FBI Chief Denies Intent To Prosecute 'Criminal Co-conspirator' Journalists, NSA Faces Unprecedented Scrutiny, Number of Child Casualties Up in Afghanistan: P.M. Links


Get Reason.com and Reason 24/7 content widgets for your websites.

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.  You can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up here. Have a news tip? Send it to us!

NEXT: US Surgeon General to Step Down

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. Under questioning on Capitol Hill, FBI Director Robert Mueller insisted that labeling journalist James Rosen a “criminal co-conspirator” should not be taken to mean that he was ever targeted for criminal prosecution.

    The FBI thinks everyone is a criminal co-conspirator.

    1. And if you look at our actions in juxtaposition of federal law, we are. And it’s exactly the way they want it to be.

    2. so, whoever said he was a criminal co-conspirator commited perjury then, when they were getting the warrant, right?

      1. Wrong. Because FY, TW.

  2. Fearing skyrocketing health insurance premiums under Obamacare, members of Congress and their aides consider heading for the exit early so they can keep their current coverage. Uh huh. What’s sauce for the goose …

    Some animals are more equal than others.

    1. Hopefully Obamacare covers Crocodile Tears Syndrome because I think I came down with a case. It’s either that or a bad case of Schadenfreude.

    2. They’re getting older and they know the value of those gold plated benefits.

  3. The number of child casualties in Afghanistan is up 27 percent over last year…

    A whole lot of not thinking of the children.

    1. Stupid fucking kids should stop flinging themselves in the path of bullets and drones.

      Darwin at work, I’m afraid…

    2. We had to kill them in order to save them. Surely they would much rather be remembered as innocent children who were killed collaterally so that we might be free in America, than to be killed in the future because you are a terrorist, or in near proximity to one and be of age to be considered one yourself.

      1. USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

    3. We are going to free the hell out of them.

  4. The FBI thinks everyone is a criminal co-conspirator.

    I am.

    1. Benn nice knowing you, fish. Write from Gitmo.

      1. But didn’t you hear? Gitmo is closing any day now…

        1. Gitmo is closing any DECADE now


  5. Cafe owners in the Dutch city of Maastricht face prosecution for selling marijuana to foreigners ? a business transaction now banned by officials who want to end the flow of pot tourists.

    Sort of.

    You can still buy weed in Amsterdam as a foreigner. They better not change that before next year.

    1. My friends tell me you can only buy at sketchy coffee shops, not the more popular. I may need to investigate personally. Maybe Reason should send a contingent to research for a future dedicated issue.

      1. My understanding is that the reversed on the national policy and instead let the cities decide. Amsterdam obviously chosen not to have the no foreigner policy.

        1. I keep telling you, I am Dutch.

          Tulips and windmills and street-legal hookers
          Dikes and Anne Frank – now there was a looker!
          OTC pot with no DEA stings
          These are a few of my favorite things.

          1. +1 Maria von Trapp.

          2. It’s a Trapp!

  6. Nevada voters approved medical marijuana 13 years ago, and state officials have finally found time in their schedules to clear the way for dispensaries to open.

    OMG!!! Marijuana induced apathy! !!

    1. Well, with medical weed to the west and recreational weed to the east they finally realized how much money they would be throwing away if they didn’t get off their asses.

    2. Maybe now NY’s health commissioner can activate the med mj program NY legislated ~35 yrs. ago.

  7. http://jimromenesko.com/2013/0…..-brothers/

    Fascists at Duke University work to stop Koch’s buying of newspapers.

    1. *shocked face*

    2. When you bully people into not speaking, you technically haven’t violated the 1st Amendment. Welcome to the modern left.

      1. Not unless you are the government. It doesn’t necessarily make you anti-1st Amendment. It just makes you a fascist.

        1. That’s my point. Leftists claim they’re ‘in favor’ of the Bill of Rights, then they use schools to indoctrinate people against the Bill of Rights. That way, if people all think like you do, the First Amendment is meaningless anyway.

    3. I’ve been saying that Duke sucks for years. Glad to see the rest of you finally getting on board.

      1. Duke is a shit hole.

        1. Duke is a wannabe Ivy. All the smug, without the depth.

        2. No, it is not. A large contingent of the undergrads who go there are dbags, but it is definitely not a “shit hole.”

          1. University of New Jersey-Durham.

            How can it not be a shit hole?

            1. I lived in Durham for three years. The campus is beautiful. Durham has some character as a city as well. Great food.

              If you take out the douchy undergrads (they probably make up 30-40%) it’s a great place to go to school. At least for grad/professional school. I can’t speak for the undergrad program.

      2. it’s why my eldest’s college money went to Carolina, not that it is better according to him.

      3. The biggest Rand Paul negative is that he went to Duke Medical School.

    4. They will not tolerate those intolerant Kochs.

    5. Why, was Koch a lacrosse player?

      1. I see what you did there…

    6. The left considers Koch buying a newspaper chain a potential abuse of corporate power where they will have a monopoly on what opinions get published; whereas, the Corporation for Public Broadcast is just democracy in action because the people are the government which gives you and I a say in what is on the air.

      1. Plus, they have those delightful pledge breaks!

        1. Plus, they have those delightful pledge bait-and-switch breaks!

        2. I don’t know how they are able to raise any money given the shite they show during pledge drives. And is it just me, or are they running pledge drives more than regular programming now?

          1. My kid grew out of his Sesame Street phase, so I, thankfully, have no idea what they are doing now.

      2. Didn’t some BILLIONAIRE from Mexico buy the NYT?

    7. Can someone explain to me why the Tribune CEO wasted 40 minutes of his life talking to some piss-ant student?

    8. Wouldn’t the trustee have a fiduciary responsibility to sell to whomever makes the highest offer?

    9. “The conversation was fairly unproductive or negative,” says Spangher, a former Duke Chronicle columnist whose interests include green energy technology. “His primary purpose for calling me [back] was to explain his side of the story rather than listening to my arguments.”

      HAHAHAHAHA! I didn’t even notice this part.

      ‘The son of a bitch should have just sat there and listened to me! Instead he tried to explain his side of the story!’

      The horror.

