Pot Smokers Have Better Brain Connections, Obama Chooses Medal of Freedom Recipients, Bush Unveils Latest Painting: A.M. Links

|

Today

NEXT: New Interview: Reason Meets Run the Jewels

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

  1. Meryl Streep, Stevie Wonder, Tom Brokaw, and outgoing Rep. John D. Dingell Jr. (D-Mich.) will be among this year’s Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients…

    What the hell?

    1. Maybe the pot story above that explains it.

      1. The whole idea of this is weird.

        1. It’s not the gray that matters, it’s the connections.

    2. “Meryl Streep, Stevie Wonder, Tom Brokaw, and outgoing Rep. John D. Dingell Jr. (D-Mich.) will be among this year’s Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients,”

      Maybe I’m old fashioned, ignorant or just plain superstitious, but I musta missed the part when they were out in the trenches fighting (metaphorically or otherwise) for freedom.

      I just called to say…Hello.

      1. I agree. Medals for everyone!

        1. Free Dumb Medals

      2. Stevie Wonder is the only one that could possibly in some way maybe make sense to me. But Meryl Streep? Freaking Dingell?

    3. While I’ll note for the record that these things and, in the UK, knighthoods see to go mostly to entertainers and politicians, I like Stevie Wonder.

      1. Knighthoods should still require military service for people holding the title. Forty days a year at least.

        1. Elton John is a Knight.

          Sit on that for a moment.

          1. Of course, what you aren’t aware of is that Reginald Dwight is a former member of UK Special Forces with twenty-five confirmed kills during the Dhofar Rebellion.

          2. That’s what he said!

            HiYo!

          3. “Elton John is a Knight.”
            I thought he was a queen.

        2. I mean yeah, Christopher Lee got his knighthood after decades of acting, but he also killed Nazis real good.

    4. …recipients, chosen for their “especially meritorious contributions” to U.S. society.

      There’s a typo. The word is meretricious.

      1. I thought it was mendacious.

      2. If it is a typo, then it means whatever the hell we need it to mean.

  2. George W. Bush: still not a great painter.

    You know who else wasn’t a great painter?

      1. And people accuse me of ruining the game.

      1. That would be a tough case to make.

        1. “Disturbing” is a term I would use or “Famous”- but “great”?

          1. I have this one on the wall at home:

            http://www.imafuckingdj.com/wp…..1/dali.jpg

          2. As far as skill goes, Dali was classically trained and shows it in his earlier, pre-Surrealist work. Otherwise, de gustibus non est disputandum.

          3. Whatever you think of his work (I love it myself), he was an extremely technically talented painter. If you ever have a chance to see one of his canvases close up, the detail and precision is incredible.

            1. He was very skilled, no question about that. And I like his works, for the most part. Not my favorite ever, but they beat the heck out of most paintings that followed.

              1. The Dali museums has some terrific examples of his early stuff.

                1. Yep. They have a remarkable number of his important works in St. Pete, though I believe the largest collection is in Spain.

                  1. Just saw the set of Dali statues in Marbella Spain a couple weeks ago. He was going for something other than precision. Not his finest work.

      2. Hey, I like Dali.

        1. I guess I could have gone with Leroy Neiman…

        2. I highly recommend the Dali Museum in St. Pete. Weird place, in a good way.

          1. It should actually be much weirder, though. I was hoping I’d have to pass through a vat of giraffe tongues or something to enter.

            1. When did you go there last? They moved to a new facility a few years ago.

              1. Just last year. I was never at the old building. Did they have the giraffe tongues there?

          2. Toke up first, or would that be a harrowing experience?

            1. I think it would work nicely.

              1. I was on the clock, though. So, ah, I would never have done anything like that.

          3. If I ever have a chance to get there.

        1. Bush is like Carrol Dunham, without the giant vaginas or creepy daughter.

      1. Actually, his paintings have a rhythm and a symmetry that has been confirmed by computer scanning. Unless you mean Pollack’s less successful brother-in-law.

        1. Bullshit spewed by professional bullshit artists who deserve to be laughed out of galleries and into the gutters.

          1. Eye of the beholder, and all that.

          2. Actually, it has been used by his family to authenticate paintings and not verify others. So its capitalism at its finest.

            1. The fact that he has a distinctive swing to his arm doesn’t make his drop cloths any less crap. And it certainly doesn’t qualify him for the title of ‘great painter’.

          3. Try this: “I don’t like it”. It’s not that hard.

            1. It is when the people in the art world are trying to convince the world (and have mostly succeeded) that anyone who “doesn’t like” their bullshit non-art is and uncultured, unintelligent philostine. I am fed up to the point where I can’t stop at “I don’t like it” and have to create new “art” from the torn viscera of the curators.

              1. Suck it up, UCS. A confident consumer of art, of any form, cares not for the slings and arrows of the so-called experts. That’s why I proudly proclaim my love for Neil Diamond.

                1. The problem is that consume had control of the public fisc and now we have ugly pieces of shit littering the office and hordes of morons making excuses for it because they don’t want to admit the state paid millions of dollars for scrap metal and kindergarden-level paintings.

                  1. I agree with you completely about “public” art. Governments shouldn’t be paying for it, but when they do, it should probably at least be for something that doesn’t cause a majority of citizens to look and say “Da fuck?”

                    1. Also: The one thing worse than government art — government artists.

                  2. Anyway, you’re going to get your widh – Assassin’s Creed just finished unpacking, so I’m off to murder some frogs.

                2. Medal of freedom award!

              2. The way I look at the weirder abstract art of the 20th century is that it is something that had to happen in art. Photography and other technology really challenged artists to redefine their purpose. Since anyone can now make a pretty picture that looks like what it looks like, art had to distinguish itself in some way.

                Now, you probably don’t give a shit about that either, but a lot of people, such as myself, are genuinely fascinated by the whole project of Modernism.
                And while reproductions of Pollacks or Rothkos or something may be pretty “meh” in a book or something, I find the actual works to be quite impressive and moving in an odd way in person.
                I think there is a lot of shit art that gets put in galleries too. There is way too much art that tries to be allegorical or socially relevant these days.

                1. Since anyone can now make a pretty picture that looks like what it looks like, art had to distinguish itself in some way.

                  Because no one but Pollack could drip paint onto a canvas.

                  1. There are hundreds or thousands of people in the world who could reproduce pretty much any painting. It’s not a question of who could have done a thing, but of who thought to actually do it.

                    If you don’t care about the philosophy of art and aesthetics, fine. But there is interesting stuff going on.

                    1. It’s not a question of who could have done a thing, but of who thought to actually do it.

                      That relegates art to mere novelty.

                    2. That relegates art to mere novelty.

                      Not really. Do you refer to old master paintings as “mere pretty pictures”? There are pretty much an unlimited number of novel things you could do. Not all of them would succeed as art.

                    3. I mean, look at it as you would any creative process. Anyone could have thought of Facebook or Angie’s List and made a billion dollars. But you didn’t did you? That doesn’t make new ideas or inventions “mere novelty”.

                2. If you’re ever in Baltimore, be sure to check out the American Visionary Art Museum on the Inner Harbor. Weird, wacky place. And yes, way too much politically correct crap. But enough out-and-out strangeness to make up for it.

    1. Almost everyone who claims to be in the last hundred years?

    2. mayonnaise?

      1. or Andy Warhol?

      1. You take that back!

      2. Bob Ross?

        PISTOLS AT DAWN, SIR!

        1. Shouldn’t we just bludgeon him with happy little trees?

      3. Bob Ross was a national treasure. I miss that man, his happy little trees, and his amazing afro.

        1. PBS had a mini-marathon on last Saturday. I wasted two hours watching, but got the kids interested. They were fascinated by it.

      4. Just in jest, folks, just in jest. Mad props for my fellow Airman

        1. Ok, ok, me and UCS have been called off.

    3. Thomas Kinkade?

      1. Good enough, just not compelling. Even Rockwell had emotional depth.

        1. Always feeling like somebody’s watching you does give you an emotional depth.

      2. Truly the great artist of our age. Nay, of all ages.

        1. IMO, Rockwell is greatly underappreciated.

          1. I was talking about the Bringer of Light, heathen.

            1. I was talking to Tonio, asshole.

              1. I thought you were both talking to P Brooks, infidels!

              2. You know nothing of true, glow-in-the-dark art. I pity you. Pity.

                1. Elvis on black velvet. With big Margaret Keane eyes. Now, THAT is art.

                  1. Ah, at last common ground. Too bad the original is lost, like tears in rain.

      3. Frederick Hart?

    4. Hitler.

      The answer is always Hitler.

    5. Something Picasso.

      1. He wasn’t nearly as famous Pablo Picasso and was just as bad.

        1. Pablo’s early work wasn’t so bad, but then he started trolling the world.

  3. Almost half of Americans will soon live in states under total Republican control; Democrats control just six states.

    The People’s Republic of California will never lose the supermajority will of the governed to a bunch of evil Rethuglicans!

    1. ANd I live in one of ’em…Illinois, or as we should be known, the Personal Fiefdom of Mike Madigan.

      1. Are you whining, LTC? Are you WHINING???? Next thing you know you’ll be complaining about teh voder frawd and teh corrupshuns!

        1. I am sure his daughter (our AG) will keep a vigilant eye on corruption!!!!!!

      2. But Rauner will shake up Springfield!

        /sarc

        1. I think he meant to say shakedown Springfield.

          1. “My Earthquake machine will demolish the city unless you institute my policies!”

  4. Almost half of Americans will soon live in states under total Republican control; Democrats control just six states.

    Dumbfuckistan land grab!

  5. Defining ‘natural’ foods: should the Food and Drug Administration weigh in?

    If you have to ask the answer is obvious.

    1. Natural foods must contain at least 80% GMO. Organic foods are defined as having no salt (or other inorganic compounds)

      1. Natural foods must contain at least 80% GMO….and 20% BULL SHIT!

        1. In the specialty food market, we call that ‘fertilizer’, Rufus.

    2. Why not, I mean it can finally be the FDA’s answer to the USDA’s stranglehold on the food pyramind My Plate

    3. Defining it as foods that are not significantly processed from the form that they grow in could be pretty reasonable and non-arbitrary (if useless). But I bet that won’t be it.

