Ex-New Orleans Mayor Sentenced for Corruption, Senate Dems Seek to Reverse Hobby Lobby Ruling, Wiped Phone Data May Be Recoverable: P.M. Links

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don’t forget to sign up for Reason’s daily updates for more content.

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.

  • The Tone Police||

    But what about egging the pudding?

  • ||

    Hello.

  • Sevo||

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin has been sentenced to 10 years in prison for 20 counts of bribery and corruption...

    He was the best leader spokesman a city ever had.

  • Injun, as in from India||

    I'm waiting for Kanye West to say, "Ray Nagin doesn't care about black people" in the middle of a concert.

  • ||

    "Ray, I'ma let you finish, but Rod Blagojevich is the most corrupt politician of all time. All time!!"

  • Tonio||

    Good. It's not often that one of the ruling class gets made an example of, but good to see that there are some limits. At least for mayors.

  • Almanian!||

    Kwame Kilpatrick concurs

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Edward Snowden’s lawyer is seeking an extension for Snowden to remain in Russia for another year.

    I wonder if that Anna Chapman marriage deal is still on the table.

  • db||

    How long has it been since Snowden's been laid?

  • AlmightyJB||

    In Russia, with all those beautiful women? Hopefully, it's every night.

  • From the Tundra||

    Wiping all the data on an Android phone via the factory reset option does not actually wipe all the data. A security company purchased used phones from eBay and was able to recover deleted persona data.

    So who the hell is gonna make an app for this??

  • Pathogen||

    Papers Phones burn at Fahrenheit 451º..

  • What's that smell?||

    but they can't recover Lois Lerner's emails right..OK got it

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    So, don't sell your cell.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Edward Snowden’s lawyer is seeking an extension for Snowden to remain in Russia for another year.

    Just like any spy's lawyer would do.

  • Matrix||

    Former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin has been sentenced to 10 years in prison for 20 counts of bribery and corruption for gifts and kickbacks

    and he'd still win an election in a landslide against a Republican candidate.

  • Almanian!||

    "Bitch set me up!"

  • AlmightyJB||

    Nagin/Jefferson 2024. The Saints ticket.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Senate Democrats have introduced legislation to reverse last week’s Hobby Lobby decision, barring for-profit corporations from seeking exemptions from covering contraception costs.

    The Protect Women from Corporate Interference Act. No, that's not a joke, that's what they are actually calling it.

  • Injun, as in from India||

    I for one, call for a "Protect corporations from government interference Act".

  • paranoid android||

    Quote from Barbara Boxer (D-Cloudcuckooland)

    “The five Republican-appointed men on the Supreme Court decided in the Hobby Lobby case that the employer, the boss, has total power to deny critical medical care to their employees and they turn the Religious Freedom Restoration Act on its head,” she said. “This is an outrage.”

    What utter mendacity. This whole thing has become so completely untethered from reality, to a point far worse than usual with partisan politics (which is really saying something). How can people even have a reasoned debate when people engage in such a gross and obvious distortion of the basic facts of the matter?

  • Rich||

    What is this "reasoned debate" to which you refer?

  • Tonio||

    deny critical medical care

    Nope.

  • Zeb||

    You mean people don't regularly show up at the ER for emergency IUD insertions?

  • PD Scott||

    "But I could become pregnant, stat!"

  • Doctor Whom||

    But the opinion was written such a long time ago in Middle English. Seriously, I got a progressive to admit that almost no one commenting on the opinion had actually read it.

  • Slammer||

    Birth control is critical medical care?

  • paranoid android||

    No, four very particular varieties of birth control (that are still easily affordable even without insurance cost-sharing) are the "critical medical care" that is being denied.

  • BigT||

    Nothing is denied. PAYING for it is denied.

  • paranoid android||

    Sorry, forgot my sarcasti-quotes around "denied", you are correct.

  • ||

    "...total power to deny critical medical care..."

    Not giving is taking. She said it.

    " This whole thing has become so completely untethered from reality, ..... How can people even have a reasoned debate when people engage in such a gross and obvious distortion of the basic facts of the matter?"

    Go back and ready any conversation here with Tony or Shriek and you will see how. You can't.

  • BigT||

    I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability.

  • seguin||

    Don't worry, they'll be back up on their knees in no time.

  • Brandon||

    Look, the Supreme Court basically ruled that your boss can drag you out in the street and put a bullet in your head if he thinks you're not religious enough. How are you anarchists ok with that??!!

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    It's NOT medical care. It's contraception.

    That is all.

  • Pathogen||

    How can people even have a reasoned debate when people engage in such a gross and obvious distortion of the basic facts of the matter?

    "but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter."

  • Tonio||

    Ironically named since "interference" is brit-speak for molest (as in sexually).

  • Rich||

    Sorry, Man. I'd like to believe you; but it doesn't have the mandatory cutesy acronym thing going.

  • AlmightyJB||

    What kind of monster could be against The Protect Women from Corporate Interference Act? Only a republican or a libertarian of course.

  • waffles||

    Why haven't there been any goals in this game today. This is a real letdown after Germany's orgasmic rampage of holy scoring.

  • ||

    Yesterday was an outlier.

    Epic sophomoric defending.

    In any sport.

  • Timon 19||

    Yesterday was insulting to all concerned, especially Germany.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Senate Democrats have introduced legislation to reverse last week’s Hobby Lobby decision...

    And you thought the GOP was THE party of stupid. Dem midterm victory, here we come!

  • Almanian!||

    We'll show them "unconstitutional"!!

  • Rich||

    We're not going to take this lying down, er, you know what we mean!"

  • MegaloMonocle||

    A competent Repub Party would bring Native Americans, Muslims, anybody who isn't a white male Christian and wants to keep RFRA to these hearings.

    I want to see the Dems tell some Native American elders, a CAIR operative, and some dignified old mullahs that the Dems want them to have to violate their religious beliefs whenever the Dems think it is in the collective interest.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    That *would* be a good idea.

    So we can rely on the Republicans to call an old, balding male doctor to talk about contraceptive techniques.

    (no offense intended - some of my best friends are old, male and balding)

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I forgot to add white. Old, white, male, balding. And a member of Opus Dei.

  • ||

    Wiping all the data on an Android phone via the factory reset option does not actually wipe all the data.

    Who is surprised by this? This just in: formatting a hard drive does not erase the data on it.

  • Brett L||

    Wait, you mean it only clears the file system pointers and doesn't actually erase the data? When did this start?

  • ||

    Sarcasm?

  • Brett L||

    Aye.

  • ||

    Dating is Bullshit and I Hate it: extended version/explanation

    For a site called "groupthink," they really don't seem to understand the simple things in life.

    I stayed over that night, and things got physical, but we didn't have penetrative sex, despite the fact that we were both enthusiastically into it. He told me that he wanted to wait to do that so that we would have something more to look forward to, and also so that I'd know that he didn't want me to feel pressured at all. At one point, he held me close and told me again that he was really into me, and asked if I felt the same way, because he had a fear of being more invested in a budding relationship than the other person, and that this sort of thing felt hard and scary to him...

    So here's where I'm at now. It's been radio silence ever since then. Didn't talk to him at all Monday after the initial text or yesterday, which is not at all characteristic of how it's been up until now. I reached out to him this morning and it was just totally flat, short responses, with no inquiry into how I'm doing. No talk of future plans. Nothing. I'm upset. I'm trying to not slip over into "fuck this guy" mode.

    I usually leave the Jezebelling to others, so apologies if it's lame.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    This thing felt hard and scary. That's what she said.

  • Tonio||

    Sounds like he figured out what he was dealing with and limited his liability without risking offending her by outright kicking her out. Good for him.

  • Restoras||

    Tonio has it right.

  • Slammer||

    Now she can go fuck herself.

  • ||

    Guys have been drunkenly hooking up with fat girls and not calling them back since the dawn of time. How did the fat girls complain about it before the internet?

