Congress Expresses Bipartisan Concerns About Surveillance, Juror Wanted More Laws So She Could Convict Zimmerman, Cuba Claims Arms Found in Ship Bound for North Korea: P.M. Links

|

  • Who is going to pitch a reality show about hunting drones?
    Source: A&E

    Top Obama Administration officials from the Justice Department and National Security Agency received tough questioning about the extent of their surveillance systems from members of both parties today at a House committee hearing. But will anything come of it?

  • One of the jurors in the George Zimmerman trial told CNN that she wants new laws that would have allowed her to convict him.
  • Cuba claims the weapons seized in the Panama Canal on a North Korea-bound ship were theirs. They are obsolete Soviet-era arms being sent to North Korea for repairs, allegedly.
  • The small town of Deer Trail, Colo., is considering an ordinance that would license bounty hunters to shoot down drones that intrude on its airspace.
  • Nelson Mandela's daughter says the man's health has improved dramatically and hopes he'll be home soon. He has been in a hospital for more than a month and turns 95 tomorrow.
  • A republic – if you can keep it. A poll has one-third of Americans saying the First Amendment goes too far. Last year the number was 13 percent.

Did you write about liberty between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013? Reason welcomes you to enter this year's Bastiat Prize for Journalism, with a total prize purse of $16,000.

Have a news tip for us? Send it to: 24_7@reason.com.

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

NEXT: Vatican Says Tweet Your Way To Heaven

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. A poll has one-third of Americans saying the First Amendment goes too far.

    By what right do they have to say such a thing???

    1. I defend to my discomfort your right to say it!

    2. I think 1/3 of Americans can go fuck themselves.

    3. Students should be made to recite the Bill of Rights every morning, not the damn Pledge!

    4. The fact that they can state an opinion about our foundational document should give them pause. Morons.

    5. The 1st Amendment? Isn’t that the one that states a father can marry his own daughter?

      1. It’s the one that prohibits cops from sleeping in your house unless they have a good reason, I think.

      2. Its the one that says you shall have no gods before Obama.

  2. A republic ? if you can keep it. A poll has one-third of Americans saying the First Amendment goes too far. Last year the number was 13 percent.

    Fuck.

    1. Yup…if I actually believed that polls were anything other than pure shit and sometimes propaganda.

      1. Here is the “full report”.

        At least you can still sing offensive lyrics.

        1. Thirty-six percent of Americans cannot name any of the
          rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

          So, more people have no fucking clue what’s in 1A than those who say it goes too far. I suspect people are confusing 2A with 1A, or that people are too stupid to live.

    2. “…you, that’s why”?

      “…you, cut spending”?

      “…-ing rights, how do they work”?

  3. The future of Bernie Ecclestone in Formula One has been thrown into doubt after the sport’s chief executive and commercial rights holder was charged with bribing a German banker.

    1. Isn’t that F1’s entire business plan?

      Red Bull is almost ready with his robot body, where he’ll upload his consciousness into. Allllmost there.

  4. Gore site owner charged over video in Magnotta case

    The owner of an Edmonton-based website that hosted a video of Luka Rocco Magnotta allegedly stabbing and dismembering Jun Lin, a 33-year-old Chinese national, has been charged with one count of corrupting morals under the Criminal Code.

    1. Real snuff is illegal.

      Fake snuff is legal.

      1. tell that to your anatomical snuff box.

  5. They are obsolete Soviet-era arms being sent to North Korea for repairs…

    Mr. President, we cannot allow an obsolete Soviet-era arms gap!

    1. God damnit Fist! You beat me to it!

      1. Mr. President, we cannot allow a gap comment gap!

        1. I’m eager to mind your gap, Fistie.

      2. Team America is more appropriate, anyway…

    2. So, Kim Jong-Un is basically the Bob Vila of the international arms trade.

      1. “Today, on This Old Ballistic Missile?”

      2. They missed the load of old cars being shipped to Cuba from NK for repair.

  6. What does Canada’s new anti-spam law mean for individuals and businesses?

    The legislation starts from the standpoint that sending any “commercial electronic message” is illegal. The law then goes on to craft certain exceptions to the default rule. These exceptions are limited and will be challenging for companies to comply with.

    The penalties are stiff, up to $10 million per violation for a company and $1 million for individuals.

    1. who gets the money?

      1. The “victims”?

        /HAHAHAHAHA

        1. So a Canadian PenalTax then?

      2. Well, there are these people who go to a special school where they are taught how to move money from some people to themselves.

    2. I presume election advertising isn’t illegal.

      1. In Canada? It might as well be.

      2. Election advertising wouldn’t be “commercial”.

        1. Politicians want to get their hands on my money. That’s commercial.

          1. In any sane world, it would be considered criminal.

  7. One of the jurors in the George Zimmerman trial told CNN that she wants new laws that would have allowed her to convict him.

    Anonymity is her best defense from attack, not spouting this drivel.

    1. I’ll repost what I put up in a dead thread:

      It’s predictable, and comports well with Adam Smith’s other great contribution, ‘The Theory of Moral Sentiments’. People don’t like to feel their sentiments lie outside the common range allowed by their associates, so she is splitting the difference to get to an equilibrium level as to obtain a measure of comfort. It doesn’t matter if there is no logical basis for her to do this, negotiation is a greater human need than reason.

      1. I tend to go whole hog for analyses such as this, but can’t she just be a statist nitwit?

        1. Well this juror could be a statist nitwit.

          On the other hand we have judges often saying similar stuff the other way, things like “This sentencing I’m about to hand down is utterly ridiculous but I am sword to uphold the law no matter how ridiculous it is.”

          So I’d say the juror is just a plain shit-for-brains. basically she’s saying it’s OK to beat the shit out of someone within an inch of their lives and self-defense is only an argument if you eventually die.

          The idea that the law in the past could have gone so far to the “NO SELF DEFENSE WHATSOEVER” direction that she couldn’t fathom that the existing law was a reaction to the ridiculousness of THAT.

          In any event, this juror is certainly not my peer. I would insist on IQ tests for my jurors, and if the are not withing the same standard deviation as I then they are not a peer.

          1. “‘This sentencing I’m about to hand down is utterly ridiculous but I am sword to uphold the law no matter how ridiculous it is.'”

            Schild und Schwert der Partei?

          2. Which brings up an interesting point. Say if Steve Smith was caught after a rape and murder spree, and part of the evidence was that one of his victims had some of his wool and skin DNA under her finger nails where she tried to scratch him. Shouldn’t he be released at that point given she tried to defend herself against his attack and self defense is no longer considered legal or justifiable? Poor guy probably even needed bandaging after suffering the horrific counter attack.

            1. You joke, but the law in Britain is damn near to this.

        2. You have to remember too how one gets on a jury of a high profile case like this. You have to be someone who had never heard of zimmerman despite it being on the news for many months. So the jury is filled with people who don’t pay attention to anything in the world.

          So what do you think is the likelyhood of them being logically consistant or knowing anything about the legal system?

        3. She could just be hedging her bets in case the goons from Gawker decide to dox her.

    2. Yeah, but wheres the fun in anonymity?

    3. Wasn’t that an onion piece?

      1. When the hell did the onion go serious? That was depressing, not for its stupid whiny message, but because there was no bite to it. You coulda put it in the New York Times or WaPo or USAToday and not had a hint it was satire.

    4. She wants a new law to convict him of something! I mean, he’s on trial, so he should be guilty of something! Feelings should matter more than the actual law.

  8. A poll has one-third of Americans saying the First Amendment goes too far.

    And I say first amendment rights don’t go too far enough!

    1. OH HELL YEAH!

  9. NCAA, cuts off nose to spite face.

    The NCAA announced Wednesday it will not enter into a new contract with EA Sports and NCAA Football 2014 will be the last edition of the popular game.

    The move comes as the NCAA fights a lawsuit that demands the NCAA find a way to cut players in on the billions of dollars earned by from live broadcasts, memorabilia sales, video games and in other areas.

    1. But… It’s In The Game

    2. The NCAA is so fucking stupid. Will Muschamp got mad at Ohio St. the other day because their compliance staff reported a “secondary recruiting violation” to the enforcement people. The crime? Literally bumping into a potential recruit. Come on now.

      The fact that this organization seeks to hasten its decent into obsolescence fills me with joy.

      1. *Descent. Also, fuck EA. NCAA peaked with 2003, largely because I spent my sophomore year of college adding all of the player names to the rosters.

      2. When you say “their compliance staff” you mean Urban Meyer, right? Because it was totally Meyer trying to be Mr. Clean by ratting out his former team.

        1. I just go with what I read.

          According to an Ohio State spokesman, the university’s compliance office, after learning of possible illegal contact between White and Samuel, forwarded the information to the Big Ten office.

          Meyer told the Gainesville Sun earlier this month that he didn’t have anything to do with turning Florida in for the alleged violations.

          “It is absolutely not true that I turned in the University of Florida,” Meyer told the newspaper. “Weeks after, I learned our compliance guy [without any coach involvement] forwarded an article to the conference office. This is standard procedure. Once again, zero coach involvement.”

          Frankly, I don’t care who did it, and I would be completely unsurprised if it was the local compliance bureaucrat (they aren’t pleasant and rational folk). The fact that you can even get in trouble for such a thing is the part that’s stupid.

      3. Isn’t it “The Ohio State University.”
        Alex Trebeck was careful to phrase it that way on “Jeopardy” last week.
        Oh, and it is still “409 Wins.”

        1. Fuck Michigan!

    3. I tend to be skeptical of calls for college athletes getting paid (just let them go professional at early age like in the UK) but it is bullshit when the schools/NCAA profit off of the student’s likeness.

      1. I can see the argument against the colleges themselves paying athletes, especially publicly funded ones, but the licensing regime is grossly unfair and I really don’t see why boosters shouldn’t be allowed to pay recruits.

  10. One of the jurors in the George Zimmerman trial told CNN that she wants new laws that would have allowed her to convict him.

    Well if she doesn’t say that, all the media personalities and her TEAM BLUE friends will be mean to her!

    1. I BASICALLY ALREADY SAID THE SAME THING ABOVE.

      1. Yeah, but I said it funnier. So put that in your pipe and smoke it!

        1. Yours is full of vile spite, or spiteful vileness. And labels. And sarcasm.

          1. Isn’t every even numbered post on here vile spite and the odd numbers are spiteful vileness?

            And never enough labels?

            But absolutely no sarcasm… EVER!

    2. Or threaten to kill her

    3. So she’s a cosmotarian?

    4. It could also be that she really doesn’t think homicide should be legal, even in self defense. (Now let’s ask her how she feels about using homicide to prevent a rape.)

      1. Exactly. A FB friend spouted some drivel about Zim being criminal and I sent her 6 links to ‘Woman avoids rape by shooting would be rapist’ links.

        . ***crickets***

        1. But that’s different because they didn’t start the rape.

          /sarc

        2. Probably those women dressed like sluts and deserved it. Don’t women understand that the duty to retreat includes retreating from comfortable clothing? Go buy some chastity belts fercrissake!

        3. Obviously those women should never have left their car.

          1. Obviously those women should never have left their car kitchen.

            FIFY

            1. No, I didn’t. Nevermind.

  11. Nelson Mandela’s daughter says the man’s health has improved dramatically and hopes he’ll be home soon.

    MSNBC, CNN, CBS News and The New York Times credit President Obama’s recent visit for the turnaround.

    1. He’s getting better!

      1. He’d like to go for a walk!

        1. Exclamation marks are fun!

        2. He feels happy!

  12. It’s a rigid air ship and its filled with non-flammable helium.

    t Goodyear’s current fleet of three blimps — based out of Akron, Pompano Beach, Fla., and Carson, Calif. — is aging, and the company announced in 2011 that it had decided to replace the airships with zeppelins, which are longer, faster, quieter, and more maneuverable than blimps.

      1. YOU WANT TO BLOW US ALL TO SHIT, SHERLOCK?

        1. What part of this aren’t you getting? The core concept, perhaps?

    1. I’ve been trying to get tickets to ride on the Goodyear out of Carson for about 5 years now. Apparently, you have to be dying of cancer or some kind of charity case to get them….