      1. “We strongly urge Karsh to reject the bid. Although we recognize that he has a fiduciary duty to shareholders in his company, Karsh has a more pressing social and moral responsibility to ensure that major American newspapers remain free from the corrupting influence that the Koch brothers have brought to nearly every sector of society.”

        Paging barfman. Also, citation needed.

        1. Legally, that fiduciary one is the only one that matters.

          1. Yeah, like the president of Oaktree Capital Management is going to put his neck on the line for a bunch of idiot college students.

            I never read the Chronicle when I was there, and it looks like I made the right decision. This also validates not spending any time around the undergrads.

            I am considering writing an op-ed in response. Any suggestions/good one-liners I can steal?

            1. “My belief in free speech is so profound that I am seldom tempted to deny it to the other fellow. Nor do I make any effort to differentiate between the other fellow right and that other fellow wrong, for I am convinced that free speech is worth nothing unless it includes a full franchise to be foolish and even…malicious.”

              – H.L. Mencken

              ^ Use this quote somewhere if you do. This is one of the best free speech quotes because it blatantly says ‘Yes, free speech exists for assholes, enemies and scum as much as for anyone else.’ I think liberals protesting the sale of a newspaper to the Kochs would do well to read this quote, think about it, and then consider whether they want to live in a society where the sale of a newspaper can be stopped by the worst sort of heckler’s veto.

              1. I like it, but what is the …?

                Was Mencken doing a dramatic pause or is there more to the quote?

            2. Mention their support of the gay marriage bill in New York.

              1. I will definitely use that. I was thinking of listing the not-so-conservative things they’ve done, but I did not think of that one.

                I would love to write a snarky and derisive letter pointing out how the Koch bros hate is ignorant and unfounded, but that never works. I think I’m going to go the Russ Roberts/Kling route of killing them with kindness and thoughtfulness. Neither approach works on liberals but at least I won’t come off as an asshole.

      2. Typical Milennial progtard–equates not changing his stance and completely agreeing with him to being “unproductive.”

        Nuke universities today.

    10. “Spangher is personally opposed to the sale”

      Personally opposed? Well, if that means the same thing in this context as in the context of abortion, it means Spangher will do nothing to stop the sale, will fight to keep it legal, and will support the sale with tax money.

  8. Incarcerated felon writes letter thanking the NRA for opposing background checks, says he can’t wait to get an illegal gun after his release.

    1. And I can’t wait for him to get shot trying to rob an NRA member.

    2. Gee, I wonder how much he got paid for that, and by who?

      1. Yeah, exactly. Pull a stunt much?

      2. Pelosi sent him some boudoir photos.

        1. hmm, so he will be forced to view them until he goes and purchases said gun?

        2. *barf*

          1. At this point, Nancy has to use jumper cables as nipple clamps.

            1. Don’t start, NutraSweet. You know where this road leads.

              1. A deep cycle marine battery?

                1. NOT AGAIN

          2. yeah… it might be even more effective than ipecac

      3. Let’s ask the NSA!

    3. Fuck, I read the comments:

      I don’t understand NRA members and gun rights advocates in general who say that background checks won’t deter people from getting guns but, then, are STILL opposed to background checks. If they don’t deter, then why oppose them?

      And re. the argument that SOME criminals will STILL be able to get guns: That’s true.

      But what law is 100 percent effective? People still drive drunk, even though it’s illegal.

      And anyway, doesn’t making the seller/ gun donator criminally liable for skirting background checks make it somewhat less likely that the background check will be skirted?

      1. Fuck, I read the comments:

        You poor bastard…

    4. Huh? How the fuck does he think he will do that?

  9. The number of child casualties in Afghanistan is up 27 percent over last year, with at least 414 children killed or injured in the first four months of 2013.

    And nothing else happened.

    1. Smaller graves are better for the environment.

      1. “How can you kill women and children?”

        “It’s easy! Ya just don’t lead ’em so much!”

    2. 414 future terrorists prevented or unsaved.

  10. http://www.washingtontimes.com…..lfillment/

    Nancy Pelosi, “late term abortions are sacred ground to her”. Remember kids, all of the religious nuts are on the Right.

    1. She’s doing it….for teh childrenz…

    2. Catholic women fired back at Mrs. Pelosi.

      Uh-oh. *Now* you’ve gone and done it, The Washington Post.

    3. I like that line about “fulfillment”. Is that what we’re calling cronyism now?

    4. Nancy Pelosi, “late term abortions are sacred ground to her”.

      So just what death cult does Pelosi belong to? Kali-centric Thugee? Heaven’s Gate? Palestinian cult of martyrdom?

      1. Reformed Molochian

      2. I wouldn’t be surprised if she were involved in Heaven’s Gate at some time or another…

        1. Pelosi was involved with the movie that destroyed United Artists?!?

          1. Also yes probable.

          1. That “G” still looks like a Packer’s logo to me.


      Ceterum censeo Pelosia esse delendam

  11. He also said the government is doing everything it can to get surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden.

    I doubt he used to term whistleblower.

  12. http://www.weeklystandard.com/…..35178.html

    Obama giving out bumper stickers to show your support of Obamacare. Coming to a Pius near you.

    1. Oh, they’ve had those for a while now. The first time I saw one I knew the person in the car was potentially retarded so I kept my distance in case they decided they wanted cake. They all want cake.

      1. Yes. They will go across a highway median and into oncoming traffic if they think cake is over there. Give them a good distance and keep them in front of you if you can.

        1. I once saw one on a car with Oregon plates, and I knew I had to get away immediately before the driver decided I was cake. It was quite frightening.

          1. You see the I (HEART) OBAMACARE stickers all over DC. Depending on my mood, I just flip them off as I pass.

            1. You see the I (HEART) OBAMACARE stickers all over DC.

              You wouldn’t think would be the case being that Obamacare is going to make them all quit to avoid having to pay much higher premiums.

        2. WHO’S GOT CAKE?

          1. My bumper says: “F the President”

            1. Best part is you never have to take it off after each election.

      2. Actually these bumper stickers could serve a useful purpose in telling you which cars are being driven by people who are functionally retarded.

    2. I always want to stop the people with Obamacare bumper stickers and ask them if they own stock in health insurance companies but I don’t know if I would laugh uncontrollably or shake my head sadly when they’d say no.

