DOJ Padded Number of Terrorism Convictions, Navy Yard Shooter Bought Shotgun the Day Before, DC Mulls Legal Pot: P.M. Links

|

  • "Have you ever looked at a monument? I mean, like, really looked at a monument?"
    Credit: nolageek / Foter / CC BY-NC

    The Department of Justice has overstated the number of defendants who have been found guilty of terrorism-related crimes, according to an audit. Some were misreported. Some were counted more than once. Some even had their charges dismissed.

  • Aaron Alexis bought his shotgun the day before he went on his killing spree at the Washington Navy Yard.  He also carved "Better Off This Way" and "(My ELF)" into the stock of the gun, possibly signs of his degrading mental state.
  • Mark Schmidter, the Orlando-area activist arrested for handing out pamphlets about jury nullification outside a courthouse, was arrested again for protesting red-light cameras without a permit. He was handing out flyers to drivers at an intersection.
  • In today's dog-bites-man political news, the Clintons have endorsed Democrat Bill de Blasio for mayor of New York City.
  • A picture of a Canadian teen who killed herself after suffering bullying that followed an image of her alleged gang rape was posted online was inexplicably used in a dating company's ad on Facebook. Facebook has removed the ad and deleted the account of the advertiser who placed it.
  • A bill has been introduced in Washington, D.C., to legalize possession of small amounts of pot and set up commercial regulation. Passage will probably ease the tension at every single social gathering there Not because they can get high. They're already high — they just won't have to worry about getting busted.

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

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

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

Advertisement

NEXT: House Report: IRS Employees Were "Acutely" Aware Obama Wanted Tea Party Targeted

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. Mark Schmidter, the Orlando-area activist arrested for handing out pamphlets about jury nullification outside a courthouse, was arrested again for protesting red-light cameras without a permit. He was handing out flyers to drivers at an intersection.

    I guess he’ll find out if those pamphlets worked.

    1. How is it illegal to hand out literature on public property in America? Isn’t this a textbook case of freedom of the press?

      And how does an American “need” a permit to protest red light cameras or other government overreach? Isn’t that covered in the First Amendment under “petition for redress of grievances”?

    1. He looks dashing in purple.

    2. Beauty’s where you find it,
      Not just where you bump and grind it.

    3. *** clutches pearls ***

      Is that an assault weapon in the foreground?

    4. Is that photoshopped? The layers of the photo seem overly distinct.

      1. Yes, there’s some fakery going on in that picture.

    5. And it’s a flattering pic of the curly one.

      What is that all about? Aren’t they being racist by allowing this?

      1. I love that the only three comments are by Paul supporters. God love the Paulbots.

      2. Now that they know they can dump it down the Memory Hole like Assad’s wife’s profile if he becomes too much of a liability, they’re much more willing to take risks.

      3. Have we ever had a curly haired Pres?

        Other than BO.

        1. He’s really got to lose that gel look in his hair. It looks a little clueless.

  2. You Know Who Else had a degrading mental state?

    1. King Ludwig II?

    2. King George III?

      1. You win this round, SM.

        1. Not only did he win, he included a title, just to rub his superior speed in your face.

          It’s almost like he lapped you.

          1. Yes, well how do you think I got my peerage?

            1. Those embarrassing pictures you have of the Duke of Edinburgh?

    3. George III?

    4. Freidrich Wilhelm Nietchze?

    5. Aerys the Mad?

      1. Real people only.

      1. See Tonio’s point above.

        1. He didn’t mean the Queen of Scots?

    6. Algernon?

    7. Margot Kidder?

    8. He said “Had” people, some of you are listing people who are still degrading.

    9. Barack Obama?

    10. Billy Joel?

    11. Andrew Sullivan?

  3. A bill has been introduced in Washington, D.C., to legalize possession of small amounts of pot and set up commercial regulation.

    Right in Congress’s back yard? Slap in the face.

    1. It’s a slap in the face that the hypocrites in Congress who vote for drug prohibition yet almost certainly partake of drugs themselves will never see the inside of a jail cell, or have to go to rehab as part of a plea bargain.

      Yes it should be legal, but damn it would be nice if those fuckers had to obey their own laws once in a while.

      1. I, myself, have not and never expect to “partake” but this is the main reason I support legalization. This is a bad schitzophrenia in our society from the top down where common use contrasted with general illegality and ruthless enforcement result in an untenible environment.

        1. Me neither, because I have an addictive personality and would likely be a heavy user. I figure I am better off doing things for the adrenaline rush (in conjunction with a generous life insurance policy).

          For me, it is all about freedom. It’s not something that I want to do personally nor will I likely do so in my lifetime (unless I need it medically), but it is abhorrent to me that a person can be locked in a cage and have their life ruined for choosing to do so…

          1. I figure I am better off doing things for the adrenaline rush

            I’ve always been a fan of both. Guess which one I’m paying (both physically and monetarily) for now?

          2. ” I have an addictive personality ”

            Me too. But like you I also believe in freedom and don’t feel it is moral to restrict my support of freedom to just the things I like or might do.

  4. The Department of Justice has overstated the number of defendants who have been found guilty of terrorism-related crimes

    Meh. It’s not the Department of *Accuracy*, after all.

    1. They probably classified a bunch of crimes as “terrorism” that no normal person else would consider terrorism as well.

      If a pressure cooker filled with firecrackers qualifies as a “weapon of mass destruction”, who knows how low the hurdle is to qualify as “terrorism”?

    2. … but Ft. Hood was just “workplace violence …

  5. A picture of a Canadian teen who killed herself after suffering bullying that followed an image of her alleged gang rape was posted online was inexplicably used in a dating company’s ad on Facebook. Facebook has removed the ad and deleted the account of the advertiser who placed it.

    I have to wonder whether one of the bots that regularly troll this forum with offers from their cousin’s sister’s boyfriend’s mom were involved.

    1. It is particularly creepy that it was that girl, but that kind of thing happens all the time.

    2. I heard this story on the CBC this morning. Apparently it was a German company that used the photo. I know Germans are kinky, but this is nuts.

      1. You know who else was German and was into dead children?

      2. To be fair, it was a photo stolen from her profile. Still wrong, obviously, but when I first read the headline, it sounded like they used a picture of her corpse…

        1. Not stolen though — Facebook allows it.

  6. The Department of Justice has overstated the number of defendants who have been found guilty of terrorism-related crimes, according to an audit.

    Have they tried broadening the definition of terrorism and including the defendents who would have been found guilty if they hadn’t hanged themselves?

    1. I think they’re counting all those kids who get arrested and tossed in the clink for telling their buddies on Call of Duty that they’re gonna kill ’em.

  7. Which is more convoluted, Obamacare, or NFL uniform rules?

    http://www.uni-watch.com/2013/…..after-all/

    I hate throwback uniforms, so maybe this is a good thing.

    1. I like throwback uniforms.

      1. All of them Ted, all of them?

        1. I think the Yinzers had balls to wear the bumblebee throwbacks.

          1. Fear not, the Steelers will look extra stupid for one game this year as they trot out looking like bumblebeees, since they wear their regular helmet with that jersey combo.

        2. The really old ones, I can’t think of one I don’t like.

          When your “throwback” uniform is from the ’70s, well, you’re not doing it right.

          1. Take what the Bears did this past weekend. They wore basically what they always wear, except they took the C off the helmet.

            Why, why must they do that?

          2. The really old ones, I can’t think of one I don’t like.

            I can–the one for the Eagles (the blue/yellow 40s combo, not the 70s/80s kelly green design) is hideous.

          3. Even the Cleveland Browns throwback uniforms are a letdown.

      2. I wish the Texans could wear throwback Oilers uniforms but that fucker Bud Adams stole that shit too.

        Hell I wish they could wear them all the time and just be the Oilers.

