A.M. Links: Romney Blasts White House Over National Security Leaks, More Police Protests in Anaheim, One Way Mission to Mars Envisioned for 2023


  • say hi to ziggy

    Mitt Romney picked up on comments by Senator Dianne Feinstein yesterday suggesting certain national security leaks may have originated by the White House, calling for a "full and prompt" investigation of the leaks. Feinstein has since tried to walk back her comments, characterizing them as speculation.

  • The Republican presidential candidate also said new federal gun control legislation was not needed and would not prevent a tragedy like the theater shooting in Aurora last week. He defended an assault weapons ban he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts, saying it garnered broad bipartisan support in the state legislature. "Where there are opportunities for people of reasonable minds to come together and find common ground, that's the kind of legislation I like," Romney said.
  • Demonstrators clashed with police again last night in Anaheim, where two recent fatal police shootings have spurred protests from the community.
  • A former Democratic governor is among the thousand plus people who have signed an online petition asking the current Democratic governor to suspend the use of tasers by law enforcement in the state of Vermont; MacAdam Mason was tased to death last month after calling a suicide hotline. The current governor, Peter Shumlin, has already dismissed the idea.
  • The mayor of New Orleans wants fixing his city's infrastructure to be a national priority. "We're announcing to the rest of the country that they ignore us at their peril and that it's hypocritical to talk about economic security and national security without making this [$50 billion, 50 year state infrastructure plan] a national priority," Mitch Landrieu said.
  • A former inmate is suing five officials of the Twin Falls County jail in Idaho; he alleges he was assaulted by jailers after rejecting one's advances. The man was serving a 180 day jail sentence for misdemeanor DUI.
  • The start-up company Mars One is holding a lotto later this year to select 40 people to begin training for a one-way mission to Mars. The company's founder, a Dutch entrepreneur, hopes to send 4 of them on the interplanetary trip by 2023.

Don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily AM/PM updates for more content.

Reason.TV: "Ron Paul and the GOP Convention"

NEXT: Nick Gillespie Talking Social Security, Medicare, Generational Warfare on C-SPAN at 9.15AM ET

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.

  1. WHo would I send on a one way trip to mars? Hmm.

    1. My thought exactly, mmmmwwwwaaaahahahahahaha!

    2. the entire cast of jersey shore?

      1. Perhaps the smartest thing you’ve ever said.

      2. Highest rated show ever!

        1. Nah. It would take them too long to figure out how to use the airlocks.

          1. That’s a feature, not a bug.

          2. Once they did, they could start voting people off the show.

            1. Once they did, they could start voting people off the show.


    3. The offices of ISIS?

  2. The mayor of New Orleans wants fixing his city’s infrastructure to be a national priority. “We’re announcing to the rest of the country that they ignore us at their peril

    Look, it’s my duty as a knight to try and sample as much peril as I can.

    1. That quote from the mayor is more a threat than anything else. Is he moonlighting as a super-villain or something?

      1. You do not know Landrieu? Are you not of the Body?

    2. Nation to NO, do not build a city below sea level on the banks of a very large river. So, on behalf of one individual, fuck you.

      1. Almost all cities are built near a water supply. Most cities in the US are built next to a river and most ports in the world are at or below sea level.

        The oldest parts of New Orleans are ABOVE sea level and it was after WW2 that a lot of the low areas were developed and houses were not raised as much as was prior custom.
        This is because people believed the Army Corp of Engineers when they said they would build great flood prevention. Of course, they did a shoddy job so some federal funds were rightly dispersed after Katrina since the Feds were responsible for the shoddy work.

        New Orleans (and LA) has suffered more than the rest of the country from poor government, including cronyism and other corruption. The politicians were so busy screwing their own constituents and helping friends that they signed one of the worst deals with the Feds for oil revenues. I think that is being corrected but the state has been getting a much worse deal than other states in the Gulf Coast for many, many years.

        I don’t agree with the mayor that the nation needs to just give us money, but we should be getting the same deal as other states and the gov’t should pay for damages it caused.

        1. New Orleans (and LA) has suffered more than the rest of the country from poor government, including cronyism and other corruption.

          THAT is where you lose the rest of us. This bad govt and corruption did not occur in a vacuum; folks there kept voting in the same bunch of crooks. It’s like a southern Chicago.

          I love visiting NOLA but there may not be a number big enough to make me live there. Self-inflicted wounds do not elicit sympathy.

          1. Now that the demographics have changed, we are slowly changing a few of the bad laws. We finally got Jefferson out of office just before he was tried.

            I think my main point is that a lot of the things people say about NO are not true. It’s not a big bowl that’s all below sea level. And I would hope that you would all agree that if a government action causes damages, whether it is local, state, or federal, that they should pay for those damages. And if there is a system in place for oil revenues, it should be handled the same way for all states. That would provide the state with the funds the same way that Texas, Florida, etc. get them. I don’t want or expect funds just out of charity and I understand the argument about self-inflicted wounds and agree. But the argument that people down here are just lazy and stupid is kind of lame.

            1. no one has implied stupid/lame, yet you are inferring it. NOLA is infected with a culture of dependency; it’s what happens when you keep electing govt officials who promise the moon and then rob you.

              If the state screwed up on oil revenues, that is not the fault of TX or any other state. Why do you think LA should be entitled to other folks’ money? So far, the most positive step I’ve seen has been the rise of charter schools and the rush of people trying to get their kids enrolled in them.

        2. New Orleans (and LA) has suffered more than the rest of the country from poor government, including cronyism and other corruption. The politicians were so busy screwing their own constituents and helping friends that they signed one of the worst deals with the Feds for oil revenues.

          I don’t agree with the mayor that the nation needs to just give us money, but we should be getting the same deal as other states and the gov’t should pay for damages it caused.

          Neither situation was created by me, so why do you feel you need to take my money to fix your city?

          1. The Federal oil revenues do not come from income taxes and all states should get the same deal is my point.

            As I pointed out, the shoddy work by the US Govt. failed and caused the city to be flooded. That money for damages has already been paid post-Katrina.

            So I personally do NOT agree with the mayor on this point.

            1. I am well aware of were the oil revenues come from. Who negotiated the oil revenue deals? If the US GOV has already paid for the damages, what exactly is he asking for?

        3. Or, you could take responsibility for your own infrastructure and fix it yourselves. I’m willing to bet there is enough money – just a lack of proper prioritization.

        4. The oldest parts of New Orleans are ABOVE sea level

          While true, you’re not addressing the fact that I can stand on top of the levee at Jackson Square and look down at the river on one side, and the square on the other. It’s obvious to even a child that the river level is way higher than the square, and the Quarter is the oldest and highest point in the city. Sea level ain’t the fucking problem.

          1. I get annoyed with people who have never been here (like my relatives in midwest) and no nothing about the city repeat shit they heard on CNN in 2005. You obviously know the city and understand a bit more.

            But I would point out that
            New Orleans has not flooded from the river in over 100 years. Dozens of states above New Orleans flooded in 1927 and New Orleans did not.

            Rising Tide is a good book on this.

            In the last 2-40 years there have been many floods in the midwest of the Mississippi, floods of the Sacramento river, etc.

            Maybe all the people in the midwest and CA are too lazy and stupid to know not to build on low ground. And they keep taking the federal flood money over and over again.

            Katrina was the first hurricane in 400 years (since its founding essentially) that caused New Orleans such massive flooding. Most hurricanes just give us a glancing blow and cause minimal problems.

            1. Maybe all the people in the midwest and CA are too lazy and stupid to know not to build on low ground. And they keep taking the federal flood money over and over again.

              On this you and I agree. They should not get any money for building in flood zones. Unless they purchase flood insurance from private companies.

              1. If we like this web site, I’m sure we agree on most things.

          2. Yes you can. Because the square is above sea level and the levee is on top of it. And if you weren’t ‘looking down’ from the top of a levee to the river and land on each side of it, it’d be a pretty shitty levee, doncha think?

        5. most ports in the world are at or below sea level

          Well, “at sealevel” is axiomatic for a port.

          “Below sealevel” – Ima wanna see a linky for that. Because that’s the one that matters, if we’re talking about Nawlins.

          1. Amsterdam is, I believe. And the Dutch once ruled the seas.

            1. Right you are, sir.

              In order to get out to sea from Amsterdam (I just did it about a month ago), you need to travel through a lock that raises the ship up the appropriate amount to then travel out to sea from the harbor.

          2. The Port of Houston is around 10 feet above sea level, since it’s basically on a river.

            1. The PortCity of Houston is around 10 feet above sea level, since it’s basically on a riverswamp.

    3. Hey at least he’s going for the big stuff and not micromanaging people’s wakes

      1. That’s almost as good as this

        1. The company only copies the head? I daresay some here would happily repose for all eternity in its product if it extended its range to other body parts

          1. I’m sure if you provide photos and a major credit card, they can accommodate all of your demented wishes.

          2. I intend to have a large um, monument er, erected at my grave site.

        2. WTH? Is that President Obama’s head on the example?

    4. Why the hell should I care about New Orleans’ infrastructure?

      Maybe if he could guarantee that some of his city’s former residents, who spread west like locusts, would move back, I’d be interested in at least listening to him.

      1. The problem children of the exodus are slowly self-correcting, NEM. They didn’t understand Texas, but they’re learning the hard way, often fatally.

    5. the part of Japan hit by the tsunami will recover before NOLA does. But this is what a culture of dependency yields.

      1. And if it does recover, it will be because a bunch of hard working illegal South Americans moved there to rebuild the place.

        1. There are a bunch of illegal South Americans in Japan?


      2. The city has already come back. Some of the low lying areas where people moved away will not but those were bad ideas in the first place.

        I had insurance and both homeowner’s and flood paid me and I rebuilt my house over two years and did a lot of the work myself. We were lucky that a lot of workers came in from the rest of the country and other countries to get paid for their work.

        Characterizing everyone in N.O. as lazy and dependent is pretty lazy thinking. What N.O. and LA has suffered from is having even more gov’t and less free market than the rest of the country. The state gov.’t interferes in the insurance market and we still have laws where you have to get a license to be a florist even though they just made it easier to get. Only state in the union that does this. We used to have 7 (elected) property adjustors instead of the usual one most cities have (just changed post-Katrina) and so property taxes were not collected fairly and evenly and thus fewer funds were available for roads and such. Private roads are fine but most of the country uses property taxes and such to maintain them. Some old folks were upset when we changed because they thought it was great that you could have a personal relationship with your adjustor and just go have a cup of tea with them and bring them a gift (or campaign donation) and they would “work” with you on your tax bill. This is the kind of thing that hurt NO the most, typical politics, but more of it.

        1. What N.O. and LA has suffered from is having even more gov’t and less free market than the rest of the country.

          And who keeps voting for these fucksticks? Oh, that’s right, the people of N.O. and LA. No sympathy here.

          1. I agree that people have been foolish in the way they have voted and that is not a reason for us to get a lot of cash.

        2. Have you visited Detroit lately? Lemme know when you’ve lived there for awhile, and I’ll start listening to how bad off Nawlins and LA are…

        3. Bill,
          I understand you want to defend your hometown and state, but you make it sound as though crooked govt elected itself. And no, it is NOT lazy thinking to point out the obvious. Consider what some recipients of federal aid did with that money – strip joints, bars, etc etc. It makes everyone else look bad.

          1. I’m an adopted New Orleanian for last 15 years. I’m still reacting to all the misinformation that was put out by MSM from 2005. Yes I know that a lot of ignorant people over the years voted in a lot of crooks. That takes time to change.

