Obama Promises To Veto Attempt To Defund Obamacare, Putin May Seek Fourth Term, CA Community College Stops Student From Handing Out Copies of the Constitution: P.M. Links


Credit: Russian Presidential Press and Information Office/wikimedia
  • Obama has promised to veto any effort to defund Obamacare.
  • Russian President Vladimir Putin, who insists that here is no discrimination against gay people in Russia, says that he could seek a fourth term in 2018. If he were to serve four terms Putin would be the longest serving leader of Russia since Stalin.
  • A California community college blocked a student from handing out copies of the Constitution outside the student center….on Constitution Day.
  • The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that a New Jersey judge cannot moonlight as a comedian and actor.
  • Most Americans do not think that tougher gun control would have prevented the recent shooting at the Washington Navy Yard.
  • The war on terror in Mali is over, says French President Francois Hollande.

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: Obama Threatens to Veto Any Effort to Defund ObamaCare

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. Obama has promised to veto any effort to defund Obamacare.

    It would be like vetoing his very legacy. Future America has to know just how bad this man was.

    1. America would be so much better off if each citizen had a blackball.

      1. RACIST!


        1. You get to use it once a year to either eliminate a law or remove a citizen. Each one of us gets to do this.

          1. OK, Shirley Jackson…

            1. I didn’t say kill. Remove as in ostracize.

          2. I think that is an excellent idea. But I don’t know about being able to use it on any citizen. There are a lot of petty and vindictive people out there. I’d limit it just to government officials and elected office holders.

            1. That’s what I really think. I just said that to say it. And what I think about the ostracism of public officials isn’t kick them out of the country for ten years but kick them out of politics forever.

              1. Well, then you’ve definitely got my vote for whatever office would be able to implement that.

          3. I think for every election a citizen should be able to vote against a candidate – not just vote for the other candidate. There should be a “Yes” and a “No” by each name and each citizen can only chose one for each position.

            The winner would be the candidate with the highest positive number of votes. If both (or all) candidates end up with negative scores the nearest legislative body appoints an interim person to run things and the election is re-done in 90 days.

            Then if any candidate gets more negative votes than positive votes he/she can never again run for that position.

    2. Future America has to know just how bad this man was.

      If only present America knew. Here’s another tell all quote:

      Telemundo, the only news outlet that appears willing to ask Obama a tough question, pressed him this week about polls showing most Americans oppose ObamaCare. “Is everybody wrong?” the host asked.

      “Yes, they are,” Obama responded.


      1. Goddamn but I love Telemundo

          1. I grew up a white kid right on the Mexican border when there were only three US TV channels on the air.

            As I grew into adolescence I got more interested in the other channels on the air. For some reason my ability in Spanish really started improving at about the same time.

      2. I’m trying to remember the part where the Constitution says that presidents are there to tell us what to think rather than the other way around.

        1. The FYTW Clause.


        2. where the Constitution says that presidents are there to tell us what to think

          You’re just reading the wrong constitution. Here try this one:

          Constitution of the Republic of Cuba

      3. Heheh. “Everybody is wrong but me.”

        Why does it not surprise me that he would say that to the press? What a piece of work that shitweasel is.

        1. In Obama’s defense, I often say the same thing.

          1. You say that everybody’s wrong but Obama?

      4. Yeah, I’m confused on this myself. The vast majority of mericuns think Obamacare sucks. The Republicans are threatening to shut down the gubmint unless it’s defunded. The Dems are saying no to the repeal, yet today I heard Wolf Blitzer tell me that if the gubmint shuts down, mericuns will blame the Republicans?

        Am I missing something in this logic?

        1. It’s American logic, duh! 😉

          1. Exceptional logic

        2. Because a lot of muchy middle, bearly pay attention voters are more afraid of the government shutting down than having Obamacare come into existance.

          Though signifigant majorities dislike Obamacare, only a plurality absolutiely hates its guts.

          Same logic with Obama winning reelection. I dislike Obamacare, but having Romney and those evil rethuglicans would be far worse. So I’m voting O.

    3. It would be like vetoing his very legacy. Future America has to know just how bad this man was.

      Wouldn’t you much rather see it slowly collapse like the big sweaty train wreck that it is while Barry O still sits in the oval office?

      Good times!!

      1. Good times!!

        Ain’t we lucky we got ’em?

  2. The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that a New Jersey judge cannot moonlight as a comedian and actor.