      1. Start your own charity, find a foster kid dying of cancer and be their escort.

        1. Just give a kid cancer; cut out the middle man.

      2. Expensive. Pretty much won’t happen for us lowly peasants. I was talking with a Goodyear bigwig at a party a few years ago, and he said he couldn’t get a seat.

        1. They aren’t for sale at all, from what I understand. The PR dept donates tickets to charities to action off. I heard that a pair of tickets went for $10K when all of the grey whales were popping up in waters off of the South Bay beaches.

          I need to find a really low-end charity event where I stand a chance of winning the auction…

    2. You want to blow us all to shit, Sherlock?

      1. [SLAP] All caps is the tie breaker.

        1. JESUS, FIST, THE HELIUM!

    3. Rather than scrapping these blimps they should fill them with hydrogen, park them over the desert and charge $10/person to watch them go up in flames.

      1. …although, this is a non-smoking area.

    4. filled with non-flammable helium.

      Fuck that, use hydrogen. Save the helium for party balloons and MRI machines.

      1. It’s alright, I hear there is enough helium-3 on the dark side of the moon to power this country for a thousand years and we only have to blow up some NAZIs to get it.

        1. I thought we just had to clone Sam Rockwell over and over again.

          1. That was a fucked up movie.

        2. Maybe we can recruit Sarah Palin to go to space war with them.

    5. There’s your bomber right there! Beardsly McTurbanhead.

    6. Non-flammable? Helium is the stuff that the sun burns! That’s even worse than hydrogen!

        1. Don’t you mean He?

      1. The sun is still burning hydrogen. It won’t start burning helium until it runs out of hydrogen.

        /science pedant

        1. It will still have 90some% of its hydrogen left when it goes to burning helium.

    7. Since we’re talking LTA, I want one of these.

      http://www.aeromodeller2.be/

  13. Self-defense is just an example of white privilege

    America has always been hooked on self-protection. Citizens are encouraged (and protected by law) to bear arms and stand their ground against perceived intruders. When a racist country is that obsessed with self-defense, the safety of men with white privilege ? even those who, like George Zimmerman, have a record of abuse ? takes precedence over the welfare of everyone else.

    The six-woman jury (five white, one hispanic) that acquitted George Zimmerman of second-degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin, a black teenager armed only with candy, never learned that Zimmerman had a long history of violence against women.

    [Snip]

    The court’s decision to ignore Zimmerman’s pattern of violence reveals “a system of power that dismisses the experiences and voices of survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence as invisible and untrustworthy,” writes Salamishah Tillet at The Nation. We’ll go one step further: it reveals a system of power that prioritizes the experiences and voices of men who are “just trying to protect themselves” without exploring the reasons why they’re so paranoid in the first place.

    Emphasis added

    1. Fever. Swamp.

    2. If you’re white or male you shouldn’t have due process rights. You will be tried for crimes against the black race and women.

      I think someone should seriously right a short-story about a dystopian future where such a court system exists.

      1. That short story would be preachy as fuck and I hate that sort of thing.

        Even if I agree with the political position of a story, I get annoyed when they slam their political beliefs in my face.

    3. How can one be “obsessed” with self-protection? Are we supposed to be suicidal?

      1. Just nihilistic. I don’t care if that young man puts me in a coma. It beats watching Honey Boo Boo.

      2. “obsessed” is jezzie-speak for what we would call prudent or prepared.

      3. A person can definitely be obsessed with self-protection; I know such a person. There are serious trade-offs between safety and having a life.

        Mind you, none of that makes the Jezzies any less full of shit.

        1. And I’m not denying that there are people with obsessions, but they aren’t under discussion here.

          Jezebel has a long record of psychopathologizing groups they don’t like.

          1. I was merely replying to HM — he set up the question…

            1. Fair enough.

          2. You know who else had a long record of psychopathologizing groups they didn’t like?

            1. Freud and cigars?

          3. The American left in general psychopathologizes groups they don’t like.

            I have it on very good authority that the only reason anyone is in favor of the second amendment is because he yearns to use the gun as a replacement cock due to impotence.

            1. Any port in a storm, I guess.

      4. You’re supposed to do what the teachers and police and other authorities say! And don’t be a hero! That’s for police and firemen and teachers.

    4. Well, I just realized why (at least some of) these people hate self-defense (from above):

      the safety of men with white privilege…takes precedence over the welfare of everyone else

      Self-defense is too individualistic. That’s why they hate it. No one can stand outside the collective and protect themselves; it has to be done by agents agreed upon by the collective.

      These people really, really want to be insects.

      1. What was the Frank Herbert book (not his best work) about the hive people in California? Prescient.

        1. Hellstrom’s Hive.

        2. Hellstrom’s Hive was great. Maybe not his best, but probably his most unnerving and scary.

        1. “Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State…. Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms the State as the true reality of the individual.”

          1. So perhaps closer to modern lefty speak?

            “Against individualism, the Progressive conception is for the Federal Government; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the Federal Government…. Libertarianism denies the State in the interests of the particular individual; Progressivism reaffirms the Federal Government as the true reality of the individual.”

            Change the phrasing a bit to modern style and you could get your typical obama voting college kid to nod in agreement.

      2. Defending yourself without the help of the state isn’t democratic; in fact it’s pretty independent, so it’s definitely teh evil.

      3. If everyone defended themselves, it could result in “disparate impact.”

      4. Correct. It isn’t “fair” that some people put more thought and effort into their own safety than others do. Taking the time to learn how to use a firearm is “privilege.” Barf.

      5. Self-defense is too individualistic. That’s why they hate it. No one can stand outside the collective and protect themselves; it has to be done by agents agreed upon by the collective.

        These people really, really want to be insects.

        That’s it. Someone who prepares to defend himself is accepting the reality that the Glorious Collective can’t and won’t do it for him. As Darth Holder would say, he finds your lack of faith disturbing.

    5. If you only read articles like this, you’d come away with the impression that self-defense is a defense only used when a white (Hispanic) man kills a black guy or a woman.

      1. The self was socially constructed by the likes of Descartes, Locke, Kant, etc. (dead white males), so… yeah!

    6. Self-protection is My Anti-Drug

    7. We’ll go one step further: it reveals a system of power that prioritizes the experiences and voices of men who are “just trying to protect themselves” without exploring the reasons why they’re so paranoid in the first place.

      So, let me get this straight.

      Zimmerman exhibited a “pattern of violence”, and self-defense is now “paranoia”?

      Hmm, maybe the First Amendment *does* go too far. 8-(

    8. You know who wasn’t allowed to defend themselves? Slaves. A slave was supposed to just stand there and take it, whatever it was, and never, ever raise a hand to master or any of master’s overseers.

      Why does Jezebel want us to be slaves?

      1. Because they imagine they’ll be the ones holding the whips.

        1. In a Harvey Korman voice: “Kinky?”

          No, not with the Jezzies…

    9. a black teenager armed only with candy

      What does candy have to do with taking a guy down and punching his head into the ground?

      The court’s decision to ignore Zimmerman’s pattern of violence

      What does an accusation of DV have to do with the facts of that day?

      “a system of power that dismisses the experiences and voices of survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence as invisible and untrustworthy,” writes Salamishah Tillet at The Nation.

      Our judicial system, in theory, deals in sworn testimony, physical evidence, reasonable inference that can be drawn from evidence, and expert testimony. The moral outrage of vocal minorities does not, and should not, play a role in determining the guilt or innocence of accused parties.

      it reveals a system of power that prioritizes the experiences and voices of men who are “just trying to protect themselves” without exploring the reasons why they’re so paranoid in the first place.

      Because, as the “survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence” should appreciate, when seconds count, the police are minutes away. That a restraining order is ultimately just a piece of paper. And that world has plenty of people willing to do violence to others when they have no legal or moral right to do so. When you can’t count on the police or the good will of the person who wants to harm you, then the responsibility to protect your life rests with you.

      1. Our judicial system, in theory, deals in sworn testimony, physical evidence, reasonable inference that can be drawn from evidence, and expert testimony.

        That’s just a bunch of complicated jargon that really means “mansplanations.” Duh.

      2. The court’s decision to ignore Zimmerman’s pattern of violence

        Along with the court’s decision to ignore Martin’s pattern of burglary and drug use.

        Seems the court did the correct thing as this wasn’t an issue of character. Unless people think Martin was justified in killing Zimmerman for following him.

    10. WotansWoodUpigasus21L
      Federal Civil Rights laws apply.

      He was stalking African-Americans with the intent to kill, injure or illegally restrain them. He murdered a child based on that child’s race.

      Ten to twenty years is my prediction. Yesterday 6:38pm

      1. I like the argument that Martin was a ‘child.’ He was a minor, but was a few months away from his 18th birthday.

        Liberals are basically calling a grown black man ‘boy’ and don’t realize how racist it is.

        1. When I was Trayvon’s age I had finished boot camp and was already assigned to my first platoon in the Marine infantry. Maybe not yet a hardened warrior but not a child by any realistic description.

          1. And the “child” called his GIRLFRIEND on his cell, not his father back in the condo, and not 911, like Zimmermann did.

            I would tilt to thinking that since he called his girlfriend, he was not so much afraid he was being followed, but getting himself all macho’d up for a confrontation.

    11. The six-woman jury (five white, one hispanic)

      Wasn’t it three whites, two hispanics, and a black woman?

      1. Walking into a bar…

  14. “White Coke” made for Marshal Zhukov to resemble vodka. Sneaky, fuckin’ Russians.

    1. Fucking racist Coke.

      1. I wonder if the “White” moniker wasn’t a poke in the eye at a “Red” general.

    2. Something tells me Jan Warner is a big backer of gun control for the little people.

      But, I bet the thought going through his head as this photo shoot was being arranged, was ‘what the 21st century needs is a Che to call its very own.’

      1. Squirrels?

      2. How did that get in a thread about coke? Oh, yeah, Jan Warner.

    3. Seems like it would just be easier to leave out the caramel color altogether, rather than adding it and removing it later.

      1. They may have had to remove even natural colors?

        1. There was Crystal Pepsi, as you may recall. IIRC Coca-Cola would be clear without the caramel coloring, as playa suggests.

          1. Now I have that Van Halen Crystal Pepsi Super Bowl commercial stuck in my head. Thanks a lot.

            1. Right here, right now? Well, that sucks.

    4. Can I call a Rum and “White Coke” a #whiterage?

      1. White Cuban?

        1. White Privilege. Now the be-monocled of all colors and backgrounds can enjoy the refined taste of the oppressors.

        2. White Hispanic?

          Zimmerman?

  15. Marcotte: Racist, sexist, and egregiously dumb on guns in one convenient article!

    Given that Martin wasn’t engaged in any vandalism, the “these people” she’s referring to are not “vandals” but “black people.” B37 thinks Zimmerman was doing the right thing and simply “went above and beyond.” Above and beyond, in this case, meant stalking someone minding his own business, assuming, because of his race, no doubt, that he’s one of the “assholes” who “always get away,” and scaring him for no reason. This is the “above and beyond” that led up to killing Martin, but for some women, like juror B37, the image of the chivalrous knight protecting the white women from the scary black teenagers (with their bags of Skittles) overwhelms all common sense.

    […] This myth that the world is full of scary people who are out to get you white ladies works. Plenty of white women are so worried about the imaginary threats lurking outside their door that they don’t pay any mind to the real problems that threaten us: economic inequality and lack of health care access. Sure, there’s crime, too, but 80-90 percent of rapes are committed by someone the same race as the victim. White women have more to fear from the men deemed our protectors than the ones we imagine are out to get us.

    Rape is the only crime that matters.

    1. Thank you for reading this shit for us so we don’t have to.

      1. Bu fuck you for posting it on here and making us read it anyway.

    2. the real problems that threaten us: economic inequality and lack of health care access.

      HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

      1. But not rape, I guess?

      2. I feel bad about it, but I find myself hoping that she gets mugged. Maybe she’ll have a little more sympathy for people’s perfectly rational fear of black male teenagers, who commit a hugely disproportionate portion of violent crime.