            I’m sure that recipients of federal aid in midwest used their money to gamble on riverboats too, it just did not make the national news.

            I pointed out above that Katrina was the first major hurricane to hit NO in 400 years and that NO has not flooded via the Mississippi in over a hundred years while places in the midwest flooded just in the last few years and again in every decade going back and they don’t get the same condemnation for being too stupid to build on low ground.

            The federal flood insurance program has taken risk out of the equation across the entire country and made everyone who needs flood insurance susceptible to making a poor decision. Or maybe it’s not poor if you have a promise that someone else will pay for it.

            Sorry for being defensive, but I just am sensitive on this topic.

            1. The federal flood insurance program has taken risk out of the equation across the entire country and made everyone who needs flood insurance susceptible to making a poor decision. Or maybe it’s not poor if you have a promise that someone else will pay for it.

              Being a guy who was a) in the process of buying NO property last year and b) related to people who have Galveston property, you’ll get no argument from me on this point. Federal flood insurance is a huge market distortion in coastal and low-lying areas. The entire city of Galveston should not exist in its current form. Without federal flood insurance, nobody in their right mind would build the shit they do on a coastal barrier island.

              I fail to see why we subsidize beach homes for millionaires.

            2. I actually have less sympathy for midwest people who rebuild every several years than I do for NO. They KNOW they are going to get flooded, it is what made the soil so fertile, yet with fed flood insurance, there is no risk to them. Same with the assholes who build on the outer banks. Fuck ’em, do not build in areas that routinely get destroyed. OR when you do, do not ask me for money to rebuild your house.

            3. Sorry for being defensive, but I just am sensitive on this topic.

              Never apologize for telling the truth.

        4. Bill,

          I was born, baptized, and married there, and have visited at least 2-3 times annually for my entire life. I love that city and it is like a second home to me. I can tell you that New Orleans has not come back. It is not what it was, and it probably never will be. It is sad, but it is just a fact. It is time for NOLA residents to accept it for what it is, and get past it.

          The bottom line is that Mississippi, New Orleans East, and St. Bernard Parish (where my family is from) suffered far worse damage than NOLA, and we don’t have to listen to them constantly bitch and moan about what the rest of the country hasn’t done for them. It’s pretty shitty to witness all the NOLA butthurt as a Houstonian, after our city shared our hospitality to NOLA residents and got the Katrician class as a fuckyouverymuchbiatches.

          I don’t know that NO East will ever be rebuilt, but I know MS and St. Bernard are slowly but surely taking care of themselves. NOLA proper would do well to STFU, clean up its corruption, and follow the example of its neighbors.

    6. Or what? He’s going to export more feral shitheads to Houston?

      1. I think that’s pretty much the implicit threat–“If you don’t rebuild this area, the sub-literate, welfare-dependant, parasitic goons that we’ve penned in here will be released to wreak havoc on your communities!!”

        1. Here in Houston, we’ve found that shooting them is remarkably effective.

          Actually, the first year after Katrina, they were doing an admirable job of shooting each other.

    1. Class act, that.

      1. I guess he has done some soul-searching after the outburst incident.

    2. I’d hold out for Gary Oldman

      1. Not Ann Hathaway?

        1. She already visited me when I got hangnail watching the Devil Wears Prada.

      2. Maggie Gyllenhall for me.

        1. The Secretary

          Who knew she could be so sexy?

      3. Christina Hendricks was an extra, right?

        All I’m saying is that she and Alba need to do a lesbian sex scene, nude, before their bodies completely go. For the good of future generations.

        1. Yes. This must be done for the greater good.

  3. MacAdam Mason was tased to death last month after calling a suicide hotline.

    Now, THAT’s service.

    1. And afterwards he thanked the officer.

    2. “You are now dead. Thank you for using Stop-and-Drop, America’s favorite suicide booth since 2008”

      1. You’ve chosen “slow and painful”.

    1. Idiot.

      And where did he grow up that no one had a gun in their home? Moscow?

      1. Monkey County, MD.

        “Gunz are SCARY, m’kay?”

    2. The 10-year-old boy within me cannot seem to move past the fact that I now own a gun that looks and functions very much like the one that James Bond carries… I’m not sorry that I bought the gun. On the other hand, I’m desperately sorry that I felt the need to… I have no sense that my purchase has made the world a safer place.

      So he bought it for no reason he can actually articulate?

      1. So he bought it for no reason he can actually articulate?

        He can articulate it, he just hates to. He hates admitting that the government can not keep him safe, so he had to do what any rational human being would do; protect himself.

        1. What a conflicted sissy.

    3. What a schmuck.

    4. What a cunt stain. Fuck you and your tortured soul, you pussy.

    5. I purchased a rabid wolverine for the same reason, and I too am now feeling a profound sense of discomfort.

      Also, feeling hydrophobia and wolverine-shaped bites.

      1. The bites stop after it dies, or you feed it.

    6. “…eight 9mm bullets into the object of my DERISION.”

      “I keep telling myself it is for self defense.”

      I am not sure I am comfortable with this guy having a gun. This is how liberals think, and how they think everyone else does, it is no wonder they are for gun control.

      Easy solution – if you are for gun control, you cant cant be trusted to responsibly own a gun.

      1. It sounds like he bought it for a suicide for which he can’t work up the courage.

        1. What? All he has to do is point it at a cop, now.

          1. All he has to do is hold it where a cop can see him.

            1. all he has to do is answer with a gun in his hand (ATFPAPIC) when someone pounds on his door at 1:30 am without identifying themselves. then the dipshit will have it coming.

              the rest of the details can be sorted out in the official police report.

              1. Ok. I googled it and the only results of ATFPAPIC are from reason. What the hell does it mean?

                1. Assuming The Fact Pattern As Presented Is Correct. It is cop jargon.

                  1. Is it cop jargon or a cop’s jargon?

                    1. Why did that make me think of:

                      “Ooh, suck my jagon.”

                      /Joozian TV Exec

                    2. I think it belongs exclusively to Buckaroo Banzai.

                2. Assuming The Fact Pattern As Presented Is Correct.

            2. Thanks. Fucking acronyms.

              1. you got your handle from my post SoR…I am flattered.

    7. What a pussy!

    8. That’s a lot of 888 self-flagellation. Buying that gun was probably the first time he felt like a real man in his entire life.

  4. Elton John: George W. Bush taught me a lesson

    “I wasn’t a big fan of his policies,” John said. “I was very against the Iraq war. So, you know, his policies didn’t sit well with mine.”

    But not long after Bush launched his anti-AIDS effort, Elton John had a chance to meet him in person. The occasion was the 2004 Kennedy Center Honors.

    “At the Kennedy Center concert we spent some time in the intermission with the President, George Bush, and he was an amazingly informed about AIDS,” John recounted. “He treated us with such kindness. I had so much respect for him, especially when the PEPFAR thing was announced when he gave 15 billion dollars to AIDS. He knew what he was talking about.”

    Politics aside, personal interaction caused John to change his view of Bush.

    1. Politics aside, personal interaction caused John to change his view of Bush

      Not that bush…

    2. Bush had no business blowing $15 billion on AIDS. That is 30 Solyndras.

      1. Because forbid we spend money to actually do some good. It must always go to crooked cronies with bullshit business plans.

        My God you are a dishonest fuck.

        1. I’ll go on a limb and say that was sarcasm but, being PB, it is a sturdy limb.

        2. Because forbid we spend money to actually do some good. It must always go to crooked cronies with bullshit business plans.

          No, John. Shrike actually has a point here. As soon as you start saying that one source of government spending is for “some good”, then you open the gateway for anyone to say it. Better to leave AIDS research and any other medical advancements, as well as energy research, etc. to the private sector.

          1. Shrike doesn’t have a point because he compared it to Solyandra. Not all money spent is the same. Spending it on AIDS is not the same as giving it away to your campaign contributors on bullshit business ventures.

            You can object to both on principle sure. But one is still not the morally equal to the other.

            1. I agree that it’s relevant whether spending was clearly for a charitable cause or whether it was supposed to be a business investment.

              One, you expect to make some money, the other was never meant to.

            2. Uh you sure about that?

              Do you have proof that the research outfits that recieved that money were paragons of goodness and light working the cure the earth of the scourge of aids. Or is it maybe possible that some or even all of it went to a combination of already profitable companies who were already conducting the research hoping to make a profit off of it, snake oil salesmen, and politically connected cronies who will spend more of the money on “administration” than actual research?

              One cannot judge the validity of the spending on intent, if they did then Solyndra was an just as laudable of an expense as “aids research”, an attempt to create new forms of solar energy.

              1. Rasilio,

                It is entirely possible that Bush’s AIDS efforts were some kind of crony capitalist pay off and never helped anyone. If they were, then yes they are the same as Solyandra.

                However, I have never heard a single bit of evidence that they were. I have only read praise of the efforts and statements by a lot of people who totally disagree with Bush’s politics and have no reason to lie that they saved millions of lives. I find it hard to believe, considering how much the media likes to say bad things about Bush, that if it had been a fraud, the fraud wouldn’t have been reported.

                So no I don’t think it was. If you have evidence it was, please provide a link.

                1. Saw an article recently – I think at The Atlantic – talking about how the coffin making industry in Central Africa has collapsed mostly due to antiviral efforts that can be attributed to Bush. One coffin maker said something like “it sucks. Well, I don’t wish death on anybody, but this is my livelihood and I don’t have any work.”

                2. You can argue that it is tax money and was stolen from individuals; therefore being immoral from that standpoint. But since he did have access to tax revenues, saving lives is a much better way to spend money than taking lives, or enriching cronies.

                3. A good chunk of that $15 billion was crony payola that went to faith-based missions and abstinence education.

                  1. 1. the fact that an organization is faith based doesn’t mean it doesn’t do a lot of good.

                    2. getting people to stop screwing each other is an effective way to stop STDs.

                    Face it Shreek. Bush saved millions of lives.

                  2. A good chunk of that $15 billion was crony payola that went to faith-based missions and abstinence education.

                    “Zounds! The money went to Chrissssssssstiansssss!”

                    1. Needs moar “Christfag.”

                  3. While I’ll disagree with faith-based anything, abstinence IS sensible.

      2. You’re right, shrike. He should have spent $0 in taxpayer money on AIDS and allowed companies to do research on their own. And Obama should have spent $0 on Solyndra and the other government boondoggles.

        Good start to the day, however I believe you’ll fuck it up within the next 5 minutes.

        1. Damn sloops, you’re up early. And already coming up with the same retorts as me on the east coast. I am in for a long day at this rate.

      3. But, but BONO said it’s great!

    3. I hear Sir Elton is also a friend of Limbaugh.

      1. I believe he played at Rush’s most recent wedding. Between Elton and his acquaintance with Seth McFarland, you have to wonder what kind of circles he runs in to make buddies that are completely on the opposite political spectrum. Maybe people end up liking him when they get to know him, I don’t know.

    4. some Elton / Marc Bolan (T. Rex) / Ringo Starr weirdness

    5. Autostraddle has assured me that this is false for lesbians.


  5. Bar Refaeli is still hot!

  6. Mother lion takes on crocodile!

    1. That’s awesome.

      Remind me to replace the crocodiles in my moat with something that won’t get the crap kicked out of it by a big girl kitty.

      1. Have you considered robot crocodiles with laser beams?

        1. sharks?

      2. Just fill your moat with acid. Deterrent, garbage disposal, and,if you put up a slide, you’ll get hours of fun and enjoyment.

    2. Lizards, you had your shot. It’s mammal time.

  7. Cinema killer was involved with prostitutes before massacre. If only prostitution were illegal. That would have prevented everything!