  • Restoras||

    To their beta male friends, who hoped to get laid after it all, and to their better looking girlfriends, who just say "you poor thing" while thinking "well what the hell do you expect?"

  • Almanian!||

    By crying into their hot fudge sundaes?

  • Brett L||

    To his credit, he didn't stick it in the crazy, just rubbed up on it through the underwear.

  • Matrix||

    Probably figured out what she did for a living and said, "Woah! Abandon ship!!"

    He figured that chewing glass would be less painful than dealing with her shit.

  • Tonio||

    Does Jezebel actually pay their writers?

  • Almanian!||

    In tears and butter cream treats.

  • ||

    It sounds like this guy knows the "don't stick it in crazy" rule.

  • ||

    'we didn't have penetrative sex,'

    Ah to go back to a simpler time when it was just 'we didn't have sex' or 'we didn't fuck.'

  • paranoid android||

    Well, I blame Bill Clinton.

  • Sudden||

    And you know he bookmarked, cached, and printscreened this page for the imminent rape accusation.

  • ||

    Look, there was forcible spooning that happened there.

  • seguin||

    Well, he didn't have any of the required forms handy and her printers was out of ink.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    And I would wager she's a Democratic voter who conflates this guy with her male boss, and with the patriarchy which wants to deny her birth control. All a bunch of men who let her down. Depressing.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    From the guy's POV:

    "This girl I kind of know ended up at my place last night after a long night of drinking and beer pong. We went to bed and she jerked me off, and wouldn't shut up, so I held her close and whispered sweet nothings until she let me fall asleep. Now she keeps calling and texting me and I'm just giving one word responses hoping she'll get the message and move on.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The Senate has confirmed San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro as the new secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

    We still have a HUD?

  • Injun, as in from India||

    So are we going to get a Subprime Bubble 2.0? That's what Andrew Cuomo got us the first time around.

  • Rich||

    It's a "DHUD", Fist.

  • perlhaqr||

    Clearly, that needs to be the Department of Urban Development.

  • PD Scott||

    Fist, how many cabinet agencies have we ever rid ourselves of? Name changes/restructuring/merging, sure, but actually eliminated?

    Zero, I believe.

  • wadair||

    We can't get rid of it. We'd have no housing...no urban development. Do you really want to take our shelter as well as our birth control. Have you no heart?

  • Sevo||

    So an agency of the Oakland city government got the memo from Bud Selig and decided to conclude a deal to keep the A’s at the coliseum for the next ten years. It was a monument to the lack of feck in the government that it was accomplished at all, ignoring that Oaktown shouldn’t be paying for Wolf’s playpen to begin with.
    Well, OK, but while *that* negotiation was in process, unbeknownst to the first agency, another agency was negotiating with the Raiders to raze the structure and build a new one.

    “Raiders in talks to tear down Coliseum despite A's deal”
    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/.....607825.php

    SF’s city government is certainly corrupt, but not nearly as amusing.

  • ||

    Tonight on The Independents...free Slush Puppies for all!

  • Matrix||

    Murder drops as conceal carry permits rise, claims study

    That's totally incorrect. Chicago is proof that banning guns makes people safe! And Switzerland is the most violent place on Earth!

  • PD Scott||

    Even their clocks are cuckoo!

  • Swiss Servator, Alles Klar||

    God knows every time I return from the Confederatio Helvetica, I am still dripping gore!

  • Slammer||

    Former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin has been sentenced to 10 years in prison

    His rectum will be called "Chocolate City"

  • Almanian!||

    Ohhhh myyyyyyy....

  • gimmeasammich||

    +1 George Takei

  • Tonio||

    Senate Democrats have introduced legislation to reverse last week’s Hobby Lobby decision...

    I call grandstanding. If HL won on First Amendment grounds, then this will do diddly to overturn the ruling. The Senators know that and are cynically passing a bill they know will be overturned. They will then say they tried to do something but those evil, unelected judges wouldn't let them. Wash, rinse, repeat.

  • Injun, as in from India||

    "Vote for us if you want the SCOTUS packed to your liking."

  • wadair||

    This seems the next, logical move from Obama. Congress wouldn't do his bidding so he bypasses. Now the supreme court is also standing in the way of "progress" and will need sidestepping. But can he pull it off? Can he pull an FDR? No, but get ready for some major derpalicious handwringing.

  • paranoid android||

    I call grandstanding. If HL won on First Amendment grounds, then this will do diddly to overturn the ruling. The Senators know that and are cynically passing a bill they know will be overturned. They will then say they tried to do something but those evil, unelected judges wouldn't let them. Wash, rinse, repeat.

    No, more like the evil House Republicans, which is where the bill would/will die anyway.

  • ||

    They didn't decide it on 1A grounds they decided it on RFRA grounds, the RFRA having been passed in the wake of a decision, Employment Division v. Smith, which narrowed the breadth of 1A protections (the majority opinion was written by Scalia, actually).

    Congress can change the RFRA however they want. HL or others could of course bring a new suit on 1A grounds and see if they prevail with that, though there's a good chance they won't because of the above.

    Now of course, it is grandstanding, simply because even if they can break filibuster, which is questionable in itself, there's no way they can get past the House.

  • Jerryskids||

    My understanding is that it's grandstanding because, as Julian Sanchez pointed out, HHS can grant the same waiver to HL that it granted to religious organizations and HL employees get their birth control picked up gratis anyway. The only reason to bitch about the HL decision is if it's not the providing of birth control that's important, but the making HL pay for it that's important.

    And that's exactly why Congress is involved in something they don't need to be involved in. HHS can take care of HL employees getting birth control, it takes an act of Congress to make sure HL pays for it. It's not enough to stomp the boot in the face, the stompee must learn to love being stomped.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    The decision was based on RFRA - a statute which can be amended. But if this bill passes - which isn't the point, they just want to get Republicans on record voting no so they can use it in the elections - but if it passes, the Supremes will have to consider the First Amendment question.

    Then the battle will be over whether the law is a neutral statute of general applicability, which would mean (under *Smith*) that religious people just have to suck it up and endure it, or whether all the exemptions with which Obamacare is riddled deprive the statute of its neutrality, in which case a religious-freedom analysis is called for.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Or I suppose exempting only one category of people (oops, Korprasuhns) from RFRA could be considered discriminatory enough to fail the 1st Amendment test.

  • perlhaqr||

    They could simply amend the Dictionary Act, defining corporations as people. And then amend RFRA to not apply to corporations.

    I'm not sure if that would deal with RLUIPA, though. So they might need to amend that as well.

    I dunno. Personally, I think the decision was the right decision for the wrong reasons. HL shouldn't have to provide anything they don't want to, if they haven't freely contracted to do so with their employees, but the Get Out Of Bullshit Free card shouldn't have anything to do with their belief in a Sky Father of some sort.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    They *should* have struck down Obamacare altogether. They *should* have done a lot of things.

    My understanding, the Supremes will recognize non-theistic belief systems in some cases for religious-freedom purposes. By analogy with the old draft-law cases, I would guess that they'd protect any nontheistic belief system which occupies the same place in your life that a theistic belief system occupies in those believers' lives.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Pentagon planning new tactics to counter Chinese aggression in South China Sea

    The US is developing new military tactics to deter China’s slow but steady territorial advances in the South China Sea, including more aggressive use of surveillance aircraft and naval operations near contested areas.

    The rethink comes in the wake of the series of low-level incursions China has used to shift the status quo in one of the vital waterways of the global economy.

    The challenge for the US military is to find tactics to deter these small-scale Chinese moves without escalating particular disputes into a broader military conflict. Every year, $5,300bn of goods cross the South China Sea by ship.

    “Our efforts to deter China [in the South China Sea] have clearly not worked,” said a senior US official.

    The growing tensions in the South China Sea, which include disputes between China and Vietnam and the Philippines, cast a shadow over the annual meeting between senior US and Chinese officials, known as the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, which started in Beijing on Wednesday.