      3. Don’t forget fracking and GMOs!

    3. tr;dr

      1. I see what you did there. Very nice.

      2. racist? (the first “r”, that is)

        1. Retarded.

    4. Plenty of white women are so worried about the imaginary threats lurking outside their door that they don’t pay any mind to the real problems that threaten us: economic inequality and lack of health care access.

      I hope some homeless guy knocks her over the head and steals her fucking iphone. What a stupid bitch.

      1. How is anyone harmed by economic inequality? I honestly want to know. If everyone today has $100, and tomorrow half of the people have $150, no one is worse off.

        Why can liberals not understand this?

        1. No one is harmed by income inequality. They are harmed by being fucking poor. If it was the equality instead of the poverty, we could make everyone poor and no one would be harmed. Of course, a nitwit like Marcotte probably believes that.

        2. They can’t understand it because mentally and emotionally they have never progressed past the S’NOT FAIR!!! S’NOT FAIR!!! stage of their development.

    5. I find it ironic that she is talking about imaginary (or overblown) threats, when her and her ilk are trying to convince everyone that white men are an existential threat to black men. She even mentions that rape is mostly an intraracial crime, but then fails to mention that the same is true of murder.

    6. She cites a “raw, moving article in The Nation” in which the author laments that the female jurors did not empathize with Martin like they should have because of their maternal instincts.

      Holy Hell, it’s 2013 and feminist writers are digging up shit arguments from 1910 that were used to argue against female suffrage.

      1. That’s what makes it so hilarious and so obnoxious at the same time!

      2. “Gosh, why didn’t those women empathize with the thug committing an unwarranted violent assault? It’s a conundrum, I tell you!”

    7. Wait, didn’t we just hear that B37 wanted to put Zimmerman in jail?

      1. Coincidentally, B37 is a vitamin that sciences shows is necessary to make you racist.

    8. because of his race, no doubt

      Well, that was easy. If you don’t doubt it, it must be true!

    9. So she starts the paragraph with this:

      This myth that the world is full of scary people who are out to get you white ladies works.

      And ends with this:

      Sure, there’s crime, too, but 80-90 percent of rapes are committed by someone the same race as the victim. White women have more to fear from the men deemed our protectors than the ones we imagine are out to get us.

      So white women should arm themselves to keep themselves from being raped by white men?

      Makes sense to me.

      1. So Amanda is saying black women ought to automatically fear black men?

        RACIST!!

      2. The only women I have known who I know were raped were white women raped by black men. I guess Amanda think they shouldn’t be concerned, because they’re only 10-20% of the cases.

      3. but 80-90 percent of rapes are committed by someone the same race as the victim

        But, of that 10%-20% of rapes that are “inter-racial”, what do you think the percentage that are committed by blacks?

        The FBI has it at over 90%…

    10. Okay, suppose, just suppose there are homes in the neighborhood being burglarized and/or vandalized.

      Do you think the burglar or vandal would be a 50ish grandmother? A mom in her 30s with twins? A guy in his 40s who sells cars?

      Or maybe a 17 year old male who spends time in the neighborhood but doesn’t live there full time. Black or white or hispanic, that’s your demographic.

  16. I hope Ms Jenteal will take Mr. Joyner up on his kind offer.

    Radio host Tom Joyner has offered Rachel Jeantel, Trayvon Martin’s friend who gained national prominence after testifying at George Zimmerman’s trial, a full college scholarship to any historically black college in the country.

    1. “I will help you get tutors to get out of high school, tutors to pass the SAT. I will give you a full-ride scholarship to any HBCU,” Joyner said.

      1. Well, he’s obviously a realist.

        1. And a racist.

          1. And a racist.

            Considering two “historically Black colleges/universities” have a minority African-American student body, how so? How is an HBCU more “racist” then say, Yeshiva University or any “tribal college/university” in Indian Country?

            1. Both are in West Virginia. They just ran out of blacks before they got to 50% (or 20%, for that matter).

            2. It’s not that an HBCU is “racist”, HM; Joyner is racist because he did not say “I will give you a full-ride scholarship to *any* university”. Perhaps Ms. Jeantel would prefer to attend Harvard.

              1. True, but then again, looking at the difference in tuition between Harvard and your average HBCU (which tend to be some of the most affordable colleges), an HBCU might be all he can afford out of his own pocket.

                But yeah, Joyner is probably a racist.

                1. Joyner is black so he can’t be a racist.

                  /derp

                  HM is half black, so do the math.

        2. Given the current market for higher education I’m sure he can find a school that will take her and graduate her in exchange for his money.

      2. Jenteal reminds me of this great Sanford & Son moment:
        http://youtu.be/5qzRSU2NWmE?t=16s

    2. Good for her. Perjurers get college scholarships, whistleblowers get chased out of the country.

      God Bless Motherfucking America.

      1. I notice she’s referred to as Ms.Jenteal, and not “a child”. The child who was Mr. Martin’s friend, who he called that night.

  17. A poll has one-third of Americans saying the First Amendment goes too far. Last year the number was 13 percent.

    Something something oogabooga dark money!

  18. Please, everyone, I beg you: resist posting Zimmerman related stuff. Unless it’s on the Zimmerman Telegram. That would be fine.

    1. Damn Krauts trying to incite the Mexicans to take over Texas…good thing we have gun rights and SYG laws!

      Oops…

    2. How about stuff regarding National’s third baseman Ryan Zimmerman?

    3. How about the Doctor on Voyager?

      1. PASS.

      2. Voyager

        I think you answered your own question.

      3. Voyager to the Bottom of the Sea?

        1. Voyager to the Bottom of the Ratings Chart

          Great headline…or Greatest headline?

    4. How about George Zimmer? You’ll like the way you look.

  19. Cordray appointment approved. In deal to save filibuster, we get entire new bureaucracy!

    http://mobile.bloomberg.com/ne…..ntial.html

  20. Lindy West’s new piece on body hair

    If there are two things I know about body hair, they’re that 1) it’s hair and it grows out of your body; and 2) no matter what you’re doing with it, you’re a terrible person. That’s pretty much where my knowledge ends. Our culture’s messaging on body hair is so convoluted and politicized and contradictory at this point that it’s hard to know whether I should be shaving or waxing or growing my shit out or saving up all my strays so I can weave them into a merkin in the name of feminism (double-pubes!!!).

    I stopped shaving my legs like a year ago, but not as some noble fuck-you to beauty standards?it’s because that shit cuts into my SVU time. And do you know what happened? Literally nothing. I mean, more hair came out, and now it just lives on my legs. Leg hair! No big. Not one person has ever said a single thing about it. However, being a borderline-albino Norwegian day-wraith, I am blessed with invisible-hair privilege, so I can’t speak to the way other women choose to handle their leg hair. If mine were dark and coarse?making my laziness more visible and, thus, inherently more political?it’s possible that I’d feel differently. Not because I hate visible leg hair, but because I know how constant scrutiny can wear a person down. I couldn’t, in good conscience, impose that scrutiny on a woman who wasn’t ready for it.

    1. When Lindy West is standing before the throne of Christ Jesus in Judgement at the End Times, He will have one thing to ask her: WFT, man?

      1. WFT? Why Fucking That?

        1. Jesus doesn’t get much time to go to his ESL classes. Between performing miracles in the Levant and chatting with long-dead prophets, his schedule is pretty packed.

          1. Jesus didn’t get the Pentecostal gifts? He should really complain.

    2. If you keep posting this shit, I’m going to find you and I’m bringing Warty with me.

      1. So, how do you control Warty until you get there? Or is it just like being a bee keeper where you take into account that you’re gonna get stung in the process.

        1. Remember those Bugs Bunny cartoons where they tried to transport the Tasmanian Devil? Like that, but 100x

        2. He stays moderately calm when you explain to him that if he’s good, he gets to rape once he gets there.

    3. She’s just inferring she has a cute little platinum snatch and wants everybody to know it.

      1. “Cute” and “little” are antonyms of “Lindy West”.

        1. Yeah, but her self image runs more along these lines:

          http://hollypost.com/wp-conten…..nal506.jpg

          Its not her fault we misogynist pigs can’t see her true beauty because we are blinded by hate.

          1. Beauty is only skin deep…

            but ugly goes right down to the marrow.

      2. To quote Worf in ST:FC: “Little?”

    4. I think I’ve just been given a precious gift (from ESL Jesus? I’m not ruling it out): my work network has apparently decided to block Jezebel. Just think of all the things I’ll do, the wondrous places I’ll go, in the time I might have otherwise spent reading that retardation.

    5. my SVU time

      What is this? The time she spends pretending to be a special victim?

    6. “In my line of work, I get to know a lot of women. That one ain’t gettin’ laid”

      Silvio Dante

  21. Marcotte and fellow dim-bulb Jessica Valenti explain why Zimmerman was acquitted:

    Jessica Valenti wrote a raw, moving piece for The Nation expressing her dismay over the white women who fall for the myth that black men are inherently dangerous:

    When I first heard that the jurors were women, I na?vely hoped they would see this teenage boy shot dead in the street and think of their children. But they weren’t just any women; most were white women. Women who, like me, have been taught to fear men of color. And who?as a feminist named Valerie pointed out on Twitter?probably would see Zimmerman as their son sooner than they would Trayvon Martin.

    So feminism is now about chiding women as racist simpletons for not doing what you want. Remind me again how feminism is a pro-woman ideology…

    1. Bonus fuckery:

      The image in our cultural imagination of the fearful, gun-loving, I’m-not-a-racist-but white conservative?the kind that is currently applauding the fact that George Zimmerman literally got away with chasing down an innocent black teenager and shooting him dead?is almost always male. There’s good reason for this. The most vocal examples in the media are male. Gun collecting with visions of a race-riot-driven apocalypse in your head is mostly a male hobby. But the jury that set Zimmerman loose to roam the streets with his gun and paranoid crime fantasies again was all female: five white women and one Hispanic.

      1. the fact that George Zimmerman literally got away with chasing down an innocent black teenager and shooting him dead

        Because that’s exactly what happened. Were these people watching different trial coverage? Oh right. Nancy Graceless.

        1. They just tell themselves and repeat the same lies over and over again until it becomes accepted wisdom. Anyone who doesn’t think Zimmerman took off in a dead run and tackled Martin and shot him at point blank range is just a racist tea partier who wants legal sanction to do the same.

      2. Yep, it was the conservatives dreaming of a race riot…

    2. Is this the same piece A Frivolous Man linked to above?

      1. …maybe.

        *hangs head*

  22. The small town of Deer Trail, Colo., is considering an ordinance that would license bounty hunters to shoot down drones that intrude on its airspace.

    I can’t see how anything bad could possibly result from encouraging people to wildly fire up into the air purely for the purposes of political pandering.

    1. Or what happens to the first one who actually succeeds in knocking an expensive piece of Federal hardware out of the sky.

      1. Or what happens when someone mistakes an aircraft for a drone.

  23. America has always been hooked on self-protection.

    Excuse me while I go burn my dictionary. It seems to be out of date.

    1. So I am thinking it is okay to knock the shit out of these people with impunity, since they are clearly not hooked on that whole self protection thing.

      1. They don’t care about self protection, but they sure as hell will let some LEOs protect them from you… and your dog.

  24. It adds to the verdict’s credibility if one of the jurors wishes she could have convicted but conscientiously couldn’t. So much for pro-Zimmerman bias. She was looking for a reason to convict, but couldn’t find one.

    But I bet that won’t be the meme resulting from her interview.

  25. Proving that college kids are dumb, a group calling themselves the ‘Dream Defenders’ have taken over the Florida capitol demanding ‘Justice for Trayvon’

    On its website, the group posted, “Dream Defenders demand that Governor Rick Scott call a special session of the Florida legislature to address the issues at the center of the Trayvon Martin tragedy: stand your ground vigilantism, racial profiling and a war on youth that paints us as criminals and funnels us out of schools and into jails.”

    The group says many state laws disproportionately affect minority youth.