        1. Fuck Bud Adams! Which made last Sunday even nicer.

        2. The Titans should have some of the best uniforms, but somehow they managed to fuck up dark blue, light blue, and white.

          Last weekend it looked like they were running around in pajamas.

    2. This doesn’t make sense to me. I know with bike helmets, you’re supposed to replace them after you’re in an accident because it may have been compromised. It would seem having multiple helmets on hand would be safer. So how is sticking with one better?

  8. He also carved “Better Off This Way” and “(My ELF)” into the stock of the gun, possibly signs of his degrading mental state.

    Yeah, that was Will Ferrell’s second worst movie ever.

    1. You sit on a throne of lies.

      1. Zooey’s in that movie, even if it’s as a wretched bottle blonde.

        So leave ELF alone.

          1. I always thought that role kind of contradicted Dinklage’s thing about not taking a role that pokes fun at him for being a…

            Well, you know.

            1. Wasn’t he in In Bruges?

              That movie was basically one midget joke after another. If he has such a rule, he sucks at enforcing it.

              1. That was a different dwarf actor.

              2. He wasn’t in In Bruges. That was Jordan Prentice

            2. I believe Dinklage will take a role if the whole point is to poke fun in a meta way. What Dinklage doesn’t like is a role that just sticks little people in little-people roles because it’s cute.

              During an interview, he referred to fantasy films with little people as “roles of the pointed-shoe variety”. Think Wizard of Oz.

              1. So no Oompa-Loompas?

                I have a quasi-serious question. Did anyone object to the hobbits and dwarves being CGIed from normal-sized people?

                1. I have a quasi-serious question. Did anyone object to the hobbits and dwarves being CGIed from normal-sized people?

                  If I understand your question, you’re asking if the the Union of Little People Thespians, Local 876 complained that they didn’t get real little people?

                  I never heard about it. But in a country of 350,000,000, I’m sure someone was offended, and I’m sure NPR found them and interviewed them.

                  1. Essentially, yes. I was asking whether people who live for identity politics were offended that very short people were displaced from possible employment.

                2. pro L, I believe the LOTR did not CGI its hobbits and dwarves, but used forced perspective (in an epic and brilliant way).

                  1. I accept correction, but my point still stands. Well, not a point so much as a question.

                3. They were not CGI. Most of it was forced perspective with some little person doubles on wide shots.

            3. Oh, and Dinklage initially turned down Game of Thrones because of that… until someone told him to actually read the script.

            1. James Adomian makes comments on the sex appeal of Peter Dinklage in his comedy show (skip to 45 seconds for the salient bit). The version on his album is longer, raunchier an funnier, but the youtube version is good too.

      2. Indeed, it may be his only good movie.

        But what did he mean by “My ELF”?

        1. My ELF brings all the SWAT to the yard
          And they’re like
          It’s better than ours
          Damn right
          It’s better than yours
          I could shoot you if you would just charge

        2. Earth Liberation Front?

          Nah, left-wingers are never violent.

      3. Mebbe so, but the above reference is not one of them.

      4. Mebbe so, but the above reference is not one of them.

  9. Townhall is so very sad that atheists were invited to an interfaith meeting.

    The first thing out of Obama’s mouth after he was first elected is that this is not a Christian nation and he’s been treating this nation as if everyone is an atheist. Every day Obama moves as far away as he can from tradition American values and principles to values and principles that are pulled right out of thin air just like his facts.

    Yes, inviting atheists to a meeting to which Christians are also invited is exactly like treating everyone like an atheist.

    Bastards. They made me defend Obama.

    1. I kinda see both sides here. On one side, screaming “Kultur War!!!!!” at the top of your lungs is obnoxious and counterproductive. On the other side, inviting atheists to an interfaith meeting seems to be analogous to inviting Apple to an Android convention.

      1. I do think there’s hypocrisy among atheists who assure us that they aren’t a religion and then want to attend interfaith meetings. At the same time, getting upset over this is ridiculous. The people who are angry are just anti-atheist bigots.

      2. I do think there’s hypocrisy among atheists who assure us that they aren’t a religion and then want to attend interfaith meetings. At the same time, getting upset over this is ridiculous. The people who are angry are just anti-atheist bigots.

        1. Yeah, everyone knows that atheism is a religion!

        2. So if if atheists don’t admit they are a religion they are deluded liars and if they do act like a religion they are hypocrites?

          This “heads I win, tails you lose” nonsense is getting tiresome.

          1. No, it’s true. I’m an atheist and I go to godless heathen church and everything.

            1. No sure if you are kidding or not. I know a few people who are into Atheist Church, and boy do they get a sour look when I call it that.

              Just as the left/right split really should be about authoritarian/libertarian, the religion/atheism split should really be about humorless asshole/normal people.

              It’s not what you believe, but rather how much of an asshole you are about it.

              1. OK, now I’m not sure if you’re kidding. There’s an actual church for atheists?

                1. Skeptic movement, they have weekly meetings and go to conventions and everything. A friend-of-a-friend is always bugging me to go. Sounds dreadful, even if it wasn’t prog and feminism infested.

                2. Unitarian Universalism allows atheist congregants.

              2. Can’t it be about both?

          2. Bullshit. My point is that ATHEISTS claim to not be a religion, which I actually agree with since I am one, but then want to attend an interfaith meeting.

            It’s hypocrisy to claim not to be a faith and then attend a meeting that is explicitly interfaith. I myself wouldn’t attend such a meeting because I don’t I stand by the statement that atheism isn’t a religion.

            To claim to not be a religion and to then attend a meeting that is explicitly set aside for a dialogue between religions is hypocrisy.

            1. It’s hypocrisy to claim not to be a faith and then attend a meeting that is explicitly interfaith. I myself wouldn’t attend such a meeting because I don’t I stand by the statement that atheism isn’t a religion.

            2. Oh, I agree. It’s a hypocrisy hoedown.

              I think the real problem is that victimhood is a path to power, which encouraged everyone to invent a victim narrative for themselves. I’d never go to an interfaith meeting, but trying to go and getting kicked out is some yummy martyr PR.

              1. Yep. Go to the Secular Student Alliance website and virtually every post is about how goddamn hard atheism is and how we’re always being oppressed.

                I grew up in a relatively conservative suburb and never had a problem. I’m sure there are places in hyper conservative areas where this is a problem, but most of the people in SSA are from backgrounds where there is no chance they’ve ever experienced legitimate bigotry for their beliefs.

                1. If one keeps one’s idiotic religious opinions to oneself, any person of good will seldom encounters a problem. I live in the buckle of the Bible Belt as a heterodox small-u unitarian. I keep my own idiotic religious opinions to myself.

                  The only obnoxious zealots that I’ve encountered here are atheists. Sure, JWs and Mormons knock on the door every few years, but they’re always polite and I respect them for trying. When Fundies actually hold forth and, in my experience, they cut their loses when I express boredom. But a few atheists I have known just won’t shut up, even though I have made it clear that I’m just not interested in their religious perspective.

                  In my experience, anecdotal to be sure, atheistic zealots are far more annoying than the traditional theistic variety.

            3. President’s Interfaith and Community Service Challenge…
              in addition to non-religious charitable organizations, such as Campus Compact.

              How is it hypocrisy for them to attend? Let’s say, it wasn’t community service as well. I still don’t see the issue.

              I wouldn’t attend this stuff because it’s lame bullshit but I wouldn’t when I was religious either.

              1. I stupidly missed that second part. Townhall continuously, and predictably, harped on the interfaith section because they’re Townhall. I missed the one time they mentioned the Community Service part.

                You’re right.

              2. “I don’t see how participating in a interfaith meeting is somehow admitting atheism is a religion.”

                I support classifying atheism as a religion so that it gets religious-freedom protections. If it’s not religious, how can the 1st Amendment apply? How can you claim the right to freely exercise your religion if you’re not a religion?