      1. Oh, no, because the line would have to be drawn in a very arbitrary way as to what would be considered processing, and how much is significant.

    4. My essay, “I Don’t Know What Natural Means” cracked Beth Whelan up, so ACSH bought & published it. Look up “natural” in a dictionary, see a large no. of meanings. It’d be a terrible mistake to give it a regulatory definition for a category of thing as broad as food, for which so many of the meanings, most themselves also vague, could be meant. Better to invent some new words than to try to shed the baggage by denying other established meanings to adopt 1.

  6. Medicare may soon cover yearly lung-cancer scans for some current and former smokers.

    “Yep, you got shitty lungs. See you next year. Or not.”

    1. So the most effective thing they can do to control costs (detect cancer early) wasn’t covered before?

    2. They’ll just inspire more meth cooking…

    3. This makes me want to smoke somehow.

  7. House Committee Demands Answers on Truthy Project
    Taxpayer-funded initiative collected 600,000 political tweets in its ‘database,’ bragged about having conservative Twitter accounts suspended

    …”We don’t have a database,” Menczer said when attacking the Washington Free Beacon’s initial story on Truthy.

    The database was used to identify “several Truthy memes, resulting in many of the accounts involved being suspended by Twitter,” the chapter said.

    Truthy was able to suspend the account of C. Steven Tucker, a health insurance broker, who often used the hashtag “American Patriots,” or #ampat, from his two Twitter accounts.

    “This activity generated traffic around this hashtag and gave the impression that more people were tweeting about it,” the chapter said. “These two accounts had generated a total of over 41,000 tweets.”

    Another account, @PeaceKaren_25, was suspended after tweeting in support of Speaker of the House John Boehner (R., Ohio) over 10,000 times in four months. “A separate colluding account @HopeMarie_25 retweeted all the tweets generated by @PeaceKaren_25 supporting the same candidates and boosting the same websites,” the paper said….

  8. So, it looks like I’ll be joining Sloopy in TX for certain sure. The wife and I are flying out Thursday, and I’ll be out there for work by mid-December. We’ll be just in time for the ro-dee-oh!

      1. If we can get Spoonman back here, we can get the Libertopian Breeding Project united in one place where the wee’uns can learn from each other how to “motivate” orphans and love the taste of statist tears.

        1. I have it so good with extended family support here in PA that that isn’t happening. Cost of living isn’t bad where I am either, but winter sure is starting.

    1. You can’t do this. Think of me, Prol, mr lizard, Andrew, carol, antajuatarat(sorry for sp). The FL mafia has a stranglehold on this place. We need you. We can’t show weakness in the face of Texas.

      1. You still have pythons and gators and such on your side.

        1. I guess that is good enough. *sigh*
          /kicks turtle in swamp

          1. Also, giant spiders. My family went hiking and saw some mammoth specimens. Probably never before classified by humans.

            1. Where at?

              1. Giant Spider Swamp. The locals insist the name is just a coincidence.

                1. Oh yeah. That is right next to rape-top-mountain. Don’t let the name fool you. It’s really just a hill.

                  1. We ain’t got no “mountains” in Florida …

                    Well maybe ‘cept Mt. Dora …

                    1. They’ve got that ridge that Bok Tower is on. It’s called Iron Mountain and is just shy of 300 feet above sea level. Which is pretty danged high for peninsular Florida.

                      If I recall correctly, the highest points of that ridge were islands when the rest of Florida was under the sea.

              2. Withlacoochee. It’s okay, though, because some little midget fought them all off while singing.

      2. Yeah, why leave? We have the best meth.

        1. Unfortunately, I got lured away by a legal chemical engineering job. My wife decided she has enough outlaws in her family.

        2. I beg to differ. Allegan, MI has the best meth.

      3. Say …

        When do get my Florida Mafia card?

        *sits in corner and pouts*

  9. Dammit. I can’t do better than the Gawker headline. This is a dark day.

    Piers Morgan: The N-Word Should Be Whipped Like a Slave

    1. Holy shite, he actually did.

    2. Well he couldn’t very well say it should be taken out back and shot. The man’s got principles!

    3. Morgan is a different kind of nigger. A white, retarded nigger.

      There I said the ‘word.’

      I’m pretty sure we’re all gonna move on from this.

      1. What, no trigger warning?

        1. /slaps palm to forehead.

          1. It’s okay, not all of us are freaked out when we see the R-word.

      2. Rufus, you just can’t say “retarded” as a slur anymore.

        1. I’m offended by the word “white.” I’m not actually white-skinned. More, wait, let me look at my Crayola set for reference. . .ah, yes, more “Flesh” colored.

          1. More like flesh light colored. Amirite!

          2. Isn’t that, what they call in the business, beige?

            1. I’m beige? That’s worse than white. I was thinking more wheat or maybe bisque.

              1. Beige foot? Well more like egg shell or color of wheat.

                1. “Color of Wheat”

                  Band name or Dutch Boy paint?

        2. So I’m told.

      3. Is there some sort of style guide at Gawker that says you have to write like a 15-year-old grounded in his bedroom? Shit is unreadable as always.

        1. Is there some sort of style guide at Gawker that says you have to write like a 15-year-old grounded in his bedroom?

          It’s that simple rhetorical idea of “speaking to your audience”.

      4. Now you will neber host a cooking show.

    4. “…it has become astonishingly ubiquitous in modern American society.”

      Amongst whom? What demographic?

  10. A labyrinth of bureaucracy is no way to honor American veterans.

    If they served in the military they were already accustomed to red tape.

    1. “Did you check the AR on that? No? OK, I am going to have to have you go talk to the S-1…”

  11. New York City prosecutor is accused of choking woman at a bar

    A New York City prosecutor has pleaded not guilty to charges stemming from an incident at a bar in which he allegedly choked a woman.

    Eli Cherkasky, 35, was charged with misdemeanor assault, obstruction of breathing, menacing and harassment, report the New York Times and the New York Daily News. Police say the confrontation began when Cherkasky picked up the woman’s belongings without permission, according to a story by the New York Post.

    Advice: If he chokes you before he even gets the first date, imagine how nice he’ll be later

    1. “She told me she likes a guy who leaves her breathless.”

    2. “Obstruction of breathing” is a charge?

      1. I thought the exact same thing.

    3. obstruction of breathing

      Get specific enough, o NYS Penal Law?

    4. Reminds me of a joke. Trigger warning. Offensive.

      A man and woman just came back from their wedding and the man suddenly punches the woman in the face. She asked what it was for and he replied ‘now imagine what will happen if you do something!”

      Boo-ya!

    5. Actually the thing that made me laugh about this is that a prosecutor will now need the help of a defense lawyer. One thing that he never thought would happen.

  12. BOMBSHELL MEMO: Jeanne Shaheen Conspired With White House Insider On IRS Targeting Scandal
    …Shaheen got the inside info from the IRS, making it clear she was the point person in a group composed of six close Democratic colleagues including Chuck Schumer and Al Franken, who joined with Shaheen in quietly writing a letter to then-IRS commissioner Doug Shulman expressing their concern about new nonprofit groups engaging in political activity in 2012.

    The Democratic senators’ publicly available March 9, 2012 letter asked the IRS to “immediately change the administrative framework for enforcement of the tax code as it applies to groups designated as ‘social welfare’ organizations” by introducing a new “bright line test” for how much a tax-exempt group can invest in political activity and by setting a new rule that at least 51 percent of a group’s activity must non-political. The senators called for more elaborate disclosures about finances and “undertakings” in groups’ form 990 submissions and sought new rules about how much donors could write off as business expenses. …

    1. So infuriating that this came out on election day when it was too late.

      1. You know, whoever programs you needs to update the reading comprehension module. You’re devolving back to being sub-Anonbot again.

      2. You are supposed to say fake scandal, shit-for-brains. Goddamn, you can’t follow the simplest instructions.

  13. Murder Defendant Loses Computer Privilege after working on other inmate’s cases

    After firing his lawyers and taking on his own defense in a capital murder case earlier this year, James Calvert argued that the prison law library was inadequate and persuaded a Texas judge to provide a laptop computer in his jail cell.

    Calvert, who once was employed by law firms as a computer expert, was given a laptop to use two hours a day, five days a week, and the judge ordered that no one else could could access the machine, according to KLTV and KYTX. His access to the Internet was limited.

    http://www.abajournal.com/news…..d_on_other

    1. Murder was the case….

    2. He must have been winning. If there’s one thing lawyers can’t abide, its people outside the guild being successful at lawyer stuff.

  14. Hello, winter! Early snow, bitter cold pummel the upper Midwest.

    Why dream of a white Christmas? People in the upper Midwest are fully expecting a white Veterans Day on Tuesday.

    An icy blast out of Canada is expected to drop a swath of snow from Idaho down through South Dakota and northern Nebraska and over to northern Michigan.

    An earlier-than-usual deep freeze in the Midwest will follow, sending cold but not frigid temperatures to other parts of the United States by Thursday.
    In Saint Paul, Minnesota, CNN iReporter Katie Robinson was surprised by the early advent of winter weather. She woke up Monday to find snow on the ground.

    “This is the first snow I’ve seen this season, and it’s a major snowstorm, rather than the usual light dusting you’d expect to start off the winter with,” she said.” I think that’s the biggest thing — that we went from a very warm and mild fall to now being thrust so abruptly into winter.”

    Minneapolis got several inches of snow on Monday and expected more on Tuesday morning. But heavier snow fell not far away. St. Augusta, Minnesota, about 70 miles northwest of Minneapolis, reported a whopping 16.5 inches of snow Monday, according to the National Weather Service.

    So how’s that “global warming” working out again?

    1. Don;t you get it!!?? It’s from the Super Typhoon…a TROPICAL storm…Global Warming causes freezing temperatures like we haven;t seen in, um, 20 years.

    2. “An icy blast out of Canada”

      Thanks for nothing, hosers.

      1. That’s Mr. Hoser to you.

        1. If you SOBs send another “Alberta Clipper” or two down here, I may very well boycott Tim Horton’s!

          ….

          Wait! Forget I said that! I AM SORRY TIM!!!!

          *sobs while craving Timbits*

          1. I was blissfully unaware of what an Alberta Clipper was until I lived for a while in Minneapolis. Until that time, I was unaware of the cold war between Canada and the U.S.

