No-Fly List Challenge Proceeds, Bloomberg Balks at Chick-fil-A Ban, California Parks Scandal Grows: P.M. Links


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

NEXT: Reason Writers Around Town: Shikha Dalmia on Why London is Yawning Over the Olympics

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. For making a fake Facebook page in the name of a classmate, a 12-year-old and a 13-year-old in Hood County, Texas, were arrested and charged with felony “online impersonation.”

    If they played Mafia Wars with that account, they will also be charged under RICO.

    1. To be honest, those girls are lucky that Facebook didn’t send over their SWAT team.

    2. Bad girls, bad girls, what you gonna do? What you gonna do when they come for you?

      1. I can just imagine a new Cops-style intro clip showing fat badges running around chasing prepubescent girls yelling “STOP – IN THE NAME OF THE LAW” as the girls jump an unlicensed lemonade stand and disappear into the bushes.

        1. While drinking a 36 oz soda and eating food from a food cart that was park too close to a school.

          1. … while NWA’s ‘Fuck tha Police’ blares from inside their house on a Dolby system.

            1. Be better if it was Ice-T’s Cop Killer

              1. They’ll shoot a bitch for that.

                And by bitch, I mean their female shih tzu.

  2. …it’s “not government’s job” to make political and religious beliefs a condition of permitting businesses to operate.

    My faith requires me to ingest copious amounts of salt, soda and trans fats while carrying a concealed weapon.

    1. I’m interested in your church, do you have a newsletter, or something?

    2. racist.

  3. “The TSA investigation found that all passengers and their bags were screened and travelers were never in danger,” Koshetz said.

    “But ticket purchasers paid for three acts in each TSA performance and that’s what we’re going to give them.”

    1. TSA workers … were fired after failing to perform random screenings

      Since we’re at war and the agents were obviously aiding and abetting the enemy they should at least do serious prison time.

      1. or get put on paid administrative leave?

        1. We are talking TSA “workers”. The punishment for treason is death, isn’t it?

  4. “More than two years ago, our clients were placed on a secret government blacklist that denied their right to travel without an explanation or chance to confront the evidence against them,” Nusrat Choudhury, an ACLU lawyer who argued the case, said in a statement. “The Constitution requires the government to provide our clients a fair chance to clear their names and a court will finally hear their claims.”

    A Department of Justice spokesman said agency officials are reviewing the decision and declined to comment.

    DoJ attorneys are busy looking into this “Constitution” that the plaintiffs keep referencing.

    1. They should check the archives first. Ezra Klein told me that it’s at least 100 years old.

      1. And written in Sanskrit.

        1. And contains icky and impossible things to understand in today’s world like the 5th amendment.

          1. But don’t worry, we’re just stupid peasants and needn’t worry about its contents — our betters have already deciphered it for us and are ruling us accordingly!

            1. You’re right, we serfs really should learn to bend over and take it up the ass without complaining. It’s for our own good.

          2. and another part lets you say things that hurt people’s feelings. And that gives me a sad.

            1. Ebony Messiah is on it in his second term! Fear not!

    2. the federal government’s mysterious no-fly list

      I predict that, as this lawsuit plays out, the list will be found *not to exist*. BWAHAHAHAA!!

      1. State secret, bitchezz! Choom Gang 4 Life!

    3. I have it on good authority that the founders couldn’t imagine a world in which there were airplanes so the constitution is irrelevant.

      1. The constitution!? The founders didn’t build that.

    4. It’s not a suicide pact!!!!!!

  5. Oh boy: Maryland police nab man who threatened to carry out a massacre at his work place after being fired. Looks like we’re in for another week of gun control lecturing since they found like 25 different guns in his home and thousands of rounds of ammunition.

    1. It also reminds me of Office Space:
      Bob Slydell: Oh yeah, we’re gonna bring in some entry-level graduates, farm some work out to Singapore, that’s the usual deal.
      Bob Porter: Standard operating procedure.
      Peter Gibbons: Do they know this yet?
      Bob Slydell: No. No, of course not. We find it’s always better to fire people on a Friday. Studies have statistically shown that there’s less chance of an incident if you do it at the end of the week.