    1. That’s right from that Norwegian killer’s playbook. We should just ban Norway.

    2. And some asshole is about to bring an emotional damages suit against the cinema, because obviously they should be protecting everyone against lunatics.

      1. and THAT is why the theater complex had the ‘no guns’ sign, or however it was worded.

        1. Perhaps when the theater forced all their patrons to disarm themselves, the theater assumed legal responsibility for their safety. I hope victims sue the shit out of Cinemark.

          1. that’s ridiculous. I may think the gun-free zone policy is foolhardy, but it’s not the theater’s job to prevent the unpreventable. The only responsibility the theater had to its patrons was to show the movie they paid for; that was the sum total of the transaction between parties. And it seems that if ALL patrons are forced to disarm but one rules himself exempt from the policy, that individual is who we hold accountable.

            1. Also, there are Terms and Conditions on the back of the ticket he purchased. If he didn’t want to accept them and the indemnity clause that should be there, he was free to go elsewhere and see the movie or wait for it on DVD.

            2. Why is it ridiculous. Their policy put people at risk. Doing nothing would have kept people safer. Why are they not at fault?

              1. Their policy didn’t put anybody at risk. The people who bought tickets and agreed to the Terms and Conditions put themselves at risk because they voluntarily agreed to the policy.

          2. If I have a CCW, no candy-ass sign in a theater is going to keep me from packing. You hope you never need it, but if you do, I’d fucking dare the theater to sue me if I’m the one who subdued the perpetrator, because I guarantee I’d crucify them in the realm of public opinion in such a case.

            1. RRR, what’s more likely to happen is that you print, cause someone to freak out that “Ohmigod, he’s got a gun!”, and call the cops. Who will at a minimum then yank your CHL, and at worse, you end up like Erik Scott. (Whose family dropped the suit against CostCo and the Las Vegas PD, unfortunately.)

              Not that what I’ve written above is likely to happen, but I think it’s more likely than you stopping a rampaging psycho. There just aren’t that many of them, for one thing. And there are plenty of Gladys Kravitzs. Can’t find the cite, but I read that there were 5 CHL holders in the theater during the shooting. None of them were carrying, due to CO’s law.

              Theaters and malls ban CCW because they feel they will suffer less in the liability lottery by doing so. They think it will cost more by allowing CCW, and thereby taking the risk and attendant liability that some dufus shoots another shopper either accidentally or on purpose (viz, the shithead in DFW mentioned elsewhere in the thread), than they will suffer by banning CCW and taking the much smaller risk of suffering a mass shooting. I’m not sure their liability calculus is wrong.

    3. Cinema killer was involved with prostitutes before massacre.

      I read on Jezebel yesterday (I know, question the source) that he was rejected by three girls from one of those online sex meet-up sites. But it was also reported by TMZ (I know, question the source) as true. Jezzies actually made the good points on not jumping to conclusions that the guy went on a rampage for being spurned, but then they fucked up the whole article by closing with “this never would have happened if he didn’t have access to guns.”

      1. “this never would have happened if he didn’t have access to gunspussy.”

        1. Brett, some of us are concerned by….


          Brett, some of us deeply care about…


          Brett, some of us…


          Fuck, I simply can’t say “Rape culture” with a straight face.

        2. Actually, it looks like this never would have happened if he did have access to pussy.

          1. maybe that’s what the fuss over Obamacare and free birth control is all about. If folks get laid every now and then, they will be much less likely to commit mayhem.

          2. Yeah, I forgot to fix that part.

      2. I wonder if the chicks who rejected him are thinking, “Christ, one pity fuck could have saved 12 lives, at least.”

      3. I can’t believe three girls weren’t deterred by the crazy eyes in his profile pic.

  8. Kate Moss is still hot! Though she could use a cheeseburger.

    1. Cheeseburger? I am disappoint.

    2. Now, enjoy this before she has too many cheeseburgers…

  9. Jenkins: Can Data Mining Stop the Killing?
    Did the National Security Agency capture James Eagan Holmes’s transactions in cyber space? If not, why not?

    Sadly, the political blowback of 10 years ago, and the hush-hush with which data mining has proceeded since then, mean we have not been treated to a public exploration of the critical question: whether one sort of data mining originally envisioned?the kind not keyed on a specific individual?can yield actionable warnings. Psychiatric evaluations of dangerousness, we’re often told, are unhelpful because too many fit the pattern who never engage in violence. Can monitoring masses of transaction data help find the real risks? Or would this also lead (as some experts surmise) to unmanageable numbers of false positives?

    After the Aurora theater massacre, it might be fair to ask what kinds of things the NSA has programmed its algorithms to look for. Did it, or could it have, picked up on Mr. Holmes’s activities? And if not, what exactly are we getting for the money we spend on data mining?

    I prefer not live in this kind of world, thank you.

    1. And if not, what exactly are we getting for the money we spend on data mining?

      I can always hope that we stop spending this money in the first place but until that wonderful day occurs, I’m going to hope that we DON’T get our money’s worth.

    2. The whole “suspicious activity” data mining is pure bullshit. Holmes’ actions only seem menacing because we know now that he really was a psychotic killer. It is real easy to “connect the dots” when you are looking back and know how things end. It is nearly impossible to do it without the benefit of hindsight.

      1. Indeed, people act like 6000 rounds of ammo is a huge amount.

        If I was an avid gun shooter who went to the range at least once a week and averaged firing off 50 rounds each trip 6000 rounds is only a 3 month supply but quite likely got a significant volume discount. However given that he only fired 100 rounds he could just as easily have carried out the attack with just 200 rounds bought off the shelf at Wal Mart.

        1. Hell, I have a few thousand rounds of various types of ammo, because I go to the pistol range often, as well as out to shoot clays, and it is much cheaper to buy in bulk if you shoot alot.

        2. Yeah, I hed the misfortune of catching O’Relly while he was “debating” some pol re: the need to inform the FBI about guin purchases.

          “Sixty THOUSAND rounds! And the FBI didn’t know! If they’d have known, they’d have put surveillance on him!!”

          “Bill, you can’t assign an FBI agent to track every person who fits some pattern…”

          Two things:

          1) O’Derp kept saying “sixty THOUSAND rounds!”
          2) He NEVER got off the “just report the purchases, that’s all”.

          The other dude pretty well PWNED him.

          Also, last time I went to the range, I had 600 downrange in about an hour running drills, which is pretty typical for me.

          So 6000 rounds? Yeah, that doesn’t strike me as a whole lot. Esp for a reloader (which I don’t believe Psycho Killer was).

          1. I watched that last night too. All I could do was facepalm and shake my head.

          2. Saw that last night.

            O’Derp went full retard.

        3. Talk to guys who seriously do IDPA or IPSC. 6000 rounds is nothing. I know guys who when they were training hard would do 2000 rounds a week.

          Hell, any reasonable training course is pushing 250-500 rounds a day.

        4. I think it would be a 30 month supply at that rate (approx). I assume you meant 500 rounds each trip, which would be a lot, but not an absurd amount.

    3. Uh oh, someone finally learned his middle name.

    4. Your excerpt, Lord of the Wastelands, is one of the most frightening things I’ve read in awhile. These guys really do think that Brave New World was an aspirational manual.

  10. 150 million year old oyster contains a pearl!

    1. I hope this doesn’t have anything to do with Madonna’s vagina.
      [Thinks about clicking link]
      Sorry, I can’t take the risk. Pass.

      1. there’s a new drinking game: Six degrees of Madonna’s wuzza

      2. MRI reveals round object the size of a golf ball inside huge fossilized oyster.

        My links are safe unless they’re for Mr Chubby Chaser.

      3. Hers wouldn’t be tight enough.

  11. The Economic Crisis and Europe’s Rule of Law Problem

    Among the many non-economic factors shaping Europe’s current crisis, there is one which, despite its seriousness, has not yet received extensive attention: an emerging rule of law problem throughout the EU.

    Many will be taken aback by this claim. Isn’t Europe the continent where the very idea of the rule of law was first developed in its most sophisticated form? And haven’t postwar European governments been so focused upon dispute resolution through shared legal protocols that they have been willing to dilute national sovereignty in order to enhance the authority of pan-European courts such as the European Court of Justice? Close attention, however, to particular decisions by European institutions and governments before and during the present economic crisis suggests that many have significantly infringed the rule of law.

  12. “An order to disperse has been given,” Dunn said.

    … and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    1. “Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons being assembeld…”

  13. He defended an assault weapons ban he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts, saying it garnered broad bipartisan support in the state legislature. “Where there are opportunities for people of reasonable minds to come together and find common ground, that’s the kind of legislation I like,” Romney said.

    Because as long as both sides agree to take away your rights, it is all good.

    1. Now you see reason.

    2. Consensus, man!


      1. And yet people still vote for one or the other side. When will people understand it is Statists vs. Individuals rather that Red vs. Blue.

        1. Team Blue is not pro-Individual. Not in practice anyway.

          1. Sarc, neither team is pro-Individual. Sorry if I implied otherwise.

            1. I guess I meant Team Red, though I get them confused since the Socialist Democrats really should be red.
              But yeah, neither team supports individualism, no matter what the talking heads say.

        2. “So, the choice is between a giant douche and a turd sandwich?”

  14. Andrew Roberts: Olympic Ideals Don’t Match Reality
    Enjoy the sports competition, but shield yourself from the self-congratulation about world peace.

    “The longest national Olympic torch relay in history will create a spirit of community and world citizenship,” claimed the president of the International Olympic Committee, Jacques Rogge, in 2009, adding this year that, “Through the Olympic spirit, we can instill brotherhood, respect, fair play, gender equality and even combat doping.” Like every IOC president, he is repeating the view of the modern Games’ inventor, Baron Pierre de Coubertin, who in 1892 stated that the Olympic ideal represented, “The true Free Trade of the future; and the day it is introduced the cause of peace will have received a new and strong ally.”

    For all that the IOC trots out these platitudes, the fact remains that if anything it has caused more international bitterness and resentment than it has calmed. Far from finding “a new and strong ally” in the Games, the cause of world peace has been betrayed by the IOC time and again.

    1. “Through the Olympic spirit, we can instill brotherhood, respect, fair play, gender equality and even combat doping.”

      What’s “combat doping” and why are they trying to instill it?


      1. Didn’t you see Captain America?

        1. The dude whose powers come from steroids and radiation?

          1. That’s the one!
            They instilled combat doping in him and he gained the proportional strength of a steroid.

            1. Way the Arcade Version of The Avengers should have ended:

              “Real Winner Don’t Do Drugs… Except for Captain America. They were government funded. Like the Iran-Contra!”

      2. I think every host country has the option of putting a new event in place, and he’s hoping some future Olympic city will go with combat doping. If Mexico City ever gets the Games again….

        1. It would be great!
          It would involve two people fighting, and they would each have a needle with a mild sedative that they could use on the other.
          It would be run tournament style, so that by the end, the final two combatants would be so doped up that… actually… that doesn’t sound that great.

  15. Jacoby: The rush to politicize a tragedy

    One of the lessons a life of opinion-writing had imparted to him, Raspberry observed in 2006, was that “it is entirely possible for you to disagree with me without being, on that account, either a scoundrel or a fool.”

    News cannot break without being instantly deployed as a weapon in the culture war.

    Quote Icon

    But that’s a lesson Americans find it harder than ever to grasp. What Raspberry called “the open warfare that now passes as political debate” has grown ubiquitous. Every development must be given a politicized, partisan spin, preferably with an assumption of the other side’s bad faith. News cannot break without being instantly deployed as a weapon in the culture war. Forest fires break out, and partisans start sniping over climate change. An oil spill befouls the Gulf Coast, and the talking heads swiftly hurl recriminations about government regulation.