            1. Obviously you didn’t live here during the Denny Green years. Otherwise you would have known that it is the Calcutta Clipper

            2. Can’t be worse than a Columbus Clipper, the larval stage of a Cleveland Indian.

              1. Well, having lived in both Minneapolis and Columbus, I deem Columbus dramatically inferior in winter epicness. Though it did win in the category of “WHERE’S THE FUCKING SUN?”

                1. In Minneapolis all the buildings are connected by walkway. And the Mary Tyler Moore statue. So at least they got that goin’ for them.

                  1. Yes, I liked the whole Skyway system or whatever they call it. That’s only downtown though.

                    Think about this. Let’s say you need to travel up to Duluth on business during the winter. Or down to Rochester. There’s a nonzero chance that your car could break down. If that happens, there’s a nonzero chance that you CAN FUCKING DIE. So please keep blankets in your trunk.

                    1. I have been laughed at by Memphians because of the snow emergency kit I always kept in my car. They couldn’t fathom why I would be so paranoid about the weather turning deadly.

                      I always would point out that in Sunny Minnesoda we lose a few people each year to freezing. And I would tell them about the Armistice Day blizzard.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A…..y_Blizzard

                      A blizzard in 1940 ended up killing 145 people. It was in the 60’s early in the day and ended up dumping 20+ inches of snow.

                      One of the great things about satellite weather is you can see the fronts move through in real time now.

                    2. I drove cross-country during the winter up there, and I sure as heck had supplies. . .just in case. Everyone expected the Floridian to die, anyway, so I had to defy them.

            3. This story is appropriate again.

              (I can’t believe it happened 15 years ago already.)

    3. Dude. The rule of thumb is:

      If it’s warmer than normal, it’s climate change.

      If it’s cooler than normal, it’s just the weather.

      1. No, no! If it is cooler than normal it is climate disruption!!!!!11!1!

        1. Also true if it’s wetter or drier than normal.

          Fun fact: Until 30 years ago, every single day had the exact normal high and low temperature, and everywhere had normal rainfall every year.

    4. Assuming for the moment that you are not a complete idiot, don’t you think that joke gets a bit old after a while?

      1. I’m going to keep on posting it as long as we have to keep putting up with Ron Bailey’s “Monthly Global Temperature Update” crap, so you’d better get used to it.

        1. So, do you think you are actually making a point when you do it, or what? You do realize that it is just as stupid and annoying as people who think that every big storm is “caused” by global warming?

          1. Eh, its mockery of those types. Relax, its H&R…

            1. It just annoys me because I think that climate science should be an interesting subject, but is ruined by idiots on both sides of the debate.

              1. “It just annoys me”

                Who fucking cares?

                1. Who fucking cares?

                  Not me, that’s for damn sure.

  15. JONATHAN NOLAN ADAPTING ISAAC ASIMOV’S FOUNDATION TRILOGY FOR HBO

    http://www.shortlist.com/enter…..gy-for-hbo

    1. Paul Krugman begins furiously fapping.

      1. But remember: It’s Libertarians who base their political philosophy on unrealistic works of science fiction.

        1. Which book do we base our philosophy on? The Stars My Destination? Dune? The novelization of Star Trek V? What?

          1. Billy and the Cloneasaurus

          2. The Stars My Destination Tiger! Tiger!

            1. Either title works, because the book rules.

              1. That title is near and dear to me because I stumbled upon it in a used book store as a kid with this pimp cover and bought it without knowing how awesome it was.

                1. Huh. Not quite how I was picturing Foyle.

                    1. It’s like an io9er saying Dr. Who is the best treatment of time travel ever. When your entire time-travel oeuvre is that show, naturally you’re going to have a limited appreciation for the greater genre.

                    2. Why would someone name a book after a type of sweater?

  16. less gray matter in the orbital frontal cortex but better neural connections in this area

    Wouldn’t this be a simple case of the brain adapting to a ‘trauma’ (i.e., kill the matter, compensate with more connections)? Any doctors on the board? Alternatively, anyone who stayed in a holiday express last night?

    1. I don’t think so. Brain function isn’t easily measured by gray matter or number of connections. I think you can say the brains are different but you can’t make any qualitative judgment beyond that.

      1. Loss of grey matter is one of the effects of aging, it also occurs in cigarette smoking which is well known for accelerated the aging process. I think that would be a fair qualitative judgment, considering the impact aging has on cognition.

        1. *with cigarette smoking

        2. “I think that would be a fair qualitative judgment, considering the impact aging has on cognition.”

          You’d be mistaken, most of the impact of aging on cognition is from vascular effects, not loss of brain matter.

    2. “better neural connections in this area”

      How do you measure that, stab each end with an voltmeter?

      1. Of course!

        *slowly folds up messy surgical garb*

    3. They haven’t even proved a causal relationship. Science journalism at its finest. That didn’t stop the LA Times from making the URL say “marijuana shrinks brain”.

      Even now, however, the authors of the study acknowledge that they cannot discern whether a pot smoker’s smaller orbital frontal cortex is the cause or the result of chronic marijuana use. A 2012 study found that subjects with a smaller orbital frontal cortex at age 12 were more likely to start using marijuana by age 16, suggesting that deficits in this crucial region may predispose one to substance-abuse behaviors.

      Another correlation was found: lower IQ. Not sure why the LA Times didn’t run with that one, too.

    4. I’m pretty sure the “pot kills brain cells” thing is complete BS. It’s based on one study where they basically suffocated some animals (monkeys?) with smoke and then dissected their brains. I don’t think trauma is the way to look at it. But I don’t think it should be a surprise that regular use of a psychoactive drug would change some things about one’s brain.

      1. Even life experiences change your brain. There really is not enough information about neuroscience to base a rational policy on its findings.

        1. No. And it seems quite clear from the experience of a pretty big slice of the population that whatever changes smoking pot may cause in the brain are not particularly damaging. And, as you suggest, until we know a lot more about how the brain functions, it is pretty hard to say whether any changes are good, bad or neutral.

        2. The first “wake and baker” I met in college, nicknamed “The Gope” skidded down a 40 ft. rock cliff on his short clad ass and was saved by slamming into a tree. I don’t think any “policy” should be based on that and I don’t need a scientist to tell me he was an idiot.

          1. Methinks marijuana intoxication had little to do with that decision. If anything it’s effect is to make one unnecessarily risk averse.

            1. There was a group of us that managed around the same rock outcrop that “The Gope” failed to maneuver around, and it was actually his indecisiveness and timidness that led to his fall.

              1. But not his brain damage we can assume? But hey with a bottle of 21 year single-malt scotch he’d be an Olympian.

                1. No, his brain was perfect, as is anyone you can imagine with the nickname “Gope”

        3. Which assumes there needs to be a “rational policy.” WHO OWNS MY BRAIN!?!

  17. This is an entirely new level of derp . Part of me feels bad for subjecting everyone to this:

    “In President Barack Obama, Americans have a charismatic leader with a good and honest heart. Unlike his predecessor, he’s a very intelligent leader. And unlike that president’s predecessor, he’s a highly moral man.”

    1. unlike that president’s predecessor, he’s a highly moral man

      I’m going to go into the corner and weep softly for a few hours now.

    2. This is just political slashfic. And not as fun as SF’s.

      1. When apoligia becomes masterbation fantasy…

        1. “masterbation”

          Nice…even if it wasn’t intentional

    3. It’s not that new. I could swear somebody posted it in the PM Links yesterday.

    4. Does this guy deep-throat Stephen Harper that way?

      1. More like he’ll be doing that to Trudeau. Harper is seen as Bush up here.

        1. That’s my point.

          1. Ah. Sorry read as the opposite.

    5. Yeah. That’s pretty bad. Awful in fact.

      Just terrible.

      Maddening even.

  18. “He could paint an entire apartment in ONE afternoon! TWO coats!”

    1. I am so not going to click on some film about tentacle rape!

  19. Meryl Streep, Stevie Wonder, Tom Brokaw, and outgoing Rep. John D. Dingell Jr. (D-Mich.) will be among this year’s Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients, chosen for their “especially meritorious contributions” to U.S. society.

    WTFSRSLY?

    1. What makes it worse is they already have Presidential awards ostensibly given for artistic achievement which would be more appropriate.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N…..al_of_Arts

      1. Meryl Streep has been protecting our freedom since the 60’s, at least, man.

  20. Any research chems out there?
    It recently came to my attention that research in this area isn’t illegal. I have some ideas for research, but don’t want any undue attention (at least until publication, of course 🙂 ), like officials asking when to expect the results and wanting to see my methodology..
    If so, any suggestions?

    1. Um..you a cop? You have to tell me or it is entrapment.

      1. 🙂
        Cool story bro..
        The answer is, not to my knowledge.

        Technically, I don’t see what the problem is. As long as it is legitimate research, not for humans, then we can talk about it.. Granted, I don’t know how many of these studies result in publication, but that isn’t my problem.

        1. Anyhoo, forget about it.. Just trying to gin up some book ideas for NaNoWriMo, which I will probably fail at, again.
          Keep it hypothetical!

    2. Here’s a suggestion: umm, wut?

    3. Don’t die or if you do decide to do something stupid don’t share it with friends.

      1. But the ingredient label only had letters and numbers.. LETTERS AND NUMBERS!!?!?! How was I to know??

  21. “Almost half of Americans will soon live in states under total Republican control; Democrats control just six states.”

    It will be interesting to see the usual suspects here blaming everything bad in those states on the omnipotent ‘progs’ over the next few years.

    1. Actually, I agree, since we’re now talking about states like Michigan and Pennsylvania.

    2. I hope it’s a lot more interesting than whatever the fuck point you are trying to make

      1. He’s trying to goad an argument/defense from what he views as the vast majority of this board’s population – refugees from the Republican Party. I think he’s worried about recidivism.

        1. Worried about it? Hell, that’s his goal. Like usual when Bo gets in these moods, he’s just trying to cleanse the unpure before they infect his precious bodily fluids.

          1. The narrative that would not die.

            I’m called out as a ‘Blue’ this or that much more than I call out the Red leaning posters (ironically often it’s people like John, Immaculate Trouser, Bill, etc., that admit they are Republicans or lean in that direction that I’m talking about). But I’m the one working for purity.