  • PapayaSF||

    “Our efforts to deter China [in the South China Sea] have clearly not worked,” said a senior US official.

    What efforts? Obama blabbing?

  • Sevo||

    The range on the drones is lacking.

  • Slammer||

    All code-words henceforth shall contain multiple "L"s

  • The Last American Hero||

    I think there was a hashtag campaign, but I may be mistaken.

  • Brett L||

    Telling Vietnam "let's you and him fight!"

  • John||

    I have a tactic, get a President that anyone respects.

  • PD Scott||

    But-but-but Nobel Peace Prize!

  • PapayaSF||

  • Homple||

    Remember when the puppies disappeared in Orwell's 1984?

  • John||

    Hey, teenagers could never be violent.

  • Brandon||

    One anonymous report from a "BP agent" leading to a conclusion that would increase the BP's budget? Not sure I'm quite that credulous.

  • PapayaSF||

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Let's not jump to conclusions! They could have been in the middle of writing "MS-13 totally sucks and we're glad none of us is a member!"

  • Sudden||

    I was driving through an immigrant-heavy section of L.A. about a year ago and saw a MS-13 graffitti tagged on the wall, that was defiled with one of those no smoking circles with the cross through it.

    I smiled and commended that brave act until about five minutes later when it occurred to me that the person who did that was either a) rival gang member or b) now dead.

    Could be both I suppose.

  • pogi||

    People called Romanes they go the house?

  • Rich||

    A security company purchased used phones from eBay and was able to recover deleted personal data.

    Get those folks on the Lerner situation, stat!

  • Injun, as in from India||

    LOL.

  • OldMexican||

    The Senate has confirmed San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro as the new secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.


    They're giving a new meaning to the term "doubling down" by appointing that clown.

    Senate Democrats have introduced legislation to reverse last week’s Hobby Lobby decision, barring for-profit corporations from seeking exemptions from covering contraception costs.


    The butt-hurt was indeed very painful, it would seem. The problem for the Dems is that the decision was based on a law that Bill Clinton himself signed.

  • PapayaSF||

    They could repeal the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which would look bad. But what else can they do? Pass a law that says "this doesn't apply to Christians who object to abortion"?

  • John||

    They could try. But I am pretty sure that would fail on equal protection grounds.

  • PapayaSF||

    I know. I was being sarcastic. Whatever bill they come up with is just political grandstanding.

  • PBR Streetgang||

    Can they amend RFRA to exclude evuhl "for profit" corporations?

  • perlhaqr||

    They could amend the Dictionary Act to define corporations not as people, and amend RFRA to not apply to corporations, and amend RLUIPA the same way.

  • Injun, as in from India||

    Shackford, why no mention of the Greenwald reveal of Muslim Americans on the NSA surveillance list?

  • Scott S.||

    Is this a real question or sarcasm?

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Demos guy asks: Can't progressives and libertarians just get along?

    It seems inarguable to me that coercion is coercion, whether its instrumentality is government or private power. My liberty is endangered when the NSA spies on me. It is equally endangered when Google collects information and sells it to strangers. My freedom and liberty are eroded when I have no access to health care, or education, or food. And when private corporations use their wealth to dominate the political process, individual liberty vanishes.

    ...Left and right could agree today on ways of limiting NSA intrusions on liberty, for example. The barriers are political, so that Rand Paul gets hammered within the Republican Party when he reaches out for new kinds of support in the drone/NSA struggle, and Justice Ruth Ginsburg gets hammered when ruling against physical barriers to anti-abortion speech.

    These kind of barriers to a broader liberty-inspired coalition are real. The Supreme Court's insistence on giving corporations the same liberty protections as given to breathing human beings will continue to distort practical politics until it reverses course. Social reactionaries on the right are uncomfortable with the liberty rights involving sex and reproduction. There's too much comfort on the left with liberty restrictions on speech offensive to specific groups.

  • John||

    The Supreme Court's insistence on giving corporations the same liberty protections as given to breathing human beings will continue to distort practical politics until it reverses course.

    Progs can't be expected to compromise on their demands. Libertarians are supposed to give up on everything except for the NSA and gay sex so we can all get along.

    Social reactionaries on the right are uncomfortable with the liberty rights involving sex and reproduction.

    Because the government not forcing them to pay for it is totally like depriving people of the right to have it.

  • Coeus||

    The progs dropped their crony capitolism objections as soon as it looked like something might actually be done (ExIm). There is no common ground. If we get drug legalization, they will start pushing mandatory treatment. There is nothing they really want but more state.

  • John||

    Exactly. And they would only limit the NSA's ability to spy on Muslims. They would be perfectly happy with them doing it to evangelicals or Tea Party people or anyone else the Progs hate.

  • Sudden||

    They merely think us useful idiots. They clearly have never learned the distinction between a cerebrally savant autistic and a bona-fide useful idiot.

  • Slammer||

    My freedom and liberty are eroded when I have no access to health care, or education, or food.

    Uh, nope.

  • Slammer||

    Nope.

  • Almanian!||

    Nope

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    NNNNNOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPEEEE!!!!!!!!!

  • Sudden||

    Knope?

  • PapayaSF||

    My freedom and liberty are eroded when I have no access to health care, or education, or food.

    WTF? The free market supplies all those things, despite many successful efforts by the government to make them all more expensive.

  • Rich||

    You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word "access", Papaya.

  • Jerryskids||

    It's the same as those who argue against the Hobby Lobby decision on the grounds that access to birth control is a fundamental human right. No word yet on when they intend to start protesting the fact that the ACA only applies to Americans and several billion people on the planet are being deprived of their fundamental human right to free birth control by virtue of the fact that the ACA doesn't apply to them.

  • Injun, as in from India||

    My freedom and liberty are eroded when I have no access to health care, or education, or food.

    No one is physically blocking anyone from getting into a hospital, going to school, or entering a grocery store, right? Unless access in this case means free sh** paid for by someone else that I believe I am entitled to get, and "no access" means the suckers coerced into paying say "f*** off".

  • Zeb||

    It is equally endangered when Google collects information and sells it to strangers.

    Because Google can lock you in a secret prison or keep you from flying for the rest of your life without explanation or due process.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Progs are anti-freedom, except when it comes to gay sex, abortion on demand, and subsidizing birth control with someone else's money. Libertarians are pro-freedom to a point bordering on anarchy. Why would the two get along?

  • OldMexican||

    Demos guy? Was it Buckwheat?

  • MegaloMonocle||

    My liberty is endangered when the NSA spies on me. It is equally endangered when Google collects information and sells it to strangers.

    Until proggies give up their idiotic moral equivalency between corporations and government, we really don't have much to talk about.

  • paranoid android||

    So Google collecting and using information he freely gives them erodes his liberty, but does he think his liberty is eroded when the government forcibly takes a cut of every dollar he earns?

  • Sudden||

    It's like he's never heard of TOR, DuckDuckGo, or the like.

  • Timon 19||

    To be fair, hardly anyone has.

    This place has a much higher than average number of people who actually understand computers to a level that they know there are alternatives to Windows/Apple/Google.

    The standard NY Times or even YouTube commenter has no fucking clue.

  • ||

    "My liberty is endangered when the NSA spies on me. It is equally endangered when Google collects information and sells it to strangers. "

    No.....that is not correct. One of those is not like the other. At. All.

  • ||

    My liberty is endangered when the NSA spies on me. It is equally endangered when Google collects information and sells it to strangers.

    Besides the obvious flaws wrt consent and force, the other issue with this statement is that Google doesn't really "sell your data" as is commonly said. It sells advertising space that is targeted based on your data, and aggregated, anonymized data.

    Of course, the latter is based on your data, but when people think of their data being sold, it is along the lines of "Carl's search history indicates that he is interested in Asian wimminz", not "a lot of fat white nerds' search histories indicate that they're interested in Asian wimminz".

  • ||

    The Supreme Court's insistence on giving corporations the same liberty protections as given to breathing human beings will continue to distort practical politics until it reverses course.