  16. I wish I could buy a taser and carry it, it’s officially a non lethal weapon and oh so safe.

  17. Sex Doll Saved From Drowning By 18 Cops

    Go on, you know you need to get that joke out of you…

    1. Why were the cops trying to drown her?

    2. This does not say anything positive about Chinese women if the first cop to touch it couldn’t tell it was fake. Either that or it’s a huge positive about the quality of Chinese sex dolls.

      1. or else women in China are in such short supply…

        1. the problem with chinese sex dolls is an hour later you need one again!

    3. Better than cops here who stand by and watch someone drown because they have not got the appropriate training.

    4. Pretty sure there’s a bukkake joke in there, but I’m not sure how to set it up.

      1. Well, you start by putting the doll in the middle of the eighteen cops…

  18. “CAIRO ? It is the sort of image that has become a staple of the Syrian revolution, a video of masked men calling themselves the Free Syrian Army and brandishing AK-47s ? with one unsettling difference. In the background hang two flags of Al Qaeda, white Arabic writing on a black field.”

    1. Next thing you know, they’ll be wantin’ to build a mosque at Sacred Ground Zero!!!1!

      /derka derka

    2. You mean a rebellion is going to attract some dissatisfied youths with dumb ideas? Shocking!

      1. “One Qaeda operative, a 56-year-old known as Abu Thuha who lives in the Hawija district near Kirkuk in Iraq, spoke to an Iraqi reporter for The New York Times on Tuesday. ‘We have experience now fighting the Americans, and more experience now with the Syrian revolution,’ he said. ‘Our big hope is to form a Syrian-Iraqi Islamic state for all Muslims, and then announce our war against Iran and Israel, and free Palestine.'”

        Is a 56 year old a “dissatisfied youth”?

        1. No, but he’s not immunce to stupid ideas. Discrediting the Syrian rebellion by interviewing its most extreme members is like discrediting suspicion of the Total State by interviewing the Hutaree.

          1. “Discrediting the Syrian rebellion by interviewing its most extreme members”

            That this is the most extreme member of the Syrian rebellion is an assumption. Nobody really knows who the rebellion is or what kind of stupid ideas they have in mind. Time will tell, if they succeed.

            1. Either way, we should stay out of it.

        2. Our big hope is to form a Syrian-Iraqi Islamic state for all Muslims

          I thought Syria tried that already with Egypt some years ago. How did that work out?

          1. Their next move will be to move north and demand tribute from the Phoenician city-states.

  19. “State Sen. L. Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth), a campaign surrogate for President Obama in Virginia, said Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is appealing to racists who do not want a black man in the White House.”

    1. Blast! Team Red ahould have thought of this for the LAST election! Well – better late than never…

    2. No one expected the D-Statists would play the racist card.
      Totally out of the blue, thinking outside the box, new paridign campaigning.
      I salute you race monger.

    3. L. Louise Lucas=LLL= Lambda Lambda Lambda?

  20. He defended an assault weapons ban he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts, saying it garnered broad bipartisan support in the state legislature.

    It doesn’t matter if it’s unconstitutional, or bad law, it only matters that it has broad support.

    We’re truly and completely fucked.

    1. Consensus is all that matters.

      Two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner…

      1. Outvoted 2 to 1. Not only was it democratic, it was a mandate.

      2. My wife came across a pretty good modification of this on Facebook the other day.

        Democracy : 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

        Liberty : a well armed sheep contesting the vote

        1. That was my entire point.
          Democracy is two wolves and a sheep first voting 2-1 that everyone give up their arms, then voting on what’s for dinner.

        2. Liberty died with the sheep.

          1. Pity poor Joe Pile then. There was a rumor going around that he and his attorney fucked sheep.

    2. Sorry, but your rights were sacrificed on the altar of bi-partisanship. Do you not feel better; after all, they all agreed.

    3. Your problem is that you’re standing on principles.
      You’ll never be on the winning side if you do that.
      What you need to do is give up your principles and go with what you perceive to be popular.
      Not only will you be on the winning side, but you’ll be one of the cool kids!

      1. That’s like the worst poem ever. Good points, but bad meter.

      2. Good point, but I’d still rather be armed than cool.

        1. If you’re cool then the cops will protect you. Well, you’ll believe that (because that’s what the cool kids believe) until you actually need their protection, only then it will be too late.
          Like the cool kids say “It’s better to be carried by six than to be judged by twelve.”

          1. Cool kids sound like dipshits.

          2. that’s the thing about cops – they don’t protect. They show up afterwards and decide if they want to investigate. In the meantime, they draw a nice chalk outline of your corpse.

            1. Seriously, kids, watch Law and Order. Name to me a time on that show when they stopped a murder before it happened.

              1. I totally remember one! It had Colin Farrell as and Peter Stormare singing a song about ducks or something! Tom Cruise handled a lot of balls!

            2. that’s the thing about cops – they don’t protect.

              Not only that, they do not have to protect. This from a SCOTUS ruling.

            3. In the meantime, they draw a nice chalk outline of your corpse.

              After shooting your dog.

    4. That, in a nutshell, is why Romney won’t get my vote.

      He’ll sign any damn thing that lands on his desk as long as its “bipartisan”.

      And the bipartisan legislation is the absolute worst.

  21. “Should I Kick My Husband Out?”

    I have been with my husband since I was 19 years old, and we got married when I was 21. We’ve been married over two years and I can truly say I’ve never been happy during this time. My husband used to be the sweetest man alive before we got married. He was a strong Christian with a huge sense of morals. His first set of lies came a month after our marriage. Doing laundry, I went into his closet and found weed hidden in his shoe. I confronted him on it and he apologized and said it would NEVER happen again? NOT!

    Soon, I started noticing him talking weird and passing out a lot. I would ask him what’s going on and his same response is ‘noooothing.’ Within that year I found out I was pregnant. Scared and worried, knowing my husband and I make very little money, I became very, very stressed. During the first month of my pregnancy I found my husband passed out in his car and realized more and more money was going missing. Becoming more stressed, I went to the obgyn to see if too much stress would harm the baby. Well, needless to say, I found out my baby no longer had a heartbeat! I believe this was the first time I truly believed I hated my husband…

    1. related: A good (female) friend of mine has been living with an unemployed guy for 3-4 years now. He lost his job, stopped paying for the house, lost the house to foreclosure, can’t get a job, and is now in a lower-end college taking “guitar lessons”. And then they had a kid together. She works, pays for everything, and bitches incessantly about her loser boyfriend… but yet they stay together. Doesn’t compute.

      1. but she’s going to change him.

        1. At different times my wife and I have heard the same teary-eyed confession from her. Something along the line that she thinks she can’t score a good guy because she was too much of a slut, or something (weird) like that. So she’s stuck with him.

          1. Well, she can’t do much worse.

          2. Tell her to just suck it up and go to Comic Con (or Dragon Con if she is east coast). There are still PLENTY of single dweebs there who would put any woman who talked to them up on a pedistal while they worked their asses off slinging code to support her and her sexual history either wouldn’t matter to them, or would be a selling point.

            1. I’ve got no problems with sluts – present or past.

            2. She’d still have to be careful, though–a lot of those Comic-Con dorks are even bigger mysoginists than the UGH VAPID JOCKS they despise, thanks to a lifetime of being rejected by the same women they put on a pedestal. If they could accept that she’s not interested in their furry conventions and Brony shrines, there’d be a chance, but it’s more likely she’d end up with a similar emotionally stunted man-child. only

      2. While I agree that she should dump him, one has to marvel at the fact that if the genders were reversed no one would really say anything was wrong with the situation.

        1. ^^ this

    2. “When Bad Things Happen to Good People”

      1. Let me revise that:

        “When Shit Happens to Idiots, Is Anyone Surprised?”

    3. This letter is just sad. She needs to dump this gyu and start thinking about the life her child is going to lead if she keeps sticking around and enabling this loser she married. Should she kick out her husband?! FFS. I don’t know why people even have to ask these questions; she outlines stuff in this letter that are deal-breakers on the face of it.

      1. The child fetus? is dead, I believe.

        1. Yeah, she had a second kid who is 5 months old.

          1. Well, she should win an award for making good choices!

            1. Well she was just sure that having a kid would reform him!

        2. Obviously undead, since it was never alive

      2. I can’t believe you people on here. She has a husband that cured his own glaucoma and obviously has narcolepsy. He apparently also donates a lot of money to charitable organizations. He’s a keeper.

        1. I know, I am a hater at heart. 🙁

    4. Why does she get pregnant when they both have shitty jobs and are still young?

      1. Because condoms are expensive, or something, damnit! Where’s Obamacare’s free birth control when people are suffering???


      2. “I’ll pull out, baby, I promise…oh, I’m sorry.”

    5. I confronted him on it and he apologized and said it would NEVER happen again? NOT!

      Anybody that would end a sentence with the idiotic “…NOT!” when talking about the most important aspects of their life and asking the advice of a total stranger should not be taken seriously.

      1. Also… a bag of weed? One thing to smoke all the time, another to be an occasional toker.

        Calm down there, Woodsy.


        1. You can’t just give a million dollars to drug addicts, Lana.

    6. If spontaneous abortion was the usual response to having a kid with an unemployed layabout, this country wouldn’t be in the financial shape it is.

      Your husband smokes a little weed and you had a miscarriage. There is no causal relationship.

      1. it was a miscarriage? I read it as the kid seeing the quality of parenting it was about to get (bludging dad, moron mum) and opting out

        1. Fetal suicide. I feel a SVU episode coming on…

  22. Washington Times writer goes completely off the rails at Christopher Nolan and Sean Penn in aftermath of Aurora shooting.

    Holy Fuck! I despise Sean Penn, but even I feel bad for him after this piece.

    1. I know what you mean. I fear too many Penn-haters are going to jump on board with this without thinking through the disgusting logical conclusions Hurt’s thoughts lead to.

    2. Yeah. You know we never had any psychotic mass murderers before Hollywood started making really violent movies.

      1. I saw I am Sam and wanted to kill myself.

        1. You never go full retard.

          1. When will Sean Penn figure that out?

    3. That dude has some issues. There is absolutely nothing in any major modern motion picture that is more violent than passages from the Old Testament. Maybe we should be blaming the OT and its writer for all of the violence in society.

      1. This happened because we don’t involuntarily commit psychotics any more. It is that simple. This is the price we pay for making it really hard for a family or the state to lock people in mental institutions.

        Libertarians would say that it is a price worth paying. And I think they are probably right about that. But right or wrong, that is the debate, not guns or movies or any of this other bullshit.

        1. Even with involuntary commitment, stuff like this would still happen.

          1. But not as often. This guy and the Giffords shooter would have been locked up long before they ever shot someone.

        2. I haven’t kept up with the details on this. Prior to the shooting, was there evidence that this guy was a psychotic such that he should have been involuntarily committed but whoever wanted to do so was unable to accomplish it?

          1. There was a lot of evidence prior to the shooting he was psychotic. He was claiming to be the joker. His family was very concerned about him. But he hadn’t actually done anything. So he wasn’t going to be committed.

            1. Regardless, my viewpoint is that involuntary commitment and the insanity plea are both unacceptable. One condemns the innocent and the other absolves the guilty. It’s the actions that we should be concerned about.

              1. My only point is that no matter what your opinion on involuntary commitment, it is the only relevant debate in the aftermath of the shooting.