            1. He called you bitches out!

              Time for a brodown!

              1. Poop?

                1. ^^Self Portrait^^

            2. Not a Republican, Bo — though I also don’t see anything wrong with being an R or a D provided that you’re moving your party in a more libertarian direction.

              Thanks for playing.

            3. And bitchy little fights like this is why I wish there was still a concept of honour and legalized dueling.

            4. Well, probably because John, Immaculate Trouser, me, etc., don’t feel the need to evoke a pretense that we’re somehow the All Exalted Unbiased Arbiter of All Things Libertarian while pushing an obvious agenda.

        2. No, he’s trying to palm progressivism off a libertarianism.

      2. My point is that there is a bizarre (well, not bizarre if you consider a rather obvious explanation) mono-manic focus on Team Blue by many in the commentariat here.

        If you look at the comment threads since the election they’ve been full of long, multi-paragraph posts about the evil progs and their mentality. Prog pols, prog writers, obscure prog blog writers, even prog commenters on blogs and progs who make barely viewed youtube diatribes are dug up and become the center of long two minute hates.

        Contrast that with the reaction of the Reason staff’s posts, which more closely matches the LP events I’ve been to since the election: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

        Part of that makes some sense, even I’d agree that at the federal level liberals are threatening the most damage to liberty. But the other side’s working hard too (since the election we’ve heard about GOP priorities to boost defense spending, curtail immigration and meddle in the Middle East more forcefully), but you wouldn’t know it from hanging out here.

        1. I’d say that the commentariat is merely enjoying an extended period of post-election schadenfreud, and will return to bashing both parties as opportunities present themselves.

          1. Yep. We know the Republicans are going to be absolutely shitty come January. But for now, at least we get to enjoy a bit of schadenfreude and laugh at the meltdown of the progs.

            1. Yup. I had my laugh election night and the next day. Now I get to enjoy a new “Republican” governor jump in and join the “Democrats” in what is described in IL as The Combine.

              Statism for everyone!

            2. we get to enjoy a bit of schadenfreude and laugh at the meltdown of the progs

              Sweet, delicious, salty ham tears….they are like Spice.

          2. While not my thing, I can get schadenfreud, but wouldn’t the giddy elation and overreach of the other party’s post election emotions be an equally rich target?

            1. Bo, you weren’t around for “Salty Ham Tears,” were you?

              1. No, I’m not familiar with that I’ll concede.

            2. What overreach are you talking about? They haven’t been seated yet. Aside from the schadenfreude I haven’t seen anyone here post about how wonderful Team Red is going to be, have you?

              1. They’re already talking about what they hope to do.

                1. That’s not reaching, that’s planning.

                  1. No, that’s dreaming.

            3. You weren’t here in 2008, were you?

          3. Considering the large amount of ‘and I wonder how the Republicans will fuck things up’ posts, it’s already happened.

        2. “which more closely matches the LP events I’ve been to since the election”

          What LP “events” are you referring to?

          1. LP Party and College LP get post-election events.

            1. So, you and 2 of your buddies smoked some pot in the dorm room and deliberated how the upcoming GOP majority in congress will be just like the Dem majority? Cool story, bro.

              1. I get that you probably haven’t gone to many LP functions, you don’t have to lay it on so thick.

                1. I assume you’ve elected yourself Chief Inquisitor of this Dorm Room Smokeout LP chapter

                  1. It’s a bit cruel seeing a lame horse literally rolled down the road.

                  2. Because anyone who is to the right of Elizabeth Warren is clearly NOT a libertarian, CYP! Don’t you know, Grand Inquisitor Cara has spoken!

        3. but you wouldn’t know it from hanging out here

          I think you would if you were paying closer attention. Almost everyone seems to think we are spending too much on defense and is also largely not in favor of foreign entanglements. Besides, the next Congress hasn’t even been seated yet – and consequently hasn’t been able to do anything yet.

        4. You weren’t here during the Bush years.

          1. Fair enough, but some posters here have seemed on the verge of giddy elation here, when we have every reason to think that we are in a ‘meet the new boss, same as the old boss’ moment.

            1. but some posters here have seemed on the verge of giddy elation here

              The term is called “schadenfreude”. Perhaps you’ve heard of it?

              we are in a ‘meet the new boss, same as the old boss’ moment

              I think we are well aware of that. As I noted, the next Congress hasn’t been seated yet and so hasn’t given us the opportunity to mock them yet, either.

              1. I’m personally happy as hell about more gridlock.

            2. I love when the whelps counsel their elders.

              You’ve seen and done SO MUCH, Bo! Please – teach the rest of us.

              RELEASE THE BOT….oh, he’s already loose.

              1. I love it when people’s response to don’t like is “shut up”. That is really all Bo is saying here. Everyone that is to the right of him needs to shut up and be more like him. If the entire board doesn’t tell him to fuck off and continue to post as they like, it will be a sad day for Hit and Run.

                1. I’ve always thought this would be a fair response to you with your incessant whining about how the Reason writers are really liberal Cosmos. One difference is, I’m in line with those same writers, you aren’t. So what’s your excuse for hanging out here all day?

                  1. If you think my criticism of Reason is unfair, don’t listen to it or rebut it. And the Reason writers is not the board. The board is a collection of people who post their views. None of them are under any obligation to be fair or make any claims to be so. Reason in contrast claims to be a Libertarian publication not a Leftist one. It is therefore fair criticism to call them out when they don’t hold the left to the same standards they hold the right to.

                    1. So, I shouldn’t criticize posters on Reason but you should criticize the actual writers? And because you, an acknowledged non-libertarian who is quite often, and vulgarly, critical and insulting of libertarians, have to police them for being inconsistent in their libertarianism?

                    2. So, I shouldn’t criticize posters on Reason but you should criticize the actual writers?

                      Sure you can. But criticize them for being wrong by refuting their positions. That is not what you are doing here. You are just saying they are attacking the left and that is in itself wrong.

                      Your point is not to debate or criticize but to shut people up. The whole point of these posts is to convince people to be less critical of the left. Well, again fuck off. If you think we are too critical of the left, get off your ass and defend the left. Don’t tell us we just can’t do that.

                  2. John: That is really all Bo is saying here. Everyone that is to the right of him needs to shut up and be more like him.

                    Bo: I’ve always thought this would be a fair response to you with your incessant whining…

                    And, yet, it’s Botard who arrogates himself the arbiter of libertarianism.

                2. The beauty of Bo is that he doesn’t try to get the Redmen to “shut up.”
                  In fact, he’s very good at eliciting vast blocks of verbiage from them.

                  1. Redmen, oh I’m taking that (I hope you’re one of us that doesn’t believe in IP)!

                3. If the entire board doesn’t tell him to fuck off and continue to post as they like, it will be a sad day for Hit and Run.

                  Fuck off, Bo.

                  1. Taking up the call from the admitted Republican, that’ll refute my charge!

                    It is to laugh.

                    1. Good God. A Republican! And he admits it! I think I better go wash my hands.

                    2. If you want to hold hands with him that’s your business, but when you walk and talk like him…

              2. The Alamaniantard continues to forage.

            3. Why does that bother you? I am pretty sure you were posting here in 2012 and I don’t recall you worrying about people being too happy about Obama.

              It is statements like this one that cause people to think you are a concern troll. If you are worried people are not being critical enough of Republicans, make up for it by criticizing Republicans instead of whinning people are not sufficiently leftist enough for your tastes.

              What is your point here other than to concern troll? Its a free board and people are free to post what they like. If you think it is not sufficiently leftist, you deal with that by posting things in response. Instead you seem to want to shut people up rather than engage them.

              1. That’s kind of my point, John, I doubt anyone here was happy in 2012 and I don’t remember anything near the long psychological profiles of the losing GOP.

                And for the hundredth time, you should take some time out of your busy posting schedule to look up what a concern troll actually refers to.

                1. I don’t remember anything near the long psychological profiles of the losing GOP.

                  that is becaue the GOP generally doesn’t make as big of asses of themselves when they lose the way the leftist media did. And if there are examples, go find them and post them if you feel balance is needed. If you don’t like people taking pleasure in the crying and despair of the left, too bad. Don’t read it if you don’t like it. The board is under no obligation to be balanced or suit yours’ or anyone else’ tastes.

                  1. “that is becaue the GOP generally doesn’t make as big of asses of themselves when they lose the way the leftist media did.”

                    That’s literally hilarious.

                    “Don’t read it if you don’t like it.”

                    If only you’d take that advice but in relation to the Reason writers!

                    1. That’s literally hilarious.

                      If it is, then you shouldn’t have any problems finding counter examples to post. So what is your problem here other than you are too lazy or unable to post such examples. If you want the board to tilt more left, make it so by your posts not by whinning that all the people on the right are just big meanies.

                      The bottom line is that you can’t seem to handle people who have different opinions from yours and want them banished from the board. Well tough shit. That is now how it works around here and whining and concern trolling about the need for the board to be less mean to the left isn’t going to change that.

                      Seriously, what is your point here other than people should stop attacking the left so much?

                    2. “If you want the board to tilt more left”

                      Less right doesn’t mean more left. That’s kind of what libertarianism is about. But since you are not one you wouldn’t know I guess. And I guess that’s why you don’t get my overall point, either.

                    3. Less right doesn’t mean more left.

                      Who cares? The point is that the way to deal with opinions you don’t like is to rebut them not try to get people to stop posting them because they are not to your liking for whatever reason.

                    4. I can’t note how odd it is that the commentariat is so out of step with the writers?

                    5. I can’t note how odd it is that the commentariat is so out of step with the writers?

                      You can note whatever you like. Your right to do that doesn’t make your point any less irrelevent. It doesn’t matter if they are in line with the writers. It only matters if the opinions are right or wrong or to what degree they are either. It is called intellectual discourse.

                    6. What is your overall point? That you’re the sole judge of Libertarian purity and that anyone who doesn’t share your opinion on a particular topic should STFU? Becacuse that’s what I get from reading your idiotic posts for the last 18 months.

                    7. “What is your overall point?”