    This sounds rather...what's the word, millenial? messianic? predestinationistic? Some sort of quasi-religionistic.

  • Jerryskids||

    The whole damn "SCOTUS says corporations are people!" thing drives me up the wall. SCOTUS didn't say Exxon is a person just the same as Jerryskids is a person, it said "Exxon" is nothing more than a group of people. Corporations are given the same liberty protections as given to breathing human beings because breathing human beings are what a corporation is made of. I don't stop being a breathing human being when I become an Exxon stockholder any more than I do when I become a member of the NRA or the head of the local PTA or an editorial writer for the NY Times.

    They were saying "corporations are people" in the same manner as saying "Soylent Green is people".

  • paranoid android||

    I've never seen a satisfactory rejoinder to this argument:

    We all agree Peter has a right to say what he likes and use his resources as he wishes.

    We all agree that Paul also has a right to say what he likes and use his resources as he wishes.

    Why, then, when Peter and Paul pool their resources to form Peter & Paul Incorporated to pursue their mutual interests, are they suddenly supposed to lose all of these rights?

  • Sudden||

    We all agree Peter has a right to say what he likes and use his resources as he wishes.

    I'm not so sure proggies believe that if Peter is not a proggie himself.

  • wadair||

    Because Progressives just want to rob Peter to pay Paul?

  • John||

    So I got stuck in someone's office where CNN was playing for about ten minutes today. During that time I listened to three separate news reports about the unaccompanied alien children issue. These were news reports not talk shows with people screaming at each other.

    Under the 2008 human trafficking law, unaccompanied minors from countries other than Mexico and Canada are not subject to expedited removal. The thinking was that any child found in the US might be a victim of human trafficking and therefore they get full due process before we send them back. That means that Obama couldn't send these kids back quickly regardless of whether he wants to. That is kind of an important thing to know I would think.

    Yet, not once in any of the three reports was this fact mentioned. It was all just droning on about the horse race factors and how Obama is doing this and the Republicans are doing that. Forget politics, it was the most mind numbingly stupid and uniformed ten minutes of broadcast I have ever seen.

    And this is not the result of liberal bias. The existence of the 2008 law is favorable to Obama since it means he can't immediately send these kids home. And it is not a secret. Any immigration attorney or knowledgeable CBP or ICE employee could tell you about it. Yet, they don't report it. They are just too stupid and lazy to even try to report the facts.

  • Rich||

    The existence of the 2008 law is favorable to Obama since it means he can't immediately send these kids home.

    Yep. His hands are tied by The Law.

  • John||

    But they never mention it. They just drone on about the political angle. Reporters are fucking retarded.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    I think this is why we see more Independents. People are wising up to the TEAM vs. TEAM shit and dropping out.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    John's point is that in many cases, journalists are just too stupid to be effective partisans.

    If they knew about this 2008 law they'd use it to cover for Obama ("under a Bush-era law, Obama's hands are tied...").

    But since journalists inexcusably failed to do basic research on this story, probably because they were too busy at the hair stylists* to check up on minor details like that, they end up missing important story elements, even elements that make their guy look better.

    *And the woman reporters are worse!

  • MegaloMonocle||

    Whatever happened to Obama's mystical powers of the pen and the phone? Allofasudden, he's just a helpless pawn of a law on the books? When did that start, exactly?

  • Rich||

    That's my point. "*Sometimes* a law is just a law."

  • Sudden||

    Yep. His hands are tied by The Law.

    In all fairness, he's not let The Law tie his hands before. See: Obamacare, Exemptions to.

  • ||

    "...it was the most mind numbingly stupid and uniformed ten minutes of broadcast I have ever seen."

    You don't watch the news much, do you?

  • Coeus||

    What country do these people live in?

    Let’s play.
    Can I sidewalk counsel people on their way to a yoga place? Hey, don’t go in there, you can’t twist yourself into a pretzel like that!

    Can I sidewalk counsel people on their way to a rock concert? Stay away from that place, you’ll damage your hearing!

    Can I sidewalk counsel people on their way to get a haircut? Don’t waste your money in there, get a friend to cut it for you!

    Can I sidewalk counsel people on their way to a basketball game? Go home, those people are way taller than you!

    Can i sidewalk counsel people on their way into McDonalds? ARE YOU KIDDING, you don’t want to eat that shit!

    Yes. What's your goddam point?

  • John||

    They honestly don't think people should be able to do that.

  • Coeus||

    They may think it's illegal. They do strive for the "everything not expressly permitted is forbidden". Perhaps they think they've gotten further than they have. Or their brains have always worked that way, so they don't even understand the distinction.

  • PapayaSF||

    That is one confused argument and makes an own goal.

  • Almanian!||

    You might need a sidewalk dentist if you don't get the fuck out of my face when I'm on a mission to get a Big Mac. Step off, hipster...

  • SugarFree||

    Wait, I think we are supposed to be for hectoring busybodies, Almanian.

  • Coeus||

    It's like racists. It's better to know who they are so you can shun them.

  • ||

    There's a difference between counsel and being smug, self-righteous, bossy nannies.

  • Almanian!||

    Nuh uh! Not when the religioustards do it to women!

    /progderp

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Next question?

    The business lobbyists haven't been able to get laws against picketing fast-food restaurants and yoga studios.

    They haven't been able to get laws against picketing the businesses of people who voted wrong on Prop. 8.

    To my knowledge, the only businesses which managed to get special laws (over and above the laws applying neutrally to all picketers) are the abortion clinics and the animal-research facilities. And the latter face terrorists who make the prolifers look like...well, what they are, which is almost uniformly peaceful.

  • lap83||

    That reminds me of a book I saw that was like a meter maid's ticket pad for petty grievances. I wish I remembered the name, but each page had a different description of an a common nuisance that you were supposed to pull out and stick to cars or give to people. It wasn't funny either, at least not intentionally so. They were the sort of complaints only an uptight passive aggressive liberal would make "Your car makes Gaia sad." except more long-winded and tiresome.

  • ||

    The only one of those anybody needs: youparklikeanasshole.com

  • Jerryskids||

    Parking Tickets: For Those Who've Crossed The Line.

    They work better if you wrap 'em around a brick and throw it through the drivers-side window. Actually, if you have a brick you don't need the tickets.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Collective bargaining: A Fundamental Human Right

    The ability for ordinary working people to organize and collectively bargain over their wages and working conditions is a fundamental human right. It is a right just as critical to a democratic society as the right to free speech and the right to vote.

    Over the last 30 years many in corporate America and the big Wall Street banks have conducted a sustained attack on that human right. Unionization dropped from 20.1 percent of the workforce in 1983 to 11. 3 percent in 2013...

    During that period productivity and Gross Domestic Product per capita both increased by roughly 80 percent in America. But the wages of ordinary Americans have remained stagnant. Virtually all of the fruits of that increased productivity have gone to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.

    That fact that all of the productivity gains went to the top 1 percent is not the result of an immutable law of nature. When unions represented a quarter of the private sector workforce, a larger and larger percentage of the total economic pie flowed into the pockets of ordinary Americans -- and the result was the world's most vibrant middle class.

    The simple fact is that absent government regulation and collective bargaining agreements, the market by itself does not assure that everyone shares in the fruits of society's increased economic productivity.

  • John||

    I would agree that the ability to form a union or any other voluntary association is a human right. Now, whether anyone has to pay attention to your organization is something a bit different.

    My God do those people rape the human language. When they say "collective bargaining is a human right" they mean "government coerced collective bargaining is a human right".

  • PapayaSF||

    And I don't think they mean individuals have a human right to opt out of collective bargaining, or be a strikebreaker, etc.

  • John||

    They certainly don't mean that. My human right to collective bargaining includes my right to form a union AND my right to use the government to force you to join my union or prevent you from crossing my picket line.

  • Zeb||

    Sure it's a right. As is refusing to engage in collective bargaining with your employees.

  • Trouser-Pod||

    Ah, but the bargaining requires at least two parties. Not participating=violating their rights, capisce'?