                I guess you can go to the 9th Amendment or something.

                1. If it’s not a religion, how can you complaint about being left out of an inter*faith* gathering?

                  “We’re not a ‘faith,’ but we want to crash your interfaith meeting anyway!”

                  1. They didn’t crash or whine about shit, they were invited. The writer is the one getting butthurt about it. See my reply below to what a interfaith gathering often is in this context.

                    Also see my reply above where it is not in fact a interfaith gathering but a community action even where other secular groups participated.

                2. I support classifying atheism as a religion so that it gets religious-freedom protections.

                  This is a dumbass argument. Are you really arguing that if atheists claim not to be a religion they are no longer given first amendment protections? Freedom of religion would include the freedom not to have one.

                  Otherwise you have no freedom because you’re forced to choose one even if you have no such belief.

                  1. “Are you really arguing that if atheists claim not to be a religion they are no longer given first amendment protections?”

                    *sigh* – your comment is either an Irish bull, or a close cousin to one:

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_bull

                    I contend that, for atheism be be covered by that clause of the First Amendment which provides that Congress shall pass no respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, atheism would have to be a religion.

                    1. The free exercise of religion clearly means the right NOT to have one. Other wise you don’t have the right to free exercise because you’re being forced into one against your will.

                      The right to free speech does not mean that you only have the right to speak and have no right to be silent. By your logic it would.

                    2. I distrust the word “clearly” in a constitutional argument, but *it appears to me* that it’s hard to freely exercise your religion if you don’t have one.

                      It would be like asserting that your nunchuku are not “arms” and still trying to invoke the 2nd Amendment freedom to bear arms.

                      It would be far better to say, “of course my nunchuku are arms and I have the right to bear them!”

                      or, dispensing with the analogy, “of course atheism is my religion and I have the right to exercise it!”

                    3. Atheism is a belief (for these purposes I’m defining it strictly as the belief that there is no God or other similar supernatural entity), but it’s not a religion. Agnosticism is simply a lack of belief in religion either way. Neither one is a religion, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t covered by the first amendment. Freedom to exercise of religion means the freedom to not have one

            4. “Atheists” don’t claim any such thing. There is such unbelievably broad diversity of atheological (new word?) opinion under the atheist label that it’s very hard to choose very many that apply universally.

              1. “”Atheists” don’t claim any such thing.”

                Um, really? I’m pretty sure there are a lot of atheists who explicitly believe that God (or a similar being or beings) does not exist. To suggest that no one in the world holds such a view is asinine. I’m aware that there are varying definitions of atheism, which is why I explicitly separated atheism from agnosticism, for the sake of clarity, and acknowledged (“for these purposes I’m defining”) that the definition I was using is not the only one. Regardless of what you call either one (belief in no God vs. lack of belief either way), they fall under freedom of religion, even if they aren’t religions.

          3. Not only that but I don’t see how participating in a interfaith meeting is somehow admitting atheism is a religion. It seems entirely appropriate for them to be involved. I don’t see how trshmnstr can see both sides of the issue.

            1. It’s easy. Assuming that atheists are those of no religion (faith is being used as a synonym for religion in “interfaith”), their participation in an interfaith meeting doesn’t seem appropriate. It would be like a Hindu coming to an interdenominational Christian worship. Yeah, it’s meant for all denominations, but Hinduism isn’t a sect of Christianity.

              The butthurt is hard to understand, though. People wouldn’t care if a Hindu attended an interdenominational worship, and people shouldn’t care if an atheist attends an interfaith meeting.

              1. Yes, but you have to understand the SoCon mindset. The noble Christian religion is forever under siege by the vile heathen hordes.

                Muslims are dangerous, sure, but they at least have a religion and therefore can be understood. Atheists, on the other hand, don’t believe in God at all and are therefore dangerous nihilists who seek to overturn all morality and drag all of Western civilization into the dirt.

              2. Well when I was in college interfaith meant some dogooder bullshit (the kind of people who have those retarded coexist stickers) getting people from different groups together. Inviting the humanists or secular group would not be out of place at all. It had nothing to do with defining religion. That’s how it worked in practice. The fact that the word faith is used has no bearing on whether it is appropriate for a secular group to be involved. The whole point was to learn and discuss amongst each other. Something that in their minds would benefit from having a secular group involved.

                And as I pointed out to Irish, Townhall cooked this whole thing up because it wasn’t specifically about interfaith and other secular charities were there.

          4. Many of the people only have exposure to prog atheists, so I actually see where they get the idea that atheism is a religion. When all the atheists they are exposed to are worshipers of the state, it comes off as a pseudo-religion.

            Granted, they’re seeing the traits of a progressive, not of an atheist, so they’re wrong.

            1. Progressive atheism is unquestionably a cult. Just like progressive ‘skeptics’ are nothing of the kind.

    2. That magic ticket they are coasting on is good not only in Heaven, but here on Earth too. How dare they have to attend events with heathens!

    3. Townhall is just barking up the wrong tree entirely. Interfaith anything is not going to promote conservative values. It’s about shallow, new age feel goodery. Personally, I would judge anyone who attended regardless of their professed beliefs.

    4. If atheism is to religion as “not collecting stamps” is to hobbies, then inviting atheists to this meeting would be like inviting non-stamp-collectors, *qua* non-stamp-collectors, to a hobbyist convention.

      1. President’s Interfaith and Community Service Challenge…
        in addition to non-religious charitable organizations, such as Campus Compact.

      2. Sure, but then there would be no constitutional bases in which interfaith meetings could be conducted with public monies and presidential sanction. This is no different from banning religious based NGOs from being able to bid for government funding for ‘charitable’ activities. To be consistent, you can’t exclude based on a religious beliefs.

    5. That really was the first thing out of his mouth? “This is not a Christian nation”?

    6. Atheists. Bah. Call me when he rounds up some apatheists for his meetings.

  10. I asked for a raise last week…and today I got 2 percentage points more of one than I asked for.

    YEAH.

    1. Drinks are on Spoonman!

    2. Hey, that’s two percent more you can spend on the kiddo! And, as much as I respect the Disney corporation’s ability to separate people from money, I would feel better if the whole infant-toddler industrial complex would put on a mask and point a gun at me when I’m purchasing something.

      1. I am hoping to keep my daughter relatively uninterested in creepy princess shit, but I know that’ll be hard.

        1. Somehow their clothes and bed clothes and beds cost as much as real people’s despite being 1/5th scale.

          1. I think it is all of the flame retardant chemicals that drive the price up. And I say that after having done zero research on the matter.

      2. You can always get Miguel Mouse paraphernalia on the cheap in Tijuana…

      3. I have been somewhat ambivelent about my two toddlers’ interest in corporate directed consumerism. Recently my 4 year old got into Pokemon so I have gone along with it somewhat gamely.

        But when we got him a book with the dozens of characters showing all their names in Hiragana (Japanese is literally his Mother tongue) – and he then mastered Hiragana in about a week – I have had more to think about on the subject.

  11. TOP. MEN.

    “Starr literally shot himself in the foot when drawing an unauthorized small caliber weapon out of his ankle holster,” said a current State Department official, referring to an incident in 1981.

    1. Ringo always was the Lame Beatle.

    2. Props for correct use of “literally.”

  12. (My ELF), may have been a reference to “extremely low frequency,” and could refer to his belief that someone was penetrating his brain with microwave messages, which he had described to police in Newport, R.I., six weeks ago. It might also be a reference to “Executable and Linkable Format,”

    It was obviously a nod to Scarface, dudes.

    1. Kenneth could not be reached for comment as to what that frequency might be, but said in a statment to the press that irony is the shackles of youth, uh-huh.