  6. And again, “I felt ‘threatened'” is the only feminist response to things that offend them.

    As Griffin spoke he looked Walshe in the eye and began pumping his hips at her face in a violent sexual manner. Threatened, Walshe threw a drink at Griffin.

    Do they have an instruction manual for feminists somewhere that advises this?

    1. The big part:
      Well, a little more than a week later, the woman, Fiona Walshe wants an apology from the comedian. And if she doesn’t get it, she wants a bunch of money from him and the venue, because Griffin made an issue out of her and partner Leslie Champlin (pictured) for being lesbians.

      What a gold-digging cunt. What is with these uptight women going to comedy shows just to be offended? Haven’t they ever heard of what happens at comedy clubs? You can learn just by watching Comedy Central in your own home.

    2. On a very-local message board (specific to my neighborhood), a woman posted that she was walking down the sidewalk when a teen on a bike rode up behind her and grabbed her ass. She yelled at the guy but he just rode off. She was incensed that 2 guys who saw the incident “didn’t do anything about it.” For the most part the responses ignored that part, but a couple of them ragged on the “boys (they clearly weren’t ‘men’)” for not, I don’t know, starting a fight or something.

      Am I just a dick, or would most guys not try to start a physical confrontation over a stranger’s ass getting grabbed? I mean, purse snatching or physical harm is one thing, and of course it’s shitty to grab a stranger’s ass, but really? We’re expected to “defend her honor” here or something?

      1. What, she can’t defend her own honor?

        1. What, she can’t defend her own honor?

          If she was walking along a public right-of-way wearing something that showed her ass such that someone might be inspired to touch it (e.g., tight jeans), then she was clearly asking for it to be touched. And if some of that touching is a bit rough, well then she has no one to blame but herself.

          A woman like this has no honor.

          1. Decapitation is the only way to regain it.


            1. Decapitation is the only way to regain it.

              A bit harsh, at least if it’s a first offense. This is America, ya know. A public flogging is probably sufficient to get the message across if she’s got a clean record up to that point.

              Subsequent offense? Then yeah, decapitation. Or stoning.

              1. Sandwich-making and confinement to the kitchen for 10 years ought to do it, too.

          2. If she was walking along a public right-of-way wearing something that showed her ass such that someone might be inspired to touch it (e.g., tight jeans), then she was clearly asking for it to be touched. And if some of that touching is a bit rough, well then she has no one to blame but herself.

            I realize (hope) you’re being sarcastic here, but I don’t see the point.

            1. the point is, that while random ass-grabbing is impolite, you cannot control who finds you attractive. Had that discussion with both of my girls; when you dress up, there is a fair chance that it may attract folks you do not wish to attract.

              1. Later in the comments she did note that she was “quite small” and that she was “wearing yoga pants and a tank” because she was on her way to yoga. So, yeah, some people are shitty and you have to be more on your toes when you are dressed in more revealing or tight clothing – NOT BECAUSE YOU’RE ASKING FOR IT but because that tends to activate the shittiness.

                1. Let’s keep in mind it’s a teenage boy on a bike. They aren’t exactly known for their subtlety.

                  I’m surprised when teenage boys *don’t* grab some part of a girl/woman.

              2. the point is, that while random ass-grabbing is impolite

                I’d say it’s a bit more than impolite. Not the end of the world or anything, but closer to spraying someone with water than saying something rude.

                1. Spraying someone with water isn’t impolite?

                  1. I would say we’re speaking of sets within sets here. Mugging someone is impolite also, but we wouldn’t describe it as such.

                    1. I say, chap. Terribly sorry about this, but I’m afraid I’ll have to have your wallet. Most ungentlemanly, if I do say so myself, but this is what Queen and country have brought me to. There’s a good fellow. Again, terribly sorry to have caused you any disturbance. Cheerio!

            2. I realize (hope) you’re being sarcastic here, but I don’t see the point.

              No real point, just being silly. Usually when I post something sarcastic, I manage to snare a few less creative thinkers into thinking I’m serious (though Reason posters are more astute than on other forums around the web). Hijinks typically ensue.

              1. Like these?:


                Yeah, those are always pretty amusing.

        2. They should have defended her family’s honor.

      2. drive-by ass-grabbing does not seem like sufficient grounds for me to commit assault on someone I don’t know. If he grabs my wife’s ass, different story.

