Combat! - Page 164 of 406 - A blog by Dan Brooks

SCOTUS limits, supports EPA authority, depending whom you ask

By Dan Brooks in Close Reading June 23, 2014 2 Comments

Godzilla, one of many things the EPA could prevent or become

The Supreme Court ruled today on the EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon emissions from new power plants, and if you’ve gotten to this half of the sentence I presume you are a daily reader. Welcome back. The Supreme Court has ruled, importantly, that the EPA either can or cannot curb greenhouse emissions the way it wants. It depends on whom you ask. I first learned of this decision from the LA Times, which reported that Supreme Court limits EPA authority on power plants. Then, balance-seeking perspicator that I am, I read in the other Times that Justices, With Limits, Let E.P.A. Curb Power-Plant Gases. A computer would tell you those sentences say the same thing.

Friday links! America’s top party blog edition

By Dan Brooks in Friday Links June 20, 2014 0 Comment

Downtown Iowa City, circa bar close

I don’t mean to intimidate you, dear reader, but I am a graduate of the top party school in the United States. When it comes to binge drinking, I am like a doctor who went to Harvard, whereas you are like a doctor who went to Hollywood Upstairs Medical College. While you were wasting your time with the dead ideas of losers in books, I was learning to drink a malted milk—the whiskey drink, not the ice cream confection—without gagging. While you were mired in cosines or whatever, I was learning valuable lessons about social dynamics and personal equilibrium. The best part is that tuition was cheap, at least monetarily. Otherwise the cost was terrible, and even now I can feel a Jaeger shot rattling around somewhere loose in my intestines. Today is Friday, and we are all products of our alma maters. Won’t you throw a few back and then throw them back forward with me?

Steve King compares Obama to Kim Jong Un after Redskins lose trademark

By Dan Brooks in Just Sayin' Stuff June 19, 2014 0 Comment

“You’re telling me there’s been a New Mexico in the United States this whole time?”

Yesterday, the US Patent Office canceled the trademark of the Washington Redskins, ruling that the name disparages American Indians. Obviously, this is a case of political correctness run amok. The Redskins name celebrates first Americans in much the same way that the n-word only refers to certain African-Americans, which is to say according to white people. Consider the response of noted white person Rep. Steve King (R–IA):

Props to Fletch-Dogg for the tip. In related news, the offices of the Department of Hyperbole will be closed this weekend while a tightly coordinated squadron of illegal immigrants invades and sterilizes them.

Genius entrepreneurs develop bulletproof blanket for schoolchildren

By Dan Brooks in Gun control June 18, 2014 21 Comments

Children lying under the ProTecht Bodyguard® bulletproof blanket prepare to be sprayed with bullets.

Ask any child, and he’ll tell you that there’s only one way to prevent deaths from school shootings: ban school. But what if there were something else we could do—something that might protect our children without impoverishing their minds even further? Had you asked me that question two weeks ago, I would have thrashed you for a lackwit. But then Peter “The Vulgarian” Franke told me about the Protecht Bodyguard® bullet-resistant blanket, which “can provide a quick, simple solution for maximum protection against a school intruder.” How many deaths from school shootings will this literal security blanket prevent? Well, it covers about 90% of a child’s body, so…

Study finds judges with daughters more likely to rule for women’s rights

By Dan Brooks in Epistemology June 17, 2014 1 Comment

Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Reagan, some guy and Toots

Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist takes the oath with Reagan, some guy and Toots

In 2003, Ruth Bader Ginsberg described William Rehnquist’s feminist turn as “such a delightful surprise.” Maybe he suddenly decided that combating pervasive gender discrimination trumped states’ rights, or maybe his daughter had just become a single mom. The second explanation would comport with a new study out of the University of Rochester, which found that “judges with daughters consistently vote in a more feminist fashion on gender issues than judges who have only sons.” The effect is especially pronounced among Republican appointments.