    Couldn’t be funnier than ‘My Cousin Vinny’.

    1. “Objection! You’re not funny, get off the stage.”

    2. Yeah, but can comedians and actors moonlight as judges?

    3. “Yeah, I’m just working this judge gig until I make the big time as an actor.”

  3. US pilot scares away Iranians with “Top Gun” like stunt:

    1. You mean some sort of weird, homoerotic volley-ball match?

      1. No – he did that Val Kilmer teeth-clacking thing in the locker room


      2. That volleyball game nearly informed a young me’s sexuality. So very nearly…

        1. I remember watching that movie and thinking WTF? I mean, it’s like watching The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (not comparing the two, because Top Gun wasn’t particularly good, and, well, Eastwood) with a scene where Clint Eastwood, Eli Wallach, and Lee Van Cleef take their shirts off and massage each other with oil for no fucking plot-advancement purpose whatsoever.

          1. Holy FUCK I don’t remember that scene.

            Must. Resist. Urge. To Race Home….And Watch. AGAIN.

          2. It’s there to get the female and curious-that-way viewers hot and bothered, a date movie to help you get laid. Movie as wing man. He might be lame, tells an incoherent story, has daddy issues out the wazoo but he’s still your buddy.

            1. Making a guy movie into a chick movie is, inherently, gay. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

              1. Baby Boomers didn’t know what to do with themselves in the mid 1980s. They were a confused tribe, producing shit like this. Just listen to the movie soundtrack, the fucking thing that ruined Otis Redding for me, forever.

                1. Not Otis’ fault you watched gay porn using his music. I mean, he was dead and stuff.

                  Women get wooly.

                  1. My favorite porn scene of all time involved a redhead going under the name ‘Flame’. It featured a swanky 70s jazz version of Hendrix ‘You Got Me Floating.’ She went on to do Berlin based BnD and shitzer movies a few years later. I really can’t tie this to anything above, but it does take my mind off of Top Gun filtered Otis Redding.

                    1. This is really strange, and I’m not making this up, but I just read your comment in Dieter’s (Sprockets) voice.

                    2. Well, I do have a German side, but he’s a bit repressed.

                    3. As per his preferences, to be sure.

                    4. As long as the monkey is Herpes B free, touch it! Touch the monkey!

                    5. I hopped on that train of thought after “red head named Flame”

                    6. Yup, that would be the one. Not the prettiest thing in the business but damn she could perform.

          3. It’s called “art”.

      3. A friend of mine refers to Top Gun as “gay porn for straight men.”

        1. So Jesse, what does this “friend” think of An Officer and Gentleman.

          “I got nowhere else to go!”


        2. They said the same thing about Rebel Without A Cause. Preposterous! Does it get any straighter than James Dean and Sal Mineo?

          1. I mean all the straight men I know have pictures of Alan Ladd in their locker. ALL OF THEM.

            1. Exactly! Plato was just looking for an inspiring roll model.

              And look at the beauties that he dated!


              (I’m screwing around, of course, Mineo was one of my favorite actors as a kid when he played sensitive villain rolls in TV dramas.)

    2. Yeah, running off a 2nd generation jet fighter with a 4th generation jet fighter… Big hero.

      1. Yeah, he had like an 18 “F” advantage.

      2. “Hey look at me! My jet is 50 years newer!”

      3. I’m pretty tired of our foreign policy but that’s still pretty cool!

      4. Who said anything about a hero.

        It’s funny!

      5. Yeah, running off a 2nd generation jet fighter with a 4th generation jet fighter… Big hero.

        Scoff all you want, an old friend of mine took a wooden arrow in the leg in Vietnam during a firefight.

        1. But not in the knee?

          1. Doomed to be a security guard for the rest of his life.

        2. An old friend of mine took an arrow in the knee in Skyrim.

          1. That’s nothing. In Empire Earth I had a Roman legion survive to the 20th century, only to be nuked by a stealth bomber.

  4. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who insists that here is no discrimination against gay people in Russia, says that he could seek a fourth term in 2018.

    He’s their FDR. Put the gays in internment camps and be done with it.