      3. Yeah, it’d have to be an actual assault for me to intervene in that situation. Otherwise she should stick up for herself.

        1. Maybe she’d have felt better if one of the guys had also yelled at the guy as he rode off. Who knows. Just not sure what she thought should happen. Later in the thread she mentioned that she used to live in Phoenix and concealed carried there, and wished she could here (Chicago). Somebody asked what good, exactly, a gun would’ve done in that situation and she did admit that shooting him in the back wasn’t an option.

          1. This sounds like the kid who falls down and scrapes his knee; it only becomes painful and scary when other people make a big deal out of it. What she really needs is for everyone to laugh.

      4. If I was drunk, I could see myself taking a poke at the perps. Back in 2000 I got in a fist-fight at a bar defending Michael Vick from some racist blowhard. So yeah, I would probably defend this lady’s honor as well.

        1. Your dog must hate you now.

      5. Uh, he was on a bike. Did she really expect these guys to try to run him down on foot?

    3. How in the hell does someone pump his hips in a violent sexual manner? Dudes who stand around doing pelvic thrusts at people look both ridiculous and hilarious.

      1. Two wild and crazy guys!

        1. I was having thoughts of those guys from LMFAO thrusting around with their floppy bits in their Speedos. How does that threaten anybody?

          1. You gettin horny! You cannot control you!

            See, they make girls lose control of themselves. Threatening.

          2. I was having thoughts of those guys from LMFAO thrusting around with their floppy bits in their Speedos. How does that threaten anybody?

            I sent a link of that video to a coworker, and he closed it immediately. He turned around angry, and he certainly looked threatened. Though I’m assuming it was his heterosexuality and not his safety. Never could get him to admit why it made him angry.

            1. Maybe one of those LMFAO guys won’t return his calls.

    4. Well, feminists and cops.

  7. Steve Smith Donates $100,000 to Victims of Aurora Theater Massacre. No word yet on if he has chosen to rape any of the survivors.

    1. They should be OK as long as they keep their tight ends protected.

      1. Steve Smith can turn a tight end into a wide receiver quicker than Warty at a gay bathhouse.

  8. An 18-year-old Michigan teen is arrested for openly carrying his vintage M-1 carbine and refusing to show ID. Michigan is an open-carry state. He’s acquitted by a jury.

    1. Fuck the police. Seriously.

      1. Fuck the police. Seriously.


        This kid has some serious balls. It’s good to see that not all teens are completely apathetic to their most basic human rights. My only advice to someone contemplating something like this is not to use a vintage rifle that’s probably worth a ton of money; use something cheap that won’t be so sorely missed in case the cops refuse to return it out of spite.

        1. And try something that looks menacing. If you can afford it, a really tricked-out AR-15 would be great, or, better yet, a machine gun if you’re stamped or an FFL.

          1. Missed the not to use a vintage rifle that’s probably worth a ton of money, didja, RPA? No way I’m taking an NFA item to have the cops snag it.

            That’s more a Ruger 10/22 mission. If I never get it back, another one is cheap and readily available.

            1. Dude, I said do it if you can afford it. It was a separate suggestion. In other words, if you’re wealthy. So THERE. }:(

              A belt-fed MG, perhaps?

              1. Oh, but hell no. I humped a pig enough when I was young. I sure as shit ain’t doing it now that I’m old.

                1. I humped a pig enough when I was young.

                  this is why talking in jargon is not always a good thing. Unless it’s not jargon.

                    1. I figured…the line just struck me funny. It’s late on a Friday, beer-thirty somewhere.

                    2. I hear that. I’m in for another 24 minutes.

              2. Of just find an old Soviet SKS with the folding bayonet. Cheap AND scary-looking!

                1. +1. A lookalike for an AK-47 (simple semiautomatic one) would probably do the menacing well enough anyway.

          2. And try something that looks menacing. If you can afford it, a really tricked-out AR-15 would be great, or, better yet, a machine gun if you’re stamped or an FFL.

            That’d be a great gesture, and I’d love to see it happen, but if you’re going to do something like that, best to get a large group together. Depending on what part of the country you’re in, even if it’s legal to do so, it might be a good way to get shot.

            1. Yeah, it could be a pretty serious risk in some states/localities.

              A group of, say, 50 guys, all armed with weapons that are all distinctly military-style, just casually walking around. I wonder how a cop would react to that.