    The website states, “We are here to honor the memory of Trayvon Martin and pay respects to his family. This tragedy serves as a vivid reminder of the pain felt by our communities, in which we are profiled, criminalized and targeted. Unless we take action nothing will change. Saturday’s verdict showed the world that Florida has no value for the life of its children. This is an opportunity for Governor Rick Scott and the Florida legislature to prove their commitment to the next generation of Floridians.”

    “Together we are united in ensuring Trayvon’s unjust death was not for nothing. Our anger in the face of gross injustice has led us to take action but it is the love of our people and our community that pushes us forward. We are here because Trayvon can’t be.”

    1. Just to clarify: Nobody important is in the FL capital between June 1 and February 1. Although I do hope my former roommate’s commute is not disrupted by these idiots.

      The Governor’s mansion is about 3/4 of a mile north, idiots.

    2. SO Iguess they want that whole double jeopardy thing to be repealed. The government can try you as many times as they want. That will turn out well.

      1. To be fair, nothing in that said they want George Zimmerman retried, only that they want the laws changed to prevent similar occurences in the future.

        And on at least one of the points (“a war on youth that paints us as criminals and funnels us out of schools and into jails”) seems to be of the same mind as a lot of the Brickbat stories we see here about overly retaliatory laws being used to throw the book at youths for minor offenses.

        1. To be fair, nothing in that said they want George Zimmerman retried, only that they want the laws changed to prevent similar occurences in the future.

          So they want to make it easier to convict people of murder and make defending yourself more likely to subject you to criminal liability. And that is going to help minorities how?

          1. I’m not saying the proposed changes are good idea, but “OMG, THEY WANT TO REPEAL DOUBLE JEOPARDY!” is a grossly inaccurate description.

            And if the demands about wanting to decriminalize certain things are accurate, than at least some parts of the agenda are a good idea.

            1. anybody asking the the DOJ to get involved is asking for exactly that. But you are right, not all of them are.

    3. Look at the Judicial Watch report on inner Justice Dept. communications. Their hands are all over the bullshit protest.

    4. Dream Defenders aren’t a real group of college kids.

      They’re an astroturf organization created by community organizers and buoyed up by the Department of Justice.

      1. The DOJ official called Dream Defenders a “student group” and referenced the “students” talking at the meeting. (5:45 to 6:10) Yet none of the three members of Dream Defenders who were at the event is a student. Gabriel M. Pendas graduated from FSU in 2005. Vanessa Jennifer Baden graduated from FSU in 2007. Nelini Stamp never attended college. (10:20 to 11:00)

      2. Far from being a “student group,” the organization headed up by Pendas and two other non-students (including Stamp) is “Dream Defenders, Inc.,” a Florida corporation. (6:50 to 7:00; incorporation details here).

      3. Given the background of the three people who appeared on its behalf, there is reason to believe that Dream Defenders is an “astroturf” front group funded by the lawyers for Travon Martin’s family and/or ultra-left-wing big money sources. All three have long worked as paid political agitators.

    5. Fuck them.

      Nothing pisses me off more than a bunch of shitstains wanting to return to the barbarous era of a victim having to prove they tried to run away from an attacker before they defended themselves from serious bodily harm or FUCKING DEATH.

    6. I’m guessing the actual “we” mentioned in the statement are well-to-do white kids.

  26. Matt Yglesias evidently doesn’t read his own column:

    Debt and deficit hype is massively overblown in the United States and I have half a mind to scold Reynolds for mistakenly thinking that this is a big deal. But in fact precisely because debt and deficit hype is so overblown, if you were able to use your $92 quadrillion to wipe the entire outstanding debt away you’d be doing the country a huge favor?everyone would have to shut up about the debt! So that’s a huge win right there.

    This from the guy who only two days ago suggested that we ban usury.

    1. Debt and deficit hype is massively overblown in the United States and I have half a mind to scold Reynolds for mistakenly thinking that this is a big deal. But in fact precisely because debt and deficit hype is so overblown, if you were able to use your $92 quadrillion to wipe the entire outstanding debt away you’d be doing the country a huge favor?everyone would have to shut up about the debt! So that’s a huge win right there.

    2. I think at this point we’ve firmly established that Yglesias has the intellect of a hermit crab; can we fucking stop now?

      1. No, Matthew Yglesias is entertaining for the same reasons a car wreck is entertaining. He’s like a head-on collision at 70 mph. Then you’ve got Pauly Krugnuts who is like something out of a Michael Bay movie.

        1. The I guess I will hate Yglesias readers as much as I hate rubberneckers.

        2. This guy gets it. Matt is every youtube clip of skateboard fails, given voice.

      2. I’ve met a few hermit crabs and Yglesias is not that smart.

    3. Yglesias logic: Debt is bad when it is individual debt, and there should be bans limiting the amount of credit people can take out.

      However, national debt is completely irrelevant, and should be ignored.

      1. “Fallacy of composition!”

    4. To be completely fair, banning usury does not ban debt. It bans charging borrowers interest on their debts. It is still stupid but not inherently contradictory.

  27. SeaCaptain(Yokeltarian), I need your Steam ID to send you that game, if you want it.

    1. And his bank account number? Say, are you in Nigeria?

      1. My friend, this is a matter of utmost importance that we’ve discussed in greatest confidence.

  28. Space-time loops may explain black holes.

    Physics cannot describe what happens inside a black hole. There, current theories break down, and general relativity collides with quantum mechanics, creating what’s called a singularity, or a point at whichthe equations spit out infinities.

    But some advanced physics theories are trying to bridge the gap between general relativity and quantum mechanics, tounderstand what’s truly going on inside the densest objects in the universe. Recently, scientists applied a theory called loop quantum gravity to the case of black holes, and found that inside these objects, space and time may be extremely curved, but that gravity there is not infinite, as general relativity predicts.

    This was the first time scientists have applied the full loop quantum gravity theory to black holes, and the results were encouraging, researchers said.

    Sounds like a solid plan to me dude. Like wow!

    1. V.I.N.CENT will be so relieved.

      1. Starry, starry night
        Paint your palette blue and gray
        Look out on a summer’s day
        With eyes that know the darkness in my soul

        1. You know, I make a really obscure Disney reference, and no one gets it. Now, I should probably blame myself for being so obscure, but instead I blame nicole.

          1. I countered your obscure reference to V.I.N.CENT with appropriate lyrics from a song titled Vincent, and the result is you’re mad at Nicole?!

            Then I’ll have to do this more often.

          2. Hey, I just read the post, I got it! Not that obscure, I still have the novelization from the movie.

            1. The novelization is important since it actually explains what the hell is going on after they go into the Black Hole at the end.

              Although I still prefer the original Jules Verne version.

          3. I got it. One of the best Disney films ever made. Maximilian got a bad rap.

            1. Only Disney film to ever show a robot cuisinarting Tony Perkins’ still-breathing guts.

          4. It makes perfect sense to blame me, since I love palominos and Capt. Stransky, but have totally not seen that movie.

          5. I got it, what exactly am I supposed to come back with? That we’re supposed to take seriously all those people crammed into a tiny spaceship after the govt clearly loved to build giant ones?

          6. I got it, but didn’t reply. because you are a horrible person. Almost as bad as nicole.

          7. That movie was Disney’s first attempt at Star Wars…

            Ponder that and despair.

    2. Of course “black holes” might not exist and what they are seeing might be electrical phenomena.

      1. Or weather balloons.

    3. Huh. LQG is one of the alternatives to string theory, right? Curious to see if that proves a more fruitful area of research. Physics in some ways is kind of stuck.

      1. I just want a time machine so I can go back in time and prevent the Kennedy assassination.

  29. Health Plan Cost for New Yorkers Set to Fall 50%
    By RONI CARYN RABIN and REED ABELSON
    Published: July 16, 2013 648 Comments

    Individuals buying health insurance on their own will see their premiums tumble next year in New York State as changes under the federal health care law take effect, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced on Wednesday.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07……html?_r=0

    Cuomo discovers on-line market lowers prices!

    1. More like Cuomo discovers that if you force insurers to insure sick people, it gets very expensive (NY, up until now, did not allow for denials based on pre-existing conditions, but did not have an individual mandate). If you force healthy people to buy insurance, the insurance costs for those sick people will go down, because they’re being subsidized by people who are being forced to buy insurance where they otherwise would not have wanted to.

    2. “Cuomo discovers on-line market lowers prices!”

      Uh, predictions of lower prices /= lower prices, dipshit.

      1. Also New York started out as the most expensive state to get healthcare in to begin with. So this is likely just people in other states being forced to subsidize their insurance through the federal government.

    3. NY is one of the states that already created an adverse selection insurance death sprial via community rating and guarenteed issuance. The only people in NY individual pools currently are very sick people. Individual insurance in NY is something like $400 a month minumum currectly for a young person. Most states its under $100 a month.

      The rates now are only coming down because the mandate now forces all the healthy people back into the pools. But premiums are still going to be higher than in most states have currently, say around $200 a month minimum.

      This is only a case of one government fuck up having an effect on another government fuck up.

  30. I challenge you to find a more oblivious statement as it relates to Obamacare:

    I’ve got a new column up about the White House’s plans for the rollout of the Obamacare exchanges and I wanted to once again take the opportunity to lay down a marker and say once again that Obamacare implementation is going to be a huge political success.

    There are entries in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia that are more factually based than this turd.

    1. I plan on spending 2016 following him around with a giant placard with this quotation on it.

    2. Is it possible that Obamacare will be a “huge POLITICAL success”? There are all kinds of way the king & the press could spin this into a political (as opposed to health care or liberty) success.

      1. My prediction (which I have made many times here) is that Obamacare will be a big So What? by 2016.

        1. WIH does that even mean, dipshit?

        2. That’s because you’re a moron, Shriek. There is one Golden Rule to American politics, and that is this:

          If you force the middle class to lower their living standards appreciably for any reason, there will be hell to pay.

          Why the hell do you think SS and Medicare are so politically sensitive?

      2. Yes, it will be a success. For the Republicans.

      3. I doubt it. The law is too complicated and the individual mandate really pissed people off.

        If you were talking about having a public option, then I could see it becoming popular as people get attached to the entitlement — but the exchanges are cumbersome and confusing, the law complex, the benefits hard to figure out, the burdens on the employer (and thus, changes to employer-offered health insurance) so onerous, and the implementation problems so manifold, that it is difficult to imagine this ever becoming a political success story — much less a success in the near term.

        1. “but the exchanges are cumbersome and confusing”

          Are any actually running yet? CA’s is ‘in process’, but the guy running it is off the reservation and scared.

          1. They’re still in the process of setting up — badly.

            Somehow these setbacks will translate into huge political success.

        2. Remember, to minds such as these, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Ex-Im Bank, the CFTC, the Fed, and even the fucking Post Office are all a great success.

          1. SS is very non-complicated, though. It’s basically a redistribution scheme with very few bells and whistles. Obviously that is not a good thing for us classical liberals, but it’s politically popular *because* it is not complicated and provides a concrete benefit to a particular group.

            I don’t see how exchanges and the complicated schemata of Obamacare implementation will be anything but a clusterfuck, both politically and economically.

            1. Economically, I couldn’t agree more… But politically? I wonder if you can’t demagogue and cajole your way to making any clusterfuck politically successful.

              As for your reasoning on Social Security, I cannot agree for the simple reason that the average American does not appreciate how the system works. In fact, many believe that they have a “strongbox,” and even more fail to appreciate the Ponzi-insurance nature of the damn thing. However, my main point was simply about what shit-sheened charlatans like MattY think…

              1. They have been trying to sell the damn thing for 6 years, now with a drop in support as time has gone by.

                The SS check comes in every month from Magical Free Shit Land. That’s simple, even if people don’t understand the particulars (like there not being a “lockbox” and the fact that it’s just a taxation-redistribution scheme, when it comes down to it).

                Obamacare is complex on many levels, forces people to spend money on something where they otherwise wouldn’t, and is changing how their employer-provided healthcare works. Implementation and litigation is gonna be a bitch, and will be a problem for at least until the exchanges are fully armed and operational; maybe longer. Pelosi’s statement that we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it was a rare moment of honesty, and here’s the thing: you can only spin till the cows come home, when it affects middle class Americans’ living standards in a way that they can observe, Americans can be remarkably pragmatic and unsentimental in their politics.