      1. You know who else placed ethnic minorities in camps and claimed that it was to keep them in “protective custody”?

        1. Herbert Kitchener?

        2. Don’t have a clue.

          1. The term was Schutzhaftlager, in case you’re curious.

        3. The Roman legionnaires?

        4. The local school district?

        5. Thomas Jefferson?

        6. The U.S. Army? (Phillipine-American War)

        7. Ulysses S. Grant?

    2. Scott Lively, who you might remember from his bestselling book Pink Swastika, who has helped give a patina of western legitimacy to legal harassment and extralegal violence towards gays in Africa (particularly Uganda), thinks Vlad Putin isn’t such a bad guy:

      We don’t want to gloss over the problems that we have with Mr. Putin but by the same token he’s the only world leader capable of standing up to the West and he is championing the traditional marriage and Christian values regarding the central moral issue of our time that no one else has the capability to do what he’s doing. Really there’s a chance here for him to inspire all the morally conservative countries of the law to adopt a similar law that he just adopted, his country just adopted and really have a chance maybe to roll some of this terrible agenda back.

      So, ummm, yay for a fourth term!

      1. Plus that KGB sure knew how to get things done. That’s the kind of go-gettership we need.

      2. I refuse to google or otherwise research that douche, but the probability is nearing 100% that he’s a closeted, self-hating ghey himself, isn’t it?

        1. I refuse to google or otherwise research that douche, but the probability is nearing 100% that he’s a closeted, self-hating ghey himself, isn’t it?

          Scott Lively or Vladimir Putin? None of your descriptive words pertain specifically to one of them. I think there’s a persistent rumor about Putin being a ‘mo. I really don’t know enough about Scott Lively besides the fact that he’s a monster.

          From Wikipedia

          “[T]housands of Ugandans, including police officers, teachers and national politicians,” reportedly attended the conference. Lively and his colleagues “discussed how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how ‘the gay movement is an evil institution‘ whose goal is ‘to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.'” Lively wrote days later that “someone had likened their campaign to ‘a nuclear bomb against the gay agenda in Uganda.'”

          Lively expressed disappointment that “the legislation was so harsh.” “Lively says he recommended an approach rooted in rehabilitation, not punishment and says an anti-gay bill being considered by the Ugandan Parliament goes too far”

          Awesome Scott, way to generate a moral panic and then throw your hands up when they your audience eats it up.

          1. Putin…no. I don’t think so. He persecutes gays because it’s the macho thing to do, kind of like why tough black guys look down on gays and feminine men.

            No, I meant the Lively guy. Anyone who goes around trying to cure the gays, and generally worrying about the “problem of homosexuality” at all, probably hates the urges within themselves.

            1. I don’t really think so either. It’s just been a persistent rumor about Putin in Russia and abroad.

              I really don’t know enough about Lively, but most of the major figures in the ex-gay movement have eventually been caught on Grindr or in the back room of a gay club, so it really wouldn’t surprise me.

  5. What Air Force officers wish they could say during OPRs (?)


    1. Only funny because it’s true!

      1. If I may once again introduce the infamous author from the AM links….

        The ‘U.S. military’s marathon, 30-year, single-elimination, suck-up tournament’
        ‘How America selects its generals’


        My brother is a medevac pilot in the Army and I asked him what he thought about the idea that only ass-kissers get promoted. His reply was “uh, roger roger.”

        1. Thanks for this.

          – A really fucking jaded AF Captain

  6. A California community college blocked a student from handing out copies of the Constitution…

    Everyone already knows the protected rights they kind of have.

    1. It’s California–to them the Constitution’s just a “fucking piece of paper.”

  7. Just picked up my tix for the big Ohio State – Florida A&M game Saturday. I’m stoked.

    1. You know the band isn’t coming, right? So they’re just another shitty football team.

        1. There, there.

          We’ll let you meet the tuba player who dots the “i” in “Ohio”….

      1. Gotta get a confidence-building victory.

        1. What they really need is a confidence-shaking close shave.

      2. What’s the point of scheduling FAMU if the band isn’t coming? Like I mentioned in the other thread, I went to a FAMU-UF game, and the best part by far was the A&M band.

    2. Cal Memorial Stadium was a sea of scarlet and gray this past Saturday. Fucking awesome!

      Have fun, man. And hopefully I’ll see you when you come out to scout travel destinations for the Rose Bowl or NCG.

      1. I credit my Berkeley travel story for getting the faithful to make the trip.
        As for Rose Bowl or NGC, you got that right, sloop.
        (Please, please God. Don’t ever, ever let them go to Gator Bowl/Jacksonville again — for any fucking reason at all.)