              1. I’m guessing his reaction would require new underalls.

                1. To be fair, I think I might have a similar reaction. Not like you see that every day.

    2. “When he refused to produce ID, they arrested him. He was charged with brandishing a firearm in public, disturbing the peace and obstructing a police officer. Judge Marc Barron of the 48th District Court dismissed the third charge on a lack of evidence.”

      Why don’t they throw in a charge of treason while they’re at it?


    3. The rifle shown in the news video with your link shows an M-1 Garand rifle not an M-1 carbine.

      Similar vintage but quite different weapons.

  9. In response to the furor over Chick-fil-A and its owners’ anti-gay views, the New York City mayor said it’s “not government’s job” to make political and religious beliefs a condition of permitting businesses to operate.

    Eaxactly. It’s Bloomberg’s job to be an asshole to everyone, indiscriminately.

    1. Bloomberg won’t tell you that you can’t have a business license because of what you believe. However, he will tell you how to run your business once it’s established, including what size drinks you can sell, how much transfats the food can have, and whether or not you can slice a bagel.

      1. he should get together with the san fran overlords who banned HAPPY MEALS

  10. This just in: on Tuesday Reason will be getting a new flock of squirrels. Hopefully they won’t behave like this one.

    1. Squirrels flock?

      1. Good point. Some quick research indicates a group of squirrels can be called a “dray” or a “scurry” or not be called anything at all. Personally, I vote for a “mischief” of squirrels.

        1. More quick research indicates that they are solitary animals and that any attempt to name a group of them is just silly.

          1. Oh, so my preferred usage of ‘a bother of libertarians’ is kind of pointless?

            1. I take it more as witty social commentary than an actual attempt to name, so I vote “not pointless.”

            2. A bother. I like that.

    2. Does anyone else find it a bit worrying that Reason is trying to be MORE similar to Huff n Puff?

      1. If they’re trying to tempt Balko back, I’m all for it.

      2. I what sense?

        1. In what sense?

          1. The letter they sent out describes their vision of “Reason 24/7,” a new aggregator similar to Huffington Post, which is specifically named.

            1. So long as the new format doesn’t attract a “nuisance” of shreiks and tonys, it’s OK by me.

            2. Freedom IS slavery you stupid teabagger.

              Facts are stubborn things.

              /HuffPo Reason Superuser

  11. How to avoid jail time for killing a motorcyclist while drunk driving: Be an RCMP officer.

    Robinson was found guilty after admitting he rushed home and drank two shots of vodka after his Jeep collided with the motorcycle of Hutchinson at an intersection. He then returned to the scene of the crash and admitted to what he had done.

    Thanks to that quick thinking, he was found guilty of obstruction of justice only, and got 12 months conditional.

    1. i’ve dealt with several cases like this, none of which involved law enforcement officers

      in brief, dui crashes, runs from scene (usually to home) and then makes sure when the cop arrives, etc. he is drinking from a bottle of liquor, claiming he started drinking after the collision

      or dui will crash and by the time cops get there he will be outside his car chugging beer

      again, creating the defense that yea, he’s impaired by liquor, but it happened AFTER the collision

      not at all uncommon, in cases where it’s not a “pull over” dui, but is a crash etc. with officers responding after the fact

        1. No shit. In the mid ’90s my brother, mother and father were in a car waiting to make a left turn. The were rear ended by a drunk in a van still going 50 MPH on impact. Both of my parents suffered fairly severe, but not life threatening, injuries. The van driver, who just happened to be an off-duty police officer, was cited for an unsafe lane change by one of his colleagues. But cops never cover up for one another, right?

    2. A prosecuting attorney actually told me one time that if you’re in a wreck and afraid if getting a DUI, leave the scene and hit the nearest bar and start drinking. There would be now way to convict you.

      You’d get hit with leaving the scene of an accident, but that’s not big deal.

