search
top

A Serious Enemy.

ISIS-Logo-600-LI

(image courtesy of A.F. Branco at Comically Incorrect.)



Share

“We’ll Get You Off For Free.”

Isaac Smith attended Ohio University during which time he led the group Students Defending Students (SDS), which advised and helped defend students who were accused of breaking the University’s Code of Student Conduct.

Smith was also a member of the Student Senate, which had started a look into the history of the University. The look in the rear view mirror inspired the Senate and many other organizations to have tee-shirts printed with themes from the past.

For Smith and the SDS, they chose a tee-shirt that was simply the original slogan of the group:

WE’LL GET YOU OFF FOR FREE.

There is a definite double entendre to the shirts and frankly, the slogan is amusing and effective advertising.

Ohio University thought otherwise. The FIRE picks up the story:

But when members of the group wore the shirts at a fall recruitment fair, the dean of students told them that they should not wear the shirts because they were not professional and contained sexual innuendo—which was, of course, the point. Another administrator later justified the informal ban on the T-shirts because the shirts “objectified women” and “promoted prostitution”—odd charges for a gender-neutral phrase about a free service. Fearing punishment under the the Student Code of Conduct, which prohibited any “act that degrades, demeans or disgraces” another student as well as “taking any reckless, but not accidental, action from which mental or bodily harm could result to another person,” SDS discontinued use of the T-shirts.

The school’s thought process that a gender neutral statement “objectifies women” as well as somehow concluding that offering a free service is akin to prostitution cannot be mocked enough. Beyond the mocking, there is the real issue of the school’s suppression of protected speech on campus. Smith contacted the folks at FIRE who reviewed the situation and filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the school.

It did not end well for the University.
(more…)

Share

This Seems So Wrong.

A deep fried Big Mac. Yep. You read that right. A deep fried Big Mac.

The guy who came up with this even suggests adding more of the McDonalds’ special sauce to the top after it has been deep fried.

We are SO not going there.

Courtesy PeepMyEats.



Share

Bacon!

The Science of BACON!

BACON!!!!! Why is it so delicious? Because it’s BACON, right? Well…here’s a little science!




Share

Epic Smithsonian Tweet.

In case you missed it, the Smithsonian recently tweeted this:

CIN0220UAAA7GJi

#PrattKeeping is a key component of the exhibition process. Our Dinosaur Curator, Matthew Carrano, has a tough job!




Share

It’s Thursday And You Need A Laugh.

We saw this shirt on another site and haven’t stopped smiling about it.

It is available from OffWorld Designs.

r2d2

Funny stuff.

(For the record, we don’t make any money or receive any compensation for linking to this product.)



Share

“Reason”-able, Anonymous, Free Speech.

Reason-and-DOJ-ROH

Once in awhile, we get some flack from people who say that we should not write using pseudonyms or allow anonymous comments. There are generally two reasons we allow such postings. The first is that we don’t care too much who says what as we would rather deal with the ideas that are presented rather than who said them. People who demand to know who said something want to engage in the lame and ridiculous act of making ad hominem attacks. Instead of dealing with what is presented, people want to “attack the man” to somehow try to attempt discredit the writer.

Our second reason is a respectable concern as to what those who are being criticized will do, especially when those people work for the government.

For the past few weeks, the internet has been abuzz with talk of a subpoena issued to reason.com to uncover the names, emails and IP’s of those who made comments on the reason.com site. The reason the buzz was just “talk” was because it was rumored that not only had the government sought to stifle free and protected speech, they sought to make it illegal to disclose their actions.

The incident started with an article on reason.com concerning the sentencing of Ross Ulbricht.

On May 31, Nick Gillespie published a post at Reason.com’s Hit & Run blog discussing Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht’s “haunting sentencing letter” to District Court Judge Katherine Forrest, and the judge’s harsh response. Gillespie noted that Forrest “more than threw the book” at Ulbricht by giving him a life sentence, which was a punishment “beyond even what prosecutors…asked for.”

In the comments section of the post, six readers published reactions that drew the investigative ire of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. In a federal grand jury subpoena dated June 2, the U.S. District Court commanded Reason.com to turn over “any and all identifying information” we had about the individuals posting those comments.

The six comments are:
(more…)

Share

Supreme Court Rules Raisins Are Not For The Government’s Taking.

raisins-on-cutting-board-ROHYesterday the US Supreme Court released its opinion in the case of Horne, et al. v. Department of Agriculture holding that the US government could not take the property of someone and then avoid declaring the seized property as a taking because the government gave economic interest to the original owners of the property.

This is a huge win for property rights of citizens.

In 1949, the US Government set up a program to control the markets of certain agricultural products such as nuts and raisins. The program established the “Raisin Administrative Committee” which would take 30% to 47% of raisins from growers under the guise of stabilizing the market price. The government would then use the raisin they took for various governmental programs. If there were left over raisins, the government would sell the remaining raisins and give a portion of the sales back to the growers.

In 2001, raisin growers Marvin and Laura Horne decided to challenge the regulation and not allow the government to take their raisins without compensation. They based their position the 5th Amendment which reads:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (emphasis ours)

As the government was only paying for a portion of the raisins they sold and not all of the raisins they took, the Hornes put their legal foot down and said “enough is enough.”

Over the course of the years, the Hornes were fined by the Department of Agriculture nearly a million dollars for their not allowing the government to steal take their raisins.


(more…)

Share

« Previous Entries

top