                1. I hope you’re right; I just doubt that Americans are even that observant.

                  Causality is what politicians excel at obfuscating…

      4. They had to break it to find out how to fix it…

  31. I think the Zimmerman case has produced the greatest retard storm in my life time. I used to think the 2000 election was peak retard. But Zimmerman is blowing it out of the water.

    1. Just wait for the next retarded thing; it’ll be even worse. TEAM OUTRAGE is getting addicted to it. Newtown, then this; they absolutely love it.

      1. This is nuclear compared to Newtown. After Newtown they wanted to ban and confiscate all of the guns. After this they want to end the entire criminal justice system. They actually are advocating for an end to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury system, and the right of self defense.

        1. Yeah, a guy I consider to be pretty smart, but who is very very liberal, got incredibly pissed on FB when I posted that not guilty was the correct verdict because of reasonable doubt.

          He first sneeringly said he was glad I had a law degree to explain why that was the correct verdict, and when I asked him if he thought only lawyers should be on juries, he said that wasn’t the worst idea he’d ever heard.

          Then he tried to explain how it was reasonable to disagree with the verdict, even though that’s exactly the opposite of the reasonable doubt standard. If you can reasonably disagree, you have to default to not guilty, by definition.

          I think the problem is they’re getting this all twisted up into thinking that somehow the jury found Trayvon guilty of something, when he should be presumed innocent.

          1. They are just thinking tribally. Martin is in their tribe and therefore must be right. The rest is just rationalization.

            1. well, his people are a uhh … “protectorate” of his tribe. He wouldn’t actually want to be in the same tribe with them. That’d be pretty icky.

        2. Yes, they want the right to lynch defenseless people.

          1. ^^^ This!

            I think their idea is that who the defendant is, what group he is identified with, should be “factored in”, somehow, to whether he’s guilty or not.

            Reasonable doubt is only for someone in a politically protected group. “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit” is for O.J Simpson, but would never fly for Zimmermann.

        3. And the next thing will be nuclear compared to this. Don’t you see the pattern? They’re getting addicted to group outrage (more so than before, at least) and their echo-chambers just reinforce it. It’s almost as if they love losing the battle because they revel in the outrage more than they would revel in winning. Outrage is perfect for their twisted, hateful personalities, because they get to feel ultra, super righteous. If sweeping gun control had been passed without any fuss right after Newtown, do you think they’d have enjoyed themselves as much?

          The outrage is the point. And now that they’re addicted, they are going to look for the next idiotic thing they can get outraged about. And they will demand even more outrageous changes/concessions/whatever, because they’re starting to realize that’s how you get the best outrage boner.

          This is only going to get worse.

          1. Dude, the best part of being angry is feeling righteous, hands down.

          2. This is only going to get worse.

            Yeah it will. They seem to get their life’s meaning and value out of being pissed off. Even if you give them what they want, they will just go find something else to be pissed off about because being pissed off is what gives them a sense of meaning and purpose.

            I wish I could argue with you but I can’t. All they know is being pissed off and outraged. They don’t even care or bother to think what the effects of getting what they want would be. Getting rid of protections for the accused would be about the worst thing you could do to black people and young black men in particular. But they don’t care. All that matters is being pissed off.

            1. Exactly. That’s why what they demand has been getting stupider and stupider; the stupider the demand, the less likely it will be granted, and therefore they will be able to be outraged.

              Pretty soon they’re going to demand that the sky become green, since they’ll get to be outraged at the universe, and what better outrage is there than that?

              1. What does oxygen have to have eight protons? Who really needs more than seven protons?

              2. “Like, green is environmentally friendly, man. The sky SHOULD be green.”

          3. Holy shit! They’re Orcs!

            1. Indeed, with Epi’s description, I was thinking of John Gardner’s description of Grendal, who was an Orc after all and very much angry at the universe.

          4. Can we hope that they go to rehab for their addiction, then come out and OD on outrage?

            1. Can you OD on outrage? I doubt it.

              1. We can hope, can’t we?

                1. “If your outrage lasts longer than four hours, see a doctor.”

      2. And double jeopardy. The retards protesting at the Florida Capitol want the state to be able to try you again after you are acquitted.

        1. Seriously, do they not get who gets affected most if defendant rights and limits on state action are taken away or diminished?

          1. THey don’t care or even think about it. This is one time Episiarch is right. Being outraged and demanding something is the whole point. What they are demanding is immaterial.

            1. Let’s go with a different burden of proof when guns are involved. Or when the victim is a protected class. Affirmative litigation.

              1. Stop giving them ideas!

    2. I think the Zimmerman case has produced the greatest retard storm in my life time.

      Related to that: Opposing sides of Trayvon Martin case plan protests in River Oaks. It looks like the biggest race pimp in SE Texas not occupying a seat in Congress, is trying to organize a protest march through the one of the wealthier sections of Houston. Naturally, there’s a counter-protest planned. A previous protest blocked a major highway (SR-288, for those keeping score) with several motorists accosted and no arrests.

      This will end well. I already planned on being out of town this weekend.

      1. Quanell X is such a racist moron that he makes Sheila Jackson-Lee look like presidential material.

      2. Past Quanell X:

        “[i]f you feel that you just got to mug somebody because of your hurt and your pain, go to River Oaks and mug you some good white folks. If you’re angry that our brother is put to death, don’t burn down your own community, give these white folks hell from the womb to the tomb.”

        1. And then be outraged because people are “paranoid” about black teenagers, and “obsessed” with self defense.

  32. Individuals buying health insurance on their own will see their premiums tumble next year

    What are the odds this tumble will “unexpectedly” not materialize?

    1. It was in the Times Brooks. It must be true.

      1. Yep: All the Shit That’s Fit to Print.

    2. Oh, premiums will definitely go down. Then, a week later, the estimates will be quietly revised upwards.

      1. He, he, he! Check 24/7

    3. No, they’ll go down. Not as much as the article says, and it’s not an apples to apples comparison, but they’ll go down.

      NY doesn’t allow for denials based on pre-existing conditions. So insurance for most people on the individual market (most of whom were buying because they were sick) has been overwhelmingly expensive. Now that they can force people who don’t want insurance to purchase it, the premiums for those people will go down, because they’re going to be subsidized by the young healthy people that are being forced by the government to buy insurance.

      Now, what’s going to happen when young people decide it’s cheaper to pay the penaltax than it is to buy insurance? That’s another story, and it’s not factored into that calculation.

      1. That is a good question.

        It depends on if insurers in the exchange lower premiums to attract those young people.

        1. $95/year in 2014 is probably not worth their time, even for the young and healthy.

        2. “It depends on if insurers in the exchange lower premiums to attract those young people.”

          Dipshit, if you could make money doing that, there would be no need for the government to pull a gun.

          1. They can make money at that price. That is why they are needed to offset high-cost payors.

            1. Palin’s Buttplug| 7.17.13 @ 5:23PM |#
              “They can make money at that price.”

              So the insurance companies needed Obozo to point out they were missing a profit center?
              That’s amazingly dumb even for you.

            2. Oh, and check J.D.T’s dissection of the ‘argument’ in the article.
              It takes unicorns, that’s all.

      2. So some insurance will become cheaper while some will become much more expensive.
        That’s a long ways from:
        “Health Plan Cost for New Yorkers Set to Fall 50%”

  33. New evidence shows that gold on Earth formed from the collision of exotic stars in space.

    The gold glinting on your wedding band was likely born in a cataclysmic merger of two exceedingly exotic stars, astronomers report Wednesday.

    Dying stars billions of years ago cooked up most of the lighter elements in the universe, the oxygen in the air and calcium of our bones, and blasted it across the cosmos in their final explosive moments. We are stardust, as the singer Joni Mitchell put it.

    But some of the heaviest atoms, including gold, defied this explanation, requiring an even more exotic origin.

    A team led by Harvard astronomer Edo Berger now reports that gold is likely created as an aftereffect of the collision of two “neutron” stars. Neutron stars are themselves the collapsed remains of imploded stars, incredibly dense stellar objects that weigh at least 1.4 times as much as the sun but which are thought to be less than 10 miles wide.

    Great, the stars are just full of goldbug Chirstfags!

    1. A second-rate imitation at best.

      1. People prefer to imitate Dunphy more than they prefer to imitate you. You should be outraged and ashamed.

        1. Imitations of dunphy are hilarious. Imitations of shriek are just kind of sad.

          That’s because dunphy is ludicrous, whereas shriek is just a plain old ‘tard.

    2. I thought supernovae were considered the source for most gold.

      1. I thought so, too. Of course, I also think that heavier elements than Uranium also occur but all the ones in nature have already degraded/half-lived down to other elements. It would be interesting to know what kinds of really exotic elements colliding neutron stars generate.

  34. Economics and business correspondent, folks.

    But here’s what I don’t get: Housing. Investment, you’ll recall, includes “residential investment” (i.e. houses) and I don’t understand why it would be the case that China is oversatured with residential investment. Now yesterday someone showed me this photo slideshow of the Chinese ghost city of Chenggong and it took me about five minutes to realize that this was actually a different ghost city from the ghost city of Ordos. Whole brand new cities full of vacant buildings certainly seems like good evidence that China is oversatured with residential investment. But why would that be? Is this average Chinese person living in a mansion?

    It’d be pretty tough to end a Matty sentence that starts with “but here’s what I don’t get” in a way that would be fraudulent.

    1. I don’t even understand what he’s trying to say.

      1. Here’s the link, if you’re really interested in trying to make sense of it: http://www.slate.com/blogs/mon…..igger.html

        1. Apparently, the middle class are buying those empty condos for their retirement.

        2. His argument seems to be that if there was really overinvestment, the housing would be bigger, instead of just being these little condos.

          But overinvestment has nothing to do with the size or even the amount of something. It has to do with the supply of something outstripping demand.

          The huge ghost towns clearly imply that supply has outstripped demand, so Yglesias’ argument is unbelievably stupid.

          1. Par for the course, I’m afraid…

    2. OK, the Aspergers diagnosis is looking very credible. This guy’s brain does not work right.

  35. A republic ? if you can keep it. A poll has one-third of Americans saying the First Amendment goes too far. Last year the number was 13 percent.

    This is the kind of thing that makes me convinced that we cannot be one nation. Peaceful secession is the only reasonable alternative I can think of. This Zimmerman trial shows this perfectly, how stupid people are, how so much of the country doesn’t know or care about what we consider our most sacred principles. And they want to throw you in jail for having a different opinion. One of the worst things about cosmotarianism is an incessant false optimism. I don’t know how you guys can read stories of ever-increasing statism day after day and yet still have faith that your system will ultimately be triumphant.

    1. I don’t know how you guys can read stories of ever-increasing statism day after day and yet still have faith that your system will ultimately be triumphant.

      We don’t disagree with this aspect of your argument, Merkin. We disagree with the racist parts.

      1. How can you read, day after day, stories of brainwashed minorities and their fellow travelers endlessly treating White men as responsible for all evil, and then keep supporting an amnesty-immigration surge that will double their numbers, always confident that the new immigrants will become THE NEXT JEWS? It just defies explanation. My argument can not be separated from race. Race is the center of my argument, the center of American politics.

        1. Shut the fuck up, moron.

        2. Look, if we buy you a clean copy of Mein Kampf to jizz on will you just go away?

        3. My argument can not be separated from race. Race is the center of my argument

          So your argument hinges on a subjective notion that has no actual reality.

          Sounds legit.

          1. “So your argument hinges on a subjective notion that has no actual reality.”

            Black skin is an optical illusion I suppose? African skull structure is also an optical illusion? It’s not like there is any genetic differences between Africans and Whites. Nope, for the 50,000 years that the races have been separated, no genetic differences have developed.