  • ||

    My God.

    The derp in the threads.

  • OldMexican||

    The simple fact is that absent government regulation and collective bargaining agreements, the market by itself does not assure that everyone shares in the fruits of society's increased economic productivity.


    I don't know if the guy is saying that in jest or if he really believes that, but there's nothing better out there to exclude people from the fruits of increased productivity than labor unions. Labor union are always formed to keep competitors out. Always.

  • ||

    "When unions represented a quarter of the private sector workforce, a larger and larger percentage of the total economic pie flowed into the pockets of ordinary Americans -- and the result was the world's most vibrant middle class."

    I wonder if the citizens of Detroit herniated themselves laughing at that.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Did you all miss this:

    Unionization dropped from 20.1 percent of the workforce in 1983 to 11. 3 percent in 2013...

    During that period productivity and Gross Domestic Product per capita both increased by roughly 80 percent in America.

    I thinka those words donna help you argument likea you thinka they do
    (apologies to Inigo)

  • SusanM||

    Prepare to die

  • Coeus||

    I don't know how grammar works.

    That's basically what this article is saying.

    To begin with, Justice Alito's opinion for the majority barely mentions women. As the Washington Post reported, the opinion uses the word "women" or "woman" a mere 13 times in 49 pages. Closer reading of the majority decision makes clear that seven of those mentions were either because the majority was refuting Justice Ginsburg (and her use of "women"); summarizing the government's position (and its use of "women") or describing the birth control coverage requirement (a simple recitation of fact).

    That leaves precisely six instances in which the majority — on its own — mentioned the word "women." There are two possible explanations. Both are troubling.

    One is that the majority purposely, as a legal and literary strategy, left out "women" — the better to hide the actual women whose rights are at stake behind asserted concerns about religious freedom. Alternately, it was unintentional, but nevertheless the result of an unacknowledged but deep-seated and culturally-reinforced worldview that just does not take women into account.

    Either way, women's literal absence from the majority opinion highlights how this decision furthers legal doctrine that denigrates and erases women's reproductive health and rights
  • Almanian!||

    The butthurt - it burns!

  • John||

    It is not that. It is that the author cannot understand any kind of abstract principle of law. All he can see is the crude material world. This case involved women and therefore the decision should also discussed and be based on women. He cannot comprehend that there is an abstract principle (religious) liberty at stake in the case and that the case just happens to be about women but really isn't about them.

    I say it all of the time. Progs are crude materialists. They cannot comprehend and even if they can they don't care about abstract principles. For them the world is a brutal sandbox of mine and yours and nothing else.

  • Coeus||

    This case involved women and therefore the decision should also discussed and be based on women. He cannot comprehend that there is an abstract principle (religious) liberty at stake in the case and that the case just happens to be about women but really isn't about them.

    If that's their point, they didn't make it. Pronouns and understood subjects exist.

  • John||

    That is their point, they are just so stupid and unaware they don't even know it. They are literally so stupid they don't understand their own thought process.

  • Slammer||

    I noticed you only used the word "women" three times, John. WTF?

  • Restoras||

    Progs are crude materialists. They cannot comprehend and even if they can they don't care about abstract principles. For them the world is a brutal sandbox of mine and yours and nothing else

    Well said.

  • PapayaSF||

    The person doesn't know how law works. The case was about religious freedom, not about "women."

  • Injun, as in from India||

    Here's how to increase the "women" word count in the above paragraph:

    To begin with, Justice Alito's opinion for the majority barely mentions women. I love hot women. As the Washington Post reported, the opinion uses the word "women" or "woman" a mere 13 times in 49 pages. I love hot women. Closer reading of the majority decision makes clear that seven of those mentions were either because the majority was refuting Justice Ginsburg (and her use of "women"); summarizing the government's position (and its use of "women") or describing the birth control coverage requirement (a simple recitation of fact). I love hot women.

    That leaves precisely six instances in which the majority — on its own — mentioned the word "women." I love hot women. There are two possible explanations. I love hot women. Both are troubling. I love hot women.

    There you go. I am more woman-friendly than this writer.

  • ||

    So...the patriarchy strikes again.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    If number of uses of a word is what counts, then Mötley Crüe are uber-feminists who believe in Girl Power:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2XdmyBtCRQ

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    And the Beastie Boys are basically like Andrea Dworkin:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoFB2R_AUwM

  • Sudden||

    "As the Washington Post reported, the opinion uses the word "women" or "woman" a mere 13 times in 49 pages"

    "Either way, women's literal absence from the majority opinion..."

    Why are women constitutionally incapable of using the term literal properly just once in their fucking lives? Goddamn white wimmenz suck.

  • ||

    Ah joy, More evidence 'poppers' may damage eyesight

    “Over the past 18 months or so I have come across almost 10 patients with poppers maculopathy, whilst several years ago I had not even heard of the condition, same with a lot of my colleagues,” said Dr. Anna Gruener

    Well gee, what could've happened in the past several years?

    Gruener thinks this sudden emergence of poppers maculopathy in Europe was most likely linked to a change in the type of nitrite chemicals used in poppers. Before a 2007 European Union law banned it, isobutyl nitrate was the most commonly used fluid in poppers. Now they are most often made with isopropyl nitrate.

    Oh, the EU banned a chemical because it was safely being used for recreational purposes, and now the replacement drug may cause vision loss. AWESOME!

    And from wikipedia: "In the U.S., originally marketed as a prescription drug in 1937, amyl nitrite remained so until 1960, when the Food and Drug Administration removed the prescription requirement due to its safety record. This requirement was reinstated in 1969, after observation of an increase in recreational use."

    TL;DR: the EU and US are putting people at risk because DRUGS!

  • Coeus||

    And into the trash they go.

  • ||

    You're fine. Rush is still isobutyl nitrite. I'll certainly be more wary about huffing poppers from Lufthansa flight attendants in the future though. The EU ban on isobutyl apparently isn't in effect here, Although we don't have access to amyl nitrate because it's behind the counter.

    Just don't use it Viagra or nitrates for heart conditions!

  • Coeus||

    Wait, if I have a heart condition don't use it? Or it will cause a heart condition if I combine them. First one I knew, just want to make sure you don't mean the second, as the wording seems it might indicate.

  • ||

    No, just if you're taking a vasodilator already, such as prescription nitrates or Viagra, Cialis, etc. The effects are stackable and can cause a dangerously low dip in blood pressure. I haven't read anything about it exacerbating existing heart conditions.

    On reading up on the health warnings it looks like these eye damage cases have only shown up in France and the UK, so I'll huff German ones with reckless abandon until I hear otherwise.

  • Coeus||

    Ahh. Not a heart condition, but blood pressure drop. Yeah, I always skip the bp meds if I decide to take viagra on the second day of a long weekend. Figured that poppers were the same, as I read that they were used specifically for that reason back in the day. Didn't really get them for my own use anyway, so no problem there.

  • ||

    I haven't seen poppers contraindicated for common hypertension medications like ACE inhibitors, diuretics (water pills) and betablockers. I don't think I've ever encountered anyone taking a vasodilator for hypertension prior to a heart attack (but my exposure is modest).

    Oddly minoxidil is a vasodilator.

  • Bobarian||

    "Oddly minoxidil is a vasodilator."

    Yes, both minoxidil and Viagra were developed as heart meds, but the drug companies found their side-effects to be better profit generators.

  • OneOut||

    If you have relatively mild BP issues try what I do.

    Get a daily prescription of Cialis and take that instead of normal BP meds.

    Works great for mild BP and for once the side effects are POSITIVE.

  • Almanian!||

    So my sniffing of amyl nitrate in the 70's and 80's - a little - is what has caused my prescription to progressively worsen over the years so now I'm....really, really nearsighted!?

    Oh, nooooooeeeeeesssz!

    *adjusts reading glasses - continues*

  • ||

    So my sniffing of amyl nitrate in the 70's and 80's

    Go on...