  13. a business transaction now banned by officials who want to end the flow of pot tourists

    I’m kind of wondering why you would want to discourage tourism by people who want to go get stoned and chill out. Do they discourage tourism from English hooligans who get wasted and loud and puke in the streets?

    1. Yeah, why not ban pints?

      1. Because, dirty hippies, or something?

      2. Already been done in England. Although they only banned glass pints, you can still get plastic pints. Yeah, you thought the world couldn’t get any more retarded.



      *punches nearest person in the face*


    3. When I would go to Montreal as an undergrad, I always thought it was weird when the guys at the border tried to question and intimidate us. I always thought “It’s pretty obvious that the 5 of us are going to go spend about a day and a half in your country while spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars”.

      1. What did they hate the strippers on St. Catherine’s Street? Did they not want those girls to make living?

        1. Dude, come on. The term is Canadian Ballet.

        2. While full contact lap dances are an interesting novelty, we were more interested in being able to drink in public.

          1. What do you mean by “in public”? Because when I lived there, open containers were one of the few things you might actually get ticketed for.

            1. I am guessing the younger drinking age. I went to college in a border-ish town and tons of Americans would come up to enjoy the extravagant relative freedom of a less-insane drinking age.

              1. Yeah. We got Ontarians too!

      2. Well, that’s because the border guards don’t care about tourism. They’re not politicians or local business owners. They took that job to question and intimidate people. And they did.

        1. They took that job to question and intimidate people.

          And they don’t have the stones to become actual cops. Cops sometimes have to deal with people who are actually dangerous, not college kids looking to have a good time.

    4. Do they discourage tourism from English hooligans who get wasted and loud and puke in the streets?

      No, and the marijuana doesn’t chill them out either.

    5. Apparently they weren’t good for the other businesses in town. Like they would zip in from over the nearest border, buy, and zip back, presumably to Belgium.

  14. Cafe owners in the Dutch city of Maastricht face prosecution for selling marijuana to foreigners ? a business transaction now banned by officials who want to end the flow of pot tourists.

    Tourist dollars are yucky.

    1. ALL dollars are yucky.

      1. Mainly because you filthy heathens won’t wash properly.

    2. Half the Italians between 16 and 25 fill up the place and act like soccer hooligans. It ain’t pretty, or safe.

  15. NSA Chief drops hint about ISP web and email surveillance.

    This is one of those “not wittingly” moments that are very telling. We know what they can do with metadata from phone calls, imagine what is possible from knowing every email header and website that you’ve visited.

    1. If they can get cell phone calls, they can certainly get all of that.

      1. I am certain that they are capable of getting much more than just cell phone metadata. And honestly, I’d be more surprised to find out they aren’t already.

    2. “I don’t want to make a mistake” and reveal too much, Alexander said, adding that disclosing details about such surveillance would cause “our country to lose some sort of protection.”

      Do these guys realize *at all* how ridiculous they sound?

    3. This is why I visit porn involving all genders and races instead of focusing on one particular fetish.

    4. Headers? Shit, I thought Congress was trying to pass a law saying that the 4th amendment covers email. I’m guessing that they get the whole thing.

  16. http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyf…..ar-on.aspx

    Ron Paul says there is a war on Christianity. heh.

    1. Rand Paul, John. And you wonder why you’re not taken more seriously. And I say this in pity, not in anger.

      1. Yeah Tonio, I lose so much sleep worrying about whether you take me seriously. Project much?

        1. Don’t worry, John. Nobody takes you seriously.

      2. Don’t want to be fact checked? Post accurate info.

        1. You just stay on the job there Tonio. You are out there in America’s toughest neighborhoods doing God’s work.

      3. Are yall still having your little cat fight from this morning?

  17. Via Instapundit:

    Washington Post writes article about how expensive it is for the president to go to Africa…

    Josh Marshall claims it’s because they’re racist.

    Wapo has story on the immense costs of taking black presidents on trips to Africa

    These people are insane.

    1. I can’t remember a President R or D who didn’t at one time or another get called out in the media for taking expensive trips. And Marshall isn’t insane so much as he is stupid and vile.

      1. Cardinal ACK! ?@megapotamus 47m

        @joshtpm That nigger ran for office strictly for the bennies. No surprise there since he has no understanding of anything more weighty.

        Indeed, Cardinal Ack! Indeed.

        1. I may have to re-think my total Twitter ban…

    2. Will one of our intrepid DC area commentariat please track down Josh Marshall and punch him right in his smug douchey little face? I’d do it myself but I don’t live in Der Cesspool and I’m too busy to take off work and fly out there no matter how much I may want to.

      1. EJ Dionne is my top priority. This Marshall character will just have to get in line.

        1. Beware the fists of fury!!

        2. Challenge him to put up his dukes first, just so everyone nearby can laugh at his tiny, baby hands.

    3. Josh Marshall. If there were a God, Josh Marshall would’ve had the onset of ALS symptoms by now.

      I bet this guy doesn’t even have the aggressively metastasizing case of cancer he so richly deserves!

  18. Feminist writers wonder why the gaming industry is sexist considering that half of video gamers are women.

    For some reason, rationality and the profit motive don’t seem to apply to women and people of color when it comes to the entertainment industry. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to squeeze more profits out of international audiences, and out of young men, who seem pretty comfortably served themselves by blockbusters’ takeover of Hollywood. But apparently when it comes to women and non-white people, once again, we’re the tapped-out exception, rather than a potentially profitable rule.

    Um, racist, sexist, market failure?

    1. Probably because they buy the games anyway. Why would I change what I’m doing if the people who might be offended buy my product regardless?

      1. It’s most likely because the vast majority of said people who ought to be offended, aren’t.

    2. we’re the tapped-out exception

      So…she wants to “get tapped” more.


    3. Gee, someone doesn’t want to spend millions to make a video game for a market that overanalyzes everything and seem to be looking for any excuse not to buy a product?

      Must be racism.

    4. Are half of video gamers really women? Wow, if that’s true, that’s a huge increase from just probably 10 years ago. Of course, I probably don’t know what the fuck I’m talking about. But if I do, isn’t the fact that women have fully matched the market share of men mean that game companies have gone out of their way to produce titles that attract women?

