MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Republican Leaders Sneak Support for Yemen War Into Farm Bill Vote: Reason Roundup

Plus: Google hearing once again reveals legislative ignorance on tech and IRS auditors target more low-income taxpayers.

Thomas Massie/TwitterThomas Massie/TwitterThe House of Representatives will vote today on whether to proceed with the latest Farm Bill. Tucked inside of it is a resolution that would suspend the War Powers Act with regard to Yemen and halt any House debate on American support for Saudi Arabia's aggression there.

The resolution attached to the farm bill says that the Congressional part of the War Powers Resolution "shall not apply during the remainder of the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress to a concurrent resolution introduced … with respect to Yemen."

That likely-to-be banned resolution, introduced in the House by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), would "recognize the undeclared nature of U.S. involvement in the Yemeni civil war and call for it to cease, absent explicit authorization," as FreedomWorks Federal Affairs Manager Sarah Anderson put it.

In the Senate, a resolution similar to the Massie-Khanna one (from Sens. Mike Lee and Bernie Sanders) is scheduled for a vote today.

"To avoid a debate on whether the US should be involved in a war in Yemen, today our leadership will trick members into suspending the provisions of the War Powers Act," tweeted Massie this morning. "Sad!" Last night, he called it "despicable" that House Speaker Paul Ryan "is shirking responsibility for debating our involvement in the Yemen war by hiding the war resolution in a procedural vote on the farm bill."

"Why not just vote against the farm bill?" someone asked Massie. He responded by explaining that today's House vote isn't to approve the farm bill itself but to approve a future vote on whether to approve it.

"We should vote against this procedural vote," Massie added. "If the procedural vote fails, the farm bill won't proceed to a vote."

If it does, and passes, it means Congress would temporarily give up their ability to have any say in how the executive branch decides to handle things in Yemen.

This is the second time House Republicans have tried to sneak a vote perpetuating war in Yemen into unrelated bills, Anderson also pointed out. Last time, it was tucked into a measure about wolves.

Jason Pye, vice president of legislative affairs at FreedomWorks, commented:

FREE MINDS

Republicans air grievances about their Google search results. As Robby Soave noted here last night, the whole hearing in which the House Judiciary Committee grilled Google head Sundar Pichai was seriously absurd, and kind of hilarious if it didn't foreshadow terrible new regulations and excuses for censorship.

Most of those questioning Pichai seemed under the impression that there are actual people at Google sitting around deciding what shows up in search results. This very busy cabal somehow manages to handle billions of searches globally per day while finding the time suppress good results about Republican leaders. Why else, they demand, would you get a picture of Trump when you search "idiot"? Why else would searching for these lawmakers' names not turn up positive news coverage?

The self-owns here are fun, and especially noteworthy since Google results depend at least in part on how popular a piece of content is (i.e., how many people visit the page) and how many times people search for particular terms together. What turns up is what's both topically relevant and what's popular. So yesterday's airing of grievances about GOP search results really just reveals widespread negative perceptions of these doofuses.

Beyond being ignorant about how search engines work, at least one of the lawmakers leading Pichai's questioning was not aware that Google doesn't make iPhones.

FREE MARKETS

The IRS has been "gutted" in the past few years, ProPublica reports. Good news, right?

Mostly. Libertarians can certainly get behind budget cuts at the agency and a slew of exiting employees (auditors employed at the IRS are down by a third since 2010). But one result of this, according to ProPublica, is that IRS auditors have started focusing more efforts on low-income taxpayers who fall behind.

The article contains a host of other interesting tidbits, but as Christian Britschgi wrote here yesterday, it doesn't quite explain why anyone should care that the IRS is taking in less tax money overall. "ProPublica fails to identify what, if any, effect a scaled back IRS actually has had on wider government operations," writes Britschgi. More:

One might complain that wealthy tax cheats are benefiting at the expense of the beneficiaries of government programs starved of funds. But the fact is that the absence of that $18 billion has not resulted in cuts to federal spending.

Indeed, in the years since the IRS has been "gutted," federal spending has gone nowhere but up. Fiscal year 2018 saw the federal government appropriate $4.1 trillion, a 3 percent hike from the previous year. That spending hike included an annual defense spending increase of $83 billion, and another $60 billion in increased non-defense discretionary spending.

QUICK HITS

• The British Parliament is holding a vote this evening to determine whether Prime Minister Teresa May is incompetent and should step down.

• Surprise, surprise, there's not a realistic way to keep the Russians off "our" social networks.

• A big new study shows that criminalizing prostitution makes it more risky. Sex workers are "three times more likely to experience violence" from customers where prostitution is illegal, The Guardian reports.

• "Whether it's 1848 or 1968, social upheaval in France rarely ends well."

• Let's end on some good news:

Photo Credit: screenshot of resolution

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Tucked inside of it is a resolution that would suspend the War Powers Act with regard to Yemen and halt any House debate on American support for Saudi Arabia's aggression in Yemen.

    This farm bill is sowing the seeds of discord.

  • ||

    Hello.

    The IRS is cracking down on the poor.

    While Hillary dances in India.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    I hear she does a mean Elaine Benis impression.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Bad enough to have to watch Congressional sausage making, but do we have to watch them jack off onto the salad?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • Conchfritters||

    I smell another strip club tour in her future. Shouldn't have trusted that dip shit attorney of hers.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    It's not like porn stars are known for their thoughtful decision-making and high future time-orientation.

  • Mickey Rat||

    She had been riding that notoriety with a strip club tour ever since she became well known.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Maybe a Stormy and Willy bus tour.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Which cigar company will be the sponsor?

  • John||

    All those Progs who donated to her go fund me account are going to end up paying Trump's legal fees. Sometimes God really does have a sense of humor.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    This wasn't so much any divine sense of humor as a lucky draw (Republican judge) at the case assignment wheel for America's First Husband.

  • John||

    Whine some more. Your tears and misery are lovely in the morning. Few things are more pleasurable than a loser whining about his fate.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "a lucky draw (Republican judge)"

    Look at Kirkland, once again acting like Trump. It wasn't that the judge decided things correctly, it's a flaw in the judge. Was the judge a Meskin too?

