally dishonest like trim the sample size to fit your ideology to make those statements stand up.

      So here are five straightforward lessons?none acceptable in what passes for discussion and debate in this country?that could be drawn from that last half century of every kind of American warfare:

      Dishonest cunts are dishonest.

      1. R C Dean   11 years ago

        No matter how you define American-style war or its goals, it doesn't work. Ever.

        It worked pretty well up until about 1946. Possibly even 1970ish, depending on whether you think beating the snot out of communist rump-countries without actually conquering them "worked" as a wartime goal.

    2. John   11 years ago

      No it is a record of unparalleled success. The record of failure lies in America's post World War II understanding of the limits of what war can accomplish. America is still essentially undefeated on the battlefield. Where it has "failed" is where its politicians tried to use war to do things that war cannot be expected to do, namely build nations into our image. To me that is not a failure at war. That is a failure at politics and diplomacy. The record of failure in America both domestic and abroad is its record of political failure post World War II.

      1. Steve G   11 years ago

        Concur. My thoughts I posted to FB where I saw the article: "Article makes no distinction between the military and the civilian leadership that employs it. This is basic PME-level Clausewitz and the author needs to go back and brush up on it.
        I can read this article and agree with most of it re: the trail of destablization, but only when I view it as a criticism of national strategy, which is not something "the military" controls. To say we're not the finest fighting force in the world because of political failures is pretty ignorant."

        1. John   11 years ago

          The author is a Wilsonian who can't admit the limits to war. Since war failed to do what he thinks it should do, he blames the military for being failures rather than himself and his ideology for trying to use war to accomplish things it can't.

      2. Matrix   11 years ago

        Indeed. It's like calling a hammer a failure because it cannot successfully screw in a lightbulb. It was never designed for that function.

        The US military is not designed for nation building. It's designed to kill people and destroy stuff. It does a really good job at that.

  40. The Late P Brooks   11 years ago

    In before TRAKTUR PULLZ!

    (maybe)

  41. The Late P Brooks   11 years ago

    The Judiciary that says 'Yeah, that's what they want. Constitution? What?'.

    Deference is so much easier than review.

    A Law is a Law is a Law is a Law. Law of the Land, FTW!

  42. Virginian   11 years ago

    But his words left little doubt that, should he win office in the general election this November, he will favor far-reaching change. "The only problem with Republican principles," Brat said, "is no one is following them."

    Bingo. The major difference between the two parties is that the Dems are loyal to their base. They are always doing everything they can to give the base what it wants. When they come up short, they apologize to their base.

    The Republican Party has nothing but contempt for their base, they give them fleeting scraps, and eagerly fold to the Democrats at the earliest opportunity. They're feckless and weak, and not in it to advance their ideology.

    1. John   11 years ago

      The Dems lie to the general public and then takes care of their base in private and in less public ways. The Republicans lie to their base. I understand the need to compromise and that you are never going to totally please your base. That is the nature of politics. But you can compromise while still having principles. And moreover, you can compromise without compromising on everything or acting embarrassed about your underlying principles. The Republican Party seems to have forgotten that and view their role as one of placating the scary hillbillies so them and the Democrats can get down to the serious business of stealing and doing what they think is "right" for everyone but them.

      1. Virginian   11 years ago

        Right, the Dems get 60% of what they want, and go back to their base and say "I'm sorry, I know you wanted all of it, but those damn Republicans and we will be back to take the other 40%, I promise". And they mean it. They are true believers.

        The Republicans go to their base after the same fight and say "listen you toothless retards, 40% is the best you're going to get. Now, we sat down with the Dems and they're going to come back next year and they might possibly be content to only take 20% more. Which means that might leave 20% for the year after. That's a good deal, you inbred morons, a really good deal. So shut up and enjoy it."

  43. Stormy Dragon   11 years ago

    Tea Partiers never say die: Following a string of bad primary luck, Tea Party types have something to crow about after last night, when their guy?economics professor David Brat?defeated second-ranking House Republican Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) by 11 percentage points.