                And I disagree with you about the insanity plea. I think there are some people who truly are so sick that they cannot be held accountable. If my brain get rewired and I start thinking the CIA is sending mind control waves and I go shoot someone thinking they are controlling it, I need to be in an institution not a prison.

                1. An institution is a prison.

                  1. But people who are truly nuts cannot function in prison. It is just cruel.

              2. One condemns the innocent and the other absolves the guilty.

                What’s the point of punishing someone who, in the throes of senile dementia and convinced that he’s back in Guadalcanal and about to be set on by a Nip infiltrator, murders his roommate in the nursing home?

                Is prison gong to change his behavior? What purpose would making him a felon serve?

                A critical component of society is the notion of taking mens rea into account when considering crimes. The man who breaks into a home to rob it is treated more harshly than the man who breaks into a home to escape an oncoming tornado. IF a person cannot tell right from wrong then no amount of punishment will change them.

                1. IF a person cannot tell right from wrong then no amount of punishment will change them

                  Well, there is one type of punishment that will change them.

              3. Just curious Scruffy: The Anglo legal system (from which yours and ours derive) don’t punish actions. The traditional view is that the more serious crimes have two elements: the intention (mens rea) and the act (actus reus). If you remove the insanity plea, you would in effect be removing the mens rea element in murder (because an insane person doesn’t have the forbidden intention, at least under the M’Naughten formulation). Would you stop there, or would review the mens rea requirement across the board? If not, how would you justify it here in this instance?

                1. I agree with you that there has to be intent to commit a crime. And I would agree with you that there is a distinction between those who are obviously incapable of rational thought and those that are functionally disabled. However, I would argue that the M’Naughten rule is too forgiving if it is interpreted as only the ability to tell right from wrong. Intent is intent. You intended to kill someone or you did not. You were justified in that action or you were not. I don’t agree with the “tell right form wrong” formulation. Perhaps it could be modified to something else, but it seems to be a rather low hurdle when dealing with the truly evil.

                  I do think that insanity can come into play during the punishment phase. However, in determining guilt, it seems to me to ignore what actually happened.

            2. In your ideal world, should he have been?

              1. No. But I can understand why people think he should have been. And I think that is at least a cogent, if mistaken point. And a hell of a lot better point than whining about gun control.

          2. there is almost always evidence. Remember the VA Tech shooter? Evidence there, too. The trick is in believing that the evidence is really evidence.

            No one wants to think a family member has gone off the rails; folks don’t want to seem harsh or judgmental. And even if you do the right thing, you can’t necessarily prove it was the right thing since there would be no mass killing.

            1. Problem is for every 50 case where there is evidence that someone is about to do something like this maybe 1 of them actually materializes.

              It is not simply a matter of believing the evidence because even when that evidence is there in the overwhelming majority of cases nothing happens

        3. But right or wrong, that is the debate, not guns or movies or any of this other bullshit.

          I think you’re trying to distract us from the real source of the problem: George Steinbrenner.

        4. I don’t even know that you need to lock people in institutions. Just identify people that are definitely crazy, but not necessary axe crazy, and have a social worker check in on them every once in a while to see that they’re able to take care of themselves, and that they haven’t rigged their apartment with complicated explosives and booby traps, that sort of thing.

          1. A clever crazy person can easily defeat that sort of monitoring.

          2. Just identify people that are definitely crazy,

            Much, much easier said than done.

            have a social worker check in on them every once in a while

            Those unionized pubsec social workers would never let us down.

            1. Much, much easier said than done.

              Perhaps. Right now, I feel one thing holding people back from trying to get help for nutbags is that there’s no real middle ground. Either they lock you away, or you’re on your own. Since most people are not willing to pursue involuntary commitment for people that aren’t clearly dangerous, that means that until it seems like someone’s about to go on a killing spree, they’re not going to get help.

    4. I don’t know why he left out Tom Taylor.

  23. “The figures from the Office for National Statistics are much worse than forecasts for a 0.2pc contraction.
    It marks the third successive quarter of contraction, leaving Britain in its longest double-dip recession in more than 50 years.”

    1. are much worse than forecasts

      So, then – “unexpected”?

      Who could have expected this?!! WHO?!?

  24. “Where there are opportunities for people of reasonable minds to come together and find common ground, that’s the kind of legislation I like,” Romney said.

    Hey, dumbass, they already did that. The legislation was called the Bill Of Rights.

    1. Unfortunately, that sort of thinking also led to the Patriot Act

      1. JINX!!!

    2. No, no – you’re thinking of the Patriot? Act.

      1. Don’t forget, my time zone is ahead of yours. So I copied your comment, made it more dull, and then travelled back in time to post it above yours

      2. No, you’re thinking of the Bill O’Reilly Factor of Rights.

  25. The start-up company Mars One is holding a lotto later this year to select 40 people to begin training for a one-way mission to Mars.

    Thanks for the Total Recall spoiler.

    1. While I’m somewhat looking forward to seeing that three-tittied Amerasian woman, I would almost be happy if the remake wasn’t released until after 2033.

      1. They could at least dub in Arnold’s voice. To make it believable.

        1. They should get Arnold to stand in for him when he’s travelling to Mars in disguise and be the big ‘splodey head.

  26. Romney again vowed to kill the 2011 budget cuts to a veterans group yesterday (sequestered cuts).

    1. Wow I’m so horrified by that. I guess I’ll have to change my vote. Oh wait, I’m not a Republican and I wasn’t going to vote for him anyway.

      Go be a shill for the DNC somewhere else.

    2. Maybe we shouldn’t balance the budget by fucking veterans who fought the wars that Obama supported so much. Just a thought.

      1. You mean the people that voluntarily joined the military?

        No way in hell should the government be able to modify the contract they signed, but cutting bennies that are not contractually agreed-to is just fine with me. Maybe it’ll get some of those men and women to leave the military and go into the private sector where their skills can be rewarded.

        1. Yeah Sloopy, lets send someone to war on the promise that if they get hurt we will take care of them. And then when they lose an arm or a leg or worse lets change that agreement and tell them to go fuck themselves we have to pay for Solandra and taking care of some fucking crack head who refuses to get a job. Or to hire one more GS 15 diversity coordinator over at Interior. That sounds like a hell of an idea.

          1. promising to help the wounded is one thing; pretending that cutting a single Pentagon dollar threatens defense is another. Please. Defense is just as guilty of waste as any other federal agency; I saw it up close.

            Romney is pandering to a part of his base just like Obama does. There is nothing in today’s budget climate that makes defense any more sacred that the other cows. I’m okay with zero dollars for Solyndras and crack heads, but fewer dollars for weapons systems no one wants or to ship some guy’s family/furnishings/vehicles to his overseas duty station.

          2. Those aren’t the cuts they are proposing. Nice strawman.

            Reread my post. I said they should not be able to cut contractually agreed-to items. From what I’ve seen, they aren’t.

            And the whole “let’s send someone to war” comment? In the words of Sgt. Hulka, “Son, there ain’t no draft no more.”

            1. So the President and Congress no longer control the decisions of war and peace?

              The deal was, you join, go where we tell you, and we take care of you in return. It is pretty immoral to send a few thousand people over to get shot up and then decide fuck you the defense contractors and generals are more important.

              1. So the best way to avoid being sent off to war is to join the military? I would think someone who doesn’t want to run that risk would find a different job.

              2. The deal was, you join, go where we tell you, and we take care of you in return. It is pretty immoral to send a few thousand people over to get shot up and then decide fuck you the defense contractors and generals are more important.

                Right, and step one id the person voluntarily joining a military that could send them to war at a moment’s notice. And to say it’s immoral to send them over there and then say fuck you upon return is a strawman as that’s not where the direct cuts are occurring. None of the cuts for health care are for returning soldier care from the wars. That’s just patently untrue. Perhaps they are cutting the budgets of the VA serving them, but if you don’t already know there is a ton of waste where the cuts can be applied, then you’re a fool.

                I want good care for our returning soldiers. I want the best of care, actually. But what I don’t want is a lack of accountability and a blank check for the VA because it’s the “patriotic” thing to do.

                1. Yeah sloopy, they are actually going to cut waste, whatever that is. they are going to protect the already lousy care. They would never screw the injured to save the jobs of government employees. Never!!

                  1. Then blame the bureaucrats in the VA, not the people wanting to cut the waste-laden budget.

                    Budget the correct amount and hold people accountable for providing quality care with no waste. I’m sorry, but I think your outrage is justified but misplaced. Maybe it comes from living in DC and you just assume there will be immense levels of waste and fraud in the government and they should be considered when proposing budgets. Those of us out here in the hinterlands think otherwise.

      2. Um, do you have any evidence that the sequestration cuts are targeted at the VA or other vetrans benefits?

        1. They are targeted at VA and health benefits. They also want to change the retirement rules making it total insanity for anyone to stay in 20 years. It is about screwing the rank and file to save defense contractors.

            1. I agree. Congress is just as bad on both parties.

          1. I’ve understood the changes to the retirement rules are not made retroactive for anyone on a career track already. If I’m wrong, please correct me, but if I’m right…so what? Setting different terms for prospective new employees happens all the time. Why shouldn’t the military get in step with the 20st (or 20th even) Century IRT retirement ages/compensation levels? It’s still voluntary, so if people don’t like the new guidelines, they’re free to not join the military.

            1. And they won’t. If the changes go through it will gut our professional forces. No one would stay 20 years with no retirement. If you want a civilian style retirement, you stay in the civilian side where you don’t have to risk getting killed.

              1. They’re still free to stay 25 or 30 years and get the full package. That would push the retirement age for enlisted soldiers to between 45-50 years old…not too bad. Giving someone 38 years old half of their base pay is unnecessary, especially when many of them go to work for the government on the civilian side and double dip until they get a second retirement at the age of 60-65, which is where the rest of us usually retire except not with two huge government pensions.

                Also, people are living longer and are healthier until a later age than they were when the 20 years/50% base pay standard was implemented. Reassessing the retirement requirements is just addressing that issue.

              2. Needs to be done. Health care costs are gutting the military. Members need to pay for part of it. When it’s completely free, it gets abused. And it does. Mothers demanding to see doctors and get free meds for a child with a cold….

                I have no problem revamping the retirement system either, PROVIDED the new system is not forced on those who came in before its implementation.

  27. Whither Kevin Costner?

    Live wolves in dance show ‘the latest shock’

  28. Why am I the only one who appears to perceive that the Mars One guy is just some doofus who’s talking out of his ass?

    Hey, I guess I can declare myself “Mars-Even-Earlier-Than-One” and say I have a space program. So what if I don’t have ten billion simolians?

    I’ll hold a raffle.

    That’s the ticket.

    1. Get your ass to maahs.

    2. Why don’t we sent our criminals up there? That worked in Australia.

      1. There’s that one astronaut who was convicted of murder! We could send her.

        1. It was attempted murder or stalking.

          1. That’s the one that wore diapers on her road trip to kill her astronaut lover’s wife, right?

            That chick was teh crazee. Glad I never went after her mailbox.

            1. Yep! All we have to do is tell her that the her astronaut lover’s wife is on Mars, and she’ll wear a diaper the whole way there.


  29. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com…..businesses

    Apparently the “You didn’t Build it” thing is not working out so well for Obama. This ad reeks of desperation.

    1. and, more than a week later, Obama is going Yogi Berra – he didn’t say what he said, or it’s being twisted, or that mormon guy is being mean to me, or or or.

    2. A Reuters poll says the opposite – Obama gaining due to ads.


      1. That is why he is still desperately talking about it a week later. I think the Obama people have access to better polls that one outlier. And I would imagine they are concerned for a reason.

        You can get a single poll to tell you anything you want.