      1. If you count every woman who plays Farmville on Facebook or bejewelled or Angry Birds on their iphone, that is probably true. But making up half of the population of gamers is not the same as making up half of the “market” for video games. Maths is just really a brutal mistress for feminists.

        1. Yeah, all the stats I have seen on this (and I just investigated those cited, and they don’t give enough info to say if this has changed) indicate that if you count social, mobile, and casual online games, women make up half. But if you’re talking console gaming or “real” PC gaming, it’s still a guy thing.

          1. IN other words, men are where the money is.

        2. Yeah, what John said.

        3. Yeah, they are probably getting their data from something like this which includes mobile and web browser games in the data. I’m sure if it were just console and actual installed PC games the numbers would be way different.

          There are an increasing number of girl gamers out there, but I just can’t put the angry birds/farmville people in the category of “gamer”

          1. I’ll make a rule: if you’re not killing things and blowing shit up on at least a 22″ screen, it’s not “gaming”.

          2. Can Fifty Shades of Grey be turned into a game? I’m not a gamer, so I have no idea.

            1. Fifty Shades of Grey would be easy to make into a video game. Just take the Twilight videogame and re-skin all the characters.

              1. Just take the Twilight videogame and re-skin all the characters.


              2. There’s a Twilight video game?!?

                What am I saying, of course there is. When does the GoT game come out?

                1. There’s a Twilight video game?!?

                  Sure there is!

                  1. Hey Ash, Whatcha Playin?

                    Girl Games.

                2. Crusader Kings 2 came out a while ago.

      2. they probably count shit like angry birds and words with friends.

      3. Perhaps, just perhaps, it’s because NORMAL women don’t think like feminists think they should think?

        1. Thank you. I am already sick of this bullshit “50% of women are gamers HURR DURR” statistic that you just know they are going to cram down our throats for years to come. Just because more men tend to like Activity X than women is not cause for concern in the mind of anyone sane.

          If not liking video games is another thing that makes me a thoughtcriminal to feminists, however, I can live with that.

      4. isn’t the fact that women have fully matched the market share of men mean that game companies have gone out of their way to produce titles that attract women?

        Yes. And they produce plenty of games that appeal mainly to women. See John’s comment re: farmville and all those other stupid social media games

    5. My favorite comment on the subject was from a Slate article where some woman wrote that the only reason games like Mass Effect allow you to choose the protagonists’ gender is so you can get some lesbian sex scenes.

      1. Fuck, I can’t believe I didn’t have a female Shepherd character just to have lesbian sex with that blue chick in ME1 and hot, hot whatever her name (Miranda?) is in ME2.

    6. blockbusters’ takeover of Hollywood

      Takeover? What was there before?

      1. Her panties are just in a wad because they don’t make enough movies like The Notebook or The Lakehouse or some shit for her tastes.

    7. Not suprisingly, this comes out at around the time of E3. Sure half of the gaming public may be women, but women don’t play console games which is what E3 is all about.

      Go back to serving me coffee in CafeVille or whatever stupid Facebook game you play, Alyssa.

    8. “or some reason, rationality and the profit motive don’t seem to apply to women and people of color when it comes to the entertainment industry.”

      They need to come up with a plantation game where you can beat and rape the slave women and go off hunting the runaways.

      For the diversity.

      1. Django Unchained: The Video Game.

    9. Men spend over $300 a year on games. Women spend about $80. Fuck bejeweled and farmville. This 50 percent bullshit is so tired. Like, wage gap tired. Debunked so often that it’s ludicrous we’re still hearing about it.

    10. The industry gives a shit about where its money comes from. If half of gamers are women, but they spend about $20 a year for games on their phone and Facebook, then they don’t matter as much as the teenage brodude who spends $600 a year for every iteration of Call of Doody and Madden that the industry shits out.

      There’s also the fact that the industry is sexist because there aren’t a lot of women in it. Maybe to some extent that’s because it is already sexist, but if that were enough to stop women from entering an industry, they’d all be barefoot and pregnant. But game production is mostly technical trades, and often has shit life/work balance, so the people most drawn to it are going to be smart young men, who for any number of reasons may have acquired fairly misogynistic attitudes over the course of their lifetime.

  19. If I were to chart out what pro-harassment as a political movement looks like, therefore, it’s this:

    Belief: Bitches ain’t shit.
    Goals: To feel free to put any random woman in her place both for the immediate pleasure of doing so and for the long-term gain of women feeling stuck in second class status.
    Tactics: Inundate any woman who pushes back against harassment with even more harassment, hoping to make the price of speaking out so high that women give up.


    1. So Ms. Marcotte’s talking about Palin, Bachmann, Ann Romney, et al? Right?


    2. Does anyone who says “bitches ain’t shit” actually mean “women”? I mean I am constantly dealing with bitches and at most half of them are women.

      1. In the original source, “bitches” clearly refers to all women:

        Bitches ain’t shit but hoes and tricks
        Lick on these nuts and suck the dick
        Get the fuck out after you’re done

        -William Carlos Williams

        1. Plenty of male tricks out there, yo.

          1. But are male tricks “bitches”?

            There needs to be more rap lyrics analyzed the pages of Explication.

          2. Also, Ice Cube girl with a b.

        2. From the same poem:

          I used to know a bitch named Eric Wright
          We used to roll around and fuck the hoes at night
          Tight than a motherfucker with the gangsta beats
          And we was ballin’ on the motherfucking Compton streets

          You fail at Modernist poetry.

          1. So was Eric Wright a hoe or a trick? And what does “ballin'” involve in this context? Ot “tight”?

            The death of Eazy-E is starting to make more sense.