        1. I must have missed it. What is your Berkeley travel story? (SLD, living in Berkeley is what made me a libertarian)

      2. I was there . It was a blast.

    3. Were you planning on attending the riots after the game?

    4. You mean like when Gordon Gee criticized other teams for playing cream puffs, when Ohio State had like the 94th toughest schedule in Division 1?

  8. Beaver anal secretions a vanilla substitute in some foods


    1. This is making the rounds. My wife is appalled.

      1. OMG!!! OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!!!!

      2. It just made it to my Facebook page…

    2. Beaver Anal Secretions would be a good name for a metal band.

      1. Beaver Anal Secretions would be a good name for a metal band hot sauce

    3. Seriously, are you guys going to tell me you have a problem with a little beaver juice in your mouths?

      1. Booooo!

        1. Oh please, the fact that I had to make that joke is shameful. Vanilla flavored beaver secretions should’ve been a cunnilingus joke GOLDMINE.

          1. Yeah, we heteros should be ashamed that the gay guy beat us to that.

            Opportunity lost.

    4. I suppose it’s probably more nutriious than the horse seman shots from the late night links.

      1. Thanks, I had almost forgotten that, so it was great of you to remind me, jerkface.

    5. Beaver anus or vanilla bean. It’s all something’s excretions. If it tastes good and is safe, why not?

    6. Oh, that’s just . . . retching.

      1. I mean, I would like to be contrarian, and say, ‘what’s the big deal? It’s just an arrangement of mostly carbon atoms in a form not typically aesthetically pleasing to a person conditioned to your culture. So long as it taste good and doesn’t kill you, why not?’ The same could be said of cannibalism . . fucking gross is why not!

    7. I don’t see what the big deal is. Beaver anal secretions are 100% natural.

    8. I learned what castoreum is from Assassin’s Creed (and also ambergris, i.e. shit-smelling whale vomit, used to make perfume).


    “Look into my eyes, your soul is stained by the blood of the innocent “

    1. In Soviet Russia, gay discriminates against YOU!

  10. Obama does his rendition of “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”:


    1. These are not the droids you’re looking for.

  11. Hiroshi Yamuchi, the man who lead Nintendo to its pinnacle of video game dominance, dies at 85

    Hiroshi Yamauchi, who transformed his great-grandfather’s playing-card company, Nintendo, into a global video game powerhouse, died on Thursday in Kyoto, Japan. He was 85.
    The cause was complications of pneumonia, the company said.

    Mr. Yamauchi, who led Nintendo from 1949 to 2002, was Japan’s most unlikely high-tech success story. Named president of the family business at 22, he steered Nintendo into board games, light-emitting toy guns and baseball pitching machines ? fruitless forays that he later attributed to a “lack of imagination” ? before the company arrived at arcade games.

    Its Donkey Kong and the original Mario Bros. became hits and gave rise to Nintendo’s wildly successful home video game business.

    The Nintendo Entertainment System, a console first released in Japan in 1983 as “Famicom,” unseated early leaders in the video game industry, selling more than 60 million units thanks to shrewd marketing, close attention to product quality and a crop of games based on unlikely yet endearing characters that soon became household names.

    A moment of silence.

    1. I heard BOOP……BOOP….instead.

      RIP Nintendo Dude

    2. Mega Man, Gradius, Lifeforce, Legendary Wings consumed a lot of the time my gf (now wife) and I spent in the mid/late 80s. RIP Yamauchi.

    3. It was dangerous, yet he went alone.

  12. Progtard discusses SciFi. You can guess the rest.


    1. I guess I can excuse the author for not having read the rest of the Ender-focussed books in that universe. So I guess Noah doesn’t realize that Ender was hounded from world to world in shame in Card’s sequels.

      1. Oh, and Ender is the one who (kind of unbelievably, I thought) singlehandedly convinced humans that destroying the aliens was a terrible mistake instead of justifiable defense.

        1. Oh yeah, that’s right. That’s at the end of the 1st book, even!

          1. He dragged that egg around the universe for three more books didn’t he (I haven’t read the books in 10 or 12 years).

              1. it was 2. He left it on the piggy world. A planet full of murderous pig-trees and giant insects. I wonder who’s Mormon heaven that was?

            1. He dragged it around for the entirety of Speaker for the Dead. He released the Queen at the very end of that one. He then spent the next few books (increasingly weird) in his quest to protect Lusitania, and by extension to protect the aliens.