    And if you read some of the lawyers who have commented on this situation - none of whom care for Trump - the consensus is that nobody is surprised because the anti-SLAPP motion was a no-brainer and the fee decision was correctly done, if maybe a little high. But you don't care about that because you have no principles, as they flip back and forth according to the effect on your Team.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    The left acts a lot like Trump.

    Sure Trump throws child like tantrums. One man throwing a tantrum pales in comparison to the collective tantrum the left have been throwing since Hillary lost.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I thought you guys loved reflexive counterpunching, enough to cause you to support an authoritarian, cheating, lying, bigoted man-child.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Paying Trump's legal fees isn't reflexive counterpunching, hicklib?

  • Don't look at me!||

    Winning.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Republicans air grievances about their Google search results.

    They could have made actual, relevant complaints about how the search engine serves its customers if they had bothered to educate themselves. Of course then they might have got to the chapter where they had no place having the hearing in the first place.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    They'd have to study PageRank, which means they'd have to know what a matrix is. And that movie was too good to ruin with some nerd shit.

  • John||

    I really don't get the concerns over Google supressing results. You only search google if you know what you are looking for. So what if the major media comes up first? No one trusts the major media anymore.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The more popular media is almost certainly going to come up first. Just based on how modern Web Crawlers do their ranking. This usually involves looking at number of links inwards and other references to popularity. The more popular sites are going to get weighted higher even before direct injection of biasing factors into the ranking.

  • Mike Laursen||

    And PageRank isn't even the sole algorithm, anymore. It would be virtually impossible for Google to explain their current search system to Congress.

    Google should just rig up the search engine to show each Congress member what they want to see.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    ENB seems fairly clueless about hope search engines work. While there aren't people picking specific results, it's fairly easy to retain the search engine to associate certain results with season keywords, and have it return the same results for everyone.
    Try searching for "white inventors", and see the magic of silicon valley groupthink.

  • Jgalt1975||

    Try searching for "white inventors", and see the magic of silicon valley groupthink.

    If you mean the fact that all of the images appearing at the top of the search results in Google for that phrase are of non-white people, isn't that most likely because the term "white inventors" is basically only ever used in the context of talking about the (historically, at least) exceptional situation of an inventor being non-white? No one is normally going to use the term "white inventors" in the context of talking about Thomas Edison or James Watt or whomever else you think should be appearing in those results. (For a comparison, if you search just "inventors" in Google, 5 of 7 people pictured at the top of the search results are white.)

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Sexual harassment fund exposes Congress
    When sexual harassers agree on confidential settlements with victims, at least the payments come out of the harassers' own pockets or from companies that choose to employ them.

    But not, as the nation has learned this month, when the harasser serves in Congress. Then, taxpayers foot the bill. And the entire episode remains hidden.

    LET'S PROSECUTE GOOGLE FOR ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
    On Tuesday, Google CEO Sundar Pichai struggled to respond to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)'s persistent questions about an email from Google's former head of multicultural marketing, Eliana Murillo, reporting that the company attempted to push out the Latino vote "in key states" during the 2016 election. Murillo's email, reported by Fox News's Tucker Carlson, essentially admitted that Google had given Hillary Clinton an in-kind donation during that key election.

    That is a considerably more serious crime than President Trump's perfectly legal payment to Stormy Daniels, which I don't think violated campaign finance laws at all.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Do you have the text of the original emails in question?

  • John||

    Ultimately, after all was said and one [sic], the Latino community did come out to vote, and completely surprised us. We never anticipated that 29% of Latinos would vote for Trump. No one did," the executive wrote.

    Objectively speaking, our goal was met—we pushed and successfully launched the search features in Spanish, and we thank Lisa for her support in advocating for this work. I sent Philipp a note yesterday to thank him because he and others voiced their support this too, and we greatly appreciate it. Even Sundar [Pichai, Google's CEO] gave the effort a shout out and comment in Spanish, which was really special

    http://www.foxnews.com/tech/le.....-for-trump

    Google is your friend.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Those are only selectively quoted passages from this email. I'm talking about the whole email.

  • John||

    Then go look and find the entire thing. I am sure it is out there somewhere. I am not your secretary. Those quotes are very direct. It is hard to see how there could be any context that would change their meaning. The words speak for themselves. You are just too lazy, stupid and dishonest to admit that. Regardless, if you think they are, go find the context and show it.

    You of course won't be doing that because you are too lazy, stupid and dishonest to back up your argument and instead will scream and whine about everyone not making your argument for you. Lazy, stupid and dishonest is your move.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I did search for it and I could not find the entire email.

    Thought you might know, since you are one of the true believers after all.

  • John||

    Explain why I should not believe my lying eyes or shut up. "I don't like what that says so it must have been taken out of context" isn't very persuasive. Moreover, the email is very embarassing to google. If these quotes are out of context, explain why Google hasn't released the context and made fools out of the people reporting it? Was it kindness?

    Stop making stupid arguments. If you can only make a stupid argument, don't post.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    And incidentally John:

    "I don't like what that says so it must have been taken out of context" isn't very persuasive.

    is not my argument, nor is it the argument of anyone in this discussion.

    I am agnostic about what really happened at Google with regards to this email and whatever electioneering they might have done in 2016. I would like to know the entirety of this email so that I can form a more well-informed opinion on the matter. You on the other hand, don't seem to require such a burdensome standard.

  • Jerryskids||

    LOL.

  • John||

    It is okay Jerry. I know you are one of the smart people. don't worry.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If I presented selected excerpts from a bombshell email alleging terrible misdeeds occurring at, say, the NRA, with those selections just happening to come from left-wing sources, you would demand to see the full text of the email as well.

    Moreover, the email is very embarassing to google.

    How would you know? You haven't seen it either.

  • John||

    The quotes are very embarassing. If there are parts that put that into context and make it less embarassing, why has Google not released them?