            1. I’m going to propose the Bitch Uncertainty Principle. It seems bitches are quanta and exhibit hoe-trick duality. Check out the gender shift in the stanza:

              I used to know a bitch named Eric Wright
              We used to roll around and fuck the hoes at night
              Tight than a mutharfucka with the gangsta beats
              And we was ballin’ on the muthafuckin’ Compton streets
              Peep, the shit got deep and it was on
              Number 1 song after number 1 song
              Long as my muthafuckin’ pockets was fat
              I didn’t give a fuck where the bitch was at
              But she was hangin’ with a white bitch doin’ the shit she do
              Suckin’ on his dick just to get a buck or 2
              And the few ends she got didn’t mean nothin’
              Now she’s suing cuz the shit she be doin’ ain’t shit
              Bitch can’t hang with the streets, she found herself short
              So now she’s takin’ me to court
              It’s real conversation for your ass
              So recognize and pass to Daz

              1. Yeah that verse is wild. Strangely I can’t think of people like Wu-Tang or Biggie actually using bitch anywhere near as interchangeably, and a quick look at some lyrics suggests they did not. Is this the REAL East Cost/West Coast division?!?

                  1. If you have something bad to say about “Dre Day,” I think you should say it to my face, HM.

                    1. Just an observation.

                      The only “bad” thing I have to say is that it’s no “Nuthin’ But A “G” Thang

                    2. Acceptable.

              2. Maybe if you are a bitch long enough you become a bitch physically.

                That’s why Tulpa’s scrotum split down the seam and his balls fell out.

                1. Did he really have any balls in the first place?

                  1. I’m using them off-label for a 3rd testicle.

                  2. I think Tulpa was born male, but I accept that his balls might have been artificial fro a long time.

      2. Seems like “bitch” is a favorite term of endearment for each other among my gay friends.

    1. Fuck the Irish!

      1. I thought Dora was latina or something. I wouldn’t have guessed Irish.

        1. *slow clap*

    2. Nothing left to cut!

  20. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the…..me_in.html

    People are totally misunderstanding the significance of white deaths outnumbering births. The significance is not “the brown people are taking over” (insert horror or glee depending on which side you are on). It is that white people tend to make up the bulk of the middle and upper classes. The statistic has nothing to do with race and everything to do with class. It means our upper and middle classes are not having kids, which by implication means most of our next generation is coming from the poor. That is not a good thing. And worse still, it is a situation the government has pretty much created by making it so damned expensive to have a kid. Kids are luxury items for the middle and upper class.

    1. I like that liberals think this is a good thing, despite the fact that it means the wealthy are disappearing and won’t be there to rob anymore.

      What do they think will happen to their grand socialist utopia when the upper class no longer exists to plunder?

      1. They don’t think. It shocks them every single time socialism turns into hunger and misery

      2. Then they will become the upper class. I once saw someone describe class warfare as primarily the upper middle class waging war on the upper class, because they wanted to replace them and move up to the top spot. Considering the college-educated good-salary-making makeup of a lot of class warriors, there might be some validity to that.

        1. But then, the new upper-middle class will wage war on them! It’s a never ending cycle of class warfare!

          The only winning move…

          1. No. Then you ruthlessly suppress the formation of a middle class so there is no upper middle class to do it to you.

            1. The winning move!

              1. FINISH HIM

          2. Is to nuke them from orbit?

            It’s the only way to be sure.

        2. I once saw someone describe class warfare as primarily the upper middle class waging war on the upper class, because they wanted to replace them and move up to the top spot.

          Orwell? From Emmanuel Goldstein’s The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism:

          “The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim?for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives?is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again.”

      3. it means the wealthy are disappearing and won’t be there to rob anymore.

        I suspect the definition of “wealthy” will expand to maintain the entitlements they’ve come to expect.

    2. That’s always been the way of things: births in the lower classes have always been out of proportion with births in the higher classes. In America, this has worked out fine up till now because there was sufficient economic liberty and industry that someone from the lower classes would, in all likelihood, end up as part of the middle class in due course.

      The more redistribution and less economic liberty we have, the more ossified the classes become (as is the case in parts of Europe), as redistribution and welfare tend to raise the reservation wage and regulation imposes entry costs on would-be entrepreneurs.

    3. You get subsidized for kids if you’re poor, not if you’re middle class or better. So what happpens?

      1. Yup. Add to that poor people are under little or no social pressure about kids. If you are poor, you can raise a kid cheap and no one will care. If you are middle class, the whole world will be up your ass if the little snowflake suffers so much as a single privation.

        1. indeed. and they all think you should have your kids involved in 10 activities, or you’re a bad parent. And that shit is really expensive.

          1. ^^THIS! You should see how shocked the other soccer moms are when I tell them I just want my kids to play outside after school…..then they hear my politics and I never see them again. Wonder why?

      2. How is the middle class not subsidized for having kids? They still get tax credits and free schools that I have to pay for.

        1. heavily subsidized food (food stamps), free lunch programs at schools, subsidized daycare, medicaid.

          There’s a lot

    4. It’s natural for birth rates to decline in wealthier nations, it’s not just government policy driving it. Also, it’s important to note that the Asian population (which is also mostly middle and upper class) is the fastest growing in the country, as is the mixed race (research shows that white-Asian couples make more money than white couples regardless of gender configuration, and that white-black and white-Hispanic couples make more when the man is white, and less when the woman is white)

    5. As one of the middle-class white people contributing to this trend, I think I speak for a lot of my peers when I say that one of the primary reasons for this is that getting married and having a kid seems self-evidently insane to me. If I were to make a list of the pros and cons of entering into the absurd socio-legal institution known as marriage, the “pros” side would say “Uh…some tax breaks, I guess” and the “cons” would run off the page.

      1. Darwin 1 paranoid android 0

    1. OK, posting a link about something already covered in the comments is understandable, but if you post a link about something that Reason already covered on H&R earlier in the day, you should have to wear the Cone of Shame.

      1. But then he can’t fit through the door to pee and he’ll just whimper and pee on the floor!

  21. “And worse still, it is a situation the government has pretty much created by making it so damned expensive to have a kid.”

    [citation needed]

    I’m middle-class and have no kids, so I don’t get the multi-thousannd dollar deduction on my income taxes.

    1. I don’t get the multi-thousannd dollar deduction

      That’s because you don’t deserve one. You are truly evil for choosing not to have children.

  22. Another gem from the comment boards at NPR:

    I keep reading posts by people who are positive that this NSA program is unconstitutional but, I am reminded that there were lots of people who said for 3 or 4 years that Obamacare was unconstitutional and turned out to be WRONG. So, lets just have one of your libertarian organizations file a case and let it work its way up to the Supreme Court and find out. OK?