                      That its odd how many people here focus so much on the left when Reason itself and libertarianism traditionally focus on the left and right fairly equally. You don’t think that’s odd? Well, I’m sure you think it’s ideal actually…

                    8. I find it odd your tendency to defend progressive positions with charges of Libertarian blasphemy.

                    9. Noting a lopsided focus is not to defend the object of that focus, but again, people who are on Teams seem only able to think in that way.

                    10. Your defense of progressive opinions is lopsided. What are we to conclude from that?

                    11. I rarely defend progressive opinion, when I do it is from the baser Republican attacks.

                      Take an example: during the shutdown the GOP adopted a line of attack against the administration that they were keeping heroic vets from attending beautiful war memorials and preventing children from getting much needed NIH cancer research. I noted that federal war memorials and federally funded medical research are indefensible, and who cares how Obama cuts the money? To you and other team Red players that is seen as ‘taking sides’ because I refuse to take up the side of Team Red. But Team Red’s side is as anti-liberty as Team Blue (I don’t want the ‘critical importance’ of federally funded war memorials and cancer research to be hammered into the public anymore than I want Obama’s nonsense projects to be), and I point that out. To you, that means I’m Team Blue.

                    12. people who are on Teams seem only able to think in that way

                      Do you really think your reasoning abilities are orders of magnitude greater than others that post here?

                    13. Noting a lopsided focus is not to defend the object of that focus

                      Most of what you perceive as “lopsided focus” exists only in your fevered, paranoid delusions, reflecting your own bias much more so than anyone else’s. But you also don’t limit your defense of progressive issues and figures to merely sharing your paranoia with the class.

                      but again, people who are on Teams seem only able to think in that way.

                      They say irony is often lost on the ironic.

                    14. PM, why don’t you post long threads about conservative commenters on blogs? Would you like to argue that goes on here nearly as much as the flip side of that? I’d say you have to be focusing pretty hard on one side to spend a lot of time finding not Team Blue pundits, not team Blue blogs, but commenters on obscure Team Blue blogs.

                    15. I’m not completely sure what you’ve just said or what your point was supposed to be. But it seems that, again, your johnny-come-lately approach to the topic is showing. In 2008 when the entire Reason staff and half the commentariat was ushering in the new Obama administration with joyous paeans to the end of war, the end of the surveillance state, the end of Gitmo, peaceful foreign relations, and civil libertarian utopia, you probably could have convincingly made the opposite argument. It’s almost like, I don’t know, current events and the distribution of political power have some effect on the topics of discussion on open internet fora.

                    16. Ding!!Ding!!Ding!!Ding!!

                      WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

                    17. That its odd how many people here focus so much on the left when Reason itself and libertarianism traditionally focus on the left and right fairly equally.

                      Reason and libertarianism generally don’t do any such thing. It tends to ebb and flow with whoever is currently holding political power for reasons that should be obvious to anyone with an IQ that would require more than 2 hands to count. Since the current president is farther left of center than any in the last quarter century or so, and since his party has controlled at least 1 of the 2 houses of congress since he was elected, progressive/left wing issues have tended to be more prominent. Your perspective is a bit constrained by your “libertarianism” being younger than the current administration.

                    18. Would you like to take a look at Reason’s postings since the election? I bet they reflect much more of a ‘pox on both their houses, meet the new boss same as the old boss’ than they do ‘the progs are in power so we’re focusing on them!’ Want to take that bet?

                    19. Would you like to take a look at Reason’s postings since the election…

                      What is you’re point? That the H&R commentariat does not mirror the apparent focus of the Reason editorial staff? Why would that matter or be an issue for you?

                      Bo, there’s this app called Reasonable. Use it in conjunction with Google Chrome and you are able to filter out specific posters. I’m not great with computer programming, but I’m sure that there is someone here with the smarts to modify it such that you will only have to see your own posts. That way you won’t feel the need to reply to every post that expresses an opinion that is not congruent with your own. Think of the gains in productivity that you will experience in other areas of your life.

                    20. I bet they reflect much more of a ‘pox on both their houses, meet the new boss same as the old boss’ than they do ‘the progs are in power so we’re focusing on them!’ Want to take that bet?

                      The progs are no longer in power, you abject fucking retard. That’s kind of the point. There’s been no shortage of commentary by the Reason editorial staff since the 4th on the implications of Team Blue losing a lot of their political power and how it might effect issues and policy in the next 2 years. I don’t have a running tally because I’m not an autistic progressive white knight, but I’d venture to guess they’ve equaled or exceeded the number of “pox on both of le houses” articles in the whopping 1 week it’s been since the election.

                      You’ve probably also noticed, or would have if you’d been here that long, that Republican budget policy, partial birth abortion bans, and Bush administration executive overreach diminished significantly as article topics at Reason after 2008. It’s almost like the sins of Team Red somehow became slightly less relevant when the economy was collapsing and Democrats had just won control of all three branches of government.

                    21. “the GOP generally doesn’t make as big of asses of themselves when they lose the way the leftist media did.”

                      From my general observation, John is 100% right. When Republicans got their asses handed to them in ’08, they just got quiet and mopey. The left on the other hand gets hysterical, they scream, cry, and lash out at everyone. It’s almost scary to watch them completely melt down. Do you remember this guy?

                    22. Yes Banjos. Other than a few “the free shit brigade has won and we are doomed” rants, I never saw much out of the right after 08 other than quiet dispair.

                2. look up what a concern troll actually refers to.

                  Concern trolling is the practice of initiating a false flag debate by assuming the exact opposite point of view as the one actually held by the speaker. The purpose of concern trolling is to instill confusion and doubt within the targeted group by raising issues under the pretext that the speaker empathizes with the said group.

                  Your “I’m an incredibly pure libertarian, and I just can’t believe that anyone who fancies himself any kind of libertarian could be more sympathetic to conservatives than progressives or join the Republican party” schtick is arguably a subset of this.

                  1. Arguably KDN? That is exactly what it is. It is not that Bo is a leftist. The board needs people who will be contrary and take on the party line. It is that he is dishonest about it and does things like this. That is what is annoying. Just be who you are and make whatever points you want. I don’t know why that is so hard for some people to do.

                    1. It’s impossible for John, a Team player to imagine a libertarian, someone who might find both Teams equally repugnant. So I must be faking it.

                    2. It’s impossible for John, a Team player to imagine a libertarian, someone who might find both Teams equally repugnant

                      No dipshit. It is that you seem to be unable to just make an argument without couching in some kind of “real libertarians shouldn’t believe this” bullshit as if that determines the validity of the argument. Call me whatever you like. You are under no obligation to agree with about anything. Whether you like my points or not, they are always made in a straight forward and honest way, unlike yours while are always couching in some “if you guys want to be Libertarian, you shouldn’t listen to this…” nonsense.

                      Again, stop worrying so much about who is on what team and start thinking a little bit. It will be a new experience for you. You might like it.

                    3. No one has said anything about not listening to anyone or shutting up John, that’s just you working your angle, as usual.

                      “stop worrying so much about who is on what team and start thinking a little bit”

                      Really? There isn’t a pot black enough for the metaphor I’m thinking of.

                    4. Really? There isn’t a pot black enough for the metaphor I’m thinking of.

                      Except that you can’t give an example of it. I am critical of Republicans on here all of the time. You just pretend I am not because you are for whatever reason unable to engage my arguments. Other people on here have that ability. Why don’t get out of their way and stop trolling.

                    5. You’re critical of Republicans in the same way that Rush Limbaugh is. Again, you’ve admitted you’re a conservative Republican, and you demonstrably go off on rants against not only the Reason writers but also libertarians in general, so what’re you even trying to get at here?

                    6. Again, you’ve admitted you’re a conservative Republican

                      And Bo goes for the ad homonym. So what? Again, the answer is to refute what I say not whine and cry that Republicans have the nerve to post here.

                    7. You really are terrible at logic. There’s no ad hominem. I’m not saying that some argument of yours is wrong because you are a Republican, I’m saying that of course to a Republican non-Republicans will seem biased, in the same way I see non-libertarians like you biased.

                    8. Bo, please enlighten us about the inhabitants of the “Libertarian Wing” of Team Blue.

                  2. At least you’re at ‘arguably a subset’, which is progress.

                    Concern trolling is usually thought of as like this:

                    “Guys, I agree Michelle Obama is terrible, but we shouldn’t criticize her because it will seem petty to people and hurt us.”

                    It’s when you feign agreement with the board on the issue at hand, but think it should be tampered down because of false concern over how it looks.

                    John seems to think it means ‘expressing a concern’ about anything.

                    1. John hates you complaining about the nature of the board more than anything else. You seem to be very think-skinned about self-described libertarians or libertarian-leaners disagreeing with your positions despite your previous protestations that you don’t care what a bunch of strangers on the internet think about you. And I’m sure your pedantic arguing style (which you are employing right in this very subthread) isn’t helping matters.

                    2. “John hates you complaining about the nature of the board more than anything else.”

                      Which is kind of rich considering he often goes off into insulting diatribes about how stupid libertarians are and how the Reason writers are really in the tank for liberals, right? No comment from you on that, huh?

                      “You seem to be very think-skinned about self-described libertarians or libertarian-leaners disagreeing with your positions despite your previous protestations that you don’t care what a bunch of strangers on the internet think about you.”

                      Your answer is in your very comment. I don’t care what internet posters think about me, but I do find it interesting that so many posters on a libertarian discussion board would hold a focus or views that the host of the board itself, as well as most significant libertarian organizations, don’t share.

                    3. Bo, I critisize the story choices by reason. But it is always in the context of what is wrong with this or that story. For example, Reason is too PC because it refused to cover the Rotherham story beyond one “I just cant tell what this is about” thumb sucking post.

                      I don’t go on general diatribes I make specific points about how this or that coverage shows bias or cowardice. If you think that is wrong and that they should not have covered Rotherham, then good for you and you should say why.

                      Again, the problem is not your position so much as your unwillingness to have one other than “people need to stop saying things I don’t like”. If you think that my criticisms of Reason are wrong, explain why. Don’t just tell me to shut up because I just want Reason to be a Republican magazine.

                    4. “”people need to stop saying things I don’t like”…Don’t just tell me to shut up ”

                      Which, again, I have not said. You’re not even rising to the pretense of honesty in this discussion.

                    5. Which, again, I have not said.

                      That is exactly what you have said.