      1. like i said, not at all uncommon.

        there would still be a way to convict you, IF there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt you were impaired BEFORE you went to the bar, but that rarely is the case.

        like if you exit the car, stumbling drunk, and it’s witnessed, and especially if they get close enough to smell, hear your slurred voice, etc.

        even then, if it’s a WRECK, that’s problematic since head injuries can cause similar symptoms to impairment by liquor.

        i had a DUI the other day (guy blew a .162) where a witness saw the guy stumbling to his car, called 911, and then followed the guy giving updates to his incredibly fucked up driving pattern. in a case like that, if the guy left the scene, you’d STILL have a difficult time getting evidence beyond a reasonable doubt

        and of course, better to let 10 guilty men go free than convict an innocent.

        this guy blew high and did miserably on the FST’s, so likely a slam dunk

        fwiw, in my state, when and if they call an attorney prior to blowing on the breathalyzer, ime the attorney always advises them to blow (because the penalty for refusing is so high -year loss of license, etc. AND their refusal can be considered as evidence) UNLESS they are already revoked for life.

        in some of those cases we get a warrant for blood, but it’s a pain in the ass and you gotta get it quickly

        1. fwiw, dui is the ONLY crime where innocents have near perfect protection against being convicted.

          not only is the breathalyzer extremely accurate, but every DUI has the right in my state to be driven to a medical facility to have a blood draw done by a physician of their choosing and they can then present that result as evidence.

          it’s the only crime where the innocent have full protection from false conviction, since the blood test and breathalyzer together being wrong (and to the same extent roughly) is almost infinitessimally small. extremely accurate

          and the blood can be retained for a SECOND test iirc

          1. You’re talking about a single car collision only, right? Because otherwise the HnR (drink!) charges would be even more problematic, right?

          2. Of course, then, the blood can also show other things, like the presence of THC (which could be from use weeks ago) or other substances, and then you might be charged with driving under the influence of whatever they find. Stick with the breathalyzer, it only shows alcohol.

            1. also, the way the formula is applied, a breath test is always going to be LESS than a blood test, taken at the same time.

              it’s similar to the tangent formula in doppler radar, where unless the object is coming perfectly straight at you (in which case – get the fuck out of the way), the speed will be reported as lower than actual.

              your point is correct.

              my point is that there is effectively ZERO chance of a person who is not .08 or above getting falsely charged as such.

              it’s the only crime that can offer such complete protection for the innocent.

              years ago, we used to go out drinking and on then check out our breathalyzer readings.

              im a lightweight. never got greater than a .18.

          3. Of course, that’s all well and good, until you stop and think that “driving under the influence” is a “status” crime. You aren’t being convicted for actually doing any harm, and you aren’t being convicted based on any showing if imminent threat of harm.

            You are being convicted based on the status of your blood chemistry.

            1. we’ve engaged in this wank before

              it is entirely justified to set a prima facie limit for illegality, whether or not one agrees with .08

              there is no RIGHT to drive with .xx blood alcohol, and LOTS of crimes are and should be prosecuted with no harm

              if somebody tries to murder you (there’s a mens rea difference from DUI but no difference in harm) but their gun jams, they did NO harm

              so f*** what?

              but again, we’ve had this wank before.

              i am well aware some people think (not you necessarily , but some do), that DUI shouldn’t be illegal unless and until somebody is actually harmed

              that’s as colossally stupid as saying attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, etc. should be a-ok if the person is unsuccessful.

              it’s one of those funhouse mirror insane arguments

              again, not saying YOU are going that far, but some people have here.

              similarly, you may be able to drive through a residential neighborhood at 70 mph and not kill anybody

              so what?

              it should still be, and is… illegal.

              if you aim your gun at joe blow and shoot at him but miss and your bullet impacts harmlessly in the dirt, and lets say you use a .22 lr (so he doesn’t even hear the gun go off) and is thus not placed in fear, should that not be illegal?

              after all, nobody was harmed

              again, this is the funhouse mirror dui objection that comes up here frequently and imo is ridiculous.

              1. there is a difference between saying SELF regarding acts (whether they do harm or not) and other regarding acts. DUI is an other regarding act. drug use, contrarily – is not

                1. No it’s not. Reckless driving is an other regarding act, drinking alcohol is not.

              2. it is entirely justified to set a prima facie limit for illegality, whether or not one agrees with .08

                there is no RIGHT to drive with .xx blood alcohol, and LOTS of crimes are and should be prosecuted with no harm

                According to that logic, the .05 tickets you get in Austin, where they ticket you and then let you drive away, are perfectly legitimate as well.