  • OneOut||

    That... or jerking off.

  • Bobarian||

    Yeah, Dad told me if you don't quit that you'll go blind...

    I said "Hey Dad, I'm over here!"

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Study: 3% of women are hypersexual

    The first major study on women who have sex so often it impacts their life have found that 3% of women are 'hypersexual'.

    German researchers found problems may be linked to high rates of masturbation and pornography use.

    They called for more research into the issue - and recommended those who suffer to get therapy.

    The researchers asked almost 1,000 women in Germany how much they masturbated or watched porn, and how many sexual partners they had.

    The participants answered questions called Hypersexual Behavior Inventory, which includes 19 questions about how often a person uses sex to cope with emotional problems, whether engaging in sexual activity is outside one’s control and whether this sexual activity interferes with one’s work or school.

    'Masturbation frequency, pornography use, and the number of sexual partners were associated with higher degrees in hypersexuality measured by the HBI,' the researchers, led by Verena Klein, wrote in the Journal of Sexual Medicine.

    'Especially the frequency of impersonal sexual activity was a stronger predictor for hypersexual behavior compared to the number of sexual partners in logistic regression analysis.

    Uh, no shit?

  • Coeus||

    Are only 3% of women in Germany on meth? I thought they invented the damn drug.

  • Sudden||

    Ever since Madrigal got shut down, it hasn't been as big.

  • Almanian!||

    The key questions are:

    1) How do I identify these women easily and
    2) where are the majority located?

    thanks!

  • Almanian!||

    Hey! Wait a minute! Butt Plug told me 8% of wymynz were hypersexual.

    Did he get his maffs wrong again?

  • John||

    Masturbation frequency, pornography use, and the number of sexual partners were associated with higher degrees in hypersexuality measured by the HBI

    Isn't masturbation and having sex a lot what makes you hypersexual? That sentence is like saying "having a large body mass and high body fat percentage were associated with obesity".

  • Rich||

    'It is still a challenge for researchers to identify individuals who may require treatment, without falsely stigmatizing others and their ‘normal’ or nonpathological sexual behavior,' the researchers said.

    What a wonderful sentence!

    The "falsely stigmatizing" and "so-called normal" stuff is great!

    HAHAHAHA!!

  • Matrix||

    So these women have the same sexual drive as a teen or young adult male?

  • kibby||

    Wait, you're telling me different people have different sex drives? NO WAY!

  • ||

    Who the hell are these women? And....how do I meet them?

  • Brett L||

    Welp, in my experience, you can either go to bars that are "classy" but not expensive, and look for the ones making and holding eye contact. Or else I am attractive to them. Or was, before I got married. Now, I'm not out often enough to know.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "They called for more research into the issue"

    I bet they did, I bet they did, know what I mean, guv'nor?

  • PD Scott||

    Today in geologic history: the 1958 Lituya Bay megatsunami.

    The 1958 Lituya Bay megatsunami occurred on July 9, when a large, 8.3 magnitude earthquake on the Fairweather Fault triggered a landslide that caused 30 million cubic metres of rock and ice to fall into the narrow inlet of Lituya Bay, Alaska. The sudden displacement of water resulted in a wave runup of 516 metres (1,693 feet) in height. This is the highest recorded megatsunami and the largest known in modern times.

  • GILMORE||

    "'megatsunami""

    A very underappreciated Metal band

  • PapayaSF||

    Wow....

  • Almanian!||

    I wish Lucy were here to join in all the reindeer games. These would be good topics for her...

    *kids pebble, looks around forlornly*

  • Almanian!||

    God damnit - *kicks pebble*

    You knew that...carry on.

  • Rich||

    That never would have ... well, you know. 8-(

  • Brandon||

    I thought we weren't supposed to talk about Lucy?

  • Trouser-Pod||

    I don't know how some of you link from the sites you do and maintain the sanity you display. I struggled to even go back to copy the following link, as (apparently) guitars=good, self-defense=bad.

    FFS, this is coming from Texas!

  • New West Republic||

    The guitar gun however, is great (for sporting use only, of course)

  • Obama's Buttplug||

    The Senate has confirmed San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro as the new secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

    "A republic, if you can keep it. Additionally, a housing and urban developer."

    /rare full quote

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Brady Campaign sues Kansas governor for flouting Federal gun laws

    A gun violence prevention group sued Kansas Governor Sam Brownback and the state’s attorney general on Wednesday, challenging a one-year-old state law on the grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution by nullifying federal laws aimed at reducing firearms violence.

    “Neither the Kansas legislature, nor any state legislature, is empowered to declare federal law ‘invalid,’ or to criminalize the enforcement of federal law,” the lawsuit said.

    The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Kansas, naming the governor and Attorney General Derek Schmidt as defendants. The group is seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of the Kansas law.

    “The right to keep and bear arms is a right that Kansans hold dear,” Brownback said in a statement. “It is a right enshrined not only in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, but also protected by the Kansas Bill of Rights.”

    The law says that firearms made in Kansas are not subject to any federal law or regulation...It also provides a nullification clause, deeming “void and unenforceable” any laws or regulations that the state deems to be a violation of the Second Amendment.

    When will they realize gun laws are unenforceable?

  • MegaloMonocle||

    You know the proggies are on the defensive when they are bringing lawsuits to overturn laws and restore the status quo ante.

  • Coeus||

    They are gonna have to choose between freedom to smoke pot or the ability to harass gun owners. Which do you think they'll choose? (rhetorical)

  • John||

    How exactly do they have standing? It is not like the state of Kansas is denying them anything. So what if the state of Kansas refuses to recognize federal gun laws. Unless they are subject to some kind of government sanction, how does a Kansas resident have standing to sue? The feds are the only ones who have standing. It is their law.

  • ||

    The law says that firearms made in Kansas are not subject to any federal law or regulation.

    And wheat grown on your own farm and consumed yourself isn't interstate commerce, but don't expect the SC to agree.

  • Coeus||

    What happened to believing the victim?

    It is? Just refraining from killing people when you’re pissed off is Gandhi and Martin Luther King? I don’t think so; I think it takes more than that.
    Cumia was fired last week over racially-charged tweets he wrote after an incident where a black woman allegedly punched him several times after she ended up in a photo snapped by the radio host. He claims he was carrying a firearm at the time of the alleged assault but exercised restraint. So far, we only have one side of the story — Cumia’s.

    Remember folks, being if a man is violently assaulted by a woman, it only results in him being "pissed off" and he's probably lying anyway.

    Hell, he probably raped her, amiright? Not condoning the twitter rant, but it seems very similar to stuff I saw many celebrities post after the Trayvon Martin incident.

    Bonus: Some Penn Juliette hate.

  • ||

    9

    newenlightenment
    July 9, 2014 at 12:41 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
    I’d take the same line on Gillette as I would with Pat Condell. If he were assassinated it would be a very bad thing, because it would make a martyr of him.There is no other reason for not wanting him dead, none whatsoever.

    I love watching these people try to expel Penn from the Official Atheist Movement for the crime of libertarianism. Their impotent hatred is absolutely delicious.

  • Winston||

    Penn Gillette forgets that atheism is supposed to be about rejecting the beliefs of the Republican kulaks who are holding back the enlightened rationalist Democrats from creating utopia.

  • ||

    Progressives are always more interested in Marxism than the popular cause du jour. Anyone who isn't a Marxist must be discredited and expelled.

  • ||

    PZ on the incident


    microraptor
    8 July 2014 at 1:43 pm (UTC -5)
    Penn Jillete is a pompous, self-aggrandizing libertarian.

    Wait, there are other kinds of libertarians?

    PZ Myers
    8 July 2014 at 9:52 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
    How dare you call Penn a misogynist! As far as I know, he has never ever strangled a woman to death, despite having two hands at the end of his arms. That makes him a feminist! He’s like a Susan B. Anthony! Victoria Woodhull! JAAAAANE FOOOOONDAAAAA!
  • Coeus||

    You know that PZ was accused of coercive rape once? He immediately went to his boss and smeared the victim. Even wrote an article about it.