    1. I misread it at first and thought it said “Libertarian cat will swat you”

      This is why there are no libertarian cats…. 🙁

      1. I think most cats think of themselves as philosopher-kings, but really they’re just cuddly sociopaths.

        1. My cats think of me as slave labor.

      2. I thought every cat was a libertarian.

        Or was that an absolute dictator? I forget.

        1. I’ve never had a cat respect the NAP.

        2. SM Stirling refers to them as small furry republicans but I think that libertarians is closer to the mark.

    2. The 2nd pic? That’s pretty much the look on my face when I’m at work as well.

      1. Me too, the I really don’t want to be here but as long just let me do my job and stay the fuck away look.

        Or perhaps it’s just projection.

        1. long*as I am*just

  13. Reports that a Louisiana town banned twerking are a hoax

    A ban on twerking. Discriminations against Koreans. Issuing guns to every student.
    These are some of the hoaxes that the small Louisiana town of DeQuincy has fallen victim to this year. While most residents recognize these stories are phony, they have set off quite the stir in this town of 3,200.
    “Everybody likes a good joke but after a while that’s enough,” states DeQuincy Mayor Lawrence Henagan. “We wouldn’t waste our time putting kids in jail if they’re doing a dance not everyone approves of. We put criminals in jail.”
    Not only are the basic ordinances incorrect, made-up names also appear: Maynard Wilkens is listed as mayor, not Henagan; Bobby Joe Williams, rather than Tony Mancuso, as the sheriff. The terms “counties,” a descriptor that is not used in Louisiana, is used, rather than the correct “parishes.”
    At one point, the Calcasieu Parish School Board had to release a statement in response to the false claims regarding arming students. “We want to ensure you that this story is entirely false and we have no plans of arming our students. We take safety and individuals in our schools very seriously,” they said. “Any conversation otherwise will not be tolerated.”

    Some of these ain’t bad ideas.

    1. We didn’t start the fire

    2. “We take safety and individuals in our schools very seriously,” they said. “Any conversation otherwise will not be tolerated.”

      My friend and I were just saying how you only take safety *or* individuals seriously.

  14. Seriously, people will never illegally access your medical records to check for STDs.

    Finally, nothing in the law mandates that the answers to your questions be sent anywhere public. Oppositely, it must remain in a confidential medical record, to be viewed only by healthcare professionals who care for you, under penalty of law, as always.

    Uh huh. Nobody violates HIPPA/HITECH.

    1. And NSA operatives have to get a warrant before looking at our phone calls.

      Okay, Atlantic.

    2. Just like how SS numbers would never be used as identification numbers.

      1. SS numbers are not used for identification. It says so on my SS card.

    3. Finally, nothing in the law mandates that the answers to your questions be sent anywhere public.

      Really? Payments will be made based on whether those questions were asked. Confirmation that payments were made correctly will require confirmation that the questions were asked. I find it highly unlikely that won’t involve disclosure of Qs and As.

      Oppositely, it must remain in a confidential medical record, to be viewed only by healthcare professionals who care for you, under penalty of law, as always.

      What utter horseshit. HIPAA allows all sorts of people to look at your record, especially government people. It would certainly allow the government to access the Qs and As as part of its payment process or auditing process.

      1. Exactly. I do this for a living. I’m going through random people’s EMRs right now. I have to in order to make sure that my chart extraction is working. Note that the private sector is well incentivized from not leaking, allowing inappropriate access. The public sector is not.

      2. Then the doctors should fill in “none of your fucking business” as the standard answer.

      3. When they say “anywhere public” they mean it won’t be posted on their Facebook page, or in the White Pages, or in a sign outside your house. Nor on a billboard in downtown Los Angeles. Or under your picture in your high school yearbook.

    4. Will doctors be less likely to treat you if you refuse to answer the questions?

  15. Speaking of degradation has anyone seen a new Simpsons episode recently? I suppose any day we will be hearing if the show is being renewed or not.

    Personally I stopped watching about 12 years ago when it seemed the writers forgot how to write coherently and how to write an ending. Not to mention they upped the gore levels and made Homer a douche. And after all this they want to have their cake and eat it too by upping the schmaltz level. I mean if the show doesn’t care about anything or anybody why should, the viewer, care?

    Oh and not realizing that pointing out your show sucks and mocking those who think that doesn’t magically make your show good.

    1. Not since the “30 Minutes over Tokyo” episode in season 10!

    2. I was really just about the biggest Simpsons fan ever when I was younger, but I haven’t watched a new episode in probably like–I was going to say “ten years” because it sounded like a crazy high hyperbolic number, but it actually probably has been something like ten years, holy shit.

    3. Once it became about how much of a jerk Homer is, I stopped watching. It is a shame, because when the writing was decent for the Simpsons, it was some of the funniest stuff on TV. It just became so much of a cash cow, that the writers stopped caring I guess.

      1. The one that did it for me was the episode where Lisa is worried she’s going to be stupid like Bart and Homer, and finds out that she’s related to a bunch of female professional superstars.

        Not just the obvious 90s-era PC pandering, but the fact that it permanently cemented Homer’s status as a doofus gorilla instead of the bumbling, uneducated, but well-meaning father figure he had been in the early seasons. Honestly, if I want to watch a show where fathers are portrayed as worthless appendages and stumbling blocks to their families, I have any number of dreck TV series to turn to on that score. If you want to see the contempt that our elites have for the white working class, Homer Simpson embodies every stereotype they hold.

        1. Honestly, if I want to watch a show where fathers are portrayed as worthless appendages and stumbling blocks to their families, I have any number of dreck TV series to turn to on that score.

          You can thank(?) the Simpsons and Married with Children for making that mainstream!

    4. Speaking of degradation has anyone seen a new Simpsons episode recently?

      No.

      I suppose any day we will be hearing if the show is being renewed or not.

      We would have heard that back in the spring when the networks announce their fall lineups. If it hadn’t been renewed, that would have been big news.

      1. I mean renewed for next fall. Animated shows need more production time. Back in October 2011 it was renewed for seasons 24 and the upcoming 25. So I imagine we will be hearing news of there being season 26 (or more) soon.

        1. “Very few cartoons are broadcast live. It’s a terrible strain on the animators wrists.”

    5. It was downhill since Season 7.

      Seasons 4,5, and 6 are the funniest episodes.

    6. The Simpsons was great as a short on the Tracy Ullman Show.

      1. That was my first exposure. Now I feel old, thx, db..

        1. Mine too. Join the club.

          1. Likewise.

            It’s been so long since I’ve seen the show I can’t remember when I last watched The Simpsons. It sounds like I haven’t missed much.

    7. I stopped after the first few episodes of Season 13. And the best episode ever was “Lisa the Vegetarian”. Fact.

      “You don’t when friends with salad! You don’t win friends with salad!”

      “In the interest of creating an open dialogue, sit silently and watch this film.”

      “When I grow up, I’m going to Bovine University!”

      “Go back to Russia!”

      Etc etc etc

      1. My favorite episode was “Girly Edition” with the kids news show

        Bart: I just think our veterans deserve a little recognition
        Lisa: That’s what Veterans Day is for, Bart
        Bart: But is that really enough to honour our brave soldiers?
        Lisa: They also have memorial day!
        Bart: Oh Lisa maybe you’re right maybe you’re wrong, the important thing is that veterans deserve a day to honour them!
        Lisa: They have TWO!
        Bart: Well maybe they should have three, I’m Bart Simpson.

        1. Also this…

          Bart: Joe Banks… 82 years young has come to this pond every day for the past 17 years, to feed the ducks. But last month, Joe made a discovery… the ducks… were gone! Some say the ducks went to Canada, others say Toronto. And some people think, that joe used to sit down there, near those ducks. But it could be, that there is just no room in this modern world, for an old man… and… his ducks…

    1. West Virginia is waiting forTeef.

    2. So much for the iPhone 5S.

  16. Hey, where is my credit for the link to the story about how The Fed denied to German officials the right to examine their wn gold in holding by the FR, Scott?