    Goddamned fools…the whole stinking lot of them.

    1. Reality is contingent on what 9 lawyers in robes say.

      1. The problem is that it is. Sorry, unfortunately the constitution is largely worthless.

        1. No, someone with a gun to your head saying that the sky is green doesn’t change the color.

          1. When “reality” is just a bunch of words on a piece of paper, it is. Nicole is correct.

            1. No, what is constitutional is independent of the Supreme Court’s opinion. They only affect what the government is going to treat as constitutional.

              1. Which, in practice–as in how it affects you–is the reality.

                Once again, words on a piece of paper only mean something as long as enough people think they do.

    2. Everything the Supreme Court says is the final law. They are like Gods up there.

    3. And the ACLU which is usually the darling of the NPR crowd has filed suit about the NSA program. The ignorance and team hackery are worthy of [redacted] here.

    4. I am reminded that there were lots of people who said for 3 or 4 years that Obamacare was unconstitutional and turned out to be WRONG.

      All those idiots who argued against blacks riding in the same train car as whites must feel awfully foolish right now.

      1. …blacks not riding…

        Ah, fuck it.

      2. I’m sure they also feel the same way about Citizens United

  23. Where is the cake everbody was talking about? 🙁

    1. Lies, Tim. All lies.

      1. Man, I loved playing Borderlands.





    Terrance Brown, 40, is on trial in South Florida for allegedly conspiring with four other men to hijack armored trucks delivering cash to banks in 2010. All have pleaded not guilty. But now Brown has come up with a unique defense: he wants the National Security Agency to turn over his phone records to the court to demonstrate his innocence.
    The case, which is taking place in federal court, involves phone records ? the FBI and prosecutors have been using cellphone records to demonstrate the men’s locations near the robbery attempts. The prosecution said that it was unable to get cellphone records from the time before September 2010 because the phone carrier had destroyed the records.

      1. This defense could be used by thousands and thousands of people and not just for criminal cases. This is quite the can of worms.

    1. That…that’s awesome.

  25. Some retarded shit from Rolling Stone.

    Freshman Republican Jim Howell, a trim 46-year-old Air Force veteran who represents suburban Wichita, has now introduced a bill that would force nearly all public buildings in the state to allow people to carry concealed weapons inside ? unless those buildings hired armed security guards and install metal detectors, which, of course, would be prohibitively expensive for most cash-strapped municipalities. Gun-free “safe zones,” Howell insists, should actually be rechristened “dangerous zones.”

    Howell is soon joined by an ally, freshman Republican Allan Rothlisberg of Grandview Plaza, a retired 30-year Army veteran who is the approximate shape and shade of a Red Bartlett Pear. Rothlisberg goes even further than Howell, arguing that public buildings which banned guns should be held liable for any shootings. When one incredulous Democrat asks if Rothlisberg is familiar with a recent “slaughter of 10-year-olds in Connecticut,” Rothlisberg drawls, “I’ve been familiar with slaughters of people in gun-free zones for years.” Later, he adds that the 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech had been “absolutely [the school’s] fault.”

    There is zero argument presented as to why he’s wrong. You’re just supposed to take it as a matter of faith.

    1. When one incredulous Democrat asks if Rothlisberg is familiar with a recent “slaughter of 10-year-olds in Connecticut,” Rothlisberg drawls, “I’ve been familiar with slaughters of people in gun-free zones for years.” Later, he adds that the 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech had been “absolutely [the school’s] fault.”

      Democrat asks. Republican drawls. Fucking culture wars, man.

      1. The DERP! IT BURNS!!!

        Seriously, you’re in a discussion about gun-free zones and you bring up ANY school shooting??? How retarded do you have to be to not realize that it was a shooting IN A GUN FREE ZONE? Jesus, this is Tulpa levels of stupid.

    2. Well, all right-thinking people can just see that this is common sense.

    3. Well, he is wrong. The shooter is “absolutely at fault”.

      Though the schools sure as hell made it easier on him.

    4. There doesn’t have to be argument. These people are living examples of the old adage about the danger of people not believing in God is not that they won’t believe something it is that they will believe anything. This is nothing but a religion. People go insane and pick out some totally irrational scapegoat for their problems every few years. In the 1980s it was child molesting satanic cults. In 17th Century Massachusetts it was witches. Now for liberals, it is guns.

      1. That 80s hysteria was started by religious groups like Jim Baker’s organization. I remember seeing a newsletter they published in my grandmother’s living room claiming infiltration of the military by pedophile Satanist as early as 1981.

        1. But they DO have priests in the military.

          1. Oh yeah, good point.

        2. Oh yeah. But it was picked up on by all sorts of others. It took on a life of its own. The people who were prosecuting the McMartin preschool and the Amirault case were not fanatical evangelicals. They were crazy cops, DAs and social workers. One of the worst offenders was Janet Reno.

        3. And don’t forget teh ebil Dungeons and Dragons!

          Anyone else get told they were messing with the powers of the occult and that Satan was trying to brainwash them? All because that damnable Gygax made us roll the bones.

          1. And running your Led Zeppelin record backwards. Late 70s and early 80s evangelical preachers were the best. Those guys had style. It was some fun shit being 11 years old and thinking, hey, I have got the word of Satan right here!!

            1. Shit like that may have been amusing to you and me, but I had friends who’s dumbshit parents confiscated their music and comic books and whatever for fear of satan. It sucked to be those kids.

              1. Trust me, I know. I WAS one of those kids. There were certain friends that I was not allowed to hang out with simply because they played D&D. Little did my mom know that I had satanic cult meetings (read: RPing) out in the woods by our house all the time.

                Playing “The Temple of Elemental EVIL” at 2 am in the creepy woods is quite fun.

                !drol si natas

                huh, where did that come from?

          2. Worse than that. One former school councilor had his career sidelined by manic depression. He is a long time friend of my extended family due to growing up being high school buddies with my uncle. His kid was a friend of mine. Went in to the Marines, married a pretty Japanese girl, had a beautiful daughter, and moved back after the service. A year later, he commits suicide.
            I ran in to his dad at a gathering a few years after that. He blamed the suicide on D&D, not knowing that I was the one that organized our local group and DMed it (still doesn’t know). It was obvious to everyone his suicide was the result of inheriting his dad’s mental affliction, but I really don’t blame his old man for wanting to deny it.