              3. if you aim your gun at joe blow and shoot at him but miss and your bullet impacts harmlessly in the dirt, and lets say you use a .22 lr (so he doesn’t even hear the gun go off) and is thus not placed in fear, should that not be illegal?

                after all, nobody was harmed

                This has been logically debunked so many times you should be ashamed of yourself for using it. That is, if you had shame.

              4. Notwithstanding all the preceding arguments, but we must acknowledge the intentionally fraudulent breathalyzer results in the conversation. I know you will disagree, but law enforcement is not to be trusted in this matter, as in any other.

            2. The people who own the property set the standards for use. In this case its the government(AKA us). This why govt ownership of property needs to be minimized.

        2. where a witness saw the guy stumbling to his car, called 911, and then followed the guy giving updates

          You cited that scofflaw for cell phone use while driving, right?

  12. good coverage of the chick-fil-a rejection by the chicago alderman at with conclusion – blatantly unconstitutional.

    fwiw, i get the occasional “facebook” or (god forbid) myspace complaint

    we tell the parents/kid to cowboy up, contact facebook security and get the offender dealt with via facebook corp (they can erase any page, warn a user, etc.)

    the blatant overreaction in the above case is typical of the blatant overreach we are seeing in general with internet speech crimes, and the incredible # of “cyberstalking” and bullying statutes that are quite often unconstitutional and almost always ridiculously punitive.

    and imo, much of the cyberstalking etc. laws are (yet again) another example of the excesses of the war on domestic violence, which is where a lot of this speech chicanery has its genesis.

    i dealt with a (blatantly unconstitutional) protection order not too long ago (pro tem judge- nuff said) that actually listed it as a criminal violation of its provisions for the respondent to (essentially) speak negatively/disparagingly/ridicule the petitioner on social media

    BLATANTLY unconstitutional

    1. Tell the stupid judge it’s unconstitutional and STOP RESISTING.

      1. i never saw the judge, but we informed the petitioner, no that provision was not enforceable.

        we had another protective where the judge wrote that the officers needed to take the child from the respondent and turn over to the other parent during service

        again, illegal

        the only way we can take a kid from a parent is a habeas corpus order (not a protective order) or if we have good cause the child is in imminent substantial danger (which i’ve had to do maybe half dozen times in 20 yrs. iow very rare)

        1. CPS all over the country is immensely fucked up. The rules are so one-sided in the state’s favor, it’s a fucking farce.

          1. not really. like most things, it varies widely state to state.

            cps is fucked either way. numerous examples where they DON’T get an order to take a kid from a home and the kid gets killed by the parent and there is OUTRAGE

            contrarily, they do take a kid from the home, and it turns out much of the complaint was fabricated etc (vindictive former boyfriend/etc.) and there is OUTRAGE.

            they also get paid complete shit, have a (at lesat in my state) obscene caseload (almost guaranteeing many cases won’t get proper attenton), etc.

            it’s a very difficult balancing test.

            they have engaged in some MAJOR abuses, and they have also engaged in some major LACK of action in some cases where they clearly should have acted.

            i have empathy for them.

            as well as for parents who are fucked over by them in some cases

            1. It’s a shit job, and most of the people doing it are doing it for the right reasons. (This is one of the few cases where “It’s for the children” is appropriate.) They deal with some truly horrific things.

              1. yea. i have a good friend who is a CPS social worker (and actually leans rightwing which is interesting from a social worker), and if there is one thing i am 100% certain of – she truly does not want to fuck parents over and truly wants to help kids in need. and in many cases, she is able to do so.

                she gets paid way less than i do, and i’m the first to admit – if any public employee is underpaid – it’s a CPS investigator

    2. Bloomberg created the greatest business tool since double entry accounting – the Bloomberg terminal.

      1. He didn’t create that.

        Damn, that is the gift that just won’t stop giving.

        1. The stoopid is strong in shrike.

  13. I wonder, is Bloomberg simply pandering to prove he’s not 100% anti-business? I’d imagine he has to keep up appearances solely because of Wall St., so there’s a practical limit to just how much of an asshole he can be. Am I just making things up, or does he at least have to pretend to be more pro-business than California or Chicago. Basically, is there a limit to his douchebaggery simply because he’s in NYC, while Chicago has no such qualms?