        1. He can spend until the cows come home but unless the economy improves dramatically in the next few months he’s going to get crushed. Everything else is bullshit.

          1. Yup. And sadly I think we are going to go into another recession this fall. And he won’t be able to blame that one on Bush.

          2. ^^This^^

            If Obama were smart, he’d hoard all of that campaign cash and see what happens to the economy. That way, he can pocket it all afterward since he’ll never run for office (in America) again and campaign finance rules let you keep what you’ve got when you stop running.

            Matter of fact, that would be the greatest political troll ever: man runs for president on a major party ticket. Amasses nearly a billion in campaign funds and says he’s holding off on spending it. He drops out with a $1B war chest and pockets the cash in an overseas bank and disappears.

      2. Okay, follow my logic here.

        Obama beat McShitbag by a moderate margin, based primarily on the independent vote. The independents have pretty much completely abandoned him. So who the fuck are these people giving O this alleged 6% lead? Did we import a bunch of Democrats when I wasn’t looking?

        Not buying the polls.

        1. Did we import a bunch of Democrats when I wasn’t looking?

          Yes, they were “imported” across the Southern border. Oh, and some are dead.

          Seriously though, I can’t seem to find the sample demographic to see how much they’ve oversampled donks, so it’s pretty much meaningless.

        2. “Did we import a bunch of Democrats when I wasn’t looking?”

          S?. Y est?n muertos tambi?n.

  30. DALLAS, July 24 (UPI) — Dallas police said they arrested a man whose gun accidentally went off inside a Walmart store, injuring two other customers.

    Todd Canady, 23, of Waco had allegedly bolted from the store in the Lake Highlands district Monday night when he was confronted by an off-duty police officer about the shooting, which left a woman and a 5-year-old child wounded.

    Police told the Dallas Morning News they grabbed Canady after a short foot pursuit and booked him on charges of injuring a child and evading arrest.

    KDFW-TV, Dallas/Fort Worth, said Canady, who has a concealed-weapons permit, was reportedly reaching for his wallet in the checkout line but grabbed the pistol he was carrying instead. The gun went off, wounding Canady in the buttocks. The bullet then hit the floor and sent fragments into the other two victims.


    Which one of you did this?

    1. I don’t think Plaxico posts on this website.

    2. Will he face the same charges the police officer in Detroit is facing for a similar incident that ended in that young lady’s death?

      Police told the Dallas Morning News they grabbed Canady after a short foot pursuit and booked him on charges of injuring a child and evading arrest.

      Nevermind. He’s already been overcharged compared to the cop.

      1. At least the media gave Canady the same privilege of having a firearm that takes action on its own.

        The gun went off, wounding Canady in the buttocks.

        1. So, based on the information in this story, he not only keeps his wallet in his back pocket, he also had his gun shoved down the back of his pants.

          Both poor choices.

          1. I’m going to take a wild guess and say that it was a Glock and it was chambered. Not a good idea.

            1. Any gun you can’t pull the trigger with and have it go bang is a bad carry gun. But Glocks to seem to have a large percentage of the negligent discharges. I can’t get a handle from the data yet on whether this is because Glocks are so prevalently carried, or if they really are not designed to be carried with a round in the chamber.

              1. I would never stuff a chambered Glock with a 5lb trigger down my pants. A revolver maybe, but for me a Glock is a holster only gun.

                1. i’m a novice, but stuffing any gun inside my pants seems like a bad idea.

                  1. You can find all sorts of places to hide one of these

              2. Any gun you can’t pull the trigger with and have it go bang is a bad carry gun.

                I find the safety on a 1911-type gun to be no impediment to quick firing.

                1. Fair enough, RC. I guess I meant to say that if you have to draw and chamber a round, its a poor choice to carry as doing so requires 2 hands on most guns. I know a couple of people who carry revolvers with an open chamber so it is essentially drop/jostle proof. It is only going off if you pull the trigger with the full pull weight.

              3. Glocks are as safe as any other. The trick of not shooting yourself is to keep your finger off the trigger as this is where the safety is for the glock.

                1. What ptah-Hotep said. And keeping a locked and loaded pistol around a three year old child at all let alone unattended is weapons grade stupid.

            2. It’s fine if you don’t pull the fucking trigger.

  31. “Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s campaign is asking Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to launch an investigation into voter-registration forms that are being sent to Virginia residents and addressed to deceased relatives, children, family pets and others ineligible to vote.”

    “On Monday, the Voter Participation Center responded to the Sunday Times-Dispatch story, stating in a letter on its website that ‘imperfections in the VPC vendors’ lists ? while regrettable and unfortunate ? should not be the reason or the excuse to call an entire process that is working into question.'”

    1. “Evidence that an entire process may not be working should not be the reason we look into whether an entire process is working.”


  32. President Barack Obama said Tuesday that he’s losing his patience over the Republican attacks aimed at his “you didn’t build that” comment.

    “I have to tell you, I generally have patience with what the other side says about me, that’s a requirement of this job,” Obama said during a $5,000-per-plate fundraiser here, according to the pool report.

    “And if you don’t like folks talking about you, you probably shouldn’t run for president. The one thing I do have no patience for is this argument that somehow what I’m criticizing is success? I want to promote success,” Obama said.


    Poor baby.

    1. Obama is a crony capitalist who hates success. Its all coming together now, John.

      1. He is the one who said it. Face it Shreek, “You didn’t build that” has stuck to him like glue. That is Obama. And by extension is the Democratic Party.

        If that is not what he meant, someone needs to explain that to Elizabeth Warren because she certainly thinks he met that.

        1. It really is the progressive’s world view. Remember how gaga they went over Warren’s riff several months ago. Obama was just doing a poor imitation in Roanoke.

          Claiming he didn’t say what he said or mean it or whatever is just flat out dishonest.

          At least European socialists have the integrity to openly state and defend their values. Socialist here, like Obama and his sycophants, lie their asses off to hide their intentions.

          1. It really is the progressive’s world view. Remember how gaga they went over Warren’s riff several months ago. Obama was just doing a poor imitation in Roanoke.

            And the problem is that message doesn’t appeal to anyone but the phaggot striver poors in various universities and government bureaucracies nationwide. These are people who actually believe they contribute something to society instead of add dead weight, and businesses better pony up because fuck you, that’s why.

      2. Obama is a crony capitalist who hates success.

        Out of the mouths of babes…

        1. Real shrike would never badmouth Obama, whom he compares to Barry Goldwater.

    2. His problem is that he’s arguing a distinction without a difference.

      “Wah! They’re parsing my sentence wrong! Let’s talk about grammar!”

      Sorry, Mr. President. It doesn’t matter. Even if we parse the sentence in your preferred way, it still means the same thing. Why is it so important to you to point out that no business owner built the highway system? The only reason that could be important is as a stage in a syllogism that ends “So that means you don’t really deserve the product of your labor and it’s OK for us to take it from you.”

      At least Elizabeth Warren is honest, Mr. President. You douche.

      1. The problem is that the rest of his quote immediately after “build that” is omitted.

        The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative —- Who could argue with that?

        So he is being a typical politician pandering to both sides of a debate – individual success and community support.

        1. So the greatest orator of our age couldn’t properly explain that man is a social animal?

          Whatever. I know Obama is stupid and probably the dumbest person to run much less hold major office in the last 100 years. But he is not that stupid. The whole point was he was contrasting your success with all of the things that you need even though we may work hard. The point was, we don’t do anything without the government and society helping us. Therefore, the government is entitled to whatever it wants of our success. You didn’t build that.

          1. The “that” is roads and bridges which was the topic of discussion.

            Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business ? you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

            Facebook’s billions depend on the internet. Zuckerburg did not build the internet but he does deserve the billions he earned. He would be the first to tell you that. In fact he donated $100 million to public schools.

            1. Why is it relevant to tell the world the obvious point that your success would be different or less if not for the work of others if not to explain why others, more specifically the government, is entitled retroactively to a part of your success?

              There is no other point. Either Obama meant nothing and was just mouthing meaningless platitudes that to him had no larger meaning or he was making exactly the point everyone, including Elizabeth Warren says he was making.

              He said it Shrike. Just admit it and defend it.

            2. Somebody invested in roads and bridges.

              evidently, it escapes Obama’s mental reach (and yours) that among those contributing to the investment were the business owner, his employees, and his customers. Missing from Obama’s statement is the most obvious point of all – before there can be “investment” in roads, bridges, schools, that money must first be generated so that govt can confiscate a portion of it.

            3. The “that” is roads and bridges

              Is it? A straightforward reading of the whole paragraph indicates that it refers to the entrepeneur’s business. Its singular, for starters, and the immediate preceding reference is the business.

              If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.


              Of course, the full context here is that he is trying to justify tax hikes on successful businesses, that because success is collective, no one should complain when the collective seizes the fruits of success.

              1. He’s also saying that lazy government bureaucrats are just as important, economically, as business owners.

            4. The “that” is roads and bridges which was the topic of discussion.

              then he should have said “those”. it’s not our job to fix every stupid utterance out of his piehole.

        2. Dude, now you’re hyperparsing.

          Let’s back way, way up. This is the largest excerpt of the quote I could find:

          The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

          So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President ? because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.


          It seems pretty plain that the total context here is “There is no such thing as an individual achievement, so when we take money from you because we’ve decided to do something collectively I don’t want to hear your fucking complaints.”

          1. And maybe you think that’s a perfectly legitimate argument, and that’s fine. And we can argue it back and forth and have some laughs, like we do every day.

            But when that’s your argument, you don’t get to bitch when people SAY that’s your argument.

          2. I’d also like to point out that Rand was correct when she argued that this is one of the most pernicious aspects of even mild collectivism – that by muddying the waters of who has done what and what has been paid for and what hasn’t, it creates resentment and sets people at one another’s throats.

            In Libertopia, economic transactions are settled issues. If I pay a turnpike company to drive on a road while I’m on the way to work, they got their money and I got my road access, and we’re done. We don’t have to haggle later about whether they’re retroactively entitled to 40% of my work output for the day because I drove on their stupid road.

            1. I agree with Rand and I agree that everyone is parsing his statement due to its murkiness.

              It is not a definitive position statement. I can find support for individual initiative and success just as easily as another can isolate collectivist language.

              On total though the statement is oblique.

              1. No it is not. It is only oblique if you read every sentence alone and not in context with the rest of the speech.

              2. bullshit PB. The statement is clear as can be and totally reflective of who Obama is and what thinks of govt’s role in society. He counts on people being too stupid to realize that the money for bridges and roads was taken by govt in the form of taxes from people who created wealth.
                Among those contributing to the tax fund are the very entrepreneurs he is vilifying.

            2. [insert SLD here]

              Even in “reality”, the same can be said, if things are done right. If the public road is paid for via tolls and gas tax, then, once again, we are done. I paid the gas tax, I drove on the road. End of story.

              The problem is building roads out of “general” funds.

              And, of course, the bigger problem is connecting MOST government spending to “help”. If we had a minimal government that built roads, and defended borders and put out fires, his point is still bullshitty, but a lot less so.

              Im gonna go all biblical for a second, I know you appreciate that Fluffy :):

              1. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day. “ — 1 Samuel 8:11-18

                Also, statistics from the CBO. In 2009, the average federal household tax rate (including 4 taxes: personal income, FICA, corporate income and excise) was 17.4%. It was 22.7% before the Bush tax cuts.

                Still a long way to go to get it down to 10%.

                1. I think it should be a goal of American government to be less authoritarian than a bronze age King.

                  1. IIRC, when they were discussing the 16th amendment, they did not cap it because Congress did not think the fed gov would ever take more than the church. They felt that if 10% was good enough for God, it would be a “moral” cap that gov would never go above.