                      My point is that there is a bizarre (well, not bizarre if you consider a rather obvious explanation) mono-manic focus on Team Blue by many in the commentariat here.

                      If you look at the comment threads since the election they’ve been full of long, multi-paragraph posts about the evil progs and their mentality.

                      That statement is nothing but “people on this board need to stop being so critical of the left” or in other words shut up.

                      You posted it. Don’t turn around and now claim you didn’t.

                    6. I just want to point out that Bo is doing an tremendously bad job of getting you to shut up.

                    7. I just want to point out that Bo is doing an tremendously bad job of getting you to shut up.

                      That is not his point. He knows people are going to shut up. His purpose is to throw up smoke and distract from points and positions he doens’t like but is unable to refute. And at that he is doing a good job.

                    8. When you criticize the Reason writers, are you telling them to shut up, or change the subject?

                    9. That is some interstellarly terrible logic there John.

                    10. Which is kind of rich considering he often goes off into insulting diatribes about how stupid libertarians are and how the Reason writers are really in the tank for liberals, right? No comment from you on that, huh?

                      Other posters take care of that plenty, TYVM. And he’s often pulling a nugget of truth out and running it to over-the-top conclusions. John’s an interesting guy who talks too much. He might be great with an editor.

                      I do find it interesting that so many posters on a libertarian discussion board would hold a focus or views that the host of the board itself, as well as most significant libertarian organizations, don’t share.

                      I would suggest that the organizations should probably modify their message then. But being the blind partisan you are, you believe that the party must be correct.

                    11. Other posters take care of that plenty, TYVM. And he’s often pulling a nugget of truth out and running it to over-the-top conclusions. John’s an interesting guy who talks too much. He might be great with an editor.

                      Thanks. And that is the fun of such a board; it is not that important so you can think and not worry about cleaning it up. Sometimes those over the top conclusions make a smaller but interesting point.

                      What makes this board good is that people think freely and for the most part honestly. This is why I find Bo’s whinning so grating.

                    12. “John’s an interesting guy who talks too much.”

                      You agree with him a lot, he just goes over the top too much. Who saw that coming?

                      “I would suggest that the organizations should probably modify their message then.”

                      There’s another option: non-libertarians are essentially using the board for their own discussions.

                    13. Geez Bo, I agree with you a lot, too. Were you here for that 5-point political quiz or whatever it was? There’s a ton of overlap on this board, which is unsurprising since everyone but the trolls are either libertarians or mostly in agreement with them.

                      There’s another option: non-libertarians are essentially using the board for their own discussions.

                      No, mostly non-Libertarians are using the board, and this seems to be the biggest bug up your butt.

                    14. There’s another option: non-libertarians are essentially using the board for their own discussions.

                      So what if they are? What is your point other than you want them run off and effectively any view you don’t like supressed?

                    15. Not wanting a view to be expressed and calling people on the incompatibility of their view with the express point of the board are not the same.

                    16. Not wanting a view to be expressed and calling people on the incompatibility of their view with the express point of the board are not the same.

                      Who cares? How is “that is not Libertarian” any sort of a relevent or interesting point about anything?

                      The point is to debate these issues not play endless games of “not a true Scotsman” over Libertarianism.

                      You are either admitting you have no point or lying about your true goal. What possible reason is there to call something “not Libertarian”, whatever that means, if not to marginalize the opinion without having to debate its merits?

                    17. Libertarianism has to mean something, it has to have some limits even when having some disagreements. We can’t have PB saying he’s a libertarian but supports a minimum wage and the ACA. Likewise we have to call out when conservatives professing to be libertarians ‘cross the line.’ This doesn’t mean they should shut up, but it does mean we can judge where they are coming from better now, and note hypocrisy when they try to butter us up with rhetoric that sounds like ours.

                    18. Libertarianism has to mean something, it has to have some limits even when having some disagreements.

                      It doens’t have to mean the same thing to everyone. You don’t hold a monopoly on meaning. And again, what is the point of claiming this or that is “not Libertarian” other than to try and marginalize the position without refuting it?

                      Again, if you don’t like what people say, refute it or if you can’t do that go post on another board. No one on here cares about your feelings or is worried about whether the opinions expressed here are sufficiently “Libertarian”. So your plan of marginalizing everyone here is not on the left side of Libertarism is not going to work. Smarter people than you have tried. It never works. The people on this board just don’t buy that bullshit.

                    19. Libertarianism has to mean something, it has to have some limits even when having some disagreements.

                      This coming from the self-annointed arbiter of all things libertarian who criticized me for opposing the existence of the welfare state is rich.

                    20. It’s not a ‘bug up my butt,’ but it is a bit strange that ‘mostly non-Libertarians’ would be found on the board of libertarian magazine. Now what’s even more interesting is that among libertarians, Reason has always been known for being more on the ‘left’ side of libertarianism along with Cato, Volokh, etc., in contrast to places like Mises. So the fact that most of the non-libertarians are Johns and not libertarian democrat types is even more interesting, no?

                    21. . So the fact that most of the non-libertarians are Johns and not libertarian democrat types is even more interesting, no?

                      What is interesting about it? It just means Reason runs an interesting board full of people with a variety of views from the entire spectrum of the Libertarian right.

                      What is your point in noting that other than to try and pre-emptively marginalize opinions you think are too for right? No one else finds that interesting or worth noting. Why should they?

                    22. “full of people with a variety of views from the entire spectrum of the Libertarian right.”

                      You are a delight, John, a true delight.

                    23. “full of people with a variety of views from the entire spectrum of the Libertarian right.”

                      You are a delight, John, a true delight.

                      Sorry but retreating to smug condensenion doesn’t help your position here. Try a little harder and explain why people posting here not being as left as the staff is interesting. No one but you seems to care about that. So try explaining why they should or admit you have no point.

                    24. It’s not a ‘bug up my butt,’

                      This entire post reflects that it is indeed a bug up your butt. You’re flabbergasted that the posters here have the temerity to disagree with those in charge, especially because you fancy yourself a libertarian, just like the posters, but completely agree with the magazine and party.

                      So the fact that most of the non-libertarians are Johns and not libertarian democrat types is even more interesting, no?

                      It’s interesting from the marketing and political strategy perspectives. How did Reason magazine, a leftish-libertarian organ, manage to attract a mainly right-libertarian leaning audience? And since they are doing a good job of getting people in the door but not persuading them to go all the way, how can the organization better tailor their message to make them favor Libertarians over R’s/D’s?

                      But there’s no reason to rail against the audience you have managed to attract. The customer is always right, and when he tells you what he thinks it’s a good idea to listen to him.

                    25. Wow. Just because someone finds the views and opinions of another interesting that means agreement? Talk about twisted logic.

                    26. “Other posters take care of that plenty, TYVM.”

                      And other posters aren’t addressing me? You just jumped in here, but leave correcting John to others, not because you just agree with his orientation more, but because….?

                    27. not because you just agree with his orientation more, but because….

                      I show up late, type slow, proofread too much, and have work to do.

                      I, like every other semi-regular workday poster has argued with John at length about one thing or another.

                    28. No comment from you on that, huh?

                      Yes, no repudiation of a position you never took. BUSTED MOTHERFUCKER!

                      Because nobody on here ever disagrees with John, at length, with epithets and name-calling included.

                    29. “Guys, I agree Michelle Obama is terrible, but we shouldn’t criticize her because it will seem petty to people and hurt us.”

                      That is not concern trolling, it is just at best a incomplete and at worst a downright stupid argument.

                      And I have made the point multiple times that making fun of Michelle’s looks is wrong because it is juvinille and detracts from more important points.

                      But again, so what? If you think a given criticism of Michelle Obama is unfair, say why instead of just whinning about people being mean to her or claim she shouldn’t be criticized.

                    30. Oh my gosh, you didn’t miss that point that badly, did you?

            4. I’m thrilled to see the statist left take a bath, and I at least have a sliver of hope that some reforms will occur. I’m also quite confident that the new Congress will disappoint me in new and exciting ways.

              I dislike the Republicans immensely for the damage they’ve done this country, but I outright fear the Democrats, who have taken a turn towards absolute insanity. Their path is clear suicide.

              1. I guess living in SC I don’t worry about ‘progs’ much because the chances of them coming into power statewide have been nil for adult life and look to be the same in the future. In my state Conservatives rule and are busy fighting gambling, lesbians and abortion clinics while bringing back as much military and law enforcement related pork as possible.

                Even at the federal level though I don’t see much overall difference between the Dems and the GOP. The former have nationalized one sixth of the economy under an unworkable and illogical central planning scheme while the latter, when last they were in charge, happily created the DHS and it’s torture/surveillance apparatus while engaging in the biggest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam. Some choice.

                1. living in SC

                  Yup. HERE’s yer problem.

                  1. Hey, the people here are polite, the weather is nice and we’ve got fantastic beaches. It’s not all bad.

                    1. Hey Bo.

                      Here’s yer sign.

                      http://youtu.be/Cw-HN900nuw

        5. My point is that there is a bizarre (well, not bizarre if you consider a rather obvious explanation) mono-manic focus on Team Blue by many in the commentariat here.

          One of the two relevant teams to choose from and philosophically opposed to their agenda as libertarianism is, I don’t find it surprising or unnecessary that libertarians make a sport of shitting on them.

          If you look at the comment threads since the election they’ve been full of long, multi-paragraph posts about the evil progs and their mentality. Prog pols, prog writers, obscure prog blog writers, even prog commenters on blogs and progs who make barely viewed youtube diatribes are dug up and become the center of long two minute hates.

          Are you just now introduced to the Reason boards? Go back 5, 6 or 10 years and you’ll find no less vitriol directed at the most morally bankrupt class of “thinkers” that were ever worth talking about.

          Bbut you wouldn’t know it from hanging out here.

          That’s demonstrably false. One of the few groups to actually criticize the actual shortcomings of the GOP are libertarians. The proggies and Dems are too busy attacking strawmen like the “GOP War on Women ” to bother themselves with actually leveling legitimate criticism. But then if they have no principles of liberty, they have very little real criticisms to make aside from rhetorical disagreement.

          1. Your last paragraph is spot on. I say nasty things about Republicans all of the time on here. And will whenever asked give a laundry list of what is wrong with the Republican Party.