  • ||

    Well isn't that delicious?

  • Coeus||

  • Coeus||

    How I responded to that instance is just part of a protocol for how people should work together. Here’s what I do:

    I don’t harass women, or anyone for that matter.

    I maintain complete transparency. Not only do I not harass women,(isn't the rule that when you repeat something that wasn't questioned, you're trying to convince yourself?) but any accusation that I do founders on the implausibility of the circumstance.

    I deal with any potential situation by defusing it immediately. Not arguing, not protesting my innocence, not begging the person to refrain from hurting my reputation, but going straight to departmental authorities and explaining the situation. Again, transparency: the slander isn’t going to stick.

    I bring in witnesses, preferably women too, who can testify to my innocence. And I don’t just mean people who will say I’m a nice guy, but witnesses to the incident who can describe all the details of the event.

  • Coeus||

    I keep myself protected against false claims, which also means that I’m keeping my students protected from any harm.(Tha Fuck? Talk about your self serving logical leaps. No one on one time with students is helpful to them.) We all work just fine together, with nothing to hide.

    I don’t sexually harass my students or colleagues. Period.
    Not only is my reputation spotless, and honestly so, but there’s no way to even realistically bring such a charge against me.(Have we found the reason for his SJW retardation? He's so afraid false accusations he became an SJW to deflect them) And of course the great majority of my interactions with students bear no risk of any such problems — we can trust each other.
  • ||

    And of course the great majority of my interactions with students bear no risk of any such problems — we can trust each other.

    Taking that many precautions is trust, huh? Apparently I've been doing it wrong all this time.

  • ||

    Refusing to meet with students privately is really fucking creepy, and more than a little sexist. I never had a professor who would have refused to close the door when I went to talk to them.

  • db||

    So, what were there second-to-last mistakes?

  • John||

    AP stealth edits WMD story

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014.....wmd-story/

    Iraq has informed the United Nations that the Islamic State extremist group has taken control of a vast former chemical weapons facility northwest of Baghdad where 2,500 chemical rockets filled with the deadly nerve agent sarin or their remnants were stored along with other chemical warfare agents.

    to

    The Islamic State extremist group has taken control of a vast former chemical weapons facility northwest of Baghdad, where remnants of 2,500 degraded chemical rockets filled decades ago with the deadly nerve agent sarin are stored along with other chemical warfare agents, Iraq said in a letter circulated Tuesday at the United Nations.

    Lets hope the second paragraph is correct. At best that is one hell of a correction. At worse, that is some pretty terrifying lying for Obama. And yes, Iraq had all kinds of chemical artillery shells. I saw them with my own eyes. But I guess those were not real WMDs.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Why didn't the US destroy them all in the aftermath of Iraq's liberation? When will Reason stop parroting the MSM line that there were no WMDs?

  • ||

    Wikipedia says that sarin is really unstable:

    Sarin degrades after a period of several weeks to several months. The shelf life can be shortened by impurities in precursor materials. According to the CIA, some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks, owing mostly to impure precursors.

    Its otherwise-short shelf life can be extended by increasing the purity of the precursor and intermediates and incorporating stabilizers such as tributylamine.

    The section goes on to note that certain tweaks on the formula can allow it to be stored for quite a bit longer as a binary weapon, but from what I've read the Iraqi stock was pretty rudimentary.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The precursors are stable for some time I believe. Once mixed, the clock starts ticking.

  • ||

    Joan Rivers interviews self after David Letterman walks out on her.

    She's got a decent joke about vaginal dryness at the end.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Louisiana Supreme Court rules that priests must report sex abuse allegations made during holy confession

    The Catholic Diocese of Baton Rouge has issued a statement decrying a decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court that could compel a local priest to testify in court about confessions he might have received. The alleged confessions, according to legal documents, were made to the priest by a minor girl regarding possible sexual abuse perpetrated by another church parishioner.

    The statement, published Monday (July 7) on the diocese's website, said forcing such testimony "attacks the seal of confession," a sacrament that "cuts to the core of the Catholic faith."

    The statement refers to a lawsuit naming the Rev. Jeff Bayhi and the Catholic Diocese of Baton Rouge as defendants and compels Bayhi to testify whether or not there were confessions "and, if so, what the contents of any such confessions were."

    "A foundational doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church for thousands of years mandates that the seal of confession is absolute and inviolable," the statement says. "The position of the Diocese of Baton Rouge and Fr. Bayhi is that the Supreme Court of Louisiana has run afoul of the constitutional rights of both the Church and the priest, more particularly, has violated the Establishment Clause and the separation of Church and State under the first amendment."

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    The case stems from a claim by parents of a minor that their daughter confessed to Bayhi during the sacrament of reconciliation that she engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior with grown man who also attended their church. Court documents indicate the child was 12 years old at the time of the alleged sexual abuse.

    A criminal investigation by East Feliciana Sheriff's Office into the alleged sexual abuse was ongoing when the accused church member died suddenly in February 2009 of a heart attack.

    The civil lawsuit in question, filed five months later in July 2009, names the late sexual abuse suspect, as well as Bayhi and the Baton Rouge diocese, as defendants. The suit seeks damages suffered as a result of the sexual abuse, noting that abuse continued following the alleged confessions.

    The petitioners claimed Bayhi was negligent in advising the minor regarding the alleged abuse and failed his duty as a mandatory reporter in compliance with the Louisiana Children's Code. It also holds the diocese liable for failing to properly train the priest regarding mandatory reporting of sexual abuse of minors. Defendants claimed, in addition to other points of law, that only the sexual abuse suspect was liable for the suffering the minor endured.

    Bayhi acted appropriately in refusing to testify, the statement says, and the nature of "sacred communications" received during confession are confidential and legally exempt from mandatory reporting.

    **lights GKC signal**

  • paranoid android||

    Well, my kneejerk reaction was outrage but I reread the article and am a little more ambivalent now. It was the victim who confessed, not the molester, so I don't think the usual privileged communications argument quite applies. There are a variety of reasons why I think it would be unseemly to force the priest to immediately go to the police on the girl's behalf, but none are necessarily based on the fact that he's a priest.

    Which is to say, if there's a problem here, it's with the mandatory reporting laws themselves, so that's the debate we should be having. If the legitimacy of those laws is accepted I don't see why there should be a special exemption for priests.

  • ||

    The priest was right not to say anything. He should have had her go to the cops herself, or to another adult not bound by the confessional seal.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    To be clear, the priest deserves to burn in Hell because he told the girl to toughen up and sweep it under the rug because the revelations would damage the church.

  • ||

    I am aware. Hell is too good for him. We have Angola.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    These are allegations to which the priest is *not allowed* to respond. Since by the nature of the case I *cannot* hear both sides, I'm going to reserve judgment.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "**lights GKC signal**"

    Yeah, I'm kind of embarrassed by all the abusive Judas priests so I tend to shy away from such stories.

    But in this particular case, the alleged abuser seems to have been a layman in the congregation, not a priest. All we know about the priest is that he's doing his basic duty of keeping the seal of the confessional confidential. Which he would have to do even if the penitant blabbed all over the place about what she said.

    So his duty is to go to prison if necessary - indeed, to endure torture if it comes to that - rather than break the seal.

    And once the state gets its foot in the door, it will kick the door open.

    Let this precedent stand, and soon the state will want to break the seal in non-sex-abuse cases.

    Meanwhile, of course, a woman can't be compelled to testify about her serial-killer husband.

  • John||

    So are they going to force therapists and doctors to do the same now? And moreover, how about Lawyers? If we can force priests to testify, even though the common law has held for centuries to the contrary, why can't we force lawyers and therapists?

  • Matrix||

    Why is sex abuse different from murder or other major crimes?

    Why is sex ALWAYS treated differently?

  • paranoid android||

    Why do you hate children and want them to continue being molested, Matrix?