            1. Mary, isn’t it past your bed time?

            2. Again, you fucking moron, you’re talking about things you have no clue about. Did I say that different groups of people don’t exist? Of course not. The science of genetics is still young and were are just learning about haplogroups and genetic clades. The point is, in the human genome there is no definitive marker between “African”, “European”, “Asian”, etc. However, idiots like you insist that the findings of modern biology and medicine be stuffed into categories constructed by an 18th Century German who had a fetish for Armenian girls. That’s as stupid as insisting chemists formulate their theories only within the four classical elements of air, fire, water, and earth.

              1. Secondly, Human Bio-Perversity cretins like you always go on about genetic difference. Not due to some sort of noble scientific query, of course, because you’d be as interested in the differences between genetic clades in the expression of lactase as you would be with “IQ”. The sad thing is that you don’t even realize that what you spout is merely cargo cult science. It’s junk.

                1. Take IQ, for the purpose of this discussion I’ll bite the bullet as assume that a g-factor exists. Now, as your ilk often crow, IQ is highly inheritable. Of course, being a moron that only half-understands what he is talking about you don’t realize that Taylor, Sailer, Rushton, and all the rest of those idiots are playing you for a fool. As Irving Gottesman (of UM) has shown, IQ is 70 percent inheritable, but also that 60 percent of IQ is due to epigenetic factors, like nutrition. Academic flim-flam men like Lynn and Vanhanen conviently leave that part out, not to mention using highly flawed data sets (a methodology which is equal to academic fraud). Indeed, Lynn and Vanhanen’s book has it backwards; to accurately reflect what the science says, it should have been titled “Wealth and the IQ of Nations”.

                  1. But see, you’re too fucking stupid to even understand my criticisms. You’re just obnoxiously vomiting up half-remembered arguments you’ve read on VDare. You’re not intelligent enough, nor are you educated enough to understand the implications of this study of epigenetic mechanisms in the expression of IQ. The difference between reality and your sense of worth, which is so fragile that your ego bases it upon an accident of birth as opposed to anything you have ever accomplished in your life, causes you such cognitive dissonance that you are psychologically incapable of understanding anything I write about this topic.

                  2. “Indeed, Lynn and Vanhanen’s book has it backwards; to accurately reflect what the science says, it should have been titled “Wealth and the IQ of Nations”.”

                    Then explain the high scores for relatively poor China?

                    1. Post-Mao China has suffered from African-style famine?

                      What alternate universe did that happen in? I bet it’s the one where Superman and Batman are brothers.

                      Again, you display your ignorance of what epigenetics is.

                2. I’m not a biologist and have never been terribly interested in how race and genetics works in terms of black/not black, but it’s always struck me that the racists employing those arguments are themselves rarely on the right side of the bell curve…

                  At any rate, it’s stupid to reject the T Sowells and W Williams of the world and equally stupid to admire the Flavor Flavs of the world, regardless of their skin color. If racists want to justify doing one or the other, then they should take stock in their mental inventory.

                    1. …damn. I stand corrected.

                    2. The Rev. Irving Fryar could also play a bevy of instruments.

                      He was also pretty good at catching passes from the likes of Steve Grogan and Danny Marino.

              2. There are some genetic markers that are present in some races that are almost completely absent in others. Generally “Causcosian” “African”(referring to populations south of the Sahara) and “East Asian,” are valid categories. Those “18th Century Germans” weren’t basing their theories on nothing, they noted general phenotypic differences. There are of course some groups that don’t fit those categories, the Ugiers of China for example, are about half East Asian and half Caucasian descent. And there are other races like the Aboriginal Australians. But the point that there is “no actual reality” to race is stupid and anyone with eyes can disprove it.

                My point was about politics. Look at your political system, what is the most important issue of this century? Race and multiculturalism. And that isn’t going to change any time soon. Nor will the underlying reasons. Look at the “achievement gap” in education. It has barely changes since the end of segregation.

                1. Shut the fuck up American you just cited craniometry which is one of the most retarded things I’ve seen on this site.

                  1. Watch out, Apatheist! American might jump on his velocipede and cycle over to your house for a round of fisticuffs!

                2. And you continue to show your ignorance. You use words you don’t know the meaning of, like “phenotype”.

                  Again, you’re intent on stuffing both genotype and phenotype into outmoded 18th Century models…and you want us to base political policy on this?

                  I implore you to stop embarrassing yourself and no longer enter into discussions on topics of which you are ignorant.

                  1. So what do you propose as a model to divide the human races? Obviously there is a racial difference between a British and a Bantu?

                    1. Obviously there is a racial difference between a British and a Bantu?

                      You’re conflating “race” which is a social concept, with genetics, which is a scientific discipline. As for actual science, population genetics and cladistics are one way we can meaningfully discuss human difference.

            3. Merkin’s attempt to fight the alien invaders doesn’t go as planned:

              Merkin goes to WAR

              1. Are you suggesting that Merkin’s ingredients are, “all in balance”?

                1. His IQ arguments have already been debunked to shit. It’s rinse and repeat time with him.

  36. This fauxrage over the Rolling Stone cover seems to be coming from both the right and the left.

  37. If you’re going to be a douche to hotel staff at least tip. Douche.

    Also, reporter, its The Woodlands. The. Woodlands. My former stompin’ grounds.

    1. You seem to be possessed by the spirit of SugarFree, I’ll call a chocolatier and a priest.

      1. Better make that two priests and a cleaning crew.

    2. I don’t know what you are linking to but I bet it is lame and still the most exciting thing to happen in the W in years.

    3. Sonofabitch. try 2.

  38. “What If Manhattan Was Nestled Inside The Grand Canyon:”

    http://media.talkingpointsmemo…..e/1-314134

    1. I guess we could dam it at one end, fill it with water and be done with Nanny McBloomberg once and for all.

      1. I knew one of the brighter ones here could come up with a joke.

        1. So by your standards, pretty much everyone then.

    2. That was pretty cool. Thanks!

  39. One of the jurors in the George Zimmerman trial told CNN that she wants new laws that would have allowed her to convict him

    I’m not even sure what that means. I want more laws that would allow me to throw every politician currently in office into a very dark hole for 25 years.

    1. I believe those laws already exist, you just have to catch them breaking them.

  40. How apologetically racist is America? Jeopardy accepted the answer “What is the ‘War Between the States?’ as a name for the Civil War.

    In an episode airing last Thursday, contestants were asked the war in which David Healey’s novel “Rebel Train” took place. Ingram buzzed in first and said “What is the War Between the States?” After just a moment of hesitation, host Alex Trebek accepted the answer, noting that he’d been looking for “the Civil War.”

    “War Between the States,” accepted by Trebek, is the term preferred by many Southerners. As the website for the United Daughters of the Confederacy posits, “the term ‘Civil War’ is misleading and inexact. The war was not a class struggle, but a sectional combat, having its roots in such complex political, economic, social and psychological elements that it is difficult for historians to agree on all its basic causes.” The “War Between the States” terminology, the site explains, is a way to acknowledge the onetime glories of the Confederate States of America, a nation that “levied and collected revenue, enlisted its armies and issued cotton bonds which were accepted in foreign commercial marts. Its navy, though small, fought brilliantly.”

    1. War Between the States has been an accepted name forever. It is nothing but a neutral description of the war. God these people are paranoid and try to make up for it by being as stupid as possible.

      1. What if she had said, ‘War of Northern Aggression’? That she didn’t is immaterial, but she could have and that possibility alone calls for preemptive outrage.

        1. I’ve always called it The Unpleasantries of the 1860’s.

    2. Oh, and Alex Trebekc is a Reich-wing Republican.

      And last year, Trebek (who memorably once called a female aspiring rock journalist a “groupie” on-air) told Politico that he opposed current deficit policy: “If you want to tax high earners more, it would be nice if you told us where you are spending the money. If you are going to use our extra taxes to reduce the debt, fine. If you are going to use our extra taxes to finance new programs, whoa, let’s slow down a moment.” Trebek has also donated to Republican politicians.

      What a radical right-winger!

      1. And Canadian, don’t forget!

        1. Canada needs a good civil war.

          1. The war of far northern aggression.

    3. Civil War and War Between the States means the same thing.

      It’s not like they accepted ‘War of Northern Aggression.’

      1. That’s actually a good retort. That would be a politically tainted answer.

      2. Yeah, that’s what I was thinking. What’s charged about “War between the States?”

      3. Or “War of Southern Safety”.

        1. War of Extreme Gentility?

      4. War of Lincolnian High Tariffs and Central Banking

        1. War of the Slaver’s Rebellion

    4. Huh… I’m… I mean, there are a lot of wars that are colloquially given terms other than their official name.

      The Civil War could easily be interpreted as a description of what it was, not a proper noun. A civil war is what we had, and since I guess we’ve only had one, we call it The Civil War. But it was a war between the states.

      I dunno, the whole thing seems overthought.

      1. The War Between the States is probably more accurate, considering that the war aim of the South was independence and not control over the federal government of the time.

    5. Man, we really should break the USA up into three or four smaller countries. West Coast, East Coast, Dirty South, and Mushy Middle.

    6. Uh, no one down here calls it that. They call it the War of Northern Aggression or the Civil War.

      DANIEL D’ADDARIO is a complete idiot.

    7. Imagine if he had accepted “War of Northern Aggression.”

      1. Salon’s level of butthurt would’ve been off the charts.

        1. Indeed, the only proper term for the event is “The Southern Treachery”.

          1. That works, I suppose. Southern treachery and stupidity.

            I’m partial to the “War Between Tyrants and Slavers.”

            1. …but which is which?

              1. Both are both!

            2. “War Between Tyrants and Slavers.”

              That war is still being fought, yo.

            3. Outlaw, you hit the bull’s eye.

          2. Great Rebellion, or War of the Rebellion

            It’s cool because it was the official Northern term, but it also sounds like Star Wars or the civil war in *Firefly.*

      2. What’s especially unbelievable about this is that Jeopardy will accept any answer if it’s obvious that you mean the same thing. War Between the States is an often used term. The writer of the Salon piece even quotes multiple groups using the term.

        It isn’t a political move on Jeopardy’s part to acknowledge that this is an often used term which means the same thing, and to then give points to the contestant. It WOULD have been a political move if Jeopardy had refused the answer in this case.

        Therefore, Salon isn’t actually attacking Jeopardy for being political, they’re attacking Jeopardy for being apolitical when the writer would prefer that they pause the show to espouse left-wing talking points.

      3. What is “The Great American Slave Rebellion,” Alex?

        1. The Union was fighting rebelling slaves?

    8. Calling it “the Civil War” is misleading. The Confederacy was not trying to take over the North.

      1. “Civil war” is not synonymous with “coup d’ etat.” Like the Latin from which it is drawn, it only means two groups within the same nation-state fighting each other.

        Nice try at that revisionism though.

      2. Gettysburg, PA is part of the south now?

    9. Southerners don’t call it the War Between The States. They call it the War Of Northern Aggression.

      1. I call it what I want to call, The Distraction between The Founding and Now.

    10. that it is difficult for historians to agree on all its basic causes

      “historians”

  41. A republic ? if you can keep it. A poll has one-third of Americans saying the First Amendment goes too far. Last year the number was 13 percent.

    They must be polling more journalists. They hit Slate and Salon this time, didn’t they?

  42. The Best Example Today of Why Amanda Marcotte’s Best Chance of a Meaningful Long-Term Relationship is With a Divorce Lawyer

    While I personally am totally sympathetic to these women’s explanations, there’s no doubt in my mind that this is crafted in such a way as to provoke anxieties about how feminism is “ruining” women. And it’s hard to argue against, because the proposition that people should be warm and loving and open to love is the defense, without pausing to wonder if we’d be more sympathetic to what are clearly “not now” claims about love if they were coming from men.

    […]

    I saw it. Hell, I did it. It sucks. I’m super glad these young women are saying no to all that.

    […]

    Seriously, the only people who benefit from all this brow-beating of young women are young men who want to have a girlfriend they can tap for sex and support without offering anything in return. Perhaps that’s the point of all this.

    What’s the over/under on Amanda going Lorena Bobbitt on her man’s member before the end of the Obama Presidency?