    1. Bloomy wants businesses to locate in his town so he can tax them. And tell them what to do. No revenue from this version of thought police.

    2. Actually, Bloomberg has been consistent in not banning a business from operation due to their religious believes.

    3. It’s another example of politicians’ hypocrisy/dishonety. Every one of these cities and states have “Business Development” departments. They buy alot of advertising on Bloomberg TV and CNBC. The ads always show images of beautiful landscapes, urban architecture, smiling children, etc. The voice over is always something like, “Locate your business to (New York/Illinois/Michigan). We have good universities, an educated workforce, great quality of life, and special tax incentives.”

      They never include anything about required social values of company CEO’s, or the arbitrary whims of the local politicians.

  14. Fox and Freaks angry at the Brits for roughing up their homeboy Mitt –


    1. Re: Palin’s Buttcrack,

      Fox and Freaks angry at the Brits for roughing up their homeboy Mitt

      Brits which are all thin-skinned freaks anyway angry at Mitt for roughing up their lack of concern for doing a job.

      1. What if they roughed up YOUR “homeboy”, shrike?

        1. Re: Mr. FIFY,

          Shrike would probably call his Senators and Representatives to ask for a bill to invade Canada, in retaliation.

          1. Sounds about right… shrike IS a leftist, and therefore is an authoritarian at heart…

  15. Jeff Bezos, of, donated $2.5 million to the effort to legalize same-sex marriage in Washington state.

    I am sorry, but I just cannot come to accept the idea of same-sex marriage. I want different-sex marriage! I want exciting-sex marriage!

    Same-sex marriage just sounds so… routine. The people advocating for it must be trying to justify not trying the new sex positions and lubricants from the book/kit their wives bought at the bargain section of Barnes and Noble.

    “Why can’t we have same-sex marriage, hon? I still find you attractive, honest!”

    1. You can have my Kama Sutra when you pry it from my hot, sweaty hands!

      1. Ugh. That’s not the Kama Sutra you’ve got in your hands.

        1. and that’s not sweat, either.

    2. My issue is that I think it’s not that important of a cause. Not the first one I’d toss millions at, in any case.

  16. For making a fake Facebook page in the name of a classmate, a 12-year-old and a 13-year-old in Hood County, Texas, were arrested and charged with felony “online impersonation.”

    People should feel grateful to have a government that can come up with laws that criminalize make-pretend games. Oh, where would all be if it wasn’t for Da State?

  17. In response to the furor over Chick-fil-A and its owners’ anti-gay views, the New York City mayor said it’s “not government’s job” to make political and religious beliefs a condition of permitting businesses to operate.

    And that comment triggered the Great Upheaval that ushers in the return of Jesus to this Earth to judge us all. Oh, and a comet strike.

  18. Happy Friday Hnr! Everybody DRINK to this!

      1. Oh heysus – I can’t keep straight everybody’s body type preferences, but please tell me that’s missing a /sarcasmic

        1. Not me. It’s some weird reaction some women have been having to her. I don’t see it at all.

          1. It was a site-full of anorexics. They see boobs as fat. And there is no good fat! Pity them. And eat cake in front of them.

            1. Well, I can’t even comprehend that. Nor, I daresay, could my wife.

            2. She’s actually pretty thin. The boobs move awfully realistically, but their disproportion to the rest of her body makes me assume they’re not natural. She is a LONG LONG LONG way from fat.

              1. No, those proportions do happen.

                1. I know they do, I just know they happen much more often under the knife.

                  I am not ruling out the possibility that the heavenly bro blessed us all, every one.

      2. No but she looks like an idiot dancing.

        1. Sticks, you’re doing it wrong.

    1. I would like to lick the mole just above the bikini line.

    2. Kugh, hubbba, whadda.. bubuuda…. uh. uh….. uhhh…. whad id myb name, again?

  19. Gentlmen, we have the technology to mathematically simulate ice cream.

    “Research has been carried out at the University of Edinburgh to simulate the soft matter that makes up ice cream. More specifically, scientists are trying to understand the complex interactions occurring between the many different ingredients that make up your favorite flavor of the delicious cold stuff.”

    As someone who took just enough graduate classes in Chem E, I can tell you that this is, in fact, a hard fucking problem.