          3. We weirdly had a Legend of Zelda instruction book in our house. I asked where the game was and my parents realized the book had been passed around their church as an example of how children were playing with the occult.

            1. When I was little, I sometimes felt left out because everyone else went to church and we didn’t. It’s good to be reminded of how little I missed.

              1. I never felt left out. The few times I had to go to a church or slept over a friend’s house and then went to Sunday School with them, I hated every second of it. I taunted them for having to go.

                1. I said “sometimes”. Then I’d go spend a weekend at grandma’s and get dragged to church, and I’d remember that church fucking sucks. Although it was pretty funny when the Sunday school teacher would ask me questions about Jesus, and I would stare blankly at her.

                  1. Yes, going to a Sunday School class and having no fucking clue what the hell they were talking about was hilarious.

                    “So in Ecclesiastes 7 through…where’s your bible?”

                    “My what? I don’t own a bible.”

                2. Our services were two hours and often ran long. I went to church to placate my folks until the pastor told me that I shouldn’t have picked up the Eucharist because my heart was not right with god, so I tossed it in the trash and haven’t been back.

    5. Also you Sugarfreed that shit.

        1. How far right fanatics hijacked Kansas? Are they still on that ‘What’s the Matter With Kansas?’ train of bullshit they’ve been riding for 20 years now?

          1. Yep. And getting increasingly panicked that it’s doing fine.

    6. Hm, I am not familiar with a recent “slaughter of 10-year-olds in Connecticut.” I thought they were in kindergarten.

      1. Facts only get in the way.

        1. They really do get a hard on from dead kids don’t they?

          1. The younger and blonder the better.

            1. Which is what Omaba’s ambassador to Belgium was into as well.

            2. Yeah. Suppose that instead of Newtown that shooting had happened in North Philadelphia and the shooter rather then some depraved Aspy had been a black man or some foreign brown person. Maybe I am cynical, but something tells me they wouldn’t have cared so much about Newtown. Dead black kids just don’t count as much.

              1. The really fucked up thing is they’ve made this a Pavlovian response for themselves now. They got so addicted to the feeling of the possibility that this shooting might get them a ban that they’re now preternaturally excited at the prospect of murdered children. I guarantee that many of them would, deep down, love to see another Newtown.

                1. They’ve been saying for years that you gotta break a few eggs.

                2. I would say most of them. The kids at Newtown are not real to these people. The kids are just props in the liberals’ little morality play. If the dead kids actually meant something to them, they wouldn’t act like they do.

                  1. Of course. But what I was saying is that it’s gone further than they just don’t care about the kids, I think it has moved into, deep down, “I hope we have another Newtown because if we do than we can finally ban those guns once and for all”. Actively wishing for death and terror.

                  2. Of course they don’t actually care about those kids. That would require a conscience. Literally, as the news was breaking, several of my lefty friends started ranting on various social media sites about how we need to ban guns because they kill children.

                    Those same people were the ones that acted all outraged over the “politicization of dead kids” when the NRA released a statement on how they thought we could best defend the children A WEEK LATER!

    7. a retired 30-year Army veteran who is the approximate shape and shade of a Red Bartlett Pear


      1. When I read that I thought – “why is it that you never hear similar comments about legislators like DiFi?”.

        The obvious answers are 1) wrong team to deride and 2) most people’s stomachs are too sensitive for that kind of verbal torture.

  26. Obvious research finding of the day:


    Elderly Americans living with children are more unhappy.

  27. This article has all the highlights.

    A) equating lack of desire for marriage on a males part as equal to women yelling “slut” at each other

    B)No recognition of the virgin shaming (apparently, there’s nothing wrong with that. Just ask Marcotte)

    C)Tying it together with rape.

    Seriously. The entitlement in this article is insane. Check this out:

    Slutty Joan is just another statistic tossed onto the mounting pile of evidence of girl on girl crime, in which sexism is inflicted on women by other women. But lately, the public fascination with female infighting has threatened to let men?and really, the society we all live in?off the hook for hating on ladies who get around.

    Can’t have that, now can we?

    1. Where does your (a) come from there?

      1. The Cornell study itself didn’t rate male attitudes about promiscuous women (or vice versa), but as lead author Zhana Vrangalova told Science, that’s partly because “study after study has found that sexually permissive women are discriminated against by potential romantic partners.”

        Is feminist code for “he’ll bang me, but won’t settle down”. Notice that this is the attitude that they feel needs fixing. Men must conform to their wants.

        1. Okay. I guess I just didn’t take that as being about marriage per se. I would say “romantic partner” is “someone I bang,” but I may well not know all the codes.

          1. It’s a very common feminist complaint. I’ve seen all the euphemisms. “Discriminated against by potential romantic partners” is the most common. They use “romantic” and not “sexual” there for a reason.

            1. Hm, yeah, that’s definitely weird to me, just in terms of my own personal usage, because like I said, “romantic partner” sounds like nothing more than a euphemism for “sexual partner” to me.

              1. Well, that is because you are probably used to banging people you like, who like you in return (Wild guess! Not meant to be Othering!). The feminists and PUA’s seem to mostly dislike the opposite sex and their sex lives seem to involve a lot of shame and weirdness which could not properly be described as “romantic.”

                1. I like that take on it. I was thinking I was just being old-fashioned.

                  Wait, I guess I am!

                2. It’s the Madonna/Whore dichotomy. Old as recorded history. PUAs and feminists have nothing to do with it.

                  And this false PUA/feminist dichotomy has been cropping up a lot her lately. PUA has absolutely nothing to do with men demanding that women change their ways. As exemplified in this article, feminism is very dedicated to making men change their ways.

                  If you’ve never had sex with someone you met that night at the bar, that’s fine. But it doesn’t make you superior, it just can’t be properly qualified as “romantic”.

                  Here’s a comment from the article, further reinforcing my point:

                  A lot of these brilliant people who would say a promiscuous woman is only worth ‘using’ for sex and that they would prefer a more chaste woman to marry don’t realize that shaming or ostracizing women for their personal intimate history can cause a woman to feel she has to hide, choose not to disclose, or lie about their number for fear of being judged….so….