      1. You really love to hate that bitch, don’t you?

        I, for one, just hate to read her…

        1. Marcotte has a charming lack of brain-to-keyboard filter that makes it hard to really hate her. She is frivolous entertainment.

          It’s only really worth hating those who know better and choose to deceive and dissemble. Mockery, OTOH…

          1. This explains your affection for MattY, as well…

    1. Will people please stop posting Marcotte? I can handle Yglesias, but Marcotte is on another plane.

      1. Goldwater, TIT, and Coeus seem to get off on it.

      2. God, Irish, she speaks a little truth to your white male power and you want to just shut her down.

    2. who want to have a girlfriend they can tap for sex and support without offering anything in return

      What does this even mean? Is she saying that Feminism demands marriage, because men are providers of wealth and stability, and sans marriage, the women achieve none of that?

      What happened to the burning-your-bra and casual-uncommitted-sex wing of feminism?

      1. Maybe if Amanda would close her fucking legs and stop putting out for every guy who spouted some feminist dogma, they wouldn’t just use her for sex.

        If you want to be “sex positive”, then be sex positive. But don’t bitch and moan when the men you fuck are just as sex positive and look at you as a good source for a lay. What is exactly is Amanda giving these men beyond sex?

        1. Her scintillating intellect?

        2. A venereal disease?

    3. Sorry, TIT, Marcotte is retarded 90% of the time but not this time. I see very little to argue with in that piece, which, I have to say, you really don’t give much idea of from your excerpts. Her main points:

      That presumption is that women’s choices exist in a vacuum, and that the only real factor of any importance in their lives is their choices. …Men are erased from trend stories about women, because the fact that women are often reacting to men’s choices makes everyone all uncomfortable, so must be ignored. So, for instance, the woman’s decision to “opt out” or “lean out” is portrayed as just one in a lovely buffet of choices, simply the result of an inherent female lack of ambition. The possibility that it’s because her husband either made it clear through his actions or outright told her that she will be responsible for the majority of domestic chores is ignored, even though in most cases that’s exactly what happened.

      And

      You can only form these wonderful, loving relationships if there are men out there who have that on offer. This simple, basic fact seems impossible for the hand-wringers to acknowledge. …Girls who buy the line that there’s something wrong with them if they don’t have or want a boyfriend at that age end up spending a lot of time sitting around a messy college apartment, being ignored by their “boyfriend” while he plays video games with his bros.

      1. If college-age men don’t want to settle down, why should we expect college-age women to fake-settle-down with them?

        1. They shouldn’t be expected to, but here’s the article she’s responding to: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07…..html?_r=1&

          Until recently, those who studied the rise of hookup culture had generally assumed that it was driven by men, and that women were reluctant participants, more interested in romance than in casual sexual encounters. But there is an increasing realization that young women are propelling it, too.

          Besides being insipid in a way that only the NY Times style section can manage, I don’t see anyone blaming women — seems to me that the article just isn’t sufficiently bitter towards men and women’s options as Marcotte would have liked…

          1. Yes, well the NYT Styles section is a complete piece of shit, but to present it as though women just get to decide whether or not to marry young is especially retarded.

            As a teenager, Catherine had thought she would wait to get married until her late 20s or early 30s. But her college experiences had made her think that she would rather marry young than throw away a good relationship because it wasn’t the right time.

            That might mean having to pass up certain career opportunities, for geographic reasons. But Catherine thought that her peers underestimated how hard it was to find the right person to be with ? as hard, perhaps, as finding the right job.

            “People kind of discount” how “difficult it is to find someone that you even remotely like, let alone really fall for,” she said. “And losing that can be just as impractical and harmful to yourself, if not more so, than missing out on a job or something like that. What else do you really have at the end of your life?”

            What about the part where you have to find someone you like and who is also willing to settle down at the same time, when men are kind of, oh I don’t know, not super into that?

            1. You’re stereotyping a bit yourself too Nikki. There are/were plenty of men looking for that like myself and plenty others in the same situation as the women in the article. I observed a decent number of people of both sexes in college sleeping around because it was fun but also wishing they had more.

              1. I am stereotyping a bit, but I don’t actually think the problem of delayed marriage has to do with men or women per se, but with a wider cultural push to prolong adolescence and education. That said, I think men’s behavior is certainly a factor in women’s decisions to hook up rather than get into relationships. It only makes sense that it would be; the women aren’t acting in a vacuum (and neither are the men).

                1. Yes neither is acting in a vacuum. In my observation most people of both sexes had the same feelings as the woman in the article. The people who were only interested in sleeping around and had no interest at all in relationships were a minority.

            2. I didn’t read that far along.

              That excerpt is… dumb. Almost dumb enough to make me apologize for misrepresenting Amanda, if I weren’t a vain asshole who never apologizes.

              Almost!

            3. As I said before, the devil is in the details:

              “What about the part where you have to find someone you like and who is also willing to settle down at the same time, ”

              Most of the men here probably think it is comical the idea that a young college girl can struggle to find a boyfriend. Why do women act like this? I’m sure many are ugly and are projecting their own situation onto the whole society. But I have even heard attractive women complain about it. The problem, really, is that it is hard to find an alpha male willing to commit, because there are so few alpha males. But Nikki and her ilk seem to think there is a shortage or beta males.

              1. Merkin’s attempt to fight the alien invaders doesn’t go as planned:

                Merkin goes to WAR

                1. Wait a minute, where did LibertyMike’s comment go? Was HE banned for something? Now I’m confused.

                  1. Nevermind, wrong part of the thread. LM’s still here.

        2. If college-age men don’t want to settle down, why should we expect college-age women to fake-settle-down with them?

          Do we? Are you asking a rhetorical question or suggesting that we (the royal we) demand that women settle down with these man-boys?

          Please, help a brother out. I’m thoroughly confrused.

          1. It’s arguably an implication of the original NYT story Marcotte was responding to that women choose not to marry until their late 20s or early 30s for purely internal reasons rather than because their environment does not support earlier marriage.

            1. Ok, is earlier marriage a desirable goal amongst our educated feministic sisters?

              I mean, I think I get it now. She’s offended that someone suggested that women are working exclusively in a vacuum and their late marriages are due to the immaturity of their male counterparts.

              Yes, male counterparts under the age of 35 are less mature than women. But if they weren’t, would Amanda Marcotte and the women she… ‘represents’ (for lack of a better term) desire to be married before the age of 25? I thought late marriage was a signal of an educated, independent society that had a cornucopia of choices before them.

              I guess what I’m trying to say is, I would probably agree that she’s right, that women are delaying marriage because college aged males are… well, what college aged males are, hoodie-wearing, flip-flop sporting, cargo short attired boys. Does Marcotte feel that she’s missing out on something?

              1. Well, it’s not clear that she feels like she is missing out, but she does regret the fact that she wasted time in an immature relationship like that and thinks “we” should recognize that it’s a smart choice for current college-age women not to do so, and anything “we” take from their hookup culture should take that into account.

                I don’t know what she’d say about early marriage vs. late marriage in general.

            2. In other words, the guy has to propose. If the guy doesn’t propose, he doesn’t want to marry you. He may still want to be married, just not with you.

              Most heterosexual guys will have sex with a girl they find reasonably attractive, and if she lives with him so that he doesn’t have to go far to have sex, he’ll be up for it. College is perfect for this because they aren’t out earning a salary, buying a house, etc.

              What the NYT article asserted was that now women were starting to have that very same “no strings” attitude.

              What Marcotte was responding was a longer version of Chris Rock. “Pussy is expensive. Dick is free!”

        3. But there are plenty of college-age men looking to settle down. They just choose not to or choose the wrong ones. Seems like their own choice.

          1. I think “plenty” is either an exaggeration or a factor that varies highly with geography and culture. Of all the people I was friends with in college, exactly two of the men are now married–and neither got engaged until well past 25.

            Of guys I went to high school with, I only know of one who graduated in the top 15% of the class and is now married. And most of the people I know from high school who were worse performers did not marry until well past 25, if they have married yet (it appears most have not).

            I work with a few married guys my age, but I have literally zero married friends other than the two guys I mentioned from college, and I haven’t seen them in so long I’ve never even met their wives.

            1. Well it definitely is highly variable. Obviously places like BYU are going to skew way the other way. I think the education standard is a weird one. I’m the only one of my friends from college who is married and we went to a school where everyone was top 15% in highschool and I have plenty of friends cousins and such from the country who are married (and /or have kids). Still I there were plenty of people at my college in long term relationships and looking to settle down.

              Most of my friends were plenty fine in the hook-up culture but also had the same laments as the women in the article. The just found it difficult to find the right women who also wanted to settle down. I guess this kinda goes with Marquette’s post but I think she is discounting how much of a two way street it is.

              1. Yeah, not a single one of the straight male friends I had in college was in a long-term relationship until later. The two who are now married are the only two who were looking for that, but even so, one of them was doing his own things that would have prevented settling down for many years.

                My parents got married at 19 and I’m the first person in my family to go to college, and I went from thinking “everyone gets married by 25” to “wow, no one in this new peer group is ever going to get married, are they?” And so far I’m just about right.

                1. I guess my problem with both the original article and Marcotte’s follow up is that they only apply to a certain segment of the population. I mean even though the average marriage age has risen it is still 27 for women.

                  All I know is that I’m glad to be out of the dating world and married by 26. I won’t discount that I got lucky to meet my wife in college though.

      2. I don’t care if Marcotte is right in this case. I refuse to read her articles for two reasons:

        1. It sends money to Slate and Rawstory

        2. Even if her argument is reasonable, her run on, totally ungrammatical sentences make my eyes bleed.

        Actually, she’s not so much ungrammatical as anti-grammatical. Ungrammatical means you just don’t know grammar rules and make mistakes. Marcotte seems to believe that grammar murdered her family and is on some sort of campaign of retribution against the English language itself.

        1. Girls who buy the line that there’s something wrong with them if they don’t have or want a boyfriend at that age end up spending a lot of time sitting around a messy college apartment, being ignored by their “boyfriend” while he plays video games with his bros.

          Isn’t that just another choice on the buffet? I smell a lot of ‘victim’ coming off of this post.

          1. Not meant to be a reply to Irish.

      3. Men are erased from trend stories about women, because the fact that women are often reacting to men’s choices makes everyone all uncomfortable, so must be ignored.

        Huh?

        So, for instance, the woman’s decision to “opt out” or “lean out” is portrayed as just one in a lovely buffet of choices, simply the result of an inherent female lack of ambition. The possibility that it’s because her husband either made it clear through his actions or outright told her that she will be responsible for the majority of domestic chores is ignored, even though in most cases that’s exactly what happened.

        My understanding of nearly every woman who ‘opted out’ or ‘leaned out’ had that choice because there was a stream of income, somewhere, some place in her life allowing her to do so.

        For instance, in my buffet of life choices, I wake up every morning wishing I could just get off the fucking merry-go-round… for just a few minutes, then I calculate my stream of income should I make that choice and it would be… let’s see, zero, carry the zero… zero.

        Now, I don’t begrudge someone who does choose to opt out as being ‘unambitious’. For instance, if I could marry an ambitious, high-earning woman who would let me opt out without taking on the majority of the domestic chores, something I currently do 100% of AND earn the fucking living, I’d do it.

        Am I misunderstanding a cental point she’s making here?

      4. You are only slightly better than Shriek, so it may be pointless to argue with you. Have you ever wondered why men do act like that? They act like this because women want them too. They are attracted to the ones who have that masculine, alpha male vibe to them that Marcotte seems to hate ideologically. Marcotte wants men to act like beta males before they are worthy of relationships, as if there is some shortage of beta males out there, which justifies having casual sex with alpha males. This is not a reflection of reality.

        Think about it. She is saying these men aren’t worthy of relationships, but are worthy of casual sex.

        1. …Oy.

        2. You think Nicole is only slightly better than Shriek?

          Fucking seriously?

          I know she’s the worst, but even the worst are several steps above Shriek.

          1. Nicole is merely the most terrible person in the world.

            Shriek is the madness in the night.

            Shriek is the smell of the dank despair of death.