    Given Cantor was himself a tea party darling just a few years ago and lost, while establishment type like McConnell, Graham, Boehner, etc. have clobbered tea party challengers easy, the real message here seems to be to just ignore the tea party. If you try to make them happy, you'll drive away non tea party voters and the people replace on them will turn on you without notice.

    1. Virginian   11 years ago

      Cantor was never a Tea Party darling. You have no idea what you're talking about.

      1. Stormy Dragon   11 years ago

        Yay. Another round of the "No One is in the Tea Party" game!

        1. Virginian   11 years ago

          When Eric Cantor took his seat in Congress for the first time, the Twin Towers were still standing. The Tea Party, whatever else it is or isn't, did not exist in 2001.

          1. Steve G   11 years ago

            So how does that prove he didn't latch onto it once it did appear?

            That's like saying Oprah ain't rich because she was on welfare a long time ago.

            1. Virginian   11 years ago

              The Tea Party is a grassroots thing. Cantor was and is establishment to the bone. I live in his soon to be former district. He's a Chamber of Commerce/private school educated/country club type.

    2. John   11 years ago

      Cantor was only a Tea Party darling when he was acting in their interests. It is not like they turned against him for sport. They turned against him because he voted for the debt ceiling increase and started to support amnesty.

      The message of this is that the Tea Party is not a cheap date. Just because you say the right things for a while, doesn't mean they are going to continue to support you if you later try and sell them out.

      Sorry, but the message of this isn't "just ignore them".

      1. Stormy Dragon   11 years ago

        Since the Tea Party does not control 67% of congress, any Tea Party candidate that actually wins an election is necessarily going to have to compromise with non-tea party politicians to get anything accomplished.

        It's basically getting to the point where they only way to succeed in the Tae Party is to never get into office but just go around claiming you'd be Tea Party Jesus if you ever did.

        1. John   11 years ago

          Sure they will have to "compromise". But Cantor did a bit more than compromise. And even if his sin was compromising, maybe immigration is the one issue the Tea Party will broker no compromise? Just because you are willing to compromise in general doesn't mean you can't have some issues that you wont' compromise on.

          The bottom line is that there are plenty of politicians who garner lots of Tea Party support. Cantor, didn't and lost because they felt like he was selling them out. That fact makes them more relevant not less.

    3. Fluffy   11 years ago

      Yup, you figured it out.

      You should be on TV.

    4. Suthenboy   11 years ago

      How is it you can be so wrong, so often, about everything?

  44. The Late P Brooks   11 years ago

    The biggest thing that pisses me off is asking people what they do and them saying nonprofit as if that's a job description and not a tax designation. The smugness level awful.

    The first time I ran into somebody who self-described as a "grant writer" I struggled to resist grabbing her4 by the throat.

  45. Virginian   11 years ago

    http://www.theblaze.com/storie.....-he-found/

    Gun Grabbers Lie. Shock.

    1. Trouser-Pod   11 years ago

      Well, thank God someone was willing to do the tedious work and show the proof.

  46. Adam.   11 years ago

    wait, there are substitutes for LSD? Where? and how do i get them?

    1. Brett L   11 years ago

      Well, picking and drying the mushrooms that grow out of cow shit is a good place to start.

  47. jamesrk   11 years ago

    Ready for hillary? what diffrence does it make?

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Texas Bans Delta-8 THC, Which Is Only Popular Because of Prohibition

Joe Lancaster | 5.23.2025 3:45 PM

The Executive Power Case That Unites Donald Trump and Franklin Roosevelt

Damon Root | 5.23.2025 2:35 PM

That Time L.A.'s Deputy Mayor for Public Safety Called in a Bomb Threat on His Own City Hall

Matthew Petti | 5.23.2025 2:01 PM

A Split Supreme Court Says Oklahoma Can't Have a Religious Charter School

Emma Camp | 5.23.2025 1:48 PM

Trump Declares That iPhones Should Be More Expensive

Eric Boehm | 5.23.2025 12:30 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!