                    1. So our ever-increasing taxes are just the FedGov proving “Separation Of Church And State”? Well they’ve proved it good and hard if that’s the case.

                    2. “ever-increasing taxes”

                      Federal taxes peaked in 2000. So, if we ignore the debt, ever-increasing isnt exactly right.

                    3. As an aside, the Bush tax cuts were amazingly progressive.

                      Using 2000 and 2008 numbers (the last full year of Clinton and the last full year of Bush), the ratios between top and bottom quintiles tax rate increased from 4.07 to 15.73.

                      The middle to bottom ratio went from 1.68 to 2.03. The top to middle ratio went from 2.43 to 7.73.

                      In terms of revenue, the big “killer” in the Bush tax cuts was the carving out of the new 10% bracket inside the 15% bracket.

                2. 1 Samuel 8:11-18

                  To be fair, Samuel was probably pissed because it would be a king now doing these things and not the priestly caste that he belonged to.

                  The whole Saul-David storyline is actually a really fascinating case study in how a religous figure manipulates tribal politics. When the people of Israel told Samuel they wanted a king, they were directly challenging his authority as their leader. So he picked a man from the weakest tribe, the Benjamites, to fill the role, likely expecting that Saul would be a puppet for the Levites due to his low tribal stature. When Saul starts to push back against Samuel’s authority by not committing genocide against the Amalekites, Samuel incites a rebellion by naming David as king. The whole story is very Machiavellian.

        3. No, shrike. Obama let his guard slip, and let us know what he really thinks of the private sector.

    3. I guess that after a week of having surrogates and dogwashers deny that Obama said what he said, POTUS does not think they did a good enough job of it. And again, he’s lying – everyone knows Obama has no patience for anything negative said about him.

      Sorry, he said what he said and, what’s more, he meant what he said. It speaks to the core of who he is.

    4. I want to promote success

      You’re doing it wrong.

  33. Hugo Schwyzer: Mass Murder is caused by TEH PRIVELEGE!!!

    Perhaps the greatest asset that unearned privilege conveys is the sense that public spaces “belong” to you. If you are ? like James Holmes last week, or Charles Whitman, who killed 16 people on the University of Texas, Austin campus in 1966 ? an American-born, college-educated white man from a prosperous family, you don’t have a sense that any place worth being is off-limits to the likes of you. White men from upper middle-class backgrounds expect to be both welcomed and heard wherever they go. When that sense of entitlement gets frustrated, as it can for a host of complex psychological reasons, it is those same hyper-privileged men who are the most likely to react with violent, rage-filled indignation. For white male murderers from “nice” families, the fact that they chose public spaces like schools, university campuses, or movie theaters as their targets suggests that they saw these places as legitimately theirs.

    The best is the comments, where ideas like “statistics” and “facts” become manifestations of white privilege.

    1. For white male murderers from “nice” families…

      Tell me more about the Virginia Tech murder’s race.

      I’m leery of a theory that links a guy with a brain tumor from 46 years ago with the loon in Aurora to indicate a pattern.

      1. Well, then, NEM, you clearly haven’t unpacked your privilege knapsack thoroughly enough.

    2. …as it can for a host of complex psychological reasons…

      Talk about circular reasoning.

    3. the fact that they chose public spaces like schools, university campuses, or movie theaters as their targets suggests that they saw these places as legitimately theirs.

      Or they saw these places as lightly armed. Jesus.

    4. The real reason this is stupid is because I feel like the public spaces are mine even when I’m not in white America.

      The public spaces in Tokyo, Riyadh and Soweto are fucking mine, too, bitch.

      So that means it can’t really be a function of feeling like a member of a privileged majority.

      1. Uh, yeah, it can, you white COLONIALIST devil.

    5. jesus on a biscuit, I’m surprised he’s not making the argument that it’s all racist since everyone knows that there is no such thing as an American-born college educated black man who comes from an intact nuclear family where the parents work.

    6. And how does Schwyzer explain race riots and looting in LA?

      1. However he does it, be assured your white penis is at the bottom of it

      2. Yellow peril.

      3. White people have oppressed and other the minority populations of LA. By refusing to fully accept and integrate with them, the white people created the alienation and feeling of impotence needed to foster a culture of race riots. Minorities were backed into a corner by white men; it was only a matter of time before they struck back.

        1. *oppressed and othered

    7. BTW, I would have posted the comment using government statistics to show blacks commit a disproportionate amount of murders, but apparently on Jezebel, facts are racist and privileged and icki.

      1. Take a look at the bottom of last nights pm links.

    8. http://studentactivism.net/201…..-schwyzer/

      “It’s not enough for a feminist to describe this crime as horrific, though it is. It’s not enough to describe it as “something truly awful,” as he does. This was an act of a very particular kind, and Schwyzer never calls it by its name.

      “Because it’s not just the fact that Schwyzer committed an act of violence that’s of such concern, or even the fact that he committed an act of intimate partner violence. It’s that he committed an act of gendered violence, the nature of which he still hasn’t come to terms with.

      “Murder-suicide is a crime committed almost exclusively by men, with their intimate partners their typical victims. In the post he wrote this morning, though, Schwyzer refers to the woman he tried to kill as “another human being” twice, as “another person” once, as his “ex” six times, but never as his lover, his girlfriend, a woman.””

      1. Wait, this guy tried to kill somebody once? Why isn’t he in a cage? Must be more details here.

      2. Even I won’t click that link, and that is saying something.


      3. Even I won’t click that link, and that is saying something.


      4. Actually reading the account, I kinda feel bad for Hugo. He was clearly in a super fucked up place, but the feminists hate him (as if they didn’t already for having a penis) for being honest about his feelings. Of course his feelings of protection weren’t rational- he was doing a shit ton of drugs to deal with a shit ton of psych issues.

        And his current paternalism… he doesn’t believe that 20-somethigns studying feminsm are fully developed? Neither do I!

        Hugo is a toady, but when Hugo isn’t toady enough for these people, they got fucking issues.

        1. Hugo got what he deserved. Women hate weakness and feminists will turn on their mangina defenders at the drop of a hat.

    9. I’d love to hear Schwyzer’s theory on the black flash mobs that have robbed stores and jumped people in the last couple years.

  34. “Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s campaign is asking Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to launch an investigation into voter-registration forms that are being sent to Virginia residents and addressed to deceased relatives, children, family pets and others ineligible to vote.

    The errant mailings from the Washington-based nonprofit group Voter Participation Center have befuddled many Virginia residents, leading to hundreds of complaints.

    The organization has been mass-mailing the forms ? pre-populated with key information such as names and addresses ? to primarily Democratic-leaning voting blocs such as young adults, unmarried women, African-Americans and Latinos, dead people and dogs.”


    1. I spotted a stack of voter registration cards in a booth at a lefty Earth Day concert once.

      Investigate that too!

      1. Brains aren’t your strong point are they.

        1. I’m not the one freaking out over voter registration forms being sent out.

          Who cares?

          Are you afraid someone might eventually use one to register?

          1. Err, yes. Someone who is not eligible to vote, who can then obtain absentee ballots and vote multiple times, all without a face-to-face interaction. Fraud could hardly be easier than it is under our current system.

            1. The beauty part is, given the cops’ penchant for shooting dogs, Libertarians should have the canine vote sewn up.

            2. Voting multiple times is a felony, isn’t it?

              Passing around registration forms is not and never should be.

  35. “NSA whistleblowers: Government spying on every single American”

  36. “The Central Intelligence Agency recently discovered a ‘4 to 5 inch stack’ of documents that relate to the spy agency’s cooperation with the makers of a forthcoming Hollywood film on the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, according to a new court filing.”

    1. Didn’t this already come out? I thought it was well known the NSA collected everything.

      1. “‘The CIA discovered a 4 to 5 inch stack of records potentially responsive to plaintiff’s FOIA request that had been inadvertently overlooked during the CIA’s search,’ Civil Division attorney Marcia Berman wrote. ‘The CIA is continuing to look into the circumstances of the discovery of the new documents to ensure the adequacy of its search.'”

        Apparently a FOIA lawsuit has prompted more documents to show up

        1. That is hysterical. Like they didn’t know they were doing it. “We had no idea until we found these documents in the bottom of Bob’s desk”

  37. This man wants you to be able to print your own drugs.

    What would this mean? Well for a start it would potentially democratise complex chemistry, and allow drugs not only to be distributed anywhere in the world but created at the point of need. It could reverse the trend, Cronin suggests, for ineffective counterfeit drugs (often anti-malarials or anti-retrovirals) that have flooded some markets in the developing world, by offering a cheap medicine-making platform that could validate a drug made according to the pharmaceutical company’s “software”.

    Gentleman, we will have the technology to print hookerbots and blow.

    1. Now that is some feel-good news. Thank you.

    2. How would the drug warriors stop that?

      1. Their two vectors would be outlawing the technology (requiring an FDA license to own one for example) and attacking the software files. Probably by doing something horrible like poisoning torrent sites with fake drug files.

        1. Those would seem to be very ineffective. The problem is that making drugs is really messy and often requires raw materials that are hard to obtain. The day you can have what amounts to a philosopher’s stone on your home computer that can manipulate matter at the molecular level, it is game and set and match for the drug war. I would think they would have about as much success stopping that as they do stopping pirated downloads.

          1. I didn’t say it would be any more effective than any other attempt they’ve made to stop drug use or file sharing. I’m just pointing out the two places statist control freaks are likely to use. Still, you do need to get ahold of things like palladium, nickel, platinum and gold for catalysts, and while printing microchambers would reduce this to single grams or less, it will be an interesting challenge. Elemental carbon, phosphorus, and sulfur can be purchased. Muriatic acid for chlorine. Electrolysis to produce hydrogen and oxygen. Nitrogen can be made by compressing, cooling and then decompressing air. Article mentions vegetable oil and paraffin as sources of simple hydrocarbons. But no way is this getting on the home benchtop without either flying completely under the radar or having a huge fight.

            Strangely, the home fab enthusiast crowd seem to largely overlap with the EFF guys who are all “don’t tread on me” in their little area they care about but pro-statist in everything else. I have no clue which way they’d jump in a government sponsored embargo of the technology.

            1. I wonder too as this technology gets less and less expensive how many new designer drugs will be invented.

          2. You realize people can already grow their own marijuana, right? And make meth, for that matter. Drug war still trucks on.

      2. By requiring identification in order to buy supplies of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen.

      3. How would the drug warriors stop that?

        Of course, they can’t stop it, just like they can’t stop drug use now.

        But they can kick down your door, shoot your dog, throw flashbangs on your sleeping child, shoot your other dog, shoot you, handcuff your wife and children, and tear your house apart.

        All in pursuit of the neighbor’s chemputer.

        1. I giggled at your punchline.

  38. Government spying on every single American

    We’re all ticking time bombs, now.

    1. Guilty until proven innocent.

  39. Autostraddle on loving your relatives, even if they are icky Republicans:

    Alhough my brother and I have disagreed on many political issues from the time he started reading and agreeing with The Wall Street Journal (approximately 2009, his senior year of high school) I think I’m feeling particularly contemplative because this is the year that things get real for us… This is the first time in our entire lives that we will be eligible to vote. So suddenly all of our dinner table conversations about politics, the time I left my brother’s birthday dinner crying over a conversation about late-term abortion, the time my brother emailed me an article from the WSJ asking for my opinion and I copied it into a Word document and sent it back to him, annotated, with a note asking him not to take my harsh tone personally because it was just tough to disagree with such an asshole in a neutral tone? all of those instances are going to boil down to a concrete thing provided to us by this democratic nation: a vote. All the hypotheticals, all our feelings, all our disagreements will mean something this November. I will vote for Barack Obama, and my brother will vote for Mitt Romney. And I guess what I’ve been trying to figure out is, if a newspaper called me up and asked what my brother’s vote meant to our relationship? what would I say?

