Morning Links

Wednesday, October 17th, 2012

Digg it |  reddit | |  Fark

34 Responses to “Morning Links”

  1. #1 |  Yizmo Gizmo | 

    •War-weary military dog may suffer from PTSD.

    It stands to reason. All that carnage, gritty battlefield squalor, and then what? A life in the suburbs picking up the morning paper for Mr. and Mrs Cleaver? How many of these ticking time bomb K9s will resort to suicide?

    BTW Do they have pharmaceuticals for dogs?

  2. #2 |  phlinn | 

    I found lots and lots of left wing sites extrapolating wildly. The only actual quotes I can find from Janis Lane is that the country might be better off if women hadn’t been given the right to vote, and that she hated working for female bosses. That’s a much milder claim. Even if she generally supports woman’s suffrage, given conservative leanings and definite left wing trend, she could conceivably make that argument.

  3. #3 |  karl | 

    Mop-weary baby may suffer from PTSD.

  4. #4 |  omar | 

    @#2 | phlinn


  5. #5 |  rmehlinger | 

    Relevant to Radley’s interests, though on the other side of the pond… British police taser a blind stroke survivor, because they thought his cane was a katana:

  6. #6 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    Gene Healy on how the cult of Obama has just become kinda’ sad.

    I may have mentioned that I noticed the same thing.

  7. #7 |  [Name redacted] | 

    I’ve met a surprising number of women who do not trust other women in positions of political authority. Subsequent conversation hinted that they knew they were far from alone. One of them was head of a microbiology department at a major hospital and another ran her own real estate company. I don’t know. Small sample size? An untold story? I knew all these women quite a while before they admitted it.

  8. #8 |  dsmallwood | 

    love the list of lobbyist.
    glad its not noteworthy anywhere else.

  9. #9 |  ALowe | 

    The “Attempted Puppycide” story clearly indicates a lack of proper training in dealing with dogs.

    For instance, the Heroic Officer™ said “He trotted up to me after I turned the corner, came to my feet and I shot him.” What was this guy thinking? I think what he meant to say is “He charged at me after I turned the corner, lunged at my throat and I shot him.”

    At any rate, it sounds justified. The dog disobeyed the Heroic Officer™’s lawful order to get back, and the Heroic Officer™ used a reasonable amount of force to ensure compliance.

  10. #10 |  MikeV | 

    #5 rmehlinger

    Police obviously thought they were dealing with Zatoichi, the blind swordsman.

  11. #11 |  Jeff Hall | 

    “Morales said the officer described how he told the pit bull to get back, and when he didn’t, he stepped back and fired his service revolver. However, the officer admitted to Morales the pit bull never growled at him.”

    Maybe the dog didn’t speak English.

  12. #12 |  Cyto | 


    Give credit where credit is due: he did correctly identify the dangerous breed as a pit bull. So at least some of the training was effective.

  13. #13 |  MH | 

    Zatoichi vs. the SWAT team would be an awesome movie.

  14. #14 |  Robert | 

    Oh yes, putting up a fake website that purports to be from your opponents is just hillarious!

  15. #15 |  Helmut O' Hooligan | 

    Janis Lane = one more reason to avoid Mississippi.

    Don’t worry Janis, one day your Rhett Butler will come to whisk you off and take care of you. Then you can just clean, cook and supervise the help. A neo-antebellum dream come true! Maybe in your spare time you can even serve in the ladies auxiliary of the council of conservative citizens. I do declare, the thought just has me whistlin’ Dixie.

  16. #16 |  el coronado | 

    One wonders if Slate would do a story offering the same chortles and approval if the Republican National Committee were to put up a site with the Obama name & logo. A site that…..oh…..offered the definitive answer to the mystery of Obama’s Social Security number. Or something similar. Would *that* be funny, _too_??

  17. #17 |  shecky | 

    Fake website = not clever.

    Fake website with novel widget = yeah, kinda clever.

  18. #18 |  Linda | 

    Attempted Puppycide wrong house/ Ridiculous. I know I have said that so many times before. But really, it is just ridiculous.

  19. #19 |  Sancho | 

    The Healy article begins with a mention of the McCain campaign ominously branding Obama “The One”, then carries on to talk about the “cult” of Obama, but somehow neglects to mention that the advert was tailored specifically to appeal to rapture-ready cultists who believe the president is the antichrist.

    I somehow doubt Healy’s capacity for spotting or judging cultism.

  20. #20 |  Sancho | 

    Good point, El Coronado (#15).

    Romney’s complete failure to provide policy detail to back up his presidential campaign promises should be regarded with the same gravity as a twee conspiracy theory about Obama’s citizenship.

    And Mars Rover stories should be interspersed with updates on the reptoid hybrid alien takeover.

  21. #21 |  Steve Verdon | 

    The nitty-gritty of the Romney-Ryan tax plan remains veiled in mystery.


    This brainy bit of high-tech partisanship was paid for by the Democratic National Committee, which has kindly provided viewers with its own fact sheet about the Republican tax plan….

    Okay, the moving red button was clever, the above however makes me ask, “What the fuck?”

    Apparently the plan is veiled in mystery except to Democrats.

    Of course using my Svengali powers I can tell you that Obama will raise taxes on everybody if he gets re-elected.

    See what I did there? It is easy to rebut a straw man…..just saying.

  22. #22 |  FridayNext | 

    #15: accept the website clearly says it was paid for by the DNC and once you have played with it for a bit, a link to donate to the Democrats pops up with an explicit criticism of Romney. Anyone who actually thinks this is from the R camp is an idiot and would probably have eaten an Irish baby because J. Swift told them to.

    And as Sancho says, it makes fun of an actual position, policy, or promise, or lack thereof, of the opposite candidate. Even if you disagree with the criticism policies and promises are fair game and should be. Feeding unsubstantiated conspiracies about candidates is a little different. That so much of the official and unofficial leadership of the right can’t see the difference either is one reason I won’t associate with them in public even when I agree with specific policies or vote for their candidate.

    Also, too, I think the Baby Mop is Japanese, not American.

  23. #23 |  Radley Balko | 

    I somehow doubt Healy’s capacity for spotting or judging cultism.

    Yeah. I mean, he only wrote a book about it.

    Or was your point that he’s only worried about Democrats?

    Because you’d be wrong there, too.

  24. #24 |  Jeff | 

    Meh, I agree with Janis Lane. What we want is good government; the means to get there aren’t that important, so long as the ends are achieved. Has extending the franchise to women been beneficial in this regard? It’s difficult to say since we don’t have a Western democracy where women didn’t get the right vote, but the results have been mixed, at best.

    Maybe Canada should strip women of the right to vote for the next 50 years or so, then in 2060 our political scientists can get together with their’s and compare notes. I’m kidding. Kind of.

  25. #25 |  Sancho | 

    Someone wrote “The Pink Swastika”, Radley (#23). Doesn’t make the author an informed observer.

    It’s a relief to learn that Healy is an equal opportunity hand-wringer, but citing an appeal to actual, as-defined-by-dictionary cultists as way of summarising Obama’s voting base is tone deaf at best, verging on laughable ignorance.

  26. #26 |  Rob | 

    Fake website with novel widget = yeah, kinda clever.

    It’s about as novel as a dime store palm shocker. I first encountered a website with a similar, non-political prank widget back in 1998 or ’99.

  27. #27 |  johnl | 

    Can anyone with field expertise chime in? Are women jurors prosecution ringers?

  28. #28 |  johnl | 

    And sim:
    It’s funny, the authors, all women, use the word “victim” instead of “accuser”, as if the possibility of an innocent person being accused is inconceivable. Maybe our society at large thinks that, or maybe it’s because they’re academics. Or maybe it’s impossible to have a fair trial with women on the jury.

  29. #29 |  johnl | 

    I’m just reading the abstracts:
    Maybe these are minor effects. But it seems like this ought to be a topic for polite conversation rather than ridicule. Maybe it was just idiocy in the air, but right after women won the vote, they gave us prohibition and a war to keep the world safe for state sponsored terrorism.

    Lane deserves a fair hearing. It’s possible that women are naturally more authoritarian than men, and that a big mistake was made granting the franchise to women without adding additional restraints on the state, such as rights to criminal defendants, barriers to initiating wars, and an incorporation of the DOI rights.

  30. #30 |  Radley Balko | 

    . . . but citing an appeal to actual, as-defined-by-dictionary cultists as way of summarising Obama’s voting base is tone deaf at best, verging on laughable ignorance.

    Either you know what’s wrong with what you wrote here and you’re deliberating being obtuse, or you really believe what you wrote here, in which case your partisanship has made you ignorant.

    In either case, it’s another data point for the argument that partisanship makes people stupider.

  31. #31 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    What makes Romney’s “plan” so laughable is that Obama not only has published a detailed plan to reduce the debt that is actually believable, but he’s been acting on that plan for the last 4 years with the result of the debt being cut in half.

    Wait, that doesn’t sound right.

    4 more years of massive debt and growing government before we switch to 4 years of massive debt and decreasing freedom. Kang and Kodos.

  32. #32 |  James D | 

    I have to agree with Lane other than the “taking away women’s right to vote” part. If you think about it and compare notes with other people … people (especially women) do tend to dislike women bosses over men and most women I know say they prefer a male boss because women seem more threatened by the success of other women than men are. As for what has happened since women’s suffrage; perhaps some of our more socialist/nanny-state stuff wouldn’t be as prevalent with less women voters … but I can’t see anybody really floating the “let’s get rid of women’s right to vote” … well, other than these guys: :)

  33. #33 |  crazybob | 

    “It’s a thorough, unrelenting thumping of lazy journalism”

    Actually it is a superficial example of lazy ‘gotcha’ journalism.

    Without actually exploring the issues involved it simply makes a list of former lobbyists in the obama administration. It makes no attempt to look at the relative influence of those lobbyists, there roles and recusals, the relative numbers and etc. For example there is a HUGE difference between having (the enormously talented and visionary) Vince Cerf as a single member of a task force and having a policy task force solely comprised of lobbyists (Cheney’s energy task force for example). But we will never know because any article, no matter how simplistic and puerile, is held up as an example of “good journalism” so long as it falls within the simplistic libertarian worldview.

  34. #34 |  freedomfan | 


    “It’s a thorough, unrelenting thumping of lazy journalism”

    Actually it is a superficial example of lazy ‘gotcha’ journalism.

    There’s no reason it can’t be both (with some equivocation between doing an easy job and being lazy). The mistake would be in assuming that it must be hard work to catch a journalist lazily taking the credulous position that Obama has substantially lived up to his promises on lobbying, combining it with a standard lefty assumption about how much worse a Republican must be, and then making an article out of it.

    Neither article explores connected issues, such as whether the legal rules about registering as a lobbyist would keep talented people from serving in an administration. Of course, since that would apply just as well to the Bush White House and to any potential Romney White House, it undercuts the glib narrative that lobbyists are salivating over the prospect of a Republican administration (with its utterly false implication that lobbyists somehow have been nearly locked out of the current one).

    Whether it was hard work or not for Carney to write the article criticizing Palmer’s, it’s still true that Palmer’s article (which written as a straight journalism piece, not an editorial) is an example of lazy journalism. Palmer wrote an article whose central premise is that lobbyists are excited about a new administration because they have been so excluded from the current one. She either 1) did that without checking that there are dozens of lobbyists in high level positions in the current administration so the premise is hokum, which is lazy; or 2) did the checking and then decided it wasn’t relevant without explaining why, which is also lazy; or 3) did the checking, knew it was relevant, and still didn’t report it, which is far worse.

    BTW, one could just as easily find examples of reporters credulously basing articles on false premises popular with the right, such as that big business stands against regulation or that Republican politicians work to reduce the size of government. That would also be lazy journalism and it would be shooting fish in a barrel for an op-ed writer to point it out.