            People like Bo and Shreek and Tony pretend that never happens. The reason is that they don’t want legitimate criticisms of Republicans aired and they want everyone who criticizes the left subjected to ad homonym attacks as being just Team Red partisans. What they want is a nice stream of straw man attacks on the GOP and to ensure that every criticism of the left is followed by a “yeah but the GOP is just as bad or worse.”

            If you ever notice, people like Bo never just give a straight up attack on the Left. Any attack is always followed by a qualification explaining how the GOP is just as bad.

            1. “If you ever notice, people like Bo never just give a straight up attack on the Left.”

              That’s not only false, this very thread has evidence of it.

              1. This entire thread is you saying people are too hard on the Left and obsess too much about it. Your first post is a perfect example of it.

                Part of that makes some sense, even I’d agree that at the federal level liberals are threatening the most damage to liberty. But the other side’s working hard too (since the election we’ve heard about GOP priorities to boost defense spending, curtail immigration and meddle in the Middle East more forcefully), but you wouldn’t know it from hanging out here.

                There is exactly what I am talking about. Sure the Left is bad but you guys keep forgetting the Republicans are just as bad too.

                It is one thing to lie about your position. It is quite another and quite remarkable to lie about it when it is sitting a few collumn inches above your lie.

                1. My dissatisfaction with the Republicans is tremendous. It’s only through hard work and dedication to a strategy of mass suicide that makes the Democrats higher on my shit list.

                2. “This entire thread is you saying people are too hard on the Left and obsess too much about it. ”

                  Which, of course, doesn’t refute that I also attack the Left. I’ve done so several times in these AM links. It’s just that your partisan antenae don’t register that.

                  1. Which, of course, doesn’t refute that I also attack the Left. I’ve done so several times in these AM links

                    It doens’t have to because that is not hte argument. The point was that when you do attack the left it usually in the yeah but the Republicans are just as bad form like you did at the start of this thread.

                    Again, it is your right ot be a leftist. You have a right to defend the left all you want. What you do not have a right to do is not be honest in your doing so. The problem is that you constantly engage in equivications trying to pretend you are being even handed when in fact you are just a leftist concern trolling.

                    Just stop trolling and unapologetically make your points. If you did that, you would probably find people on here agreed with you more than you think. But no one is going to agree with you until you are honest about who you are.

                    1. “The point was that when you do attack the left it usually in the yeah but the Republicans are just as bad form”

                      And if you look at the AM links overall you will see one example of that and several examples of me offering unqualified attacks on Leftists.

                      As to the rest of your just as poorly informed screed, I repeat that an acknowledged Team Player such as yourself just can’t imagine someone finding both Teams to be terrible, so you assume I’m faking it. Being a Team Red Player you ignore when I agree with you but register when I don’t, so you deduce I must be a Team Blue Player. Sad, really.

                  2. I just went through this entire thread to see your posts. I can’t find where you attack the Dems without some anti-GOP qualifiers attached either within the post or the larger thread. For all your accusations about partisanship, few here can match your level of it.

                    1. For all your accusations about partisanship, few here can match your level of it.

                      Bingo. Team Gold is still a team.

    3. It seems to me that most people here complain about the bad things in blue states and are actually envious of people who live in between the coasts, excepting the island of insanity that is Chicago.

      1. Fuck Chicago!

        Our whole state here in Sunny Minnesoda stayed True Blue. OK, we slipped a little and gave the state house of reps to the GOP, but every single statewide race went to the Dems.

    4. The deep South will continue to suck the most and largely be ignored by GOP partisans who slam California.

      1. Which is why millions of people have been fleeing the south to the wonderful environs of the progressive northeast for so many years.

        Oh wait, it’s the other way around.

    5. SOCONZZZZ!1!!1

      1. Yes, I know criticizing them upsets you. Try to get through it.

  22. Uncle Tim (Scott)?

    “He is the first black senator elected from the Deep South since Reconstruction. Why? Because he doesn’t represent black voters.”

    http://www.slate.com/articles/…..nator.html

    1. Try suggesting that Barack Obama doesn’t represent white voters, and people will have a conniption fit.

      1. The democratic party plantation is slowly burning down to the ground, and it’s driving them insane.

        1. If you read the article you’ll see that’s wrong, it notes that Scott got little black support.

    2. I’m not sure what the point of this is. What does the color of a man’s skin have to do with anything?

      1. We are supposed to judge people by the color of their skin, not the content of their character!

      2. It’s a pretty silly article. Instead of noting the progress in a bunch of whites voting for a black man as one of their leaders the article looks for a way to twist that so that it’s still evidence of racial retrogression.

        If you want to criticize Tim Scott (and I always do), it’s for his fondness for military spending and federal spending for South Carolina while talking small government.

        1. Yep both parties suck. But if Scott can cut spending anywhere or help pass reforms that result in greater economic liberty then good for him. Someone else can cut military spending. Good place to compromise.
          I’m an independent, but I’ve noticed that politician hero-worship is most prevalent on the left.
          And I was born in SC. If black people didn’t vote for Scott how did he get elected by a party full of people who want to bring back slavery?

  23. “In President Barack Obama, Americans have a charismatic leader with a good and honest heart. Unlike his predecessor, he’s a very intelligent leader. And unlike that president’s predecessor, he’s a highly moral man.”

    PUT THE FUCKING GLASSES ON!

    1. It’s the political equivalent of beer goggles, actually.

    2. I keep hearing here that there’s no such thing as peak derp.

      But I’m not sure how there can be more derp than that. It’s the alpha and the omega of derp. You can’t go any farther.

      1. Salon laughs at your presumption they cannot do something derpier!

      2. Obama is more intelligent than Bush by the only objective measure we have. He is a Harvard Law Magna cum laude.

        Also Iraq.

        1. See, Andrew, evidence right here that it can get worse.

        2. Help you guys I facepalmed so hard my hand came out the other side of my head what should I do

          1. Ignore The Weigel. It’s a total moron.

          2. What else can you do but laugh lest you lose your mind?

            1. You… you’re right. This is me right now.

        3. I know a law professor at tOSU who has some good second-hand Obama law school stories.

        4. Have you seen his transcripts?

          1. They were on a hard drive that crashed in 2007. No server backup.

        5. Even Woody Allen knows that Harvard makes mistakes. Your comment is the basest of credentialism.

          1. Name another objective measure then. Bush was well known for his complete lack of intellectual curiosity.

            1. Palin’s Buttplug|11.11.14 @ 9:53AM|#
              “Bush was well known for his complete lack of intellectual curiosity.”

              ‘Everybody knows’ from a proven lair. Fuck off, turd.

            2. In what way has Obama ever demonstrated intellectual curiosity?

              Clinton was a Rhodes scholar – and that particular credential, at least, is still all about the work. So I’m more than willing to concede that Clinton possesses a Mensa-level intellect, as his biographers like to claim.

              But Obama?

              If Obama was a profound legal scholar, there’d be some paper or case work we could attach to his name.

              Where is it?

            3. Name another objective measure then.

              SAT scores? Grades? IQ? Hard to compare, of course, for, uh, reasons.

            4. Also, GWB is a Harvard MBA.

              I’m sure the law school is the last bastion of intellectual vigor at that esteemed institution though.

              1. For the benefit of Bo, that’s not to suggest that GWB’s credential proves his intelligence or intellectual superiority to Obama. Just the opposite: it’s to demonstrate that a credential doesn’t mean shit.

                1. If you looked you might see that I agree with you and already condemned PB’s ‘point.’

                2. Grades matter. Magna cum laude is far superior to a C student.

                  1. Bush wasn’t a C-student in B-school though, you’re thinking of his undergrad years at Yale, where he and John Kerry were rounding out the bottoms of their classes at roughly the same time.

                  2. Grades matter much more in STEM disciplines than they do liberal arts disciplines.

        6. I guess this depends what “intelligent leader” means. He’s a terrible leader, but he would probably do well on Jeopardy.

          1. I doubt that.

            On a related note, did anyone else catch Obama appointee Richard Cordray lose on Jeopardy recently? Top men indeed.

            1. Yeah, but Cordray was once a five-time champion. Which goes back to good Jeopardy contestant/bad leader.

              1. In fact, I’d posit that Cordray’s success on Jeopardy! is the only explanation for his success in politics. Fuck you, Trebek.

              2. Eh, that was years ago. He’s only gotten dumber it appears.

          2. I don’t think they put the answers on a little screen in the podium the contestants stand behind, so…no.

      3. We will not know when we have reached peak derp until we pass it and start to see a steady and gradual decline in derp. We ain’t there yet…

        1. They’re gonna crank it up that’s for sure. Hang on for the ride.

          1. They’ve starting drilling for it horizontally. Peak derp is still years away.

              1. Does no one care about the inevitable environmental catastrophe?

      4. That will be taken as a challenge.

    3. PUT THE FUCKING GLASSES ON!

      I was thinking you were referring to this:

      http://youtu.be/cVAcRH9b44w

  24. In case this wasn’t linked elsewhere (I’m still catching up on last night’s posts):

    Glenn Beck has major health problems.

    I can see what folks like shriek will say, if they haven’t said it already.

    1. He is a very good businessman, that is for sure.

      1. Beck is interesting. As you say, he is undoubtedly a good businessman, and he can be genuinely funny. I listened to his show a few years back when he would strike a libertarian chord from time to time. In fact, he is the one that turned me on to Hayek, Friedman, and Rand. Then he started to go deep into the conspiracy theories and Mormon flavor of American Exceptionalism, and it got a little too weird for me.

        1. I still listen to Beck when I don’t have any fresh podcasts during my commute. He’s not a libertarian however, I have no delusions about that. We might call him a limited government theocrat, or at least as “limited” as far as theocrats can conceive.

          1. I started listening to him right around when the financial crisis hit. The focus then was more on the economy and he seemed (still does?) pretty firmly in the free market camp. After Obama got elected he started to weirder.

            In some respects, he is almost like a more overtly religious version of Ron Paul.

            1. pretty firmly in the free market camp

              He has overall been good on economics as far as right-wing pundits go, but his commitment to nationalism trumps whatever commitment he has to sound economics. But he’s not claiming to be an Austrian economist so I let his nationalist bent slide since it may be that he’ll pull more average people in the direction of free markets.