    1. Yeah, I got yer hat tip right here Killaz.

      1. You’re not going to trick me, again. I know what’s under that hat. Okay, I’ll peak, but just this once.

        1. You’ll peak over and again.

    2. If they can regrow fingertips, certainly you can grow your own hat-tips?

      1. This is not about a hat tip. The hat tip was cover.

  17. Biofuels a fraud? Say it ain’t so!


    Charging documents released Wednesday afternoon cited 88 counts against seven people and three corporations. Charges included allegations of conspiracy, wire fraud, false tax claims, false statements under the Clean Air Act, obstruction of justice, money laundering and securities fraud.

    Prosecutors allege that E-biofuels actually wasn’t producing biofuel. Instead, it was purchasing fuel and selling it to customers as its own product for a profit.

    E-biofuels also fraudulently collected on about $35 million in federal tax breaks reserved for biofuel producers, according to charging documents.

    1. The surprise for me is that they ever got caught.

    2. Somebody didn’t make their campaign contribution quota, did they?

  18. Oh, Florida: Herpes-positive monkeys on the loose in Florida

    Reports of herpes-infested monkeys gliding through Florida’s trees were circulated around the web last week, and oddly enough, the reports are true.

    But it’s probably not the kind of herpes you’re thinking of.

    For non-human primates, including the rhesus monkeys found in Florida, the herpes B virus is relatively harmless, but if a person becomes infected it can be deadly.

    For a human to contract the herpes B virus from a monkey, he or she would need to be scratched or bitten by an infected monkey, or come in contact with its bodily fluids, according to the CDC.

    From there, the person would start to experience fever, chills, flu-like aches and small blisters at the site of the infection. If it goes untreated, the herpes B virus can travel to the central nervous system, cause swelling of the brain and leave its victim dead.

    1. Why is it so deadly for us human primates but not so much for them?

      1. Because their genotype is just different enough from ours for it not to be.

        1. That’s what They want you to believe, but I’d bet it’s how Planet of the Apes really gets started.

          1. I’d agree except that I’m already on record saying that the talk show in Japan that is hosted by a chimp is how the Planet of the Apes gets started.

            1. Isn’t it most likely there is no one single cause for the start of Planet of the Apes? It’s only our crappy educational system that has made us think there is only one cause, only one correct answer.

              The Japanese talk show chimp, Herpes B and the little monkey that no longer gets to wear that stylish coat are all contributing factors.

              1. And the monkey in Tampa that was running free for years but finally got caught and caged. He’s waiting. Watching. Judging.

    2. There’s a Warty joke in here somewhere.

      1. This is what happens when Warty and Epi come down to Florida to ‘hang out’ with Pro L.

        1. Well, they said they wanted to meet the Mystery Monkey of Tampa Bay. I failed to anticipate that, to them, “meet” is a euphemism.

          I don’t want to talk about it anymore.

          1. I failed to anticipate that, to them, “meet” is a euphemism.

            I usually add “In the Biblical sense” to the end of anything either of them says.

            1. Fortunately, I only interacted with them from a hermetically sealed chamber. But what I saw. . .well, it cannot be unseen.

    3. Dude, just stop kissing monkeys and you’ll be fine.

      1. “If you weren’t so damned ugly…”

        1. Could’ve come from Cornelius and Zira, who actually caught it from Taylor.

  19. Guess the party:

    WASHINGTON ? Former New Hampshire state Sen. Jim Rubens is jumping into the race to defeat [party elided – BL] Sen. Jeanne Shaheen Wednesday. Before he even reaches the starting blocks, Democrats are questioning his ability to reach women voters.

    The reason? A 2009 post on his website that connects the rise of working women with what he says is a rise in mass shootings and other violence perpetrated by men.

    1. They don’t call it the stupid party for nothing!

      Question: Can the GOP shoot itself in the foot any longer? Because at this point, I’m thinking the foot is so riddled with bullet holes that there’s nothing left to shoot.

    2. “Keep Jeanne Shaheen. Her name just rolls off the tongue!”

      1. I remember hearing the “Jeanne Shaheen the Tax Machine” slogans when I moved to NH. It flowed as you said it.

    3. And he scrubbed it from his website. The internet has a long memory, Jim. You’ll find that out.

  20. http://blog.al.com/tuscaloosa/…..march.html As an alum of UA, I can actually believe that the university administration took advantage of a chance for institutional reform to make a shallow, PR move.

    1. Bonus: you can follow the hilarious Judy Bonner parody account at twitter.com/nonstopjbo

    2. I go to USC (Southern California) and my freshman year there was a sophomore transfer in my dorm who went to Alabama his freshman year. Had some pretty fucked up stories about the fraternity system there. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot wrong with the system here (why I’m a GDI), including racism to an extent, but nothing like what he talked about. Never been there (I do have a niece via an older half-brother who is a freshman there and just joined a sorority), but he really didn’t seem like the kind of guy who would make that up (he was still proud of the school in a lot of ways, and he even went to New Orleans to cheer on UA in the 2012 title game) and I’ve heard similar stories from quite a few people here from the South about the Greek system there.

    3. Tebow Cried
      LSU Tried
      Cam Lied
      Trees Died
      Pledges Denied
      ROLL TIDE

      /bammer

  21. Also, my best conspiracy theory heard today: Cursive is no longer being taught in public schools so that people will not be able to read the original Constitution for themselves.

    1. Interesting. No, the true reason is that it’s taking up valuable time that’s needed for lessons on transgenderism, analingus, and fisting.

    2. I plan on teaching my son typewriting before handwriting. Crazy?

      1. Nope. I’m an engineer. My spawn will never learn cursive from me. But they’ll all be able to neatly block print well after they can touch type but before leaving home.

        1. Definitely no cursive. Although who knows, in the future typing might be antiquated as well.

          He’s only 21 months old, but he is pretty good at operating a tablet (for a 21 month old).

          1. I am stunned by how quickly a pre-verbal toddler can learn how to operate a tablet.

            1. Speech production is as much muscle movement as cognition, so it’s not surprising that toddlers can produce language by non-verbal means before they can speak.

      2. My children all learn military arm and hand signals before all else. The family needs to know how to relay Charlie’s location before, during and after soccer practice.

          1. Everybody I know that did that with their kids seemed to delay verbal development by a few months… I chose no…

            1. Huh. I’ll investigate that. It came to us free as a never-opened hand-me-down from some friends.

  22. Aaron Alexis bought his shotgun the day before he went on his killing spree at the Washington Navy Yard. He also carved “Better Off This Way” and “(My ELF)” into the stock of the gun, possibly signs of his degrading mental state.

    I have “Vera” carved into mine.

    1. “What’s that [shotgun]’s name, [contractor]?!”

      1. “Dianne Feinstein”!

        1. I wonder what the senator has carved on hers.

          1. “Only God can judge me!”

          2. “I’m not a hypocrite!”

          3. “Ultima Ratio Senator”

            Nah, no way she’d have anything that interesting.

    2. “Dum vivimus, vivamus!”

      1. +1 Egg of the Phoenix

  23. New book describes Ed Schultz ranting at President Obama and the president’s tirade at the NYT editorial staff

    Richard Wolffe’s “The Message” details some of the problems the White House had with Obama’s liberal supporters in the media during the 2012 campaign. On his Monday radio show, Schultz read a summary of the book in the Washington Post, which said that Obama had to “put up with a tirade” from him in a meeting with other pundits and reporters, including HuffPost’s Arianna Huffington.

    The excerpt in question reads:

    Ed Schultz sat listening to others opine before ripping into an impassioned plea for the president to stand up and fight. The forty-fourth president of the United States listened calmly and nodded his head, surprising his aides with a meek appearance that successfully masked how little patience he had for such criticism.
    “I don’t know, maybe they had thin skins over there at the White House,” Schultz crowed.

    Wolffe also writes about Obama’s growing impatience with the Times, which ran a string of negative editorials about him:

    After each negative editorial, the president would summon his communications team to discuss the critical coverage. It was a deeply unpleasant experience for his staff, who bore the brunt of the presidential outbursts.

    So basically confirmation that Obama whines like a petulant child behind the scenes.

    1. Behind the scenes? He frequently does it openly in front of the entire general public!

      1. No kidding. And “stand up and fight”? Meaning, I suppose, that Obama’s not left-wing enough.

  24. Some proggies on rawstory started to believe their own hype. Thankfully, another commenter set them straight:

    witlesschum kinghotpants ? 6 hours ago ?
    The assault weapons ban and the background check things are bullshit that sounds good, but won’t really help much of anything. They’re only worth doing for political reasons, if we can beat the NRA on those, then we move on to beating them on something that really will restrict the ability of some people to get guns and/or the cut down the number of guns in circulation.
    1 1 ?Reply?Share ?

    1. So, confiscation now, confiscation tomorrow, confiscation forever.

      Got it.

      1. Before I can do any more about cutting down on the number of guns in circulation I’m going to need another storage locker.

    1. Truly a bromance for the ages.

      I’m not even a huge fan of the word “bromance” but I don’t think it’s ever been more fitting.

      1. They refer to each other as ‘Sir Patrick’ and ‘Sir Ian’ in their Tweets and other posts. How awesome is that?

  25. Anybody else get the Full Tilt lawsuit claims email? I only remember having a couple bucks maybe left because I had mainly quit at that point. Even though the FAQ says you can see your claims amount by entering your log in info from the email it appears you have to update your info including giving them your SSN. I called the hotline about it and after getting put on hold to speak to a manager they told me they would have to do some research before answering my question. The lady seemed shocked that I wouldn’t want to give away private information if the dollar amount was low. I’m sure for people with larger amounts it’s a flashing red flag to the IRS saying audit me please.

    1. Ha, funnily enough, I work for the administrator for that lawsuit. It’s not being handled by my office, though, otherwise I could probably answer that.

    2. I switched to PS when nobody else could process payouts worth a damn. One of the few smart gambling decisions I’ve ever made.

    3. The most awesome part of the WSOP this year is they had giant portraits hanging up of all the Main Event winners, but they deliberately covered up Chris Ferguson’s portrait with a black curtain or something.

      I remember a little while back Ferguson actually spoke at Reason headquarters. Now that everyone knows what a lowlife POS he is he can’t even show his face in public anymore.

      1. IIRC Ferguson did stuff with Reason after it was clear that FTP was a Ponzi scheme.

        1. I agree with Negreanu that Bitar, Ferguson, and Lederer probably deserve to be in prison for what they did.

    4. Garden City Group is legitimate and the website is secure.

      SSN is required for any class action. You also have to provide bank info, just like a Nigerian scam would request.

      However, I know GCG is legit because I’ve been party to a number of class actions and have gotten checks and no grief. BBB gives them an A rating. If you go to gcginc.com you’ll find liatings of all of the cases they’ve administered.

      I had rather significant bucks at FTP, and had no reservations making the filing today.

      Well, of course, DOJ Money Laundering group has to approve the distribution, and the IRS will probably get it as well. The distribution is probably taxable in my case, so there’s that.

      1. I know they are reputable, that wasn’t the issue. If I want the money then by all means I should have to five them the info. The issue was that I wanted to see what my claim amount is before giving them the info. I don’t like giving out my info to reputable people for no good reason. Why alert myself to the IRS over $5?

        Plus, the website said I could see the claims amount by logging in, it did not say that I need to enter the claim application information.

    1. I hope Lolita doesn’t count.

      1. Not written in Russian, written in English – not Russian Lit. But, I can see how you couldn’t resist the temptation ‘best sexual education for children’ and all.

        1. I’m not sure what you can learn from Tolstoy and Checkov and War and Peace other than life is cold and miserable.

          1. If kids are too depressed to have sex, they won’t have babies.

          2. One of the great lines in the TV Series Endgame:

            In the original Russian Tolstoy is a comedy..

  26. Gun rights activists are the world’s biggest assholes

    Last night, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz published a letter on the company’s website politely requesting that people stop bringing guns to Starbucks. Why is this even necessary? Because, in case you haven’t been following, gun rights activists have become borderline Westboro Baptist-level assholes.

    It seems that, due to its reputation as a corporation with a liberal C-suite, the purveyors of Pumpkin Spice have become targets of conservative protests. To paraphrase Gawker’s late great Jeb Lund, it’s a way for jerks to feel important by sitting; the ideological opposite of Chik-fil-A. And because conservative activists are terribly uncreative dickbags who prioritize unregulated gun-waving over public safety, their preferred form of Starbucks protest has been to hang out in their local branch with their guns.
    […]
    And a Michigan pro-gun group has encouraged its members to protest a hearing on the state’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad Stand Your Ground law by showing up with their guns. A protest involving a group of people armed with deadly weapons doesn’t seem like a protest at all; more like a thuggish threat. Gun rights advocates have obtained Peak Bastard Level. They’re employing 4Chan-ish methods to push an agenda that’s actually harmful to society. It’s jaw-dropping.

    Awesome.

    1. They have a point in this case. Starbucks tried to be reasonable with gun owners, and people responded by acting like dicks and rubbing everyone’s noses in the fact that they were allowed to open carry in Starbucks. Furthermore, after they asked people to stop bringing guns, gun rights activists started protesting outside Starbucks and sometimes outright disobeying the rules. It’s an asshole move and I can’t support it.

      Of course, given that this is Jezebel, they have no moral authority to lecture anyone else on behaving appropriately in public. I hardly think Jezebelians are the sort of people who treat others with respect.

      This is basically an instance of assholes insulting assholes. The pieces of shit deserve each other.

      1. You make a fair point about some of the gun protests, but aside from cases where they harass customers I view it as no different than the gay rights activists doing that ‘Kiss in Front of Chic-Fil-A’ event. Both are intended to be disruptive and make perceived opponents uncomfortable.

        I’m just mocking Jezebel for the “omgz Gunz!” outrage, particularly in that last paragraph where the very act of carrying is a ‘thuggish threat’.

      2. I kind of agree. We’re gun owners. We’re better than that. Some of the open-carry stuff has become confrontational. There’s a difference between exercising your rights, and exercising your right in a way designed to provoke a confrontation.

        Although pretty much all of the 60s was an attempt to exercise the first amendment in a way precisely designed to provoke a confrontation, and proggies (for some odd reason) idolize the 60s.

        So who the fuck knows what’s right any more.

    2. Gun rights activists are the world’s biggest assholes

      FTFY

      1. This. Stupidity in numbers.

    3. So it’s okay for the Disarmament crowd to harass and solicit people on the way into to Starbucks because the company has the temerity to let people walk in with guns in plain view (you know, sort of like the police, without all of that OCCIFER SAFETY defense). But it’s not okay for gun rights advocates to patronize and gather outside of Starbucks, harming no one, and impeding no one, because…GUNZ R BAD, M’KAY?

      1. Yeah, it’s not a story I’ve been following, but judging from history, from long established political patterns, that have been well documented with mathematical certitude to the point of predication, I have a strong suspicion that the dick move was not started by the gun owner crowd.

        1. The original gun-owner action was to individually go buy a Starbucks drink on days when the anti-gun folks were boycotting it for letting people follow state law. Really creative types tipped with $2.00 bills.

          What it morphed into was the heathens on both sides showing their crass and working up to what could easily have become a violent confrontation. That put the company between a rock and a hard place.

          No good answers.

        2. The original gun-owner action was to individually go buy a Starbucks drink on days when the anti-gun folks were boycotting it for letting people follow state law. Really creative types tipped with $2.00 bills.

          What it morphed into was the heathens on both sides showing their crass and working up to what could easily have become a violent confrontation. That put the company between a rock and a hard place.

          No good answers.

    4. To paraphrase Gawker’s late great Jeb Lund, it’s a way for jerks to feel important by sitting; the ideological opposite of Chik-fil-A.

      Said with no self-awareness whatsoever by a media conglomerate that gently sucked at the wrinkled grundle of the Occupy Movement every chance it got.

    5. “gun-waving”

      Hysterical conflation again.

    6. I have not been to any of these but from the tone on-line where people have been loosely organizing these Open Carry events it seemed more like they were trying to show appreciation to Starbucks and make it obvious that large numbers of gun owners were patronizing their businesses because of their support for gun owners.

      It was also somewhat understood that one could show up to these events and feel the support in numbers that the individual open carry dude usually does not feel in other situations.

  27. And now an example of feminists drinking their own kool-aid:

    I thought that people would be dubious at best. But not only did they totally buy it, they loved it, saying it was refreshing, real, and ‘about time.’ The whole process has made me realize that as easy as it is for people to believe negative sexual messages from the media, it’s also just as easy for them to believe positive ones. It’s both sad and exciting to move on to the next stage of the game, where we’ll have to acknowledge that mainstream conversation around consent really isn’t actually happening, even though it could and should be.

    The message that she thought would be controversial?

    In other words? A good college party is all about everyone having a good time. Consent is all about everyone having a good time. Rape is only a good time if you’re a rapist. And fuck those people.

    1. That second quote … the feminists thought that would be controversial for some nontrivial number of non-rapists? Am I understanding this correctly?

      1. They’ve convinced themselves that resistance to their doctrine is by people who want to rape, and not people who think that this is insane.

        In their mind, those are all the same people.

        1. Or perhaps they are dishonestly trying to shame anyone not into CCC as a rapist.

        2. Wow. Do those people have any social skills? Read the following:

          If you have not had sex with a given person before, mutually understood language with confirmation is the best way to attain Crystal Clear Consent. Relying on body language or assuming consent without clarification is nearly always insufficient with a new partner. As you get to know your partner(s) better, you will get better at reading nonverbal / nonlingual cues, but clear communication is still absolutely necessary.

          Okay. I have hooked up with girls I met at a party without either one of us saying ‘yes, let us have sex.’ If we’re sitting there talking and she gives non-verbal signals, that’s how most hookups with new people start. The idea that you can’t understand a non-verbal ‘I want to have sex with you’ signal if you just met someone is ridiculous.

          We’re human beings. Most of our communication is through body language.

          1. Relying on body language or assuming consent without clarification is nearly always insufficient with a new partner.

            If standing there in visibly-tented boxers, grinning like an idiot isn’t Crystal Clear Consent, then I don’t know what is.

            1. Or if a girl comes with you to your room and proceeds to strip herself naked.

              Honestly, how do these people have sex? Who in the world stops at every step and says “DO I HAVE YOUR CONSENT!?”

              Never in my life have I had this happen. Apparently I’ve been raped repeatedly and didn’t even know it.

          2. Oh, it gets better:

            If you initiate or offer and are declined in the context of a specifically romantic, sexual, or flirtations setting, do not initiate or offer again until one of the following four occur:
            1. the other party has taken a turn initiating/offering and been declined by you.
            2. the other party has taken a turn initiating/offering, was accepted by you, but after the activity lapsed you wish to restart.
            3. it is an entirely new romantic, sexual, or flirtatious setting.
            4. An amount of time has passed that is inverse to the number of times they have accepted your offer before. While it may be acceptable when dating to offer again in a week or in a closer relationship to initiate again after, say, one day [or whatever is the negotiated norm in said relationship] it’s not acceptable to ask someone again if you’ve just met them.
            If you initiate or offer and are declined in a context that is not specifically romantic, sexual, or flirtatious, do not initiate or offer again. Seriously.
            If you initiate or offer and are declined in the context of a specifically romantic, sexual, or flirtations setting, do not act hurt or disappointed. Especially within a relationship this guilt-trips the other party and sets up an emotional blackmail for the next time.

            1. 4. An amount of time has passed that is inverse to the number of times they have accepted your offer before. While it may be acceptable when dating to offer again in a week or in a closer relationship to initiate again after, say, one day [or whatever is the negotiated norm in said relationship] it’s not acceptable to ask someone again if you’ve just met them.

              I feel like I need a diagram to understand their rules for consent.

              1. Nah. By the time you get done negotiating consent, a dump truck of Viagra wouldn’t do the job. So getting this kind of consent is a moot issue, really.

              2. If you initiate or offer and are declined in the context of a specifically romantic, sexual, or flirtations setting, do not initiate or offer again until one of the following four occur:

                No, no, no. I’ll just move on and stop wasting my time. Plenty of other fish . . .

                That’s emotional blackmail, rapist!

                Woah . . . she said she is not interested.

                It’s her right to choose, the if and the when of her interest. When she is ready to cease communication, she’ll let you know. By moving on, you deny her her right, and make her second guess her decisions. That’s extortion, rapist!

                Seems to me that this game is rigged against me. Adios!

              3. I found an even funnier part:

                Don’t want to listen to us? How about MIT?Edit

                Effective Consent is:
                ? informed;

                ? freely and actively given;

                ? mutually understandable words or actions;

                ? which indicate a willingness to participate in

                ? mutually agreed upon sexual activity.

                There are so many things wrong with this. This is apparently in an email sent to students of MIT.

                1. What authority does MIT have to decide when something is consent? This is the worst sort of false authority I have ever seen.

                2. MIT’s statements actually conflict with the wiki. I actually agree with MIT because they include words OR ACTIONS that make it clear that consent is being granted. I just got through being told by Pharyangula (sic) that actions don’t count unless you’ve known someone for 15 years.

                That means that they’re using MIT as an authority when MIT actually disagrees with them.

            2. What is the rule for requesting sex from a mentally unstable bitch? Shouldn’t there be another numbered ruling there to set the rules down? Oh, wait, the entire document is specifically tailored towards sexual relations with that subset of female partners. Never mind, in that context, it is good advice indeed, because the last thing you want from one is a post coital change of heart where she is consulting feminist theory to decide whether or not she had been raped because initiating a handjob doesn’t always mean she’s interested.

              1. They’re pretty gender neutral, and could apply to LGBT couples as well.

                The strange thing is all those rules sound like they are written by beings from another planet who have never had sex and are still trying to figure out what it is.

                I’d love to see their correct rewrite of the rape scene from The Fountainhead.

            3. Lying about or withholding information that, if known, would’ve resulted in dissent is rape.

              So if you hide the fact that you’re more into her than she is to you, that’s apparently rape.

              1. How can you know something would have resulted in dissent and why is witholding counted?

                Okay. Let’s say that I’m a nose picker. I pick my nose all the time when I am alone. If I told a girl in casual conversation ‘When I was in the bathroom just now, I was picking my nose!’ she would likely not want to sleep with me.

                So if I don’t tell someone I’m a nose picker, that’s apparently rape now.*

                *I am not a nose picker. Stop spreading rumors.

                1. That overgrown pinky nail I’ve been telling you all is for cocaine, it’s really just an effective scraper around the inner nostrils. It’s gets a little dry and cakey up there!

                2. I know they take this standard too far but lying about things you know would change their mind (it doesn’t have to be picking your nose, use common sense) is pretty scummy. Certainly things like lying about having an STD.

                  Unfortunately the people writing this don’t have common sense either.

                  1. Certainly things like lying about having an STD.

                    If that was what they meant, they could have said that. It is not what they meant. This new line is a reaction to the effectiveness of PUA techniques being utilized by traditionally unattractive men. But if they say “it’s disappointing to discover that your new partner is not as much of an asshole as you thought”, it gives the game away.

            4. I wonder how many women would become extremely frustrated with a man who followed those rules?

              1. He might make a good companion to hold her bags while shopping, or watch a chick flick with, but come one, a girl has urges and it sure as hell isn’t for him. He’s the guy she cares so little for that she would risk fucking with his head with this shit to prove her bona fides with her social peers. If he were a hot stud, the rare chance to screw the man of her dreams, the content of this thing would be the furthest thing from her mind. No way she would risk that chance by bringing it up to a guy who would laugh in her silly face as he picked up his phone and called the next woman on his list.

            5. Back in the day when I was single my rules were much more simple :

              1. Receive non-verbal agreement.
              2. Retreat to quiet, private spot.
              3. After getting comfortable present Mr Happy in all His glory.
              4. When she has responded by enveloping said apendage with part of her anatomy we have reached CCC.

              Done!

          3. If we’re sitting there talking and she gives non-verbal signals

            Like reaching over and giving Mr. Dean a friendly tug?

            1. Great minds spunk alike!

  28. Washington DC:

    Passage will probably ease the tension at every single social gathering there Not because they can get high. They’re already high ? they just won’t have to worry about getting busted.

    So it’ll be like the 1970s there.

    1. Fewer muttonchops.

    2. Well, we’ve already got stagflation, war out the wazoo, and Nixon II in the White House.

      1. I thought it was Carter II. Nixon was far more competent.

        1. To be fair, Carter seemed to actually care about Poor People… Obama does it for the cameras.

        2. Born in 1960, here’s my presidential competence pecking order (line feed are analogs):

          Gerald Ford

          Ronald Reagan/Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton

          George Bush I

          George Bush II/Barack Obama

          1. Gerald Ford with the Whip Inflation Now button? Come ON!

        3. More like Johnson II.

          Nixon got the US out of VN and improved relations with China.

          Carter didn’t start any wars, but wrecked US-Soviet relations.

          Johnson started and escalated wars, and exacerbated tensions between the US and USSR/China (though unlike Obama, the latter wasn’t all his fault.)

          1. Actually, Nixon established relations with China. There was not much in the way of “relations with China” to be improved before Nixon went there.

  29. Gawker attempts to figure out what is an ‘acceptable’ CEO-to-worker pay ratio

    What should it be? A modest proposal: 100-1.
    […]
    It depends on whether you embrace the crass, cutthroat capitalist vision of our society (objectively true) or the fair, democratic, equality-driven vision of our society (something to work for). Most working people, I’d wager, would feel that a ratio of 230-1 goes against common fairness. To put that figure in perspective: in 1965, the ratio was more like 20-1. Also: “From 1978 to 2011, CEO compensation increased more than 725 percent, a rise substantially greater than stock market growth and the painfully slow 5.7 percent growth in worker compensation over the same period.”

    The rising economic tide has not lifted all boats. It has lifted the CEO’s yacht, and left the workers bailing like hell to stay afloat. Ideally, we would tie worker pay to executive pay. The maximum ratio would be enforced by law. In order for those at the very top to enrich themselves more, they’d have to raise the wages of their employees. Companies would no longer be able to pay minimum wage to many of those at the bottom and tens of millions to those at the top. All the happy corporate talk about “team members” would finally mean something real.

    Working towards a zero-sum economy.

    1. I heard a CEO say once, “lots of people will do my job for $50k, but I won’t. If you want my results, pay my salary. If you want something else from a CEO, go pay that rate.”

      1. If CEO’s were routinely fired for poor performance, this would make sense, but there’s a lot of shitty CEO’s out there that still get tons of pay. It’s not the government’s job to fix this, but in a lot of cases, being a high level executive is more about who you know than it is about your ability to do the job.

        1. What are you talking about? A plurality of shareholders elect the board the select a CEO (unless they are the primary shareholders, in which case, they select the CEO directly). You can argue (I guess) that shareholders waste value on CEOs, but it actually doesn’t matter because it is their definition of value that matters. I don’t understand what “overpaid” would mean in a publicly traded (or privately held) company.

          1. Look at, for example, Microsoft. Balmer announces he’s retiring, names no successor, and the market capitalization of the company jumps $20 billion in one day. Why was he allowed to hang around until he decided to retire instead of being shown the door long ago?

        2. PROG BULLSHIT.

          That is all.

    2. They conveniently ignore the government’s role in inflating CEO pay in their quest for more government.

    3. Fun Thing To Do:

      I was listening to a moderately famous Hollywood actor who was pontificating about how CEO pay should be capped at X times the pay for his lowest-paid worker.

      “So,” sez I. “On your next film you’ll only earn X times what the guy on the food cart earns?”

      He was Not Impressed.

  30. I have linked to this guy in The Telegraph before but I do so again just to give a case example do demonstrate that Keynesians are crazy people.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin…..orate.html

    Actual quote: The question is whether the public welfare is best served by popping the bubble and allowing Austro-liquidation to purge the toxins, or whether this would be ruinously destructive. Many readers think it is past time to dynamite this edifice. I have much sympathy with this view. Yet in the end, I prefer magic.

    Q: Was fed tightening in 1937 really a mistake or was the economic slowdown at that time just the New Deal at work as a I suspect.

    1. It usually gets shoved to the side in this debate but Congress passed new taxes that took effect in ’37 because FDR was not comfortable with debt and looking like a profligate spender.

      1. FDR was a teabagging reactionary. He was against government employees unionizing, and he said welfare dependency could be a “narcotic.” So much for *him,* that right-wing fanatic!

  31. Lindsay Graham: Bomb Syria, or in 6 months Iran will start a nuclear war

    If the United States doesn’t deal with Syria, Graham promised Iran would acquire a nuclear weapon by 2014, the King of Jordan would be deposed and Israel would start preparing to protect itself.

    “I believe that if we get Syria wrong, within six months — and you can quote me on this,” Graham said, pausing for dramatic effect. “There will be a war between Iran and Israel over their nuclear program.”

    But it wouldn’t even end there, Graham surmised. Undoubtedly, he said ominously, the Iranians would share its nuclear technology with U.S. enemies.

    “My fear is that it won’t come to America on top of a missile, it’ll come in the belly of a ship in the Charleston or New York harbor,” he said.

    Gee, I’ll hope he’ll have the good decency to resign next February when this doesn’t happen.

    1. What do the Israelis have to say about this? Is there an article in, say, Ha’aretz with a similar analysis?

      I’m too lazy to look it up.

      1. Why would you care?

        1. If the Israelis are scared, my own fear would increase. They’re the ones on the front lines. If it’s just Graham, I would be less worried.

    2. Charleston? FY Lindsey you pandering POS.

      I can’t wait for him to get primaried. Cannot. Wait.

      1. Never going to happen. $$

  32. Looks like anybody the Cleveland Browns hadn’t let down yet was just let down. They traded their only decent player.

    1. Jake Delhomme? I haven’t been keeping up with them of late.

  33. Leonardo DiCaprio Wants to Play Woodrow Wilson as a Good Guy

    http://www.economicpolicyjourn…..odrow.html

    1. Serve Wilson right to be played by Leo DeCaprio.

      They should form a Committee on Public Information to publicize how good the film is.

      1. Conscientious objectors would give the movie 2 thumbs up if their thumbs weren’t otherwise occupied:

        When COs refused to cooperate in compulsory work programs in prison, during the times that other prisoners were at work they were hung by their thumbs until their toes barely touched the floor.

        http://www.lokashakti.org/ency…..-objection

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.