    Do you not understand the argument? As usual your response makes no sense. You claim the quotes were taken out of context and dont' mean what they plainly seem to. Okay, that is possible. But why would we assume that to be the case? They could also mean exactly what they seem to? If there is context that makes this less embarassing, it is rational to assume that Google would release that context.

    I really wonder sometimes if you haven't suffered some kind of brain damage. You seem completely unable to follow deductive reasoning. At frist I thought it was just that no one ever taught you how to do it. But I am starting to think there is a deeper problem.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You claim the quotes were taken out of context

    I didn't claim the quotes were taken out of context. I don't actually know if they were or not. I would like to read the entire email so that I can form a more well-informed opinion on the matter. Wouldn't you?

    If there is context that makes this less embarassing, it is rational to assume that Google would release that context.

    In other words, since Google hasn't (evidently) proven their innocence to your satisfaction, we must assume the guilt of the accused. Is that really your position here?

  • John||

    I didn't claim the quotes were taken out of context. I don't actually know if they were or not. I would like to read the entire email so that I can form a more well-informed opinion on the matter. Wouldn't you?

    The quotes clearly say that Google influenced the election by trying to get Hispanics to turn out for Hillary. Read it again

    Ultimately, after all was said and one [sic], the Latino community did come out to vote, and completely surprised us. We never anticipated that 29% of Latinos would vote for Trump. No one did," the executive wrote.

    Objectively speaking, our goal was met—we pushed and successfully launched the search features in Spanish, and we thank Lisa for her support in advocating for this work.

    if there was something else in those emails that made this mean something it doesn't, Google has every reason to produce it. Why should I not beleive that this email means anything other than what it says?

    I really think there needs to be a team of experts studying your IQ. It is remarkable how poorly you reason.

  • John||

    If there was some damaging email from the NRA out there and the NRA refused to release the full email, it would be safe to assume that the quotes from the email were not taken out of context and the email means what it appears to mean. The same logic would apply in that case as applies in this one.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Here is what happened, John.

    A fellow tribalist of yours took selected quotes from this bombshell email that confirm all of your pre-existing biases. As a result, you believe the claims made in their entirety. No more further thought is required in the matter.

    If the roles were reversed, you would demand mountains of evidence before acknowledging the legitimacy of the claims (witness all of your prior whining about 'unnamed sources' saying things critical of Trump in NYT/WaPo articles).

  • John||

    If the roles were reversed I would say the same thing. You are assuming that those quotes somehow don't mean what they say. I am assuming no such thing. I am saying that if there were some context that changed the meaning of those quotes, Google would have released that context and made a fool of Carlson. Why would they not have done that. This makes them potentially guilty of a crime and gives their critics all kinds of ammunition against them. If there were some other information out there that showed these quotes to be distorted by Carlson, there is no rational reason to explain why Google wouldn't be all over Carlson and Fox News with that context. The fact that they are not is pretty strong evidence that no such context exists and these emails mean what they say.

    it is called the dog that didn't bark. The dog didn't bark, therefore we can safely conclude that no one walked in the front door. You really seem to be unable to grasp deductive reasoning. Worse, because you can't grasp it, you assume everyone else resorts to the same crude thinking that you do.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    This is complete bullshit John. You spent months and months whining about unnamed sources saying mean things about Trump, even going as far as claiming that the newspapers themselves completely made up the quotes.

    You completely invert the burden of proof because it is opportunistically convenient for you.

  • John||

    Carlson has these quotes from what he says is a google email that show Google to be meddling in the election. The quotes planly say that Google was doing just that.

    There are two ways that Carlson could be lying here. First, the email could be fake and not from Google at all. Second, Carlson could be taking the quotes out of context to make them seem to mean something they don't.

    Google has in its possession all of its internal emails. So, if the email were fake and not really from their server, Google could very easily figure that out and make Carlson into a fool. If Carlson is taking the email out of context, Google, since it is their email, would know that and could make Carlson a fool by releasing that context and show how he is lying.

    Google has done neither of these things. it has as far as I can see not claimed the email is fake or released any context or the full email showing the quotes to be taken out of context. If they could claim either of those things, they most certainly would have since these emails make them look very bad.

    What part of that do you not understand?

  • John||

    Also, the woman who sent this email is a Google employee. If this email were a joke or a fake or there was other facts that show that Carlson's quotes are not true, Google could have the person who wrote the email come out and explain that and prove Carlson a liar. Again, they have not done that. And the only reasonable explanation for why they haven't is because the email and the quotes from it are authentic and mean what they say.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Gave it a shot but couldn't find the entire e-mail. I presume he's talking about this Tucker Carlson e-mail. I tried a couple of sites, but some of the odder ones started to send me into a redirect hell, so I gave up.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    That is my experience too. I did not find the entire email.

  • Jerryskids||

    Don't worry, Tucker Carlson gave you the relevant bits and that's all you need to know. John even vouched for Tucker Carlson's integrity in the matter and if you can't trust a lunatic to vouch for a retard, who can you trust?

  • John||

    If the revealed bits are not the full truth, why hasn't google released the full text and made a fool of Carlson? They have hte email. Why would they not reveal the context disproving this if there was any to be released?

    Jesus Christ Jerry, you are normally smarter than this. You are not that bright, but you usually are not this dumb. If Carlson were lying, Google would have just released the email and made him look stupid.

    I understand how desparately you want to look smart and fit in. And Carlson is kind of a wierdo. I don't watch him. But it appears he got this one right. Admitting the obvious doesn 't make you look like a deplorable or one of those people you hate so much. It really doesn't.

    It is what it is. Sometimes those dirty rotten ignorant bastards that everyone knows are inferior to all of us stumble onto something. Life sucks that way.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "Why doesn't the accused attempt to prove their innocence?" is a standard you would never use for, let's say, Kavanaugh. Why should Google adhere to it?

  • John||

    "Why doesn't the accused attempt to prove their innocence?"

    If the accused really has an allaby, why didn't he tell the court is a rational question. We have evidence that shows Google to be guitly of this. It is perfectly rational to take that evidence at its face until google disproves it.

    You don't seem to understand what burden of proof means. Carlson has met his burden by producing authentic quotes from an internal email that make Google look very bad. If there is more to the story that Carlson isn't saying, then it is up to google to produce that. The fact that there may possibly be an alliby doesn't mean we must believe there is. Once the initial burden of proof has been met by accusor, it is up to the accused to explain why the evidence is not what it seems to be. The burden shirts in that circumstance.

    Again, were you in a car accident or something?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Carlson has met his burden by producing authentic quotes from an internal email that make Google look very bad.

    How do you know that the quotes are (1) authentic, and (2) consistent with the intended meaning of the email, unless you actually read the entirety of the email itself?

    The burden of proof is on the accuser to back up his/her claims, not on the accused to prove his/her innocence. I do believe you wrote approximately 2,297,927 comments on this when it came to Kavanaugh.

  • John||

    How do you know that the quotes are (1) authentic, and (2) consistent with the intended meaning of the email, unless you actually read the entirety of the email itself?

    I do not know that the quotes are authentic. But I do not know that they are not either. What I do know is that if they were not authentic Google could very easily show them to be so. And I also know Google has not done that even though they have every reason to do so.

    Moreover, Google is the only party in possession of all of the information necessary to show these quotes to be fake. So, the fact that they have not done that is pretty conclusive proof that the emails are authentic. There is no other rational explanation for Google failing to disprove them other than there being no way to do so.

    Again, you really seem unable to reason.

  • DesigNate||

    Except Kavanaugh attempted to prove his innocence and clear his name....

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    John is what happens when a normally sensible person suspends all critical thinking skills in the service of tribal loyalty.

  • John||

    Explain why what I just said is not rational? Do you not know what critical thinking is?

    You are just making a fool of yourself at this point. I hope you are just trolling, because if you really are this dumb, I sincerely feel sorry for you.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It is exactly as I said.

    When it came to Ford accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault, the burden of proof is on Ford to prove her claims, not on Kavanaugh to prove his innocence.

    When it comes to Carlson accusing Google of electoral misconduct, the burden of proof is on Google to prove its innocence, not on Carlson to substantiate his claims.

    I get it entirely!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    When it comes to unnamed sources saying things critical of Trump in NYT/WaPo articles, these sources are not to be taken at face value because there is no way to validate their claims.

    When it comes to Carlson saying things critical of Google, but only selectively quoting this one bombshell email, then Carlson's claims are to be accepted uncritically and at face value, even though there is no way to validate his claims without access to the full email.

  • John||

    Ford had no evidence that the event ever happened. If Ford produced an email that came from Kavanaugh or a letter that showed Kavanaugh admitting that he did it, yes I would expect Kavanaugh to explain that letter. In this case, if Carlson had no email or no proof and just made the accusuation, I wouldn't expect Google to disprove it and wouldn't see any reason to beleive Carlson.

    Again, you really don't seem to be able to think rationally or think deductively. The circumstances are different because the proof provided by the accussor in each case is different.

  • Jerryskids||

    From the Fox News site, the "bombshell email" is a Tucker Carlson exclusive, only Tucker Carlson has seen the email so you won't find it anywhere - unless and until Tucker Carlson releases it for publication.

    But there is this in the Fox News article:

    He [Tucker Carlson] said the email also allegedly states....

    Ummmm, what do you mean he said it "allegedly" states? If he has the e-mail, there's no "allegedly" about it. Unless, of course, Tucker Carlson does not in fact have the email but instead has some "source close to the matter" who simply gave him the gist of the email and some snippets to quote. You know, the exact same way the NYT and WaPo announce "bombshell" revelations.

  • John||

    Google has the email too Jerry. It is their email and came from their server. So, not not just Tucker Carlson has that email. Google has it as well. If there were other parts of that email that show that these quotes don't mean what they seem to and that Carlson was selectively quoting from the email to distort its meaning, Google would have every reason to release the full text and make a fool of Carlson. This story came out in September. Google has had plenty of time too kill this story and make a fool out of Carlson. The fact that they haven't shows that there is no other context and these quotes mean what they appear to mean.

    Jeff is too dumb to understand deductive reasoning but I know you are not that dumb. So come on.

  • The Heresiarch||

    Double hearsay is twice as good as regular hearsay in a court of law, especially when you don't have the very document you're trying to authenticate.

  • John||

    Carlson claims that the email is authentic. Google has in its possesion all of the information necessary to either confirm or contradict that claim. In fact, they are the only ones who have the information. If it is a fake email, it is up to google to show that if they don't want people to believe that it is real. Google is the only one who has the information that could show the email to be fake. It is up to them to release that information if they want to disprove this charge.

  • Jerryskids||

    Lol - what email?

  • John||

    The email Carlson is quoting from. It says in the stroy who sent it. Google has that email or knows if it is fake and no such email existed were that the case.

    Again, are you as dumb as Jeff or are you just a mendacious asshole?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    """Sexual harassment fund exposes Congress
    When sexual harassers agree on confidential settlements with victims, at least the payments come out of the harassers' own pockets or from companies that choose to employ them.

    But not, as the nation has learned this month, when the harasser serves in Congress. Then, taxpayers foot the bill. And the entire episode remains hidden.""

    The reason Congress kept it hidden was so it would not affect their re-election bids. If paying women to keep silent for the purpose of it not impacting a campaign is impeachable. I look forward to all the impeachments that about to happen.

  • commentguy||

    That is not an illegal campaign contribution. The fact that Latinos are less likely to vote for the guy who made anti-Mexican rhetoric part of his campaign doesn't make it a campaign contribution. It's a clever but legal way to support a political cause, in the same way that an anti-abortion organization offering lifts to the polls would essentially be supporting Republicans but not a specific Republican campaign.

    This is a well-known and historically accepted aspect of campaign finance law.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • Earth Skeptic||

    What's the modern equivalent of Hollywood Squares?

  • Dillinger||

    Squares is the only one NOT in a current reboot.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I saw a documentary on game shows and it was talking about how many of them filmed all five for the week on Monday. Usually 3, then a break, then 2. Often during the break alcohol consumption was common. The doc specifically called out Hollywood Squares. Paul Lynde would get ripped before taping the last two shows so the shows that aired on Thursday and Friday were funnier.

  • Dillinger||

    Match Game 73-77 likely similar

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I think so.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    After @SteveKingIA raises inscrutable concerns about iPhones, Google CEO Sunday Pichai patiently informs him, "Congressman, iPhone is made by a different company." pic.twitter.com/TiNZ1t3VRo
    — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 11, 2018

    I don't care for King, but people use iPhone as a band-aid for when they fail to remember the word smartphone.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Where people = ignorant, backward people.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Where ignorant, backward people = members of congress.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Where members of congress = a few downscale Republican members of Congress.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    AKA, Arthur L. Hicklib's neighborhood.

  • perlchpr||

    AKA, Arthur L. Hicklib.

  • Jerryskids||

    He should probably scotch tape a xerox of the word "smartphone" to his forehead. If it gives him a headache he can always take a couple of aspirins.

  • JFree||

    people use iPhone as a band-aid for when they fail to remember the word smartphone.

    Well maybe they should use iPhone as an adhesive bandage when they can't remember that their smartphone is not a Band-Aid.

    Or perhaps they really should stop using their phone and attend to their wounds if they are bleeding so bad that they can't remember things.

  • Dillinger||

    he'd fuck up calling a band-aid a band-aid

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Surprise, surprise, there's not a realistic way to keep the Russians off "our" social networks.

    Just because something cannot be done perfectly, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done at all. Russia hacking our 2016 election was the biggest scandal in world history, and we're still living with its disastrous effects today. We should be experiencing peace and prosperity under President Hillary Clinton. Instead we have a Kremlin asset in the White House who has destroyed our economy (as Paul Krugman predicted) and enacted draconian white nationalist immigration policies.

    #TrumpRussia

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Sorry, this one isn't very good.

  • perlchpr||

    I dunno, I thought the "peace and prosperity" line was hilarious.

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    I like the hyperbole of the "biggest scandal in world history"

    And I agree to some extent. The Obama administration weaponizing the DOJ against a political foe is perhaps the biggest misuse of power in modern America. Check out what the FBI did to Flynn, lied to him in order to get him to lie, then threw him in jail.

    Anyone in the way of the globalist neoliberal world order will get thrown in jail

  • AlmightyJB||

    Don't forget the Gay Conversion Therapy camp roundups and the efforts to put women back in the homes.

  • Rat on a train||

    How is the return of slavery going in your area?

  • perlchpr||

    Return? It's not like the IRS hasn't been a solid presence for decades.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Surprise, surprise, there's not a realistic way to keep the Russians off "our" social networks.

    Which means Hillary will never be president.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Never say never.

    #StillWithHer

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    A big new study shows that criminalizing prostitution makes it more risky.

    Lawmakers aren't sure what one thing has to do with the other.

  • AlmightyJB||

    If they don't want to get beat up or murdered then they shouldn't break the laws we wrote to protect them.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The cute blonde escort clubbed to death by a rag... er... sand... er... by Zahid Naseem would be a case in point--but more of a case against the EU Anschluss or a case against importing amok berserkers. Prostitution is actually legal in London. It's stoning women to death that isn't.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Federal court says Massachusetts public officials can no longer abuse state wiretap law to punish citizens for recording them https://t.co/2wyPDm0rDbhttps://t.co/ieLMumBl5z pic.twitter.com/NoOSfeCXFX
    — bloodthirsty cadaver junkie (@TimCushing) December 12, 2018

    Boston PD: "We'll see about that."

  • perlchpr||

    Yeah. You might beat the rap but you can't beat the ride.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    OFF TOPIC

    Did Palin's Buttplug get banned? I hope not. Despite his occasional Islamophobic comments he is a valuable left-libertarian contributor. And his knowledge of economics is unparalleled. I frequently rely on his posts to inform me exactly how terrible this #DrumpfRecession is.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Weigel is out getting treatment for his problem acne.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Apparently this Weigel character wrote for Reason long before I discovered the place? I've never understood the theory that he and Mr. Buttplug are the same person.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    That just meane you're Weigel too.

  • Griffin3||

    We're all Tulpa down here.

  • John||

    I really think Shreek losses an involuntary confinement hearing once in a while.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    LOL now this one is much better.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Real talk.

    Citizen X and Just Say'n, I miss you both. Please come back.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    They're both dead - X auto-erotically asphyxiated, and JS shit so hard his legs shot out straight and his head banged against the toilet tank, killing him instantly.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I'm just glad to see that you're okay.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I'm just glad to see that you're okay.

    Apparently, okay it's a sliding scale.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    JS's mother found him in the bathroom, pants off, covered in shit and blood.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Both of these scenarios are wonderful ways to go.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Truth.

  • Zeb||

    I can assure you that JS is alive and well.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Good to know. Did he jump back to Glibs or something?

  • Mickey Rat||

    It is the creepy hate/crush on Sarah Palin.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "ProPublica fails to identify what, if any, effect a scaled back IRS actually has had on wider government operations," writes Britschgi.

    It has none, and it will be a while before it does. We can continue the myth that increased government revenue can stave off economic collapse or we can be honest with ourselves and news consumers that only a massive reduction in expenditures can save the country.

  • sarcasmic||

    The country is fine. It's the government that is fucked.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The country is fine. The government will return to being fine, too, as soon as these backwater goobers are tossed in the next presidential election.

    Also fine: The appetite for 'sky is falling' projections among disaffected losers.

  • sarcasmic||

    The government is fucked. Beyond fucked. Don't matter who gets elected. Too many laws, too much spending, too much power, no respect for the people. But that's how governments work.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Also fine: The appetite for 'sky is falling' projections among disaffected losers."'

    Hillary Clinton voters?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Government growth to collapse is inevitable.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    And the collapse will be blamed on 'capitalism' leading to more government power.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    And if further revenue actually will be pursued, the question is who will be targeted. The problem is that most of the nation's wealth is now concentrated among the media industry and corporations that increasingly lean left in their branding and upper management, and in some cases are outright promoters for a single political party. Based on the amount of screeching that took place over a relatively modest federal tax increase on their hyper-priced real estate holdings, the actual chances of even 70s-era income tax levels being established are nil.

  • John||

    Revenues are rising above the rate of inflation this year but the deficit is still rising to record levels. Sudderman continues to assure us that the deficit is caused by evil Republican tax cuts not spending.

  • perlchpr||

    Most of those questioning Pichai seemed under the impression that there are actual people at Google sitting around deciding what shows up in search results. This very busy cabal somehow manages to handle billions of searches globally per day while finding the time suppress good results about Republican leaders.

    They're called "programmers". If you control the algorithm, you don't have to individually control its output.

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    Does ENB not understand how search engines work? That you can use keywords, combinations of verbiage, tone recognition, and I'm sure thousands of other techniques to get the outpt you want?

    I'm by no means a computer whiz but to think Google can't manipulate search results in a general way as to shut people out is quite astounding.

  • perlchpr||

    Does ENB not understand how search engines work?

    *shakes magic 8 ball*

    "Signs point to 'no'."

    The entire point of a search engine algorithm is to "decide what shows up in search results". That's how you provide people with relevant content. And if you think that what the programmer thinks is "relevant content" can't be ideologically biased, then... you should probably think it over again.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    And if you think that what the programmer thinks is "relevant content" can't be ideologically biased, then... you should probably think it over again.

    One of the first things you study in grad school humanities courses is whether it's possible to be truly objective when talking about a subject. The idea that BigTech applications would be this bastion of libertarian principle, in a society where adherence to left-wing shibboleths are increasingly promoted by the media, and the leaders of these firms themselves are caught on film slagging people who don't vote for Democrats, borders on the ridiculous.

  • perlchpr||

    Exactly. Even if they were trying to be objective, they'd probably fail, and I'm not at all convinced that they're even trying.

  • Don't look at me!||

    It's all very mysterious and nobody understands it. Hey, look over there!

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Anybody who's worried about Russians on social networks needs to step back and think about it some more. We have so many home-grown yahoos and whackos and celebrity-obsessed knuckleheads that the Russians get drowned out by the sheer volume of horseshit.

  • John||

    You mean 12 Russians trolling on twitter might not tip the election? Who knew?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I'm still not sold on this idea that foreign governments should not be allowed to interject into US politics. If it was a hacking, like actual vote tampering, then I'd be all for it. If it's running ads and social media campaigns for a political view, I don't know why them being foreign makes it suddenly vile.

  • Jerryskids||

    Hillary Clinton actually bragged about the number of foreign leaders that supported her over Trump. But that's not meddling, meddling is when the CIA gets involved. Which has never happened.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""meddling is when the CIA gets involved''

    Or the State dept. But I guess I'm being redundant.

  • John||

    I agree.

  • Ron||

    considering many world leaders and international actors went to the airwaves on TV and actively tried to Convince Americans to not vote for Trump I would think that was a much more viewed and clearly an illegal act or in kind foreign donation slash interference. more people watch Tv than facebook and I have no political adds on my Facebook. But lets all complain about Russia

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    I think that helped him more than it hurt him

  • Conchfritters||

    Regarding the election, in which Hamas beat Fatah by 74 to 45 seats, Clinton said "I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake. And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win."

  • Zeb||

    Yes. The First Amendment means what it says. And it says nothing about the nationality of the producer of speech or published material.

  • John||

    Yes Zeb. If you take this logic to its conclusion, it is illegal for any foreign national to speak about US politics. That means that someone visiting the country who says something about a US election is guilty of unlawfully influencing US politics. And that is absurd and completely contrary to the 1st Amendment.

  • lap83||

    It's horrible because they weren't noble undocumented immigrants running food trucks influencing the election. They were on evil foreign soil while they did it and so they deserve to be destroyed. (Cytotoxic's Law)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    If Russia was able to control the outcome of an election, in a country that's supposedly one of the richest and most powerful in the world, based on expenditures in the 4-5 figure range, we shouldn't be complaining about it. We should be offering to let them set our annual budget.

  • John||

    And we sure as hell shouldn't be screwing with a country that could do that.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Because with the govt being their provider, they don't have to deal with the need for beta male provisioning?

    Why women [at least the ones not put in camps or are one of the 100 million killed] have better sex under socialism, according to an anthropologist

  • John||

    http://freebeacon.com/politics.....signation/

    Democrats, "it is not rape rape when we do it."

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • John||

    The Congress has its own police force. They are never going to allow DC to deal with the problem.

  • Jerryskids||

    If Congress has not declared war in re Yemen, then there's no war in Yemen, is there? Besides, the Constitution gives the President authority in the realm of foreign relations and, under the Obama Doctrine, as long as there's no boots on the ground then bombing the shit out of people is just a diplomatic matter. And under the SCOTUS rule, as long as Congress continues to fund military action then they've effectively declared war. Turns out the clause in the Terms and Conditions of the Constitution giving Congress the power to declare war is an opt-out clause rather than an opt-in clause.

  • John||

    We have been through this before Jerry. It is not a war, it is a kinetic action.

  • Eddy||

    A holistic, evidence-based, multilateral, ergonomically friendly kinetic action.

    I mean, why stop at one euphemistic buzzword when you can just pack 'em in?

  • John||

    Good point Eddy.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    And fuck those assholes for not just supporting the war in Yemen, but for cowardly trying to sneak it in via the farm bill.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    And fuck those assholes for the Omnibus Farm Bill as well.

  • Mongo||

    And fuck you, you and YOU.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Now this is the internet that I know and love.

  • Dillinger||

    me?! wtf?

  • speedylee||

    Surprise, surprise, there's not a realistic way to keep the Russians off "our" social networks.

    So, hypothetically, if I donate money to Sargon of Akkad and he protests his government to effect change, I'm now influencing foreign politics, right?

    Turns out people influence other people. You can't stop that without really draconian rules and enforcement. But that's the point, isn't it?

  • John||

    If I work for a foreign corporation and donate some of my pay to a political cause or candidate, is that foreign money influencing our politics? How much foreign money do Prog groups get? Half of the institutional left is funded by George Soros to one degree or another and last I looked he was an evil forigner.

    The whole thing is just more proof peak retard can never be achieved.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    What these people want is the benefits of globalism without any of the consequences. You simply can't have an "open society" and then act shocked when people from outside that society market themselves within it and try to influence it.

    Those grub-eaters that killed the missionary have maintained their stone-age lifestyle because 1) their island has no natural resources with world-wide use applications, so no one's bothered colonizing the place, and 2) because they aggressively kill anyone who isn't one of them.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I don't even know how in a closed-society you would stop foreigners from expressing opinions on affairs. Particularly in the US where our politics have a significant influence upon the rest of the world. People will have opinions, and unless you can entirely shut down outside communications, those opinions will come in.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Show me the man and I'll show you the crime, and show Reason in total support of this sort of thing.

    YIKES: Incoming New York AG promises 'sweeping' investigations of Trump, his business deals and his family
    James campaigned on passing a bill to change New York's double jeopardy laws with an eye on possible pardons coming out of the White House. James told NBC News she wants to be able to pursue state charges against anyone the president were to pardon over federal charges or convictions and whose alleged crimes took place in the state. Under current New York law, she might not be unable to do that.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Elected offices tend to attract the worst sort of people.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Just like the nuclear option for federal judges, this will in no way backfire on Democrats down the road.

  • perlchpr||

    Well, it might not in New York.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Giuliani may have liked the ability to do that.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Bloomberg, too.

  • perlchpr||

    Why would those RINOs want to be able to prosecute the Democrats they're friends with?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If Republicans were to adopt this message, it would be a good step in the right direction for them.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/.....ents-2020/

  • perlchpr||

    That would be a great speech, but the GOP rejected Gary Johnson's bid to be their candidate pretty roundly.

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    "A big new study shows that criminalizing prostitution makes it more risky."

    What is less risky when criminalized?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Oddly enough, Pogs.

  • DajjaI||

    They are also trying to slip a ban on criticizing Israel into the upcoming federal spending bill. Tim Scott of SC is sponsoring this, so if you know him, urge him to desist. Also what's with SC? Nikki Haley pushed through the first state ban on BDS in 2016.

  • John||

    If State California can refuse to do business with any business that doesn't believe in the Tranny cult, why can't South Carolina refuse to do business with businesses who boycott Isreal?

    The answer is either both can or both cannot. And whatever the answer, neither is banning anything.

  • DajjaI||

    Because these laws are blatantly unconstitutional. And I relish the irony that we are being schooled on how our country works by muslims.

  • John||

    Then the California laws on trannies are as well. You seem to not understand that the rules apply uniformly and it is not different when your side does it.

  • DajjaI||

    Find the Reason article on this subject and then quote my comment here:

  • John||

    They are your posts, you go find them. It is not my job to prove your point.

  • Jgalt1975||

    True, sucking Trump's cock 18 hours a day doesn't leave much time for anything else, does it? And you don't even get paid for it, unlike loveconstitution1789.

  • John||

    Shut up Hihn, you crazy bastard.

  • Eddy||

    If we still had the Weekly Standard, their headline could be "Congress attaches farm bill to Yemen War resolution."

  • Eddy||

    "You got your foreign war in my gargantuan federal domestic program!"

    "You got your gargantuan federal domestic program in my foreign war!"

    Two great tastes that taste great together, Congressional omnibus bills.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "To avoid a debate on whether the US should be involved in a war in Yemen, today our leadership will trick members into suspending the provisions of the War Powers Act," tweeted Massie this morning".

    Was Pollyanna Massie just born yesterday? Of course not!

    And why the tricky language? What do you mean about the U.S. not being "involved" in a war in Yemen?

    Do you mean that the U.S. shouldn't put ground troops in Yemen?

    Do you mean that the U.S. shouldn't launch drone strikes in Yemen?

    Do you mean that the U.S. shouldn't give foreign aid directly to Yemen?

    Do you mean that the U.S. shouldn't be sharing battlefield intelligence with the Saudis and its allies in Yemen?

    Do you mean that the U.S. shouldn't sell weapons to the Saudis until Saudi Arabia's proxies surrender to Iran's proxies in Yemen?

    Do you mean the U.S. and its allies should capitulate to the Iranians everywhere in the region from Lebanon to Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, too--because once everyone in the region capitulates to Iran, the mullahs will stop being a totalitarian and expansionist threat to U.S. security?

    That last painfully embarrassing rationale may be what Massie really thinks, but I bet he's too embarrassed to say so--so he's grandstanding instead.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Presumably actually discussing the war action and the US involvement would also discuss possible levels of involvement. I'm not sure that's particularly tricky language on Massie's part.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "involvement"? That's vague. What does he want to ban exactly?

    He's being vague as all get out, on the one hand, and, on the other, he's acting like he's never seen a rider before.

    On the one hand, he's playing Pollyanna, and on the other, he's grandstanding with the best of them.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I think he wants a debate. Which debating involvement is a good way to put a broad topic. Especially in a tweet where his post was approaching a limit.

    I think you have to really twist his word to come go from "There should be a debate on US involvement in a foreign war" to "I am for an Iranian conspiracy and I think this rider bill would thwart this."

    Also, shitting on riders is not an unreasonable thing to do. I don't even understand the point you're trying to make here.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The freedom to own guns means there will be armed robberies--as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. I support the right to choose to own a gun anyway.

    Having a legislature means there will be riders. You can't go swimming without getting wet.

    Massie knows this, and him treating us like we're imbeciles doesn't impress me.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Um... "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none" was not particularly tricky language when George Washington delivered it either. But both halves of the entrenched kleptocracy have become entirely subservient to looters who value the initiation of force above all else. To them, all clarity is oversimplification.

  • Eddy||

    *If* Massie believes in promoting Iranian influence in the region, *then* he would be dishonest by concealing that objective of his.

    But what reason do we have to believe that's his reason?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Direct U.S. attacks in Yemen, especially by forces on the ground, are unconstitutional without a congressional authorization. So long as the AUMF remains in force, that can be used as (false) figleaf instead. Want to impress me? He should be pushing to sunset the AUMF.

    If he wants to ban the direct U.S. involvement of our military in Yemen sans a new congressional authorization, I'm all for it.

    If he's trying to undermine approving arm sales from our defense contractors to our allies in Saudi Arabia because the Saudis are fighting Iran's proxies in Yemen, then he needs to defend that. That doesn't even come out of the taxpayers' pockets. My understanding is that the laws governing those types of sales give the authority to approve those to the State Department. And I'm not sure that isn't exactly as it should be.

  • Eddy||

    I still don't get how we know his purpose is to defend Iranian interests.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's hard to tell what Massie is going on about, though, isn't it? Some of the things I'm talking about probably aren't the difference between success and failure for Iran pushing its influence further beyond its borders. Some of them probably are.

    What's going on in Yemen is ultimately between Iran and Saudi Arabia. To the extent that Saudi Arabia fails is the extent to which Iran wins. Surely you understand that.

  • Eddy||

    Maybe if Congress had a debate on the subject, as Massie suggests, then Massie could elaborate his views on Iranian influence and how to respond to Iran's promotion of same.

    But by sticking the war measure in a "must pass" bill (i. e. a massive votebuying bill), they get to avoid debate on the war in Yemen.

    Which I think is kind of Massie's point.

    What *would* be a good way to authorize war in Yemen? If a farm bill is the method, explain why that's a good method.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    If you're not for war against then you're for defense of.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I didn't say that.

    In fact, I said I'm against U.S. direct involvement.

    In fact, some people might be in favor of the Saudis fighting our wars for us so we don't end up invading ourselves.

    That being said, there are consequences associated with doing various things, and some of the things Massie is talking about would probably have big consequences for Saudi Arabia and out allies. Why pretend otherwise?

    Wouldn't it be great if we could just do what we want consequences free?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Look at that, it's Ken Shultz running interference for the Republicans again.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Massie is a Republican, you stupid asswipe.

  • Jerryskids||

    Massie's a RINO. All the good Republicans are lined up to get their turn gargling Trump's balls.

  • Mongo||

    Aaron Rupar used to be the online moderator for the local alt-press weekly.
    We used to torment him mercilessly...

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Why else would searching for these lawmakers' names not turn up positive news coverage?

    The most obvious snarky response to that line of questioning would have been something along the lines of "perhaps if you ever did anything worthy of positive news coverage instead of sitting around here wasting all of our time with the pointless kabuki theater you'd get more positive search results," but I can't blame Pichai for not going for the jugular. These are people, after all, who can make life very difficult for him and his company if they choose. I'm not sure I would have been able to resist the temptation.

  • perlchpr||

    I'm not sure I would have been able to resist the temptation.

    I'm entirely certain it's a good thing I'll never end up in one of these hearings.

    "We will hold you in contempt of Congress!"

    "I HAVE NOTHING BUT CONTEMPT FOR CONGRESS!"

    *does not pass "Go", does not collect $200*

  • Ken Shultz||

    Back in the real world, it looks like China is trying to make some meaningful concessions to Trump. On others, not so much . . .

    Yesterday, they announced they would cut tariffs on auto imports into China from 40% to 15%. That's the good news.

    The not so good maybe bad news?

    Today, they announced they were opening up Xi's "Made in China 2025" initiative, which was granting huge amounts of money for robotics in factories, aerospace, advanced transportation, and other areas where China wants to dominate domestically. They wanted these things made in China by Chinese companies, and while opening it up to foreign participation may seem groovy, it's long been thought of as a means to force technology transfers from U.S. to Chinese companies. In other words, they won't stop you from selling these things in China in the future--so long as they're made in China. That means you have to build them in China with a Chinese partner--and that means you have to share your proprietary innovations.

    I'd bet that Trump may blow these talks up soon. China isn't negotiating in good faith on intellectual property and forcing technology transfers for access to their market.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Most of those questioning Pichai seemed under the impression that there are actual people at Google sitting around deciding what shows up in search results."'

    The Chinese government is depending on it. When you look up Dragonfly, the information I found suggest Google is in fact working on a search engine that makes the Chinese censors happy.

  • John||

    They absolutely are. Google is by far and away the most evil company on earth. It is Bond villain level evil. They would absolutely turn the entire world into something out of 1984 if there was a buck to be made doing it.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Surprise, surprise, there's not a realistic way to keep the Russians off "our" social networks.""

    Probably not. But by not believing what you see on facebook you may usurp the Russian's efforts.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>"Sad!"

    different emotion to be sad w/exclamation?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Sad, but with enthusiasm!

  • Ken Shultz||

    "China's Economy Flashes New Warning Signs
    Industrial production slows and retail sales growth falls to lowest level in more than 15 years"

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/ch.....544771116?

    So much of what's happened in the world over the last 20 years has been about China coming online with the world economy by way of joining the WTO in 2001.

    When we picture what's going to happen in the future and why, we should always keep in mind that China hasn't experienced a recession since 2001.

    Circa 2000, China's middle class hardly existed. Now I see China's middle class expected to hit 500 million in the near future. China will go into recession eventually, as all economies do, and when they do go into recession, it'll be interesting to see what happens to the Chinese government and the world economy.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Another great ENB article, congrats. But seriously, Massie knows good and well that the Republican party he represents exists for the sole purpose of Standing At Armageddon and Fighting For The Lord, much like the German conservative party so popular from 1932 through half of 1945. By their lights, what's the point of having a monopoly capable of initiation of force if it's not to murder a countryful of brown people now and then? Mussolini tried the same thing, smuggling poison gas "intervention" in Ethiopia past the officious and tsk-tsking killjoys at the League of Nations. Massie should man up to who his allies really are. And somebody should give this reporter a raise!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online