    1. It’s about the crystallization, not?

  20. Hey, look at this retarded article I found by Captain Sadbeard. Yes, genius, I don’t forsee any unintended effects or collateral damage from this, certainly not pissing off Jews and Muslims along with Christians or, I don’t know, any number of other businesses that are only open on weekdays for commercial rather than religious reasons (or maybe the owner just likes taking a day off every once in a while).

    Sure, you could interpret it as “look how easily regulatory power can be abused”, and if he was a libertarian instead of a prog I might think that was his point. It’s pretty clear he’s saying “hay gaiz, I found a loophole! DERP”.

    1. Good comment on the link, tough. Excerpt:

      I find it interesting that those that claim to be open minded and tolerant are so hell bent on shutting down a business that they have a political/religious disagreement with.

      Sums up Team Blue quite nicely.

    2. So all a city needs to do is say that if a quick service restaurant with more than 1,500 branches wants to open, it must be open seven days a week.

      I am surprised at the low regard leftist imbeciles have for people’s ingenuity and the potential they can unleash by simple self-interest. Because unless he’s jesting, there can’t be a more unimaginative and dull “alternative” to outright banning a company from running a business than saying that you have to be open 7 days a week. I would just hire local atheists for the weekend, get around the stupid requirement and still keep my conscience.

      1. There are all sorts of legal problems with that kind of requirement, even without the obvious First Amendment issue.

      2. I thought TEAM BLUE wanted to shut down all fast food restaurants, regardless of the owners’ political/religious beliefs, because they exploit poor people and make them fat. Or something.

      3. I’d just keep the drive-thru open and only have 4 employees working with the dining room closed.

    3. Interestingly, many of the comments seem to suggest what a retarded idea the whole thing is…and on Slate nonetheless. I think I will smile while I drink this beer.

    4. a leftist who would use the power of govt to instill his worldview. I can only imagine the shock and horror you are feeling. Seriously, give these folks enough room and time, and they will tell you exactly who they are.

  21. Woman gets fired for smelling like cigarette smoke.

    I figured it was only a matter of time.

    1. A cannon smells like smoke? Who would of thunk it?

      Happy Friday reasonoids! Drink!

      1. I raise my Jim Beam to you, sir.


  22. Nice attempt at the lawsuit, but the no-fly list has to be padded with non-terrorist names, just to make it look fluffier.

  23. An armed society is a polite society.

    A 67-year-old man who was waiting in line apparently thought the man was cutting in line when he returned the window. He exited the post office and waited in the vestibule for the victim to leave.

    The suspect then stabbed the 58-year-old victim at which point two female postal employees intervened. At least one of the women deployed pepper spray in an attempt to subdue the attacker.

  24. Oh shit, Warty:

    Steelers fan in talks to buy the Browns.

    1. Does Pittsburgh really need two football teams?

      1. Or even one and a half?

        1. I didn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. Though the Browns did win a Super Bowl. The old Browns, I mean.

          1. I will remember this.

            1. I’d think you be used to it, with the current team moving to Pittsburgh and all.

        2. Or even one?

    2. It’s a done deal, from what I’m hearing. I can’t wait for another rebuild.

  25. A rifle for bronies.

    1. Fuck you squirrels. The link was there

    2. There is so much wrong with that I don’t know where to start. Why is it that I want to get one…for…um…my daughter?

  26. No comment on Brian Doyle’s Olympic tribute to the national helf?

  27. *In response to the furor over Chick-fil-A and its owners’ anti-gay views…*

    Huh? Affirming one’s belief that marriage, by definition, is a heterosexual union means that one is “anti-gay”? Suppose that an actual homosexual opposes “same-sex marriage”; is he also “anti-gay”?

    It has become apparent that the goal is not mere tolerance, but rather full-fledged endorsement. It won’t be long before the new definition of “homophobic bigot” will include anyone who is not actually engaging in homosexual sex at least once a month.

  28. The economy is … Do I have to say it? Stumbling like a drunk in an alley, with GDP growing at an annual rate of 1.5 percent[…]

    Which indicates two things:

    a) The government expenditures and debt is crowding out the private sector, and
    b) The private sector’s production is shrinking faster than what the government can compensate.

    Despite what Keynesians believe, government expenditures do not compensate for the private sector’s contraction, it actually exacerbates it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.