        2. I can’t stand Beck. To me, Limbaugh is so much more entertaining. I cop to the fact that what I can’t stand about Beck is his format where he has two co-hosts snickering and giggling with him all the time.

          1. Different tastes. I find Beck to be funnier than Limbaugh, whose voice I cannot stand.

            1. I can’t stand Limbaugh. But I don’t really listen to talk radio of any kind.

              Beck, from what I understand, comes from a morning radio background, so the format probably reflects that. He’s also been using the same fundie Mormon producer for his entire career. He’s making enough money, so stick with what works I guess.

              1. “He’s making enough money, so stick with what works I guess.”

                He made 90 million in 2013. He made more money than Oprah (77 Million). So it’s definitely working.

              2. Beck was on my local talk station before he went national. His current persona is totally an act.

  25. Guardian readers wrestle with concept of transgender (yay!) libertarian (booooo!)

    http://www.theguardian.com/com…..ed-my-life

    1. Thanks for the trigger warning – I’ll pass.

    2. I hope these people never learn about Donald/Deirdre McCloskey, who is an absolute firebrand and well respected among libertarians.

  26. Eight women have died in India and dozens more are in hospital, with 10 in a critical condition, after a state-run mass sterilisation campaign went tragically wrong

    http://www.theguardian.com/wor…..ation-camp

    1. Well, they won’t be able to breed anymore so still a partial success? At least, as far as the state is concerned…

      1. But were they catcalled?

  27. http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/ne…..nsnewsap11

    Lara Logan quantined for possible exposure to Ebola. After what happened to her in Egypt, I think Lara needs to find a new line of work.

    1. I think you have to give it to some journalists who are very courageous if nothing else in trying to cover some things.

      1. Her inadvertent coverage of a Cairo gangrape might have been a wake up call that the culture of the region is not worth defending to it’s western critics. But nonetheless she persists. Very courageous!

  28. Obama is more intelligent than Bush by the only objective measure we have. He is a Harvard Law Magna cum laude.

    What’s that gurgling sound? Is my toilet clogged?

    Oh, wait- never mind.

    1. That’s a lotta derp in one place.

      Cause everyone knows the Yale grads are smarter…and Princeton smarter yet!

      It’s the “only objective measure” we have, after all.

      1. And Bush got into Harvard because of his family. It is not like Obama got in because of his race or anything. Come on.

        The funniest thing about that whole “he was editor of Harvard Law Review” thing is that Obama is over 50 years old and has been President for six years and his defenders still pull out his college resume to defend him. I don’t care what you did in college. If you are still riding your acomplishments there when you are 50, you have failed in your career.

        1. Is being a politician not a noble pursuit?

          1. Nobel pursuit sometimes

        2. Obama was a Harvard legacy you idiot. Bush is known as a dunce. A connected C student who only became president because his father was.

          1. Obama has done nothing but fuck up and get usful idiots like you to vote for him since leaving Harvard. There are few things more pathetic than a grown man who still points to his college accomplishments.

            Thanks for proving my point retard.

            1. Bush is known worldwide as a dunce. That is a fact. Your tiny Team Red enclave are the only exception.

              1. Palin’s Buttplug|11.11.14 @ 10:14AM|#
                “Bush is known worldwide as a dunce.”

                Turd, you would be too, if more than 50 people were familiar with your abysmal ignorance.

              2. Bush is known worldwide as a dunce. That is a fact. Your tiny Team Red enclave are the only exception.

                Ad populum much?

          2. I’ve gotta post this just cause I’m a proud papa. My son, the Hoosier Obama

            1. And isn’t that a bitchin’ moniker for a lawyer?

              1. (His actual name, not “Hoosier Obama.” I wouldn’t actually suggest that for the business card.)

          3. Bush’s grades were better than Kerry’s…

            1. Iirc Gore’s were fairly middling too, right?

              1. I wouldn’t be surprised. When you have a rich, well connected parent the motivation to work hard in order to get ahead isn’t always there.

                1. Not that it means jack, of course.

          4. Palin’s Buttplug|11.11.14 @ 10:04AM|#
            “Obama was a Harvard legacy you idiot”

            Your fave lying piece of shit was a Harvard token, you asshole.

            1. You’ll have to forgive me. My butt still hurts really badly, and it’s not just because Matt Yglesias forgot to bring the lube last night.

            2. You stupid asshole. Obama’s father earned a Masters in Finance from Harvard.

              Bush cannot form a compound sentence without fucking it up. Romney and McCain are geniuses in comparison. And so is Obama.

              1. Romney and McCain are geniuses in comparison.

                Romney and Bush have the same academic pedigree. And since that’s the only objective measure we have…

              2. “Because…ah, Obama, is, um, just a great, ah, wordsmith without a steady dose of um, teleprompters.”

        3. This.

    2. from 2013, but to the point:

      George W. Bush is smarter than you

      One of my students asked “How involved was President Bush with what was going on?” I smiled and responded, “What you really mean is, ‘Was President Bush smart enough to understand what was going on,’ right?”

      The class went dead silent. Everyone knew that this was the true meaning of the question. Kudos to that student for asking the hard question and for framing it so politely. I had stripped away that decorum and exposed the raw nerve.

      I looked hard at the 60 MBA students and said “President Bush is smarter than almost every one of you.”

      More silence.

      I could tell they were waiting for me to break the tension, laugh, and admit I was joking.

      I did not. A few shifted in their seats, then I launched into a longer answer. While it was a while ago, here is an amalgam of that answer and others I have given in similar contexts.

  29. PS What, nothing to post on the fact that the US is no ebola free?

    SEE – THE QUARANTINES WORKED!!

    *runs and hides*

    1. oh the NYC doctor was cleared? That’s good news.

  30. Which book do we base our philosophy on? The Stars My Destination? Dune? The novelization of Star Trek V? What?

    I’ll go with A Boy and His Dog.

  31. Hey, does anyone have a link to Sug’s most recent scribbling about Santorum and the other SoCon’s? Asking for a friend, of course.

    1. http://hrsugarfree.blogspot.com/

      Not much recent stuff. I have been focusing on my erotic memoirs.

      1. **shudders**

  32. Pot Smokers Have Better Brain Connections

    Ha! I knew it! Hear that, ma?

    1. “Ha! I knew it! Hear that, ma?”

      Uh, what were we talking about?

  33. Neanderthals the first neck-beards.

    “No, I found that Neanderthals lacked genes linked to successful socialization and management skills. They could count perfectly well, but they couldn’t deal with groups. Socialization genes came from Sapiens”

    “You’re trying to tell me …” I said, but my mental censor blocked the idea.

    “That human mathematical intelligence came from Neanderthals? That’s what the data say. The Cro-Magnons had the social skills. But that isn’t all.”

    I for one reject this conclusion we are all gods children and the earth is 200 years old.

    1. Common misconception. The universe is two years old, but it was created with a 13.8 billion-year history. So you can understand why people misconstrue the evidence and misunderstand the nature of physical evidence, which is to test your faith in whatever it is that your parents taught you to have faith in.

      The earth, of course, is just one year old and created with a 13,800,000,001-year history.

  34. We need to consolidate programs in the VA.

    (But we can’t get rid of SESes or GS-15s as part of the process)

  35. “A noted South African ventriloquist is fighting to lift a gag order banning his puppet from talking about a local singer in public and on social media.”
    Read more: http://www.hngn.com/articles/4…..z3Im1XemVl

    More ‘hate speech’ stupity.

    1. No free speech for creepy puppets!

  36. It will be interesting to see the usual suspects here blaming everything bad in those states on the omnipotent ‘progs’ over the next few years.

    The state governments now largely exist as structures to administer federal programs.

    Those federal programs must be run according to regulations written at the federal level.

    If I was the omnipotent governor of a New England state, with a legislature that would give me whatever I wanted, and I decided I wanted to completely eliminate my state’s bureaucracy for public health, Medicaid (not the same thing), SNAP, unemployment and job training and public housing, in order to transform the way those services are provided in my state…I wouldn’t be able to do it. These aren’t state decisions any more.

    In some cases (public health, employment and housing programs) local bodies can bypass the state entirely, if the state refuses to play ball. In other cases, if the state withdraws from the program(s), that state’s citizens will still be taxed to provide them for others.

    The federal government has the states checkmated.

    It’s not 1860.

    1. Why, its almost like the 17th Amendment was a power grab by those who saw Federal power as too distributed.

      1. Mein Gott, you’re right! Turn the ship around!

      2. Supremacy Clause. The Founders wanted it that way for better or worse.

    2. +1 DUI law

    3. You’re harshing the mellow, dude. Like, just stop, man.

  37. “Regular pot smokers exhibit some structural differences in the brain, including less gray matter in the orbital frontal cortex but better neural connections in this area.”

    Yeah, just because I think something should be legal doesn’t mean I have to pretend everything about it is good in every way. Even if smoking marijuana is bad for you, I think free people should be free to do it anyway.

  38. I, for one, would be pleased if both Bo and John would refrain from inflicting their tiresome psychoses (political and otherwise) on me via this website.

    Cue John to tell me how much I love sucking Obama’s cock.

    1. No. I only do that when you cheer on exectutive action on immigration.

      As far as this or that thread, if it bugs you don’t read it. If you find it so tiresome and so beneath your giant intellect, not reading it shouldn’t be hard should it?

  39. Stroke that hateboner some more, John. Hate is pretty much all you have to work with.

    Sucks to be you.

  40. Stevie Wonder deserves it, for this if nothing else:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ul7X5js1vE

    1. Wow, Sesame Street was far funkier than I remember it.

          1. Suddenly, the 70s make sense to me.

            Did John Milius ever host? Sesame Street: Street of Darkness

              1. Well, there you go. Which Muppet was Kurtz?

                  1. “The Mahna Mahna. The Mahna Mahna.”

          2. How can you talk Street (about Sesame) without linking to Easy Reader?

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u8MY7PjSXU

            1. How did you get a video recording of one of my lectures for English Morphology and Syntax?

            2. Because Easy reader was on the Electric Company?

  41. John’s typos are more interesting than anything Bo has to say.

    1. He’s the best typoist in America today. I’ve derived at least ten neologisms from his performance art.

    2. This thread is like a train wreck that I can’t stop watching.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.