                  Hah, nevermind, its not important. Carry on being double-standard perpetuating garbage.

                  1. Coeus, I think you don’t like the comparison because it’s unflattering, not because it’s not valid.

                    It depends on your definition of “demanding change.” PUAs have their panties in a bunch over women supposedly wanting to “marry up,” right? How is that different? They don’t like the women that do this, and do like the women they can trick into complying with their desires despite of this. Same goes with the sluts (NTTAWWT!), some feminists have their jockstraps in a bunch over people not liking sluts (in some contexts… they wouldn’t be sluts if no one liked them in any context). They are pissed off that (some) men are exhibiting a preference and like to loudly whine about it.

                    Now, if you can find more examples of the feminists whining for government intervention (and I wouldn’t necessarily be surprised), that is another level of shitty. But the root of the butthurt is the same.

                    1. PUAs have their panties in a bunch over women supposedly wanting to “marry up,” right?

                      Wrong. They get agitated when people continually deny it. I have never heard of anyone with any following at all demand that women change. The whole damn point is that some behaviors, (whether due to genetics or socialization, doesn’t matter which) are hardwired, and prevalent over the majority of a population. They might say “if you want us to act differently, then you have to change your behavior as well”, but it’s not serious, cause they already know the vast majority will never change.

                      In libertarian terms:

                      Feminism: “give me what I want.”

                      PUA: “Fine, how are you going to pay for it?”. (jokingly, since they know they will never receive any incentive whatsoever, and any actual change is met with derision and disdain.)

                    2. I disagree. Both sides have ridiculous and unrealistic views and expectations of the opposite sex, which cause them to say lots of remarkably derogatory things about the supposed objects of their sexual attraction. The PUAs may have resigned themselves to the fact that the behaviors they don’t like will not change, but that is about the only difference I can see. They both have a fundamentally shitty and fucked up view of the opposite sex.

                    3. Both sides have ridiculous and unrealistic views and expectations of the opposite sex, which cause them to say lots of remarkably derogatory things about the supposed objects of their sexual attraction.

                      The difference is that the unrealistic views of the feminists are the ones that the PUAs used to share. They’re the same rediculous views. PUAs are typically bitter for a few years when the blinders come off, due to the magnitude of the con. Imagine if almost every man that you trusted in your life (father, brother, friends)gave you rules and tips for dealing romantically with men that were not only unhelpful, but actively counterproductive? Would you not be a little bitter? It wears off fairly quickly, and they just become resigned to it after awhile.

                      Feminists stay bitter, because they wear the blinders for life, and if people don’t work like they are told that they’re supposed to, they blame men.

                      A more accurate pairing would be feminists/Nice Guys (another feminist coined phrase). You know, those guys who are bitter because they act exactly how feminism has trained them to act, and all they receive from women is active disdain.

                      That’s what makes guys bitter, and it’s merely a residual in the PUA community that wears off over time.

                    4. The PUAs may have resigned themselves to the fact that the behaviors they don’t like will not change,

                      And libertarians have resigned themselves that people with money and power will not change. We believe that one has to remove the ability of government to cater to people.

                      Progressives believe that they can change fundamental behaviors, and in doing so, keep the ability of Government to cater.

                      Are progressives and libertarians basically the same, then?

                    5. Well, I would argue that libertarians’ complaints are valid in that they are opposed to actual acts of coercion or force. PUAs’ complaints are not about their being coerced or forced in any real sense of the word. Their complaints that cause them to hold such low opinions of women are coming from a whole different set of entitlements/expectations.

                    6. Their complaints that cause them to hold such low opinions of women are coming from a whole different set of entitlements/expectations.

                      Exactly. Feminism. Already addressed this above.

                    7. PUAs’ complaints are not about their being coerced or forced in any real sense of the word.

                      No, as previously addressed, their complaints are that they have been and continue to be lied to by friends, family, media and whole branches of academia, in direct contradiction to observable fact.

                  2. Coeus, I just want to be clear that I’m not saying the issue of “complaining about how guys won’t marry me because they think I’m a slut” isn’t real, I just 100% would never have thought anything involving the phrase “potential romantic partners” was talking about marriage, because for me that’s a euphemism for “potential sex partners.”

                    1. I just 100% would never have thought anything involving the phrase “potential romantic partners” was talking about marriage, because for me that’s a euphemism for “potential sex partners.”

                      Ahh, understood. No it’s a very common euphemism with them. It can also mean “long term” as opposed to just marriage. But they never mean just sex. Remember, if most men felt that “sluts” weren’t potential sex partners, how the hell did they get their numbers so high?

  28. It’s time for, “misrepresent a study that you disagree with.” And the best part is that any criticism that they levy, whether it’s true or not (several of them are untrue) applies to the majority of the studies they point to when demanding legislation and money.

  29. How in the f did Michael Lind write a third column about what idiot children libertarians are? Seriously?

    1. Damn it, I just ate.

    2. Because no one had heard of anything he’s done in about a decade. He wrote a dumb article that got his name out there. So he wrote a bunch of follow ups to the only article of his that anyone has paid attention to in years.

      It’s not that hard to figure out. He’s trolling because he has no actual career.

      1. “It’s not that hard to figure out. He’s trolling because he has no actual career.”


        (And I also hope some of the bite from comments here in Reason left a mark!)

    3. My god:

      Writing in Reason, Ronald Bailey cites the spread of particular liberties since the eighteenth century as evidence that the entire world is becoming libertarian. But he ignores the fact that the welfare state and business regulation have grown up together with democracy and civil liberties.

      So has prohibition and intrusive spying. Guess they’re essential as well. Christ, this guy is an idiot.

      1. My favorite part is where he’s like “no, Will Wilkinson’s completely 100% logical takedown of my post is wrong, because libertarianism is a ‘system’ while women’s suffrage is only a ‘policy.'” Doh.

        1. Well, Democracy is a ‘system’ and Wilkinson’s criticism relating to women’s suffrage applies equally well to Democracy.

          His entire argument is basically special pleading. There’s not much point in arguing with someone so dumb.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.