            Shriek is the taste of Waffle House at 1 AM.

            Shriek is death to the senses itself.

            1. Shriek is a Darkwing Duck dramatic entrance monologue?

        3. *derp*

        4. First off, who was this aimed at? Nikki? Episiarch? Second, you calling someone slightly better than Shriek is hilarious

          1. It was aimed at Nikki.

            1. I know it’s threaded that way, but American has trouble with properly threading comments (yesterday he made a comment on an article, when he meant to post it on one that was posted several hours earlier). I’ve never seen him really interact with Nikki, while he gets into it with Episiarch a lot, and Epi insults him below. Wouldn’t be surprised if American was too stupid to reply in the right place. Or he could have just called Nikki worse than Shriek for no reason

              1. Ha! Look downthread.

                1. I win and we all lose.

                  1. Nevermind, Merkin was banned again, we all win. He said it was aimed at Nikki though.

                    1. I missed the admission, but assumed as much since “he” seemed to be replying to me along similar lines elsewhere.

          2. It was aimed at Nikki.

    4. The ratio of devoted, loving boyfriends that set your pants on fire to dudes who are either so caught up in the masculinity wars of late adolescence/early adulthood or moon-eyed Nice Guys? who secretly resent women is really crap in college.

      The devil is in the details. These men exist, they just aren’t attractive to women. For. Some. Reason.

      1. You’re not attractive to women because you’re a pathetic loser racist piece of shit. That’s the reason.

        1. Plus, if American sets anything on fire, I think it’s more likely to be a cross.

          1. +White Hood

            1. Don’t let that flag touch the ground! These folks is not white! These folks is miscegenated!

        2. I resemble that remark, Episiarch.

          1. Come on, Paul; you’re no racist.

            1. Actually, it’s so very true I’m no racist. And I should be considering I come from expert, black-belt racist roots, too. Not that clumsy American brand of negro-hating bigotry, but that finely-tuned, erudite form of European racism. That kind of racism that can detect the finer points of inferiority between a Hungarian, a Romanian, a Lithuanian, a Southern Russian, a Slav and a Pole, and don’t get started on the Belgians.

              To me, they’re all white folks.

              No it was unattractive loser part I identify with in my crushing loneliness. I mean, I troll the threadz looking for Hugh Akston posts.

              1. Belgians?! It’s drunken Walloons and moneygrubbing Flemish, you dilettante.

                1. My mother would have known that.

              2. European ethnic and racial slurs are devoutly to be preferred…

                Who doesn’t love to throw a good “wop” or “Kraut” out there, now and again?

  43. I have no reason to put this here, other than thinking it was good…

    1. Free Banking is teh bomb, yo. I loves me some intra-bank clearing of privately emitted banknotes.

      1. Hmm, maybe inter-bank is the right word as it was between banks that were separate entities.

        On the other hand the banks all did belong to the clearing system so in that sense it was intra-bank clearing.

        1. Wouldn’t that be “intra-house” clearing, though?

          1. Yessss….so inter-bank it is.

    2. Free banking has always fascinated me — there are so many ideas out there for how it would end up working if it were given the chance.

      I’m a monetarist, but that is only because there is so little context for free banking that I really don’t know where I (or anyone else) lands on the issue as a matter of economics.

      1. You are allowed to be both a free banker and a monetarist — quite a few go by the moniker of “market monetarist.” However, I respect your caution, particularly if it is Burkean in motivation.

        Moreover, there are several historical examples of it working (incompletely), and those are clustered tightly enough that I am (despite the spectre of historicism) willing to bite the bullet and say that we know roughly how it would end up working.

        1. I’m a Burkean in political temperament. Dramatic change is rarely workable or good, IMO. (There are exceptions, of course but most are not known ahead of time.) The Swedish period is the era of free banking that I am most familiar with, and indicates that free banking is fairly stable and works well under at least some parameters. The US examples were… less stable but also workable.

          I am not sure how you would get from A to Z when you have a system like our own, though. The US financial sector is ~9% of GDP, and of course affects the other sectors, as well — and works on the basis of government-chartered fiat currency and the rules therein.

          1. Actually, I don’t suspect that getting “from here to there” would be so technically problematic. If you had the political will, you could just go all Friedman on the monetary base while relaxing the regulations on bank-issued currency. After all, most money is already created by banks, so you just make it understood that there would be no more government-issued currency.

            We could also go through the other shit, like phasing out the Fed as lender of last resort, abolishing the primary dealer system, etc., but I don’t know if that interests anyone here or is really appropriate for this forum…

            I will say that, if the Swedish period is the touchstone for you, I can understand more reservation. Honestly, the Scottish and Canadian systems are more germain to the case for free banking. As for the American experience, only the Suffolk System really qualifies…

            1. I’ve read a piece mentioning that banks in parts of the South were more free but no further information was given.

              There are many parts of Free Banking scholarship that I enjoy and one of the best is the comparison of Canada to the US.

              In Canada the banks were mostly left alone and could branch, were not forced to buy sketchy gov’t bonds to back their emittances, were not forced to grant special favors to cronies and could expand and contract their currency issue a needed.

              The upshot being that Canada just did not have the type of crises that bedeviled the US.

              And the reason that this is good comparison is that Canada was a largely ag-based economy that was rapidly industrializing and spanned an immense amount of geography just north of the US and was thus subject to many of the same weather issues as the US and were directly tied in to the same trade networks.

              Yet their much less regulated system didn’t produce the problems that ours did. So it is a built in refutation of the “oh, you mean ‘wildcat banking’ yeah that didn’t work” argument.

              1. Same culture and similar immigration patterns, as well.

                I haven’t really looked into the Canadian system except at the most superficial level (i.e., essay-length articles at LvM Institute). Thanks for the tip.

              2. Warren, I concur with everything you have said except for the bit about the Southern banks. What time period did you have in mind with that claim?

                1. I don’t have a time. It was a a claim made in something I read. No other information was provided.

                  1. In that case, I am going to give a tentative “no.”

                    It was the Northeast that had the most liberated banking systems.

                    1. No, not more free than the Suffolk system, more free than the average bank. Sorry for the confusion.

                      That aside, the Suffolk system is an excellent example of things working well.

    1. Fuck him. And that show was massively overrated. It was cop drama. BFD.

      1. And that show was massively overrated. It was cop drama.

        Now now. I hate David Simon too, but let’s not say something crazy that we’ll regret later.

          1. You come at the king, you best not miss.

            Omar was one of the greatest characters on TV.

        1. My criminology class used clips from that show to demonstrate different sociological explanations for crime. He said criminologists love the show for its accurate portrayal of crime.

      2. I normally hate cop dramas and I love The Wire. He must have done something right. Simon does say some incredibly stupid shit, though. A good example of art transcending the artist, I guess. He managed to make a show which makes a good case for libertarian and market solutions for lots of social problems, yet remains a dumb ass commie dickbag.

    2. Another Great Liberaltarian Hope (Hollywood division) goes down in flames.

      I hope Reason doesn’t lose any cocktail party invites

    1. Hey, we could use something like that for those scandals in DC, couldn’t we? As a Floridian, I’ll make a deal–Holder can investigate the Zimmerman case to his little heart’s content, while I get to name a special prosecutor to take down this fucking corrupt and power-mad government.

    2. It’s not like he has anything else important to do.

  44. One of the jurors in the George Zimmerman trial told CNN that she wants new laws that would have allowed her to convict him.

    Reason 8,453,932 that women should not be allowed to vote, be on juries, be judges, or prosecutors. Sorry ladies but it has been downhill ever since you got the vote and that is at least in part attributable to the fact that women, as a group, are much more emotional than rational.

    1. Golly, this comment makes me wonder why there aren’t more female libertarians.

      1. Speak truth to chowder!

      2. No, it’s because we call people like Marshall cunts.

    2. Collective guilting is a very ugly thing, Marshall. One woman doing (actually, just saying; she actually did the right thing) something emotion driven and stupid doesn’t mean all women do.

      1. I added “as a group”. Perhaps I am exaggerating a tad….

        1. Do you want us to start finding examples of men saying mind-warpingly dumb stuff that is irrational, emotional, and stupid? Some of the fellas upthread mentioned a lil’ Sadbeard called Matt Yglesias. Unfortunately that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Stupid abounds across genders.

          1. I have an example of a man saying mind warpingly dumb stuff!

            Reason 8,453,932 that women should not be allowed to vote, be on juries, be judges, or prosecutors.

          2. Has it, in fact, been demonstrated that MattY is a man?

            1. Or even homo sapien?

      2. It is as retarded as saying men shouldn’t be allowed to take care of children or kitties because they are robotic slaves to reason (ahem… you know what to do) who are incapable of emotion.

        I don’t know about you, but I do not want to be the one to break the news about the kitties to Warty.

        1. But Dagny, he’ll respond reasonably! He is a man after all.

          1. Is he? Do you have evidential proof, lil’ miss irrational? I, for one, could not handle any hard (durr) evidence one way or the other. Send me straight for my fainting couch.

          2. When did I say I was a man? Othering me does not further your argument.

            Since it was not obvious, apparently, I wasn’t serious. From a Liberty perspective there is no question about it.

            But a man can dream, can’t he?

            1. I meant to say,

              A person can dream. I fucking othered myself.

              1. We were talking about Warty. It’s okay to other him.

                1. Warty is the essence of the Monstrous Other anyway.

                2. I am not talking about Warty, he scares me. I am not a weak guy but I am skinny. I think he could probably curl me and I am not sure what that would entail but it doesn’t sound good.

                  1. It’s not so much the curling it’s the spooning that kills you.

                    1. By the time the spooning happens, you’re already dead.

  45. I want more laws that would allow me to throw every politician currently in office into a very dark hole for 25 years.

    No, no, no. We must be allowed to hunt and kill them on rainy evenings. I’ll even agree to use a 9mm.

    1. No vision enhancements and rainy evenings only.

  46. VA LP is on the local news! WTF is this, a three-way race or sumpin’?

    1. Aaaaannnnd, the reporter used the word “radical” when talk about his education plan.

      1. What’s so radical about putting all children into the salt mines?

        1. It’s radical because he wants to give them flashlights and gloves. True libertarians like myself prefer that the children feel around in total darkness during their salt mine duties.

          1. they probably expect ‘breaks’ and ‘days off’ and other such nonsense.

          2. Light, dark, what difference does it make? Don’t you only use blind orphans for that kind of dangerous work? You don’t want to waste the good ones on something as mundane as mining. Keep the healthy ones in the house for servants and monocle cleaning.

        2. How’s this for radical – he wants kids to be able to go to – GASP – school! Want more radicalism? He wants them to go to the school of their parents’ choice.

          This guy must be stopped at all costs.

          1. And you’d be surprised how much the $500 payment convinces parents to CHOOSE Joe M Tech, the world’s leading institute in the field of sodium extraction.

  47. Mike Huckabee:

    Zimmerman is not a hero. He was a young Hispanic man who believed he was in danger, and used a gun to end what he felt was a threat to his own life. He’s going to spend the rest of his life second-guessing his decision to get out of his car that night when he spotted a young man he thought might be part of a crime wave in his neighborhood. And Trayvon Martin is not a hero. He was a young man whose life ended way too soon, maybe because he decided to confront a man he believed was showing him disrespect.

    But if there are no heroes, there are some villains. The media deserve to be excoriated for their role in inventing many parts of the narrative before the facts and evidence were even presented. Thank God the press is not a true “fourth branch of government.” They emphasized a race factor because Trayvon Martin was black, but they were blatantly dishonest in not acknowledging that George Zimmerman was Hispanic. The facts in the case, as presented in court under oath, were far different than the heated comments that were spewed by the media and the professional agitators, who called more attention to themselves than they did to the tragedy.

    1. This is a pretty fair assessment. I agree with everything he says here. A very classy critique.

      1. I agree as well. Huckabee can be rather balanced and sensible at times, as well as quite funny. “Are you one of those Baptists who think only Baptists go to heaven?” he said a woman once asked him. “No, ma’am,” Huckabee said. “I don’t think all the Baptists are going to make it myself.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.