    1. Tolerance means not tolerating any disagreement.
      Inclusiveness means excluding anyone who disagrees.

    2. Link:http:

      So I’m left with the question of what I should think about all this, and if I need to have an opinion one way or the other. I have always said that I could never be in a serious relationship with someone who does not have the same political ideologies as me, and that’s true. If you vote Republican I don’t want to hold your hand, I don’t want to snuggle you, and I don’t want to go to bed with you at the end of the day. I get a lot of flack from friends and family members for my constant refrain that “not all opinions are created equal,” but let’s be real, how can they be? If your opinion is that gay people do not deserve basic human rights, I think your opinion is wrong. But the truth is, I am in a serious relationship with someone who does not have the same political ideologies as me: that person is my brother, and our relationship is super serious. I adore him, I consider him my best friend, and I enjoy our disagreements because he’s smart and can back up his opinions, even when I think they’re wrong. I honestly can’t think of anything he could do to change or harm our loving relationship. Even if he votes for Romney in November.

      The fact that his vote may put a man in power who undoubtedly will is tough to swallow, but I’ve managed to separate his intent and the ramifications of his vote in my mind, and it allows me to keep loving him.

      1. Jeebus jumped up Christ. These people are just so fucking full of themselves. I’d like to drop this chick’s boyfriend a note — “Run, bro.”

        1. The site is for lesbians. Just super feminist lesbians. Really fun time when they talk about trannies and butches, because HOW DARE YOU JUDGE EITHER!!!

      2. Also, here is sampling of the smugness of the comments:

        Thanks, Vanessa. I think we have to give our families time to grow and realize, for some of us, we are they’re “gateway gay” so it would be a pretty big leap for them to just suddenly act totally PC and start volunteering for Obama. Personally, I’ve decided to send my mom and sister a 2012 election fact sheet (complete with links!) to help them stay informed and make sure they are hearing the same things I am (vs. watching Fox News). For my sister?who is on the fence about even voting at all?I’ve told her that if she doesn’t think it matter, throw it to Obama, because of how much it would matter to me.

        The good thing is they aren’t outspoken or even that political, so it’s not as if they’re freely telling me all of this anyway, I have to pry it out of them ha. But I think there’s some gray area in the discussion of how our families should support us (especially when thinking about who quickly they have to do so), so I really appreciate your narrative here. I think the gut reaction for a lot of people would be (haven’t had a chance to read the other comments yet, so many!) to turn your back on him, but that doesn’t seem like Love at all, and I thought that’s what we were all about?

        Thank god she’s saving them from the lies on fox news, and giving them her sides’ talking points!

        1. While forcing them to talk about politics that they don’t give a shit about. This woman is a saint.

        2. So, if you support gay rights, you must vote for Obama. Somebody has their blinders on.

        3. because of how much it would matter to me.

          I believe THAT is the takeaway here.

        4. Personally, I’ve decided to send my mom and sister a 2012 election fact sheet (complete with links!) to help them stay informed and make sure they are hearing the same things I am

          Yeah, because god forbid you should crawl out of your fucking hugbox and think critically. Thanks for showing why the 19th amendment was a mistake, you dumb bitch.

      3. My extended family is conservative, very much so.

        What I come away with is super biased, of course. I feel like there is such an attack on basic human rights in this country, for women and the GLBT community, the poor and the sick, that I do not understand not voting along the lines of our social beliefs this year (or ever, really, but I am a hopeless case where that’s concerned.) I’m not saying those other things aren’t important, and not to make this political, but I have no idea how a person could look at Romney and think “better in foreign and economic policy” either, despite the statistics my family members trumpet on Facebook daily.

        You are your brother’s concern. He never really has to look outside of that, and for the sake of your love for each other, it’s really okay if he doesn’t. I am a veteran of loving people deeply for our shared history over our sharply divergent ideology. It isn’t easy, but it is not easy either (or even possible, for many of us) to live outside of our history and the people who give our lives shape, no matter what we may think of what box they check in November. Good for you for putting this out there ? I’ve tried to write it before, and it’s not easy. You’re still beyond lucky to have each other, no matter what.

      4. One last comment, I just can’t help myself:

        Yeah, I wouldn’t even speak to him, so?

        I don’t associate with people who prefer to put “economics” (what, fair taxes and health care piss you off that much?) ahead of the very real threats to my rights as, not only a queer person, but as a woman.

        Your brother is making the choice to vote for someone who has proven himself dangerous for all women, everywhere, and that is quite frankly, unfathomable to me. As is why you would tolerate and even rationalize his decision to do so.

        Followed up with…

        I consider the sibling relationship pretty messed up already if one sibling is able to say “hey, i value foreign policy decisions over your right to make decisions about your life and future based solely on your gender. I know voting for this person will greatly diminish your rights, but I don’t care.” and the other is supposed to say “well, I don’t understand, but I love you! Its totally fine to make political decisions that will greatly hurt me!”

        I mean, her brother has basically told her she is worth less to him than his fiscal ideals…

        The comment is continued, but character limits.

        I wonder how this bitch would judge me and my sister- me a soft libertarian (I fail the purity test. I’ll keep a social safety net around to keep the revolts down) and my sister, a diehard liberal.

    3. Also, in a nice note, there is exactly one GJ supporter on there.

      She (I assume a she) is doing god’s work, given that everyone else there takes a basic stance that capitalism is a “social justice” issue and the opinions range from social democrat to socialist, with no free martketeers in sight.

    4. Also, sorry for the excessive posting, but it was like wading into retard soup!

    5. I think she’s a retard but that has nothing to do with with who she’s attracted to.

  40. Fuck you, pig.

    LOS ANGELES?A California appeals court has reinstated a now-retired paralyzed Los Angeles police officer’s product liability lawsuit against gun manufacturer Glock.
    Enrique Chavez was paralyzed from the waist down when his 3-year-old son accidentally shot him with his service pistol.

    The lawsuit claims the .45-caliber Glock 21 pistol lacks adequate safeguards against accidental discharge.

    There is no grip safety on the Glock.

    A Los Angeles judge dismissed the suit two years ago, saying a Police Department review of the gun’s design found the Glock’s advantages outweighed any inherent risks.


    1. It can’t discharge accidentally, since it has a safety integral with the trigger, and thus will not fire unless the trigger is pulled. It can only be discharged negligently, as in leaving it around for your 3-year old to pick up and play with. Fucking moron.

      1. Maybe the kid was tired of his cop dad using “Stop resisting” choke holds and such for discipline and shot the asshole on purpose…?

        1. Awesome if the toddler actually yelled “Stop resisting!” before he pulled the trigger.

  41. Cops shoot unarmed suspect in the back.


    I assume the cop will face murder charges, just like Zimmerman.


    1. Dammit. I will refresh before posting.

    2. don’t read the comments…

      1. Couldn’t if I wanted to. Disqus is blocked.

        1. Let me break it down for you: He was black and drugs were present, so it was OK to execute him.

          Judge Dredd is supposed to be a satire, shitheads.

          1. It’s linked to Drudge. What else would you expect?

            1. wow, what a super YAWN of a shooting. note to sarcasmic… there are allegations, not proof he was shot in the back.

              again, yawn…

              1. Shootings bore you then?

  42. Art collection heirs have $65mil piece of art (IRS estimation) and owe $29m in taxes for it.

    Kicker is, it is against the law for them to sell this piece of art that the IRS estimates to be worth millions. And the IRS is bound and determined to tax them into oblivion! Why does this agency exist?

    1. Article posted yesterday.

    2. You’re a day late.

      1. Damn, I was out of the office all day yesterday. Guess I didn’t go through enough of yesterday’s posts to find it.

  43. Critical mass?

    DALLAS -Police shot and killed a man in south Dallas on Tuesday, prompting a tense situation with hundreds of angry, emotional neighbors

    1. That is two places in one week.

    2. South Dallas has been getting screwed for decades, it’s a good thing they’re starting to get frustrated.

      “Ain’t nothin’ pleasant ’bout the Grove.”

  44. However, we expect the lower age limit for applicants to start training to be set at 25 years old. Mars One will send a crew to Mars every two years, meaning that people who are not currently old enough can apply in advance for later missions.

    You bastards.

  45. And so it comes to pass that bigamy laws are being challenged. Any man dumb enough to marry more than one woman at the same time deserves to.

    1. “It is not protected under religious freedom because states have the right to regulate marriage,” said Paul Murphy, spokesman for Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff.

      Huh? That sounds like both a nonsequiter and circular reasoning.

  46. MacAdam Mason was tased to death last month after calling a suicide hotline.

    Sounds like they were just trying to help…

  47. Is this AM Links or the Romney for President Campaign Committee Press Office?*

    *I know it’s late, but it’s still AM. So sue me!

    1. You’ve nothing we want.

  48. Sometimes you jsut have to roll with the punches dude.


  49. Chick Fil-A values are not Chicago values, says Emanuel:

    “A Chicago alderman wants to kill Chick-fil-A’s plans to build a restaurant in his increasingly trendy Northwest Side ward because the fast-food chain’s top executive vocally opposes gay marriage….

    “The alderman has the ideological support of Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

    “‘Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values,’ the mayor said in a statement when asked about Moreno’s decision. ‘They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents. This would be a bad investment, since it would be empty.’

    “Moreno is relying on a rarely violated Chicago tradition known as aldermanic privilege, which dictates that City Council members defer to the opinion of the ward alderman on local issues. Last year Moreno wielded that weapon to block plans for aWal-Martin his ward, saying he had issues with the property owner and thatWal-Martwas not ‘a perfect fit for the area.'”


    1. You have a business? You didn’t build that. An alderman and a mayor allowed you to build it.

    2. For fuck’s sake, guys, stop making us defend the homophobes. What if it were a heavily-Christian area’s mayor denying an atheist business licenses and permits because they disagreed with the proprietor’s political views? It’d be fucking fascist, right?

      I mean, please, tell everyone that Chick-Fil-A opposes same-sex marriage. Refuse to eat there. Hand out fliers and urge their management to stop funding pray-the-gay-away camps. But don’t use the fucking government to stop them from selling people chicken fucking sandwiches because they close on Sundays and their executives give money to things you don’t like.

      1. I’m afraid that the progressive movement isn’t quite on the same page with the cosmotarians on this issue.

        It’s not like the cosmos and progs are fellow-crusaders for the rights of sexual minorities who simply happen to have one or two minor differences as to strategy or tactics.

        Instead, the whole approach is different.

        To the cosmo, sexual liberty means “keep the govt out of our bedrooms, don’t meddle!”

        To the progs, sexual liberty means “enlist the govt on the side of my sexual lifestyle and crush the reactionaries who dare to dissent!”

        And can you actually think of concrete examples of Christian-dominated governments in “Red” states trying to keep atheist businesses out of their neighborhoods.

        It’s more like, “sorry you’re going to Hell, but thanks for the sandwiches, guys!”

        1. They’re building a mosque at Ground Zero!!!???!!!???

          1. Is Ground Zero in a Christian-dominated red state? Dislike of Muslims isn’t unique to Jesusians, especially in a city that lost thousands of lives at the hands of radical Muslims.

  50. You made way too much sense, Alack. You will get a window seat on the train to the thought-rearrangement camps.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.