  • Matrix||

    Because they are noisy and smelly... the little bastards!

  • Coeus||

    Why is sex abuse different from murder or other major crimes?

    Because it's the only one where women are more likely to be victims (at least under the old definition, with the new SJW definitions it's about at parity)

  • ||

    Louisiana, seriously, WTF?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I understand they have a lot of Protestants, lapsed Catholics and Christmas-and-Easter Catholics.

    Before the Civil War Louisiana had Catholics in the Know-Nothing party.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    PolitiFact: No, Fox News female hosts are not all blonde and white

    In case you were wondering.

  • OldMexican||

    Julie Banderas. Andrea Tantaros.

  • ||

    It's frightening how many people took that original post at face value and blindly proceeded to make their insane and insulting comments (blondes are dumb, conservatives are idiots etc.) based on a false premise.

    There's nothing wrong with uniformity. Forced diversity is not a solution.

    Besides, how many of those blondes are actually blondes? Many women do, you know, bleach or dye their hair, no?

  • Obama's Buttplug||

    And moste of the "blondes" aren't really blondes.

  • Antilles||

    Why did PolitiFact leave off the two hottest Fox anchors: Harris Faulkner and Lauren Green? Was it a simple oversight, or do they hate black people? I think we all know the answer to that...

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Malaysian Member of Parliament not sorry for Tweeting "Long Live Hitler" after Germany win

    A Malaysian member of parliament is receiving widespread criticism after he tweeted “long live Hitler” in response to Germany’s win over Brazil Tuesday at the World Cup.

    “WELL DONE..BRAVO…LONG LIVE HITLER…” Bung Moktar Radintweeted to his 22,000 followers shortly after Germany’s 7-1 win.

    His tweet was instantly met with outrage and made headlines in national newspapers, but Mr. Bung has remained defiantly unapologetic, BBC reported.

    The tweet still remained on the controversial MP’s profile by Wednesday morning, as he lashed out at critics in Malay and broken English.

    He told Malaysian newspaper The Star that people need to lighten up, and that he simply meant to compare the German team’s performance to how Hitler fought in WWII.

    “I don’t know what’s wrong with people sometimes. Hitler is part of history and the German team fought like how he did,” he said. “I think people nowadays should transform their mentality. Whatever I tweet people hit me. They are not hitting me because of Hitler, but because I am Bung Mokhtar.”

    Germany’s ambassador to Malaysia, Holger Michael, said the embassy “strongly rejects” Mr. Bung’s comments.

    Well of course they reject it, Hitler lost in the end!

  • PD Scott||

    "Bung, shut your hole!"

  • ||

    That dude's name is Mudd now....oh wait. Never mind.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "he simply meant to compare the German team’s performance to how Hitler fought in WWII"

    But the German team won!

  • ||

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    And by "heard of" he means "had his dick in my ass".

  • ||

    “I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.”

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up."

  • Winston||

    So with the reactions to Hobby Lobby and that article about nationalizing Google and Amazon it seems the Progs are going full retard. What happened?

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    They've always been full retard. It's just that the mask has slipped a bit further.

  • Winston||

    Some sort of combination of The First Black President, fall of the USSR, recession and healthcare has really caused them to lose it I would think.

  • perlhaqr||

    "that article about nationalizing Google and Amazon"

    Wait, what? I must have missed that one.

  • ||

    Muscle daddy with stage name "Jon Galt" returns to porn after years long absence, has this twitter exchange (mildly NSFW, no nudity though).

    ParagonMen[dot]com ‏@ParagonMen Jun 8
    Do you love Ayn Rand and hot men? Live your right-wing fantasies with [link redacted] exclusive Sean Robinson
    Jon Galt ‏@JonGaltXXX
    @ParagonMen who is Jon Galt? Classic Ayn Rand! [click the twitter link above for this pic]
    Jon Galt ‏@JonGaltXXX Jul 4
    @ParagonMen I love it when people get the reference. I choose the name from that novel. Jon Galt saves the world!

    I'm tickled by this. Now, we need porn titles:

    Who's in Jon Galt
    Plowing Galt's Gulch

  • paranoid android||

    The Fountainhead--oh, wait.

  • Trouser-Pod||

    What do you think The Fountainhead is?

  • Trouser-Pod||

    Shit.

  • ||

    The problem with Jon Galt porn is that it just keeps going on and on so much longer than you'd like it to.

  • Sudden||

    well played

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Francisco d'Anconia's Moneyshot Speech

  • ||

    Henry Reared-in.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Tag-Teaming Dagny Taggert

    Rear-In Steel

    Huge Ass-ketson

    Wesley Munch

  • Obama's Buttplug||

    Trains & Tunnels: The Ins and Outs

  • ||

    Running a train on Jon Galt

    Mining Galt's Gulch

    Freeing oneself from confinement in the collectivist morality of society, with Jon Galt

    Dagny does Galt's Gulch

  • Obama's Buttplug||

    You Came Along, then Came Again

  • Obama's Buttplug||

    Wee on the Living

  • ||

    Wee on the Living

    I almost spit my drink. Well done.

  • db||

    Smells Like Fishwife

  • Scott S.||

    Time to talk to ReasonTV for a video interview.

  • ||

    Are you going to invite his boo, Vic Rocco? (SFW-ish, just say it's some muscly friends' European vacation photos)

    I swear I've seen that guy someplace fairly recently other than an adult film.

  • Warrren||

    Ass Lads Shagged.

  • PD Scott||

    Here's a good one I saw on the news: Man says ex-wife turned him in for crime he didn't commit, spent 52 days in jail.

    According to Atlanta police, the ex-wife called from Mississippi after seeing the blurry photo of a man who robbed the Hookah Hook-up on Cheshire Bridge Road. She told an investigator, “she was 100 percent certain the photo was that of her ex-husband (Charles Rife),” according to a report.
    When police showed the crime victim Rife’s DMV photograph, the victim did not recognize him as the man who had robbed the store.
    “He said the suspect was not in the photo lineup and the officer turns around and her next move? Get a warrant,” said Richard Blevins, an attorney representing Rife.
    In April 2013, the case was thrown out by a judge. A police report mentioned no other evidence that connected Rife to the crime, beside the positive identification from his ex-wife. Rife said since then he’s tried to get police to hold the officer responsible, and that is why he decided to file a federal lawsuit.
    Atlanta police referred Channel 2 Action News to the city’s law department. The law department could not comment on the case. An internal investigation found that the officer involved “acted properly and within guidelines.”

  • Jon Lester||

  • Trouser-Pod||

    Not gonna read that, but do they want what's in the title so that the U.S. can learn the Germans' amazing, goal-scoring techniques?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Raju the elephant: rescue or theft?

    Incredible sight of the elephant that cried

  • Cytotoxic||

    Sadly, theft.

  • OneOut||

    Well they did have a court order since the current owner didn't have title to the animal.

  • Matrix||

  • gimmeasammich||

    I sure want to hang out with Ronald Berry from the comments section. That guy seems like a real gas. I'd even hold off on eating that day so I could be sure to get my fill of shoe polish.

  • perlhaqr||

    He thought she had a dog in the car.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Krispy Kreme Killer = Cop Jihad

  • robc||

    The data restored from factory reset phones isnt a surprise. Its just as easy to restore them from a crashed hard drive.

  • ||

    No time to read the thread, but just in case someone else didn't post this, literal nut-punch (or stick):

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....awyers-say

  • ||

  • ||

    That's what happens when I don't have time to do anything except... hit and run.

  • ||

    ...drink?

  • Paul.||

    Wiping all the data on an Android phone via the factory reset option does not actually wipe all the data. A security company purchased used phones from eBay and was able to recover deleted personal data.

    Der.

  • RishJoMo||

    OK wow I never even thought about it like that before dude.

    www.AnonToolz.tk

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Dude, you're a fucking bot nothing- so eat shit, fool.

  • Pathogen||

    Check your cis cyborg privilege...

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement