A.M. Links: This Terrorist Threat Is Real, for Real This Time, Everybody Wants NSA Data, Al Qaeda Making a Comeback?

|

  • The government will resolve the privacy issues by declaring all crimes a form of terrorism.
    NSA logo

    The United States closed two dozen embassies over the weekend in North Africa and the Mideast. Sen. Saxby Chambliss says it's the most serious terrorist threat they've seen in the past few years. He compared the chatter with the planning for Sept. 11, so it's a good thing nobody has politically abused that terrorist attack for political gain, thus rendering the invocation meaningless, am I right?

  • The closures have also been extended for a week for most of them.
  • Of course the information the National Security Agency gathers won't stay at the NSA if other federal agencies have their way. But this was about fighting terrorism, guys!
  • Reports of al Qaeda's demise may have been greatly exaggerated.
  • Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe won re-election with 61 percent of the vote.
  • The US has gotten involved with mediation efforts in Egypt, sending an envoy to meet with a jailed Muslim Brotherhood leader.

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

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

NEXT: Hand What's Left of Your Privacy Over to the NYPD, for Free!

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. Sen. Saxby Chambliss says it’s the most serious terrorist threat they’ve seen in the past few years. He compared the chatter with the planning for Sept. 11…

    Someone’s going to look like an idiot if we don’t have another 9/11 now.

    1. Is he sure it wasn’t all just in his mind?

    2. Or if we do. Since it was Bush’s fault that the dots weren’t connected on the first one, it must be Obama’s fault if they aren’t on the second one.

      1. Yeah right. The media will do some hard-hitting investigation and determine it was Bush’s fault for the way the intelligence agencies coordinate and it’s the Obstructionist Rethuglicans’ fault for failing to fully fund school lunches.

      2. I for one don’t have any sympathy for Bush when people leveled this charge against him since he and his allies took the further step of trying to blame 9/11 on Clinton.

        1. Hey, you can’t criticize Bush here!

          1. If you want, the comment threads of one Jeffery Goldberg often devolve into people with ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) arguing with people with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). You might have a lot of fun there.

            Example

          2. No dipshit. You can criticize Bush here. However, using BOOOOOOSHHHH!!!!! as your every argument does get tiresome. It is your only argument, and has exposed you as the mendacious twat you are.

          3. No fuckhead, You can’t use Bush as a way to justify the fuckups of Obama. The problem is your constant sucking of Obama’s cock, you lying little turd.

            1. It’s comical how racist Shriek is; he genuinely thinks Obama is so incapable of doing anything that every bad thing Obama orders must be blamed on Bush.

              It’s gobsmacking how often when one scratches a progressive, one finds a racist piece of shit staring out at one through the flaps of skin.

            2. Other than your preoccupation with cocksucking your primary issue is that you fail to see where every single problem we deal with today began with a series of missteps by Bush/Cheney.

              I cite small wonders like how the Bush deficit of $1.3 trillion has been cut in half. And don’t try to LIE AND SAY NOT TRUE – Reason, Gillespie, de Rugny, and Stossel all quote the same numbers.

              1. Every single problem? So Wilson in 1913 doesn’t creep up, or Roosevelt and his expansion either?

                1. Every headline problem.

                  Privatizing the national parks isn’t headline material.

                  Over spying, overspending, over committing, over involvement, over bureaucracy, etc.

                  Hell, NCLB still chaps my ass.

              2. Every problem shreek. Obama hasn’t created a single problem. You don’t just suck Obama, you deep throat him.

                1. Keep sucking Bush and Cheney off, John. Which one gets to splatter your face first?

                  1. I haven’t seen John defend Bush this morning, he is only pointing out your inability to make a point without invoking the BUSH’S FAULT!!!!! argument. It really is comical to the rest of us that you are so obsessed with Bush as your only means to defend Obama.

                    1. Dude, quit talking to it.

                      Jesus.

                      You know how every conversation will play out:

                      “Shrike only blames bush”

                      “I blame Bush of the Christfag Bushes!”

                      “See shrike only blames bush”

                      “I blame bush because it’s his fault”

                      “Go suck obama’s cock”

                      “go suck bush’s cock”

                      …ad infinitum

                      You never get that time back. Imagine being on your deathbed regretting the hours you could have spent with loved oned, but instead had the same, predictable argument with an obvious lunatic.

                    2. Obama only looks good compared to Bush.

                      On his own accord he is nothing special.

                    3. “every single problem we deal with today began with a series of missteps by Bush/Cheney.”

                      Peak Derp, it finally quit trying and just said what it honestly thinks.

    3. Relax, Fist — we now have a decade’s worth of dot-connecting technology to prevent that.

      1. All of that technology is useless, without color inside the lines technology!

      2. You might want to check where that technology comes from – It appears that if Xerox scanners can’t read the pixels they just make shit up.

    4. If nothing happens, that means the government neutralized the threat. 🙂

      1. I have a rock that prevents tiger attacks.

        1. I want to buy your rock.

          1. Cant sell, I need it for my own protection.

            1. (robc’s rock to be confiscated by the NSA in 3….2….1….)

            2. I’m in Kentucky too, and will be glad to sell you as many tiger rocks as you like. I have a tiger rock mining operation in my back yard.

              disclaimer: tiger rocks may cease to function outside of the continental United States or in the presence of actual tigers. Common side effects of carrying a tiger rock may include, but are not limited to: weight gain, dirty hands, ridicule, and shame. Rare but more serious side effects may include carpal tunnel syndrome, calluses, and actual tiger attack. Contact a physician if any of these conditions occur.

    5. If Saxby Chambliss wants to blow himself up on September 11, just make certain he does it away from other people.

    6. America will be a safer place once DiFi and Zaxby are both gone from the Senate Intelligence Committee.

  2. But what about the historical evidence for Jesus? What? No one? Really? Ah, c’mon.

    1. Too bad we didn’t have the internet and cell phones 2000 years ago, huh?

      1. Jesus probably would have been locked up in gitmo. Possibly droned.

      2. Oooh, Mary Magdalene sexting pics.

  3. I actually find every one of the links today boring. Apparently I just don’t care about the Middle East?

    1. Zimbabwe is in the Middle East?

      1. Its east of here, but not so far east that I consider it west. So, yes, its middle east, just like Europe and Maryland.

        1. I accept this argument. My apologies, Auric.

          1. Logic: I has it.

            1. Good job robc. Show that candyphobe!

        2. Maryland and Europe are in the Far Left.

        3. just like Europe and Maryland.

          Yes, but we only adhere to the Oldbayist faction of Islam. We only wish to kill and eat the infidel shellfish.

          1. Soft-shell crab is the devil’s sandwich.

            I love seafood, I love crab. But that particular item is just nasty.

            1. I never developed a taste for them either, but I’m in the minority in these parts.

            2. “The sandwich that stares back at you.”

              1. How can it stare back at you when you cut off its face before breading and frying?

                1. How can it stare back at you when you cut off its face before breading and frying?

                  Science

                  1. I am not sure if this is a joke or a new level of SugarFreeing…

                    1. I assure you, sir, that Japanese butthole eyes are no “joke.”

            3. Soft-shell crab is the devil’s sandwich.

              You’re fucking crazy. Too much beer or something.

      2. I thought Zimbabwe was a fictional country, like Parador?

        1. You still call it Rhodesia, eh?

          1. I sat with a white Rhodesian at the last wedding I went to. The subject of Zimbabwe came up and he was understandably bitter.

            1. I went to college with a white girl born in Rhodesia.

              She was surprisingly casually racist (she was cute, but on the wrong side of the hot/racist line), but then again, maybe not that surprising.

              1. If you grew up in Rhodesia, you might be a bit racist too.

                1. She grew up in GA. Her parents fled quickly when things turned bad, I think.

                  But yeah, I get it. Like I said, maybe not that surprising.

                2. No way. Hasn’t everything that has happened since proven the racists wrong?

                3. Especially if you are black.

      3. You’re a fucking imbecile?

    2. I didn’t care about the Middle East until it became our military playground.

      1. That is because you are retarded.

        1. I don’t worship dusty sepulchers.

          1. As I said, you are retarded. Not being able to read much less read a map I am sure had something to do with your now caring about the middle east.

            1. It is also why I don’t get involved in Israel-Palestine piefights – I don’t have a side or a crucifix jammed up my ass like you do.

              1. You just jam things up your ass for pleasure not religion. NTTAWWT

                And you don’t get involved in any issue that your handlers haven’t told you to. You may be retarded but you do take orders provided they are given in very simple and easy to understand instructions.

          2. You worship clean, tidy, well-kept sepulchers?

          3. Nope, just the God-Emperor in the White House.

            1. If Shreek needed to know about the Middle East, Obama would have told him about it.

  4. Of course the information the National Security Agency gathers won’t stay at the NSA if other federal agencies have their way.

    All armed bureaucrats have databases that hunger for citizen information.

  5. The US has gotten involved with mediation efforts in Egypt, sending an envoy to meet with a jailed Muslim Brotherhood leader.

    Did they bring along any F-16’s to bargain with?

    1. Yeah, we haven’t screwed up enough countries over there, so we’ll stick our noses into the unsolvable (by us, at least) mess that is Egypt and see how that works out for us.

    2. Does this count as “boots on the ground”?

    1. This is what sand does. Why is this surprising or interesting?

      1. The interesting part is they were only recently “found”.

        I think people had assumed it had already happened. Or, you know, that they were deconstructed after filming.

        1. Ir burned with sadistic glee by Lucas who wanted to replace them with CGI before he sold the brand.

    2. Thousands of years from now the set will finally be unearthed and will make future archeologists go “WTF?”

    3. Time may be running short for hardcore “Star Wars” fans to see the real-life set used to portray Anakin Skywalker’s childhood home of Mos Espa on the planet Tatooine.

      How can it engulf something that never existed?

      1. Not just that, I don’t think many fans, hardcore or not, are going to trek to the middle of nowhere Tunisia to see them.

        1. To see what? Some non-existent set of the mythical Episode 1?

    4. They completely covered the first sets decades ago. I don’t understand why the sand covering the sets from the prequels is such news. Sand moves, its what it does.

    5. In the novelization of “2010,” there was a mention of a sensational discovery in Tunisia that soon proved to be a set used by a celebrated filmmaker four decades earlier.

      1. 2010 was a book first.

        1. I know I should have said “novel.” I read it before I knew what Hollywood would do to it.

  6. Reports of al Qaeda’s demise may have been greatly exaggerated.

    They were greeted with flowers upon entering Iraq.

    See? Cheney got part of something right.

    1. “See? Cheney”

      No, you’re not irrationally obsessed at all.

  7. The closures have also been extended for a week for most of them.

    Shelter in Place: It’s the American Way

    1. “We’re going to keep these embassies closed until they get attacked.”

      1. State Department VACATION
        Chevy Chase can play a dim-witted ambassador on his zany adventures through the middle east.

        1. Spies Like Us already did it.

  8. The US has gotten involved with mediation efforts in Egypt, sending an envoy to meet with a jailed Muslim Brotherhood leader.

    Ah, the pains of democracy.

  9. Saturday afternoon, my former roommate goes to Walmart and finds that instead of having about $2000 on his card (which he uses instead of an ATM card) he has $0. Turns out someone hit 3 Target stores in the NYC area with a fake card for all of his money. He gets in touch w/ the Target in the Bronx and they say “oh, you’re the 3rd person to call about a Walmart card being used fraudulently here.” He calls Walmart, they tell him they have to wait for the charges to clear before they can be disputed and to file a police report. He then spends 3 hours on the phone with various law enforcement agencies in Florida (where he lives) and NYC (where the crime “happened”) and all of them have a reason why they can’t file a report. Long story short, his conversion to libertarianism is complete and he now fully agrees with the idea that the cops don’t give a fuck about crime, unless it is in their interest to stop it.

    1. Your roommate uses gift cards as regular currency?

      1. Walmart cards work at Target?

        1. It might be a Walmart-brand pre-paid debit card, which works anywhere. Walmart acts like a bank for quite a few people, cashing checks, issuing credit cards, etc.

          1. I’ve seen ads and always laughed at the idea of banking at Walmart.

          2. So it is effectively cash. Does it have your name on it? If not, I don’t see how you could ever find the person who stole it.

            1. If someone gives him his money back, it’s going to be out of kindness, not obligation. Pre-paid debit cards are usually treated exactly like cash. You’re usually SOL if you lose it or have it stolen.

            2. Well, he has HIS card in his possession, and can verify that he wasn’t in the Bronx at 11:00pm on Friday. So, that should end his liability, same as if your debit card got cloned.

            3. So it is effectively cash. Does it have your name on it? If not, I don’t see how you could ever find the person who stole it.

              1. Find out where it was used.

              2. Pull the surveillance tape.

              3. Old fashioned police work.

              4. Handcuffs. Jail. Restitution.

              1. Yeah, because it is so obvious who a person is by looking at the surveillance tape. Maybe they would show back up in the same store. But even then, there is no guarantee you could positively identify someone on the basis of the tape. Those tapes are of pretty poor quality often.

                1. And how are you going to prove that the friend in Florida isn’t the fraudster?

                  1. Pretty sure the people in the Bronx would remember a 6’3″ 280lb white man with a South GA accent.

                2. Yeah, because it is so obvious who a person is by looking at the surveillance tape.

                  Right.

                  Hence the actual police work involved. If somebody did this once they’ve probably done it a bunch of times, with several victims. Is the time and effort worth it to identify and arrest the person. It probably is.

              2. Except if the recorders clock is off – then you can’t match up a transaction time with what’s on the tape.

                Seen this happen with ATM videos.

              3. Thom, see my reply below. The police won’t do shit.

                1. Yeah, I agree with you. That they could and should do something doesn’t seem to matter, they won’t do anything because doing actual police work and solving crimes is work.

                  Back in the days of dial up internet my apartment was burglarized and my laptop was stolen. Whoever stole my laptop started using it consistently to access my University dial up account (I had it set up to remember my password). I could see the records, every day, of them dialing in and using the internet using my laptop. It was infuriating.

                  I called the detective assigned to the case multiple times and explained to him exactly how he could find the person who burglarized my house because they kept using my laptop to call into the same place, over and over again, from an easily traceable telephone number. His response was that I should have the University “turn my computer off.”

                  There had been a major rash of burglaries in my neighborhood at the time too.

                  1. I went to a job the other day in SF and the girl there just had her cellphone snatched. She didn’t get a good look at the guy, but she had his address come up on the iPhone tracker. She called the police and they said there was nothing they could do about it. She was surprised at their lack of concern. I was not.

      2. No, they’re revolving Visa backed debit cards that you pay $3 for one time if you have direct deposit. As he said, “Its a great deal until you need a bank because someone just stole all your shit.”

        I think he’ll get all the money back, but the question of when is still up in the air as of yesterday.

        1. Here. This is the thing. It is backed by GE Capital Bank, but is not a bank because the banks have been actively lobbying to deny Walmart a banking license. So they don’t have to pay interest and can’t extend credit.

          1. You mean people are using regulation as a barrier to entry for new participants?

            I’m shocked!

        2. Tell him that credit cards with cash back are an even better deal if you have some amount of self-control.

          1. I’ve currently made about $700 off of cash back.

        3. Nitpick – they are not revolving. They are cash loan/debit only.

            1. Yeah. Good point. That’s the wrong word for it.

        4. Yeah, seriously, checking accounts are free nowadays. Come on son.

          1. He did it with good intention. Didn’t want the TBTF to get his money and hates getting nickled and dimed by the small locals. I’m pretty sure he’ll make alternate arrangements once he gets his money back from Visa.

            1. Pfft. It’s nice and all to rail against the system, but I’m just trying to live my life.

              But in all seriousness, mid-size regionals usually offer the best of both worlds.

              1. BB&T is the way to go around here. Didn’t take a bailout, didn’t need a bailout, and would be a national bank if there weren’t any bailouts. I’ve recommended them to him.

                1. $3.1 billion TARP loan – repaid with $160 million interest.

                  http://preview.tinyurl.com/qgl3ke4

                  1. Allison said BB&T and other healthy banks were strong-armed into taking TARP.

                    1. Allison has been known to tell a stretcher.

                      Of the big nine banks in the Paulson meeting several of them were reluctant to take TARP but BB&T was not in the meeting. They are in the 20-30 rank in size.

                  2. Huh. Interesting. I must be misremembering something I read. Thanks for the link.

                    1. They only took the loan because they had to. Treasury & the Feds forced a bunch of banks with no need to take them in order to hide which banks NEEDED the bailout loans.

    2. Solving crime is hard. Shooting dogs and writing tickets is easy.

      1. His discussion with NYPD (after 25 minutes on hold/in the phone tree) was essentially:
        1) Do you pay our protection money
        2) No? Guess you’re fucked
        3) Have a nice day

        The local cops were more pleasant but sadly unable to file a report.

    3. You’d have thought the revenue generating and dog killing would have done the trick.

      Good for him though. You can only keep up the “yeah, but most cops are good guys and just want to help” defense for so long.

    4. This is where having a bank with an active fraud protection unit comes in handy. This happened to me when I was still with Bank of America. They called me to ask if I had spent 5K at three different Targets. BofA had the money back in my account the next business day.

      Whatever faults BoFA has, their fraud protection people are top-notch.

      1. Same experience here. BoA called me out of the blue to ask if I used by card in North Carolina that day. They cut the card off, reversed the transaction, and sent me a new number.

      2. I’ve had good experiences with Discover’s fraud protection people. Very professional, and willing to help.

        1. Same here with Chase.

      3. The day we arrived to the new house my wife dropped $500 at Target for setup items. I got a text from Chase (credit card) about it, which I replied to confirming things. Then she spent $400 at the grocery store for pantry items, which prompted an actual phone call to me. I do appreciate the attention.

        I hardly ever use debit. Credit cards are much better about fraud protection and fraud reimbursement. Being defrauded via debit’s almost like losing cash.

    5. My friends’ mother’s debit card was stolen when their house was burgled. The thieves used the card at convenience stores and gas stations. The exact time and place of these transactions are recorded. So she calls the police and tells them she has all these records. They could easily go to the stores and request the video surveillance to help with the investigation and find the thieves. They got back “Oh, we don’t do that.” The fuck good are you anyway?!

    6. I’ve been in that Target a few times and its not at all surprising that’s where it was used.

      I’ve also delt with the NYPD, and it’s even less surprising they told your friend to fuck off. They treat other NYers with complete disdain, I’m surprised they didn’t just immediately hang up when some guy from Florida called.

  10. Of course the information the National Security Agency gathers won’t stay at the NSA if other federal agencies have their way

    Eventually, it won’t matter what agency you make a FOIA request from since they’ll all have the same set of data that they’ll refuse to tell you about.

    1. Thank god, one of their low-level contractors will release it ALL onto the internet, so we (and the Moldovian mafia) can have access to it.

  11. Third Woman’s Burned Body Found On Detroit’s West Side

    Detroit police are wondering if they have a serial attacker on their hands

    Nah, probably just a ritual suicide cult inspired by Buddhist monks.

    1. There are still people in detroit?

  12. What good does it do to close the embassies? We are going to have to re-open them eventually. Do they think the terrorists will get bored and go home? And of course now, Al Quada knows they can close American embassies world wide and cause major strategic disruption just by putting out a lot of chatter that the dopes at the NSA and State will believe. No need to actually bomb anything. This administration is appallingly incompetent.

    1. This.

      Another angle is: If we can close embassies indefinitely, why do we have them in the first place?

      “Nothing can be cut.”

      1. They do serve a real purpose. A lot of people no doubt are getting totally fucked by this. You can’t get a VISA unless the embassy is closed. Thing of all the travel and business we just totally fucked up.

        1. Why does anyone *need* a visa?

          1. Because you traveling to the US to do business or go to school or go to a conference or see your dying mother. This action totally fucked a lot of people.

            1. Why does anyone *need* to do those things?

              1. Because there are a few people out there you really don’t want to meet and don’t want them coming in your country no matter how much you believe in the transnational peace unicorn.

                1. Relax John. They were using sarcasm.

                2. Let me try a less snarky approach: If getting a visa to see your dying mother is so important why is there a single point of failure?

                  1. It’s much more important to the seeker than the grantor. They grantor sets up the system.

                    1. Bingo, NEM.

                      Now, why does anyone *need* a firearm?

                  2. I’m annoyed by Rich’s obtuseness.

                    1. Me, too. Why can’t he just get to the point?

              2. Your mother is already dead, what difference, at this point, does your visiting her make?

                1. ^^Official State department response

        2. You can’t get a VISA unless the embassy is closed. Thing of all the travel

          Drink some coffee, man

          1. It won’t help.

    2. This administration is appallingly incompetent

      I would say the rot goes deeper than just the administration. It’s not like there was huge turnover in the civil service when Bush the Lesser turned over the Football of Power to Barack the Lightbringer.

      The incompetence goes to some pretty low numbers appended to the letters ‘GS’.

      1. It wasn’t the GS employees who decided to close the embassy or decided this threat was real. That was done all by the political appointees.

    3. What good does it do to close the embassies? We are going to have to re-open them eventually. Do they think the terrorists will get bored and go home?

      No, They think the American public is incredibly stupid.

      1. Ding Ding! And anyone who actually listens to Peter King and believes him is stupid.

  13. Of course they reelected Mugabe. He turned every citizen into a trillionaire!

  14. Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe won re-election with 61 percent of the vote.

    I think I’ll wait for Jimmy Carter to sign-off on these results.

    1. Given his record, I’m surprised he didn’t get 2.5 trillion percent.

      1. Clap. Clap. Clap.

  15. Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe won re-election with 61 percent of the vote.

    Whoo! A real squeaker!

    1. Not official until Jimmy Carter certifies it.

    2. yah, I wonder why they picked that number to “win” by?

      1. 99% was too suspicious with a loud and organized opposition party.

        1. Nobody likes the ’70s. I mean, nobody.

    3. 61%? Sounds like he has a mandate to me.

  16. http://mobile.reuters.com/arti…..S&irpc=932

    – A secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.

    Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin – not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.

    The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to “recreate” the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant’s Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don’t know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence – information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.

    It is an iron law of government. All information government collects will eventually be used for every possible purpose. The idea that we should allow the NSA to collect everything because it is needed to stop terrorism but won’t be used for anything else is preposterous. What is used for some horrible crime one day will eventually be used to go after some guy who didn’t fill out his forms properly.

    1. Well said. Mission creep is the norm, not the exception, with government agencies.

      1. Mission creep is the norm, not the exception, with government agencies.

        It’s more than just the norm. It is certain to happen. Mission creep is the only path with government agencies. Saying it is the norm implies that it may not happen. Mission creep will always happen.

    2. Yep, and the most important word in that quote is trained. It means that lying and perjury are official policy of US federal enforcement agencies.

  17. Tamerlan Tsarnaev had right-wing extremist literature

    *Please* don’t let him turn out to have been a frequenter of H&R.

    1. RC Dean did come back, didn’t he?

      1. Yes, he did. I haven’t lived in Boston for over 20 years, BTW.

    2. Reading material he had about white supremacy commented that “Hitler had a point”.

      Stormfront needs to stop using “Caucasian” when they mean “White Protestant European”.

    3. So he was a “white Muslim”?

    4. This isn’t a right-wing website, so we should be okay.

      1. *** rising intonation ***

        Pretty sure I can find “documentation” of it being a right-wing website.

        And even if I can’t, it’s widely known that libertarian sites are even worse.

        1. I know it happens all the time, but I hate it when people refer to Libertarians as “extreme right-wing”. It’s as if they have no understanding of Libertarianism…

      2. This isn’t a right-wing website

        Tell John that please.

        1. NO!! I was going to use John for the documentation!

          1. I thought you were going to use PB, the only pure Libertarian to post here.

    5. In related news, Rolling Stone suddenly believes their recent Tamerlan cover issue was in poor taste.

        1. Rolling Stone — you know, that rock and roll magazine.

          1. I thought they went out of business years ago.

            1. Tamerlan went out of business just months ago.

      1. Damn just realized I mixed up my domestic terrorists! The Dzhokhar kid was on Rolling stone, not Tamerlan.

    6. That article seems to have been written by a twelve year old. Dismissible.

      1. Yup.

    7. Oh here we go. Color me shocked that there *had* to be a “right wing” connection.

  18. I’ll have a Google burger please.

    This has been news for a little while, but I still can’t get over how cool it is. As transformative as mass produced meat is, I imagine that somewhere out there is a large number of militant vegans who don’t think this kind of technological progress is nearly as fun as banning shit I like.

    1. If they could get mass produced fish, that would be a miracle. It tastes like ass right now. But the first versions of things usually do. In 20 years maybe?

      1. We are just 10 years away!!!

        ducks and covers

      2. You mean farmed fish or lab grown?

        1. Lab grown. A lot of ocean fish are really hard to grow in a farm.

    2. “This tastes like something familiar…”
      “Chicken? Chicken would be okay”
      “No, it tastes like sadness and despair”

      1. “Try our new Schadenfrueude burger! Taste the sadness and despair!*”

        *Note: said sadness and despair might be your own, and you may not experience the same schadenfreude that we do.

      2. “Could it be that it just needs salt?”

      3. “We’re not calling it Blobby anymore, on account of Chester. You know, the carrot.”

    3. So how many breeds of cattle go extinct if this catches on?

      1. Not extinct. There will always be a market for the real thing. It will just be smaller.

        1. Not that I care, but I would think some breeds of beef cattle would go away.

          The top ones wouldnt. The money breeds.

      2. Ultimate Soviet Cow: Everything the Body Needs

    4. As someone who abstains from meat primarily for ethical reasons, I’ve been tits up excited about guilt-free-meat since it was first announced years ago. I’m actually worried that the militants will try to ban this stuff, the same way anti-tobacco zealots are trying to ban those vaporizer things.

      1. I don’t see how it ever gets allowed. I can’t imagine it being any different than the GMO crusade.

        1. Ok, so never getting allowed is a bit of hyperbole, but there will be significant pressure against it since progressive food purists hate things that could help solve world hunger.

          1. yep. Baptists = anti-gmo-vegans. Bootleggers = cattle farmers. It’s a winning combination.

        2. The anti-GMO crowd is right up there with anti-vaccine crusaders. It won’t matter how many lives are saved from being able to produce animal protein that’s parasite- or disease-free as long as they get their way.

      2. What’s the feedstock?

        1. People. Obviously

    5. The PETArds are generally in favor of synthetic meat.

      1. The PETArds are generally in favor of synthetic meat.

        Now. Just wait until it’s a viable technology that is ready for market. Then it will be evil. See the argument about fracking.

  19. -Jenny Hatch, a 29-year-old woman with Down syndrome, prevails over parents in custody battle

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/…..y/2614587/

    This story was reported as a great milestone for the rights of the mentally disabled. But when I clicked on the Washington Post story it linked to it seems it is more complicated. Her parents wanted to take care of her, but her ‘friends’ and employers argued that they combined with various social services should do.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    1. Did she win or did the state win? It looks to me like this is more “the state now owns your children”.

      1. They gave guardian to these friends whom employed her part time and let her move in.

        That it wasn’t just about her ‘independence’ can be seen in the following excerpt from the Post story:

        -But for national experts on the rights of people with disabilities, several of whom testified on Hatch’s behalf, the case was about much more. It was about an individual’s right to choose how to live and the government’s progress in providing the help needed to integrate even those with the most profound needs into the community.

        It takes a village I guess.

        1. That sounds real good, except that these cases are a lot more complex than that. What happens when the new “guardian” is just some pervert who is sexually abusing her? It is an article of faith among many people in the field that there is no such thing as mental disability and that any person has the capacity to make major life decisions for themselves. I am not kidding. Many social workers are that fucking delusional. They think someone with an IQ of 65 and the maturity of an 8 year old child is perfectly competent to live like anyone else.

          It would be like thinking Shreek is competent to live on his own. They really are that stupid.

          1. I don’t even think it sounds good.

            I can sympathize with the young woman wanting to live on her own. But that’s not what they’ve done here, they’ve granted guardianship to some ‘friends/employers’ and a bunch of government agencies when her parents were willing to do it. Absent a showing there is a serious problem with the parents that makes little sense to me. I agree with you about the potential problems.

            1. As a monocle wearer, I’m intrigued by this idea of getting “Guardianship” for my employees/orphans/friends who slave away in my sweatshops.

              But seriously, when her “friends/employers” get tired of her or just hit hard times, are they going to keep her high on their priorities? Her family (or most families) will, if no other reason, to avoid public shaming.

              1. That is an excellent point. More importantly, either she needs a guardian or she doesn’t. If she does, then she is not competent enough to choose her own. And if she can choose, then she doesn’t need the guardian. And if she can’t choose, then the family should always be the first choice.

                This is just another example of the state’s efforts to destroy the family.

            2. I don’t know. As John points out, you can’t treat a seriously disabled person like they are a fully functioning adult, but on the other hand, their wishes should carry some weight.

        2. Why is it so hard to accept that society just isn’t going to bend over backwards to accommodate the mentally disabled? Just live at home, be thankful you have a wonderful life here in America and be happy. not everything has to be a fucking crusade.

          1. Wrong. What we need is affirmative action for the severely disabled. People with Down Syndrome are not nearly well enough represented at the top universities and on corporate boards.

            1. Well, there is the President and VP. And last I looked Slate and the Washington Post employed Matthew Yglesias, who is clearly some kind of special needs case.

              1. True, they will always have a place in politics or political commentary.

  20. If I handcuffed you and forced you to climb a fence, would I get off scot-free? Well, I’m not a cop.

    New Zealand police handcuffed a man and forced him to climb over a fence; he fell off the fence and was paralyzed from the nexk down. Cops claim they did nothing wrong, because any idiot can climb a fence with their hands tied behind their back.

    1. That article doesn’t explain it and I still can’t figure it out. Why in heck did they force him to climb a fence? Just for shits and giggles?

      1. I think they needed to get him on the other side of the fence for whatever reason. It says “wire fence”, which I don’t know whether it’s Antipodean for chain-link or something like a barbed-wire fence. Where’s IFH?

        1. I’m guessing that “climbing the wire fence” is an Kiwi sexual euphemism.

  21. No more background checks. First case of child rape will get this repealed.

    Under the ordinance, approved by the City Council in a 6-1 vote and set to take effect in September, private companies that have city contracts and that employ more than nine people won’t be able to ask anything about an applicant’s criminal record; otherwise they would lose their city contracts. The ordinance is one of the nation’s strictest “ban-the-box” laws, which are so called because many job applications contain a box to check if one has a criminal record.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politic…..z2b6GwiTNM

    1. If this is just the city saying it won’t do business with companies that do this I don’t have a problem with it.

      1. Missed that.

      2. Sure voluntary association is a key plank of the libertarian platform, I just think the city council are idiots.

        1. The government has created problems by recognizing ‘third party negligence.’ This seems like an attempt to mitigate the negative consequences of this (which should have been foreseeable), but of course it is a poor one given the legal doctrine will still stand.

      3. If cities were private companies, I wouldnt have a problem with it.

        But they arent.

        I dont have a probably with private companies racially discriminating (well, I have a problem, but you know what I mean). But the city cant.

      4. I wonder who will handle their banking and investments.

        Does this mean that the city itself, police department included, can’t ask?

      5. If this is just the city saying it won’t do business with companies that do this I don’t have a problem with it.

        Why don’t you have a problem with it?

        1. I think one way governments can (usually) unobjectionably foster certain social goals by choosing who to do business with and who not to or conditioning their business.

          1. I am asking you why you think this is a worthy social goal.

            1. I think it is as John said below, people deserve a fresh start or a second chance without a scarlet letter attached to them for life. Remember this only ‘kicks in’ for those who are trying to employ themselves, which means they are less likely to be moving towards being wards of the state.

              1. If the people of Richmond want to be serviced by companies that cannot check whether their employees are child molesters or bar brawlers, that’s fine. I think this makes them stupid.

            2. Well, for one thing, lots of people with criminal records either never did anything wrong or are not bad or dangerous people.

              1. Yes, well, a lot of people with criminal records did do something wrong and ARE bad or dangerous people.

                1. A lot of people with no record are dangerous. Everyone that has one at one time did not. With the explosion of offenses, many of them bizarrely technical and not malum in se, it seems wrong to hang that scarlet letter for life.

              2. It seems like the employer is better positioned to make that choice, rather than being blackmailed into not using all the facts he would otherwise consider relevant.

                1. I don’t find conditioning work to be blackmail, and I imagine in other instances you don’t either.

                  1. “Do what we say or you will lose this contract, where ‘what we say’ doesn’t relate to the quality of the work for that contract” looks pretty blackmaily to me.

                    Do you have some examples where you believe I wouldn’t consider imposing requirements not related to the work wouldn’t be blackmail (de facto, not necessarily de jure), because I can’t think of any.

                    1. If your employer asks you to take a drug test is he ‘blackmailing’ you?

                      If I hire you to cut my grass but tell you have to cut it in some organic friendly way or I will not am I blackmailing you?

                    2. If I say I will not give any contracts to Planned Parenthood as long as they perform abortion am I ‘blackmailing’ them?

                      If I say I will not do business with the Boy Scouts of America as long as they do not allow gays, am I ‘blackmailing’ them?

                    3. If I say I will not give any contracts to Planned Parenthood as long as they perform abortion am I ‘blackmailing’ them?

                      Yeah, I think boycotts are a kind of blackmail, though I wouldn’t use that pejorative in all cases.

                      I think there’s a distinction, though, between wielding the power of the state and what happens between private parties. I think this is yet another illegitimate intrusion of the state into a private situation.

                      If you won’t sell office supplies to Planned Parenthood because they do abortions that’s one thing. If the state denies doctors some contract because they do abortions and are otherwise qualified, I think that’s different.

                    4. If your employer asks you to take a drug test is he ‘blackmailing’ you?

                      The argument is that that has a relation to job performance or reliability.

                      If I hire you to cut my grass but tell you have to cut it in some organic friendly way or I will not am I blackmailing you?

                      Again, that has to do with the work itself. I think you can prescribe just about any rules you want for the performance of the work itself. Whether a company asks about criminal backgrounds isn’t the same.

                    5. See my further examples.

                2. Putting conditions on a contract is not blackmail.

                  1. Not (necessarily) in a legal sense, but it could be.

                    I’m not saying the city can’t legally do it, just that I think it is an illegitimate restriction that serves even less of a purpose than asking about crimes while screening employees.

                    Is the city going to indemnify the employers for losses caused by employees who would have been disqualified because of their convictions?

                    1. It will be up to each business to weigh the risks with the benefits of doing business with the city. That’s how freedom works.

          2. Governments shouldn’t be fostering certain social goals.

            1. That the government is doing anything at all is fostering certain goals.

              If the government hires police to protect property and life from force and fraud it is promoting that goal. If it delivers mail it is promoting the idea that government should facilitate communications. I don’t see anything wrong with it further fostering certain goals when it does business to further other goals anyway. For instance, if the government is going to buy cars for its police to ride around in I don’t see anything wrong with saying they won’t buy cars from businesses who, say, do business with Iran or whatever.

              For me the problem only comes in when the government says ‘you can’t do business with Iran if you want.’

            2. The only “social goals” the government should be fostering are the prevention and punishment of force and fraud. I would say that once you get beyond the night watchman state you are engage in social engineering, but the protection of property rights and the prevention of violent crime don’t really fit that definition, in my mind.

            3. How about this then, as the initiator and prosecutor of the charges, the government gets to decide when revealing those charges/convictions is relevant.

              There’s something about the fact that government is responsible for the charges in the first place that makes me ok with telling people not to consider them.

    2. I hope they don’t expect any bank offices to stay open in their municipality.

    3. So anyone large enough to have a lawyer on retainer who can explain liability case law will no longer contract with the city?

      1. I hired a convicted rapist, didn’t tell anyone about his past, and left him alone with a female customer whom he attacked. Yeah, no liability there.

        1. Per the article, they can still ask about murder/voluntary manslaughter/sex offenses requiring registration.

          1. If you extended that to theft convictions, then I don’t see the problem. Thieves and perverts are a problem. But everyone else should be able to get a fresh start.

          2. So what about domestic violence? Child abuse? Bar fights?

          3. Ironically, aren’t murderers and those who commit manslaughter very unlikely to commit another such offense?

            1. What Bo said. I don’t see how manslaughter especially should matter. Mostly that means the person probably drank and drove and killed someone. A crime for sure. But it doesn’t mean they are dangerous when they get out or even dishonest.

        2. I think it would actually be: I hired a convicted rapist, didn’t do any diligence about his past, and left him alone with a female customer whom he attacked.

        3. I think that should be on the rapist alone, unless there is some custodial type duty to care such as a day care or such. Third party negligence claims strike me as unfair. Why can’t the employer hire someone who has served their sentence and been released, after all the government seems to have ‘certified’ the person not a threat anymore by releasing them. And the doctrine makes it extremely difficult for the ever growing number of people convicted to gain employment, housing and other necessaries of life.

          1. It depends on the facts. But if you have a business that requires your employees to be alone with members of the public. Say it is a cable company or something who sends its people into homes, I think there is a duty to make sure your employees are not dangerous.

            Same with banks. If a bank never checks people’s backgrounds and hires a known thief and he empties your account, isn’t that the bank’s fault?

            1. If the person is such a threat why did the government release them? I realize that as a practical matter this is not that simple though.

              What if the city said it would only do business with those who limit background checks to the last seven years or something?

              1. The government cannot keep people indefinitely, whether they are still “threatening” or not.

              2. Because just because you are free to live in society, doesn’t mean you should be trusted to go into strange people’s homes.

                If someone is a convicted child molester, would you want them working in a grade school or coaching little league? If not, why not? They did pay their debt after all.

                1. I think that might be somewhat different because we tend to think of molesters as having ‘a problem’ with their ‘orientation’ that leads them to be compelled in that direction. I don’t see the same for people who were in a bar fight.

                  But you have an excellent overall point, I should have stuck with my argument that only when there is a special duty of care or custody should this be a concern. That covers day cares and schools.

                  1. Getting into bar fights evinces poor judgment. If you can’t control yourself in a relaxed social setting, why should I trust you to control yourself at work?

                    1. I think you have far too much faith in the justice system to determine who is a bad person for life from a bar fight conviction.

                    2. Because they are two separate settings, the behavior at which are not necessarily expected to be the same.

                      I’ve been in bar fights. I’ve never been in a fight at work.

                    3. Do you work in a bar?

                    4. “If you can’t control yourself in a relaxed social setting, why should I trust you to control yourself at work?”

                      You’re stupid right?

                      Because this question is stupid, and you asking it is stupid.

        4. Here’s the deal, though:

          There is such a thing as “negligent hiring” these days, such that the failure to perform a background check is sufficient grounds for liability.

    4. They ought to get rid of the check boxes for race, too.

      1. But then how will they be recognized for being an EOE? Aren’t there tax incentives for that?

    5. It’s really a bad idea. For instance, if a job has a fiduciary responsibility and the company hires someone with a fraud conviction, could be a little problematic.

      A company could easily get sued for not taking reasonable steps to protect consumers, other employees, whatever. That usually only comes up with sensitive positions, but who is liable now? Looks to me like the company remains on the hook.

      1. Don’t do business with the city council then.

        It’s not that hard to do business while not taking work from a given municipality. Ideally municipalities would not contract much work period.

        1. You’re making a lot of blanket statements.

          Why would the city “ideally” not be contracting much work?

          1. Because it would have limited functions and duties.

            1. Ok, so you’re saying the total amount of work it has to do would be small. I can agree to that. I was thinking, “Of course they should contract a lot of work. I would say most of it, like 90%”

              1. There are some potential problems with contracting out government services, you can get regimes rife with kickbacks and government-services-as-patronage-favors. Where something can be done better via private contractor I think government should probably just get out of the business altogether.

                But yes, I was referring to a government that does very little in the first place.

        2. I don’t care much for government doing this sort of thing. Let the businesses run their business in a legal manner.

        3. The city is essentially taking the position here that it will only do business with people who violate a recognized legal duty to perform background checks.

          You don’t think that’s a problem? Sure, we can say that “negligent hiring” is a bullshit ground for liability, but its there. Given that, how do you justify one branch of government penalizing you if you don’t do X, and another branch of government penalizing you if you do?

          1. “Fuck you, that’s why?”

    6. Uhm yeah, because background checks are so good at finding child-rapists.

      1. I find trolling with a child as bait to be the best method.

        If you do it right, you can even reuse the bait.

    7. Does anyone know what happened to the EEOC “guidance” about not checking criminal backgrounds? They basically claimed that the criminal justice system was racist, but rather than try to reform it, they’re placing the burden of the allegedly unfair system on the private sector.

      1. The EEOC has wrought indescribable damage to society. Pretty much the entire college debt issue can be laid at their feet.

        The Supreme Court had a very complicated definition of what constituted “Direct Business Necessity”, one that was difficult to meet and gave considerable deference to the employee of the Equal Opportunity Commission who was deciding whether or not to accuse a company of illegal discrimination. Only the simplest tests, such as requiring a prospective driver to pass a driving test could reasonably pass muster. Other tests, which businessmen clearly felt were useful to reducing the risk of hiring the wrong person for the job, now could get them sued.

        Companies began casting about for a way to screen out the-incompetent or unfit in a way that would not result in them being sued. The simplest solution is to demand a college degree. Any racial discrimination demonstrated in the pool of degreed people would be the colleges’ liability, and the business could get on with the business of hiring new employees without being worried about lawsuits.

        1. This is also why the diversity bureaucracy is increasing at an exponential rate. The schools have to protect their meal ticket.

        1. So according the the link, criminal background is irrelevant to working for Dollar General or BMW.

          But try to get hired by the feds if you got busted for pot.

          1. Heck, according to this story, the feds won’t even let a retired veteran buy a .22 rifle because of a 1971 pot conviction.

            Yet they want to force businesses to hire convicted criminals to run cash registers and handle cars (which are deadlier than .22s, I understand).

            1. Forgot the link:

              http://www.nationalreview.com/…..-grudnicki

        2. The Althouse article says the EEOC is throwing out statistics about how blacks and Latinos are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. And they don’t seem to have specifically mentioned this, but this situation obtains in the federal justice system as well.

          But instead of doing anything to address this alleged problem – I mean, if they *really* think blacks are unfairly hassled by the criminal justice system, why not stop hassling them? But, no, they don’t actually believe their own propaganda; they think the justice system is hunky-dory, they simply don’t want the private sector to rely on it.

          If you think your precious criminal justice is screwing with people, why not just *stop screwing with them,* you benighted feds?

          1. Oh, and let a business try to defend itself in a negligent-hiring lawsuit by citing EEOC guidance.

            “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you’ve seen how the defendant’s employee almost beat my client to death, and now they’re blaming the EEOC? What kind of evasion of responsibility are they trying to get away with here? I mean, look at these photos of my client’s injuries!”

      2. If I recall the EEOC’s position was that background checks should only be used when relevance to the job itself made it reasonable, not ‘in general.’ I actually think that is a good way to think about, but it should not be forced on employers by an entity like the EEOC. Instead, government should make the standard by which employers could be liable in government courts. That way no one is forced to adopt it, but government incentives not to are removed.

        1. Hiring someone without a record of theft could reasonably be relevant to every job.

          1. Granted, but it is still context specific.

    8. No more background checks. First case of child rape will get this repealed.

      Right in the article:

      “Murder, voluntary manslaughter and sex offenses requiring registry can be inquired about no matter how much time has passed.”

  22. I have to hand it to Mugabe. He’s smarter than the other dictators. None of that 99% of the vote or 100% of the vote stuff. 61%. Just close enough to make it believable.

  23. -The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that video game manufacturer EA Sports could not use the First Amendment to toss out a lawsuit against its use of the names, images, and likenesses of college athletes without compensation when it produced its line of NCAA football video games.

    http://thinkprogress.org/sport…..ea-sports/

    1. Pretty standard right of publicity, etc., especially in California.

    2. The NCAA really needs to go away. They exist only to give sportswriters something else to be sanctimonious about.

      1. Johnny Manziel should be allowed to sell his own signature.

        1. Sure. But he is not. And he knew the rules. And he didn’t even need the money. If he did that, it just shows he is too stupid to play quarterback in the NFL.

          1. The law, sir, is an ass.

            1. It is not the law. If he doesn’t like it, don’t play college football. Go play baseball or basketball in Europe where you don’t have to go to college. No one made him go to Texas A&M or play NCAA sports. It is their organization and they can make whatever rules they want. If Manziel is too stupid to live by them, that is his problem. There is no injustice in enforcing rules that someone agreed to and knew about.

              1. The NCAA is a bit of a monopoly and a state actor led one to boot.

                1. the NCAA’s status as a so-called “monopoly” is irrelevant.

                  The simple involvement of state universities does not mean it is “state actor led”, whatever that means.

                  1. State schools are either the majority or substantial (and most influential) number of members of the NCAA, so under current state actor doctrine I have no problem finding them to be one.

                    And their monopoly is not irrelevant: John’s entire point rests on there being choices for someone like Manziel.

                    1. There are choices. No one says you have to play college ball in the NCAA.

                      Now, if you mean that generally in order to play in the NFL you have to go through the NCAA, well, yeah, but that doesn’t mean you lack “choice”. You aren’t entitled to get a shot at pro ball.

                    2. Do you feel the same way about union shop agreements? ‘No one is entitled to have job X outside of union membership?’

                    3. John’s entire point rests on there being choices for someone like Manziel.

                      They do have options. They could go work at Burger King, or wash cars, or dig ditches. Going to college is just another paying gig for these guys, and it’s the best one they’re offered. At my school, 4 years of tuition, books, meal plans, the best campus housing, tutoring, and all the free gear/clothing could cost $200k+. That’s pretty good for an 18 year old playing a kid’s game.

              2. “Go play baseball…in Europe”

                I’m sorry, what?

        2. As a Texas Ex, I have to say that this guy may be dumber than Vince Young.

          1. He is just a cock. The success went right to his head. He couldn’t handle it. I bet he either gets suspended or has a terrible year this coming year and ends up not even making the NFL.

            1. It’s plenty possible that he wouldn’t make the NFL as anything but a backup or package QB anyway.

              The scouting report on Manziel is currently, “see also: Doug Flutie.” He’ll make a great Stampeder.

              1. Don’t they open against Alabama this year or something? Not good for A&M if he’s suspended.

      2. This is EA, the NCAA lawsuit is separate. Everybody in the business of making the NCAA video game is apparently a scumbag.

        1. Amazingly enough, I don’t think Curt Schilling is involved.

          1. I didn’t say all the scumbags in the sports world were involved. Just many of them.

          2. Shilling was on ESPN bitching about ARod this morning. Last I looked, ARod never stole any money from the taxpayers.

            1. The only good thing about the Rodriguez story is that it took all the air time away from the Riley Cooper story.

              1. Contrast the fainting fit over that to the one day and out story over the jackass twins wearing the “Free Aaron Hernandez” hats. Which is worse, throwing out a racial slur that is used by both races daily or publicly supporting a guy who is most likely guilty of at least one premeditated murder?

        2. It wouldn’t be an issue if the NCAA wasn’t the way they are. If there was an NCAAPA, EA would have paid them a license fee and it would have been divvied up by whatever way the PA membership agreed.

    3. I’m so torn, I hate both EA and the NCAA.

      But, the players themselves should at least be able to control the use of their own names and likenesses.

      1. Why? Do you own your name?

        1. For some purposes, yes. That’s why commercials get releases/licenses from people whose images they use.

        2. I think it is important that he said ‘name and likeness.’ Another term is ‘personality rights.’

  24. Ah, Monday morning in Bal’mer. Nothing better than the fresh smell of the weekend’s accumulation of public urination.

    1. I rode the light rail from Hunt Valley to Cromwell and back on Friday. Balto
      seemed very much unlike what I had feared. What did I miss?

      1. I only work here, I live elsewhere, but there’s a special brand of widespread and hard-core poverty in Bal’mer that I never saw working in DC.

    2. It was a beautiful morning in Baltimore. Perfect weather. People seem to be in a good mood.

      1. Why do you hate Art Donovan and why aren’t you in at least superficial mourning?

  25. 101 Everyday Ways for Men to Be Allies to Women

    6. Be conscious of where your eyes wander as a woman walks by. Change that behavior.

    18. Be pro-choice.

    21. Read websites like Feministing, Colorlines, Jezebel, etc. for your news sources.

    41. Recognize that you contribute to women’s oppression by NOT acting.

    70. Learn and use appropriate vocabulary.

    Go back to #25 and check out those books. Familiarize yourself. Here are some keywords you should know: feminism, patriarchy, oppression, privilege, resistance, intersectionality, LGBTQQIAA (and what each letter stands for), double consciousness, masculinity, femininity, differences between sex and gender, gender spectrum, sexism (and all of the -isms), glass ceiling, glass escalator, whiteness, etc. That’s a good starter list. Believe me, there’s a lot more.

    76. Seek out children’s books for your kids that challenge traditional gender roles.

    93. Buy your books at local, independent bookstores.

    My favorite:

    98. Turn magazines that promote sexism and unhealthy body image backwards at your local supermarkets and newsstands.

    1. “Welcome to my blog! I’m a Sociology and Women’s and Gender Studies Double Major. ”

      So you’re not only a pussy but you’re an unemployable pussy.

      1. Yes, but he’s on the fast track to high-volume cuckolding.

    2. What *is* he doing in that photograph?

      1. Dude…that’s Ryan Gosling. Get it together, man.

      2. That’s Ryan Gosling. Appropriating his image is big in the lefty circles.

    3. I presume marrying a woman and being faithful to her aren’t on the list?

      1. That is not being sex positive Ted. And if you marry a woman, you are totally supposed to let her flirt and maybe even sleep with other men. You in contrast, need to keep your eyes to the floor.

    4. 6. Be conscious of where your eyes wander as a woman walks by. Change that behavior.

      Go fuck yourself lady. If you don’t want men looking at you, dress conservatively. Go ask an Amish or an Orthodox Muslim or Jewish woman about this. They will all tell you that they never have men checking them out. In fact, many of them will point this out as an advantage to their lifestyle. And if you are so damned concerned about men looking at you, why are you dressing any way but totally conservatively? What is the point of doing otherwise? Stop feeding the patriarchy by dressing like a whore. How about that?

      1. It’s a man.

        1. Then why isn’t he telling women to stop feeding the patriarchy by dressing like whores?

          1. Women should be able to strut around almost naked without anyone judging them or ogling them, because patriarchy.

            Like many modern feminist ideas, there’s a grain of truth to that but it’s been taken too far.

            1. You shouldn’t judge them. But they shouldn’t be able to complain about people looking at them. The whole point of dressing that way is to be noticed.

              Really what they are bitching about is the wrong people noticing them. Feminists live in this fantasy world where only men they are interested in dare to look at them. They really never got passed the 8th grade when they were telling their b/fs “that nerd looked at me”. It is the same bullshit.

            2. The whole “don’t judge me” thing drives me nuts. Because it is universally used by people who want your approval (which is to say, a positive judgment), without quite realizing that judgment must necessarily be able to swing both ways.

              “Accept me as I am” requires a judgment, that you are acceptable. There’s just no way around it.

              Typical PC mush-heads wanting it both ways. Or just narcissists. Either way.

        2. I really hope he either recovers or commits suicide. The way he is now is just no way to go through life. What a miserable, miserable existence.

          1. There are very few people or ideas in this world I find reflexively repulsive. Michael Urbina just gives me a gut reflex of nausea and disgust.

      2. I think “Michael Urbina” is a man.

        1. Male? yes
          Man? no.

      3. I am very conscious. And they don’t wander, they are directed.

        1. Yeah, I’ll look at what I want to look at. Attractive women are one of the great things in the world. I try to avoid staring open mouthed for long periods.
          And if some woman or gay dude wants to check me out, I invite them to have at it.

          1. My wife is always carrying on about me walking around the house in my underwear with the curtains open. She claims that I’m an exhibitionist, when actually I just don’t care if the neighbors see me or not. That’s their problem.

      4. I think that was written by a male person.

    5. Be conscious of where your eyes wander as a woman walks by. Change that behavior.

      You may as well ask me to stop breathing.

      1. I took it to mean “just let your eyes wander automatically”.

    6. “18. Be pro-choice.”

      Most aborted “fetuses” are female, you castrato.

      “70. Learn and use appropriate vocabulary.”

      Like “dame,” “chick,” “babe,” and “hubba hubba?”

      “98. Turn magazines that promote sexism and unhealthy body image backwards at your local supermarkets and newsstands.”

      Yes, mess with someone else’s property like you own it – accepting that principle can’t possibly backfire on women.

    7. Good god, that guy needs some help.

      I agree with two of the 101 points, though. Catcalling is stupid and obnoxious. And the “remember that not only men have orgasms” is good advice if you want a rewarding sexual relationship.

      1. I hereby revoke your patriarchy card. Please report to your nearest men’s center (aka sports bar) and turn it in to the bartender.

        1. He’s practically a vagina at this point.

          1. And I’d rather watch paint dry than go to a sports bar. Assuming that cocktails are available at the paint drying event.

            1. The two points you identify with could be summed up in one:

              “Remember that it isn’t 1950”

    8. 19. Let yourself cry and be emotional.

      Men are taught that showing emotion (especially in public) is frowned upon and not masculine. Screw that?Crying, being emotional, and being true to how you really feel despite cultural expectations is a MUST.

      Here’s what women have a hard time understanding. We’re trained not to cry and to restrain our emotions for no other reason than simple survival. In an emergency you need to be able to keep a clear head. There’s no way to train for this other than learning control throughout your life. If my son get’s in a bike accident, I sure as hell trained him not to cry. Instead he needs to assess the situation, walk it off and determine how big a deal it was. I taught my son not to have tantrums when he was young. Losing control could result in someone getting seriously hurt when you’re older. Emotional people do things they regret.

      If anything, the opposite should be true. We should raise daughters to learn how to control their emotions. We should look down on those who cry and get emotional in public. If we say that there must be equality, then it’s fair to demand that the kind of restraint and discipline men exhibit every day be learned by women as well.

      Emotions are well and good, but it must be at the right time and place. As I mentioned to my son, it’s alright to cry. Just do it in private, away from prying eyes, and long after the crisis has passed.

  26. Don’t Worry Government, I Got This Porn Filter Sorted (maybe NSFW — has MS Paint cartoon dicks)

  27. Read websites like Feministing, Colorlines, Jezebel, etc. for your news sources.

    I find chicken entrails to be more reliable, and much less disgusting.

  28. -According to FBI data, Islamic Terrorism attacks less common in recent US history than Latino, left-wing and Jewish inspired terrorism

    http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/…..e-muslims/

    1. Jewish mothers are trying to guilt-trip people to death?

      Latinos are force-feeding chimichungas? (sp?) What a way to die!

      1. Actually, the Jewish Defense League’s bombing campaign in the 1970’s in NYC was pretty nasty. It even killed a couple of clerks at a department store.

        1. If the 70s is “recent,” then OK. I didn’t RT*A.

    2. Extreme left wing groups – 24%. Extreme right wing groups – nowhere on the list. And that’s with them separating ‘extreme left wing groups’ and ‘communists.’

      I feel like this doesn’t fit certain narratives that I’ve been fed.

      I do feel like this is a bit disingenuous though. It starts in 1980 and goes until 2005. Muslim terrorists were not a threat at all until 2001. No one really even thought about them. Since 2001 though, the two worst terrorist attacks carried out on American soil (three if you count Benghazi) have all been carried out by radical Muslims.

      This would be like making a chart of modern warlike countries and including Germany because of shit they did between 1880 and 1945.

      The chart also includes things like ‘kidnappings,’ ‘arson,’ ‘shootings,’ ‘robberies,’ and ‘hostile takeovers.’ Those have far fewer fatalities and injuries than the types of attacks favored by radical Islam. A better thing to do would be to say ‘how many people have been killed by each type of terrorist group.’ That would be more accurate in telling you how much of a threat a group is.

      The answer to that question is undoubtedly radial Muslims given that 9/11 killed more people than every other terrorist attack over that period combined.

      1. “…hostile takeovers…”

        Those Wall Street types have been getting into the terror game, too?

      2. radial Muslims

        So…are they steel belted? Cause that would explain a lot.

        1. They are lot less docile than the old bias ply Muslims our parents used to have to deal with.

    1. That’s not how you spell Bush!

  29. Today is my birthday. I sent a card to someone else (deceased) that shares it with me, but I doubt the USPS was able to deliver it.

    1. By the way, aside from the GMT Master II and a new set of irons from Banjos and the kids, this is a quick photo of the haul from Banjos and the kids.

      1. M*A*S*H?

        And what is that CD?

        1. Peter Schilling…Different Story (World of Lust and Crime)

          Why? Because “Major Tom” isn’t available on fucking iTunes, that’s why. But I don’t have the heart to tell Banjos that my laptop doesn’t have a DVD drive.

          1. I thought I recognized the cover image. “Major Tom” is available on Amazon mp3.

            1. Are you serious? Can I buy it and load it into iTunes?

              1. I can, but your technical competence may not be up to the task.

                1. My technical competence is pretty shitty. I’ll just enjoy the cd. Ooh, can I load the song onto a zip drive and upload that to iTunes on my laptop?

        2. And WTF is wrong with M*A*S*H? That show as fucking great if you can put aside your strong desire to punch Pierce in the face when he gets preachy. I already have the movie and Kara wants me to stop clogging up the DVR with Hogan’s Heroes and M*A*S*H episodes I never get around to watching.

          1. I guess there’s nothing wrong with it other than Alan Alda. I remember watching it weekly witg my parents throughout my childhood but got tired of it well before it ended.

          2. It was great the first few seasons.

          3. I’m with you. MASH is great. Alda has his annoyingly preachy moments, but I even like him when he is just being funny.

          4. I guess Sloopy watches MASH… Alda time!

            1. I suddenly know what I want for my next birthday. It involves you, some formaldehyde a length of rope and a tree.

      2. Happy Birthday, BTW, from another August baby.

      3. Well done. The haul AND not being killed by Banjos yet.

      4. I’d like to see a pic of the GMT Master II. I think you’ve got a keeper there.

        1. Stainless with the Coke Bezel. About as basic as you could get.

          1. Nice. I love fine watches, but I’m more of an Omega man, myself.

            1. Omega’s are too rich for my blood.

              I’m pretty sure my next will be a Breitling Chronomat.

  30. “the information the National Security Agency gathers won’t stay at the NSA if other federal agencies have their way.”

    Why would anyone think that other federal agencies don’t already get NSA’s data?

    They already do: http://news.yahoo.com/exclusiv…..43729.html

    This Reuters report resembles the musings of Alex Jones. I used to write that guy off as a raving lunatic, but the facts reported Reuters are as bad as (or worse than) a paranoid wingnut’s delusions.

    Weren’t Patriot Act provisions used to bust hookers and strip clubs in Vegas from the outset? Now the DEA et al recreate evidence to match the evidence that they obtain illegally from intelligence sources. Can there be any doubt that the US is a police state?

    1. this revelation is starting to flow now. the leaker of this one should flee!

  31. Sheriff’s deputy charged for secretly pepper spraying a teen’s pizza

    Wow, they are actually charging this asshole? Probably get dropped, given paid leave, and probably an award from Michelle Obama because she stopped those kids from being able to eat that ‘pizza pie of heart disease’.

  32. Childless women are supposedly being discriminated against

    I mean, seriously? Yeah, although I’m a man, people have sometimes given me a little grief over the fact that I don’t want to get married and have kids. But shit, it’s not like I’m getting harrassed about it. But then again, some people take a small comment from folks to be a damned inquisition.

    1. My experience is the chidless get grief from the childed (?) and vice-versa. Each obnoxious group deserves the other.

    2. I have worked in situations in which unmarried/childless men were definitely discriminated against. Preferential choices in overtime callouts are often given to “family men” over others because evidently their time with the family is more important than a single man’s free time.

      1. I would imagine the same would probably apply in situations with a layoff. The family men might be safer than the single/childless guys.

    3. The comments on that site always read to me as histrionic yelling.

    4. This, like everything they touch, is a kinda sorta problem that they want to blow up into a fullscale war.

      Being a childfree couple, my wife and I get our share of disdain and dismissal pointed our way. We stopped getting invited to parties/outings that couples with children have. We get constant barrages of “how could you not want children. They’re the bestest most amazingest wonderfullest thing ever and your life is not complete until you are a parent” comments. We’ve even had people actively try to expose us to children so we would “catch the baby bug”.

      Mostly, it’s just an annoyance that we brush off. I have had jobs where I am the one who gets all the assignments that send me out of town or make me work late because I don’t have a “familY”. Again, it’s annoying, but as long as I’m being paid for the work, it’s fine. I’ve got the entire evening and the whole weekend to do whatever I want, I’ll give up a little time so my co-worker can spend time with his kid. That’s an important part of growing up.

      1. People are so annoying. It never occurs to them that perhaps a couple can’t have children. Yeah, maybe they hate children. Or maybe the woman has had five miscarriages and finally gave up trying for her own sanity. You have no idea which it is. But that doesn’t stop parents from doing the stupid shit you describe. But really the worst is the sniping about taking vacations and such and doing things that are hard to do once you have children. It drives me nuts when parents pull the martyr card on that. “Oh you went to Paris last December. We can’t do that kind of stuff anymore. We have kids”. “Oh, you slept in on Sunday. I haven’t slept past six a.m. in five years.”

        You choose to have the kids and lord it over everyone. What the hell are you bitching about?

        1. I call bullshit on that. We have kid (no s yet) and it hasn’t stopped us traveling or basically doing anything we used to do. It is all about focus. My little one has been to more countries before 4 that a lot of Americans ever will. Is it hard? The first couple of trips but she has been raised to be a good traveler. Now she trudges along with the rest of us sods with her backpack and stuffed animal. (as a matter of fact, she has IMPROVED our traveling. Not just because she is a delight but she is tiny…my wife and I are both over 6′ and i have very wide shoulders. We can’t stand flying next to each other, but with her in the middle it is all comfort.

          1. Sure you can do it. But it requires effort and actually making your child behave. And that is beyond most parents. Easier to let your child ruin your life and then tell everyone about how many sacrifices you made as a parent. It is a symbiotic relationship. The kid gets to run amuck and the parent gets to play look at me I am such a martyr.

            1. We had one quasi-private meltdown and one “DEAR GOD SHOOT ME” public airplane meltdown (I felt like I should have given every passenger 5$ on their way out the door). Other than that the two dozen trips or so have been great. I guess being an older parent helps because I find manipulating children to be not only easy but most of the time hilarious.

              And it seems to continue into later life, was playing golf with a buddy and his dad. His dad walks up holding the flag after sinking his putt on 13 and says “Hey, you know how much this weighs?” I said “No.” His reply: “Well, you fucking would if you would pick it up once in a while.”

              Tada, I voluntarily became the new flag bitch.

              1. P.S. I never have nor ever will use the Martyr crap. But I don’t appreciate when childless folk complain or make a specific point about not visiting or doing something because we have a short person living in the house. I would understand if the child was insane (hell, I don’t hang out with those parents and their kids). Sure there are times and places for NO CHILDREN but if you want to continue being acquaintances then understand that at 9:00 there is a possibility that a 3 year old will dress you down for being too loud (which is funny it its own right).

                1. The only thing I have a problem with is when the parents go insane after they have kids.

                  I made the mistake of getting into a conversation with a friend who is a new mother about vaccination. Apparently she has gone all Jenny McCarthy. It was all I could do not to be really unpleasant.

                  1. I made the mistake of getting into a conversation with a friend who is a new mother about vaccination. Apparently she has gone all Jenny McCarthy. It was all I could do not to be really unpleasant.

                    This is also why I excuse myself from topics regarding proper child rearing. First, as a non-parent, I don’t think I have any real expertise outside of “this is how my parents raised me and I turned out alright”. Second, many parents think they are doing the exact right thing with their children and telling them otherwise (even if supported by science like in the case of vaccinations) will send them into a fit.

                    1. As soon as “well I have a child and you don’t” is used as an argument, it is time to walk away if you want to keep your friends.

                    2. I have gotten the “I have two and you have one” argument before…Not friends anymore.

                    3. Really?? Is that parental equivalent of “no true scotsman”?

          2. CB, John was not saying that every parent is like that. I have several friends with children that never pull that card. Either their situation is like yours where the child isn’t restricting their activities, or they just suffer in silence.

            The annoying part is when people try to make it seem like I’m soooo fucking lucky that I can sleep in till noon on weekends or that their dashed hopes and dreams make them some sort of noble victim. I CHOSE not to have children so I could do the things I want to without having to worry about a helpless being all the time. Luck or nobleness have nothing to do with it.

            It’d like someone choosing to live 30 miles from the nearest town and bitching about how city folk don’t have to drive very far just to get groceries.

            1. I agree, and we make a point to tell other “martyrs” how we have no trouble. We have another couple with kids who are like us and they have 2. The only thing I sacrificed was short notice drinking. I can’t just pick up and go to the bar at every whim. Although with an average of 24hrs notice I am usually fine. And we take turns on weekends…I sleep in EVERY Saturday.

              1. You’re the type of parent I like to hang out with. I don’t hate children. I just like them when they’re well behaved and someone else’s. Also, you seem to have a life that is separate from your being a father. One of my friends and I used to be inseparable. Until he had children. I fully understand that his family has to come first. They are the most important people in his life. But I haven’t seen him in 3 years because if it isn’t a child-centric activity, he won’t even consider it. He didn’t even come to my wedding because we didn’t want young children present. He said we were being disrespectful.

                These are the types of parents that annoy me. Breeding does not make one more noble or important or enlightened.

                1. We are going to an out of state wedding where no kids are allowed. We have a grandma who will stay with her. I don’t see it as disrespectful. Quite the contrary, they want to get fucked up with us and we can’t all get plowed with a 3 year old around. Makes sense to me. OHH and the weeding thing, it’s their gig so it is my choice to go. Not really disrespectful, they invited me to come drink and eat (and drink some more).

                  1. We put our foot down on small children at our wedding. They just don’t belong there. They have no fun and they ruin it for the adults. One of the worst things about the last 30 years has been the total breakdown between adult activities and children activities. Children don’t belong at every event or every place.

                    1. I felt the exact same way, however we had a situation where the younger kids were more mature/well behaved than some of the older kids. It was impossible to set an age limit that invited the people we wanted and excluded those we didn’t, so we just did the next best thing. We brought a ton of yard games, had an indoor/outdoor wedding, and enticed the kids to stay outside while putting all the stuff that was attractive to the adults (read: 30+ different varieties of beer and wine) inside.

                      It’s hard to say no to the perfectly well behaved 10 year old cousin and her family coming from 500 miles away because the 12 year old local cousin was the one we’re worried about going face-first into the cake.

        2. John, I couldn’t agree with you more. I think it’s fantastic when people are giddy with excitement over having a child. I think it’s great that people are happy to be parents. Neither my wife or I have ever had the desire to be a parent, we like living life for each other and having things exactly our way.

          I do get extremely annoyed when parents pull the “martyr” card as well. If you’re jealous because I can sleep till noon on Saturday, or go out the the bar whenever the hell I want to, tough shit. You made the choice to have children, live with it.

          1. Life is about choices. They get to have kids and all of the rewards that go with it, which are many. You don’t get to have that. So, why are they begrudging you the fairly insignificant advantages you get? It just drives me nuts.

            1. I think it especially funny when the parents who are hardly there have a martyr complex.

              “The one hour I have to see them each evening before they go to bed, and the 2 hours of little league on Saturday is _sooo_ hard!”

              Don’t get me wrong, how one raises their children is their own choice. However, it’s hard to be sympathetic to a parent who acts constantly overwhelmed by actively parenting their child for a grand total of 10 hours per week.

      2. I also have no children. I really like kids. They are great. And the really great thing about other people’s children is that their parents usually take them away when they stop being fun.

        1. And the really great thing about other people’s children is that their parents usually take them away when they stop being fun.

          Couldn’t have said it better myself. That’s the greatest thing about being an uncle. I get to visit with the little buggers, have all the fun of playing with them, then give them back when they aren’t fun anymore. (incidentally, this attitude is exactly why I chose not to be a parent)

  33. Got to hand it to Drudge, the picture he has up now on the top of the site is priceless.

    1. There was a headline on Google News earlier, something like, “America Still on Edge after Terror Threats.” Really? I haven’t talked to anyone yet who has even commented on it, much less been “on edge” about it.

  34. Lab grown meat tastes awful

    But I’m sure vegans would still love it.

    1. Look, these things take time. In the meantime, add some Soylent powder. And no, I’m not making that up.

    2. We covered this! And if youtube had the Better Off Ted clip (I mean one that wasn’t done by filming a TV) of the epidsode, I’d post that, too.

  35. If Obama had 3 sons, they’d look a lot like these kids…
    3 teens on a bus brutally assault 13 year old. Bus Driver does not intervene

    And, honestly, I can’t blame the bus driver for not intervening, given today’s climate. He’d probably be arrested and charged. And the parents would be suing because their ‘precious snowflakes’ were harmed. Sure it might have been the ‘right’ thing to do. But the right thing will get you sued and put in jail.

    1. I can’t either. It would have been child abuse. Either he would have gotten his ass kicked or he would have kicked their asses and he would be the next George Zimmerman.

      The sad fact is that the animals who did that will be charged as juveniles and are not doubt back on the street. The day someone finally shoots one of the worthless bastards, we will have to hear about how they were just boys with skittles.

    2. I wouldn’t be surprised in bus drivers are trained never to intervene in physical conflicts between students. Way too much liability for them and the transport company and the school disteict.

    3. I blame the war on drugs. The kid snitched. I’m certainly not saying that that justifies a beating, but it is a somewhat natural result when your small business venture can be so easily threatened.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.