    2. To be fair, Rich Burlew of the Order of the Stick has devoted a huge part of his work to criticizing implicit racism in tabletop gaming and fantasy fiction and it’s only made his world richer and more morally complex. It all depends on how you do it.

      1. Yeah, but he also advocates genocide, as long as it’s against races which include the word black!


      2. criticizing implicit racism in tabletop gaming and fantasy fiction

        So this isn’t satire then?

        1. Heh. Seen that one before.

          Burlew’s deal is that portraying intelligent races as always evil is mirrors actual racism, and that even if only a few members of the race choose to use their free will, it’s wrong to kill them indiscriminately. Of course, most of the members of the traditional enemy races are evil in OOTS, just not one dimensional. It’s not like the Zinn-Chomsky narrative where the noble savages are unilaterally oppressed by the evil conquerors.

    3. You can guess the rest.

      I actually couldn’t. I’ve seen a lot of retarded criticism of Card…but that was probably the most bizarre.

    4. They really can’t find enjoyment in anything can they?

      1. No. Progressives are the most depressing people I know.

    5. People still read Salon? Hmm…interesting.

    6. My problem with this criticism – that the genocide was wrongly justified because the war was caused by a failure of communication is *how* are you supposed to *know* that communication is possible if you’ve tried every way you can think of to communicate and its failed?

      The article’s complaint seems to be that humanity should have somehow known that communication was possible and tried harder rather than at some point say ‘screw it, I’m outta here’.

      I mean the genocide *was* a mistake, but only because the people making the decision had limited knowledge and they made the best decision they could after making a good-faith attempt at preventing further bloodshed.

      It was decided that the buggers were at the outer edge of the ‘circle of otherness’ that it was thought that not only was no communication possible but the needs of each race put each other in permanent opposition – the only logical response to that is to either eliminate the other or allow the other to eliminate you. Humanity chose the former.

  13. The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that a New Jersey judge cannot moonlight as a comedian and actor.

    I just sentenced someone to prison for pumping his own gas, and boy is my gavel tired.

    1. Take my bailiff….PLEASE!

      1. What’s the deal with courthouse cafeteria food?

        1. Dock? Why do they call it that? There aren’t any boats.

          1. So a priest, a rabbi and a minister try to pass the bar.

            1. So a priest, a rabbi and a minister try to pass the bar.

              …and the proctor says, “is this some kinda joke?”

              Ba, dum, tchhhhh!

  14. If he were to serve four terms Putin would be the longest serving leader of Russia since Stalin.

    And the sexiest! Amirite?

    1. There’s something about Brezhnev?

        1. I believe the radfem answer would be that one is too many.

        2. How do you find these things?

  15. Scientists determine that, under present conditions and projections, life on Earth will endure another 1.75 billion years

    Scientists have determined that, unless something drastic occurs, Earth will survive at least another 1.75 billion years.

    A team of British researchers from the University of East Anglia have developed a model for determining how long a specific planet can survive in its sun’s habitable zone.

    “Toward the end of a planet’s [habitable zone] lifetime, steadily increasing stellar luminosity is likely to result in a runaway greenhouse event, which would represent a catastrophic and terminal extinction event for any surface biosphere present on the planet,” said the researchers in the paper.

    A planets habitable zone, or “Goldilocks zone” as it’s referred to, is the area located around a star where liquid water could be sustained on a planet, according to a study published about the team’s findings in the journal Astrobiology.

    Click here to read the paper.

    The researchers determined Earth will leave the sun’s habitable zone in 1.75 billion to 3.25 billion years. Once Earth leaves and gets closer to the sun, it will dramatically increase in temperature causing oceans to evaporate.

    Well I’m not worried, are you?

    1. I blame sequestration.

    2. I thought the Sun was going to get closer to the Earth in that time-frame.

      1. As Tina-Fey-as-Sarah-Palin said, “That’s just God huggin’ us even closer…”

      2. It’s not expanding into a red giant that soon–that’s more in the five-billion year range, I think. Or are you suggesting it might move towards us out of some sort of personal animus?

        1. No, I’m just being generally ignorant of things that won’t affect me or mine personally.

          1. How do you know you won’t live until then?

            1. Who said I’ll be dead? I just won’t be affected by the Earth-Sun distance.

              1. Fair enough. Moving to the Oort cloud, since it’s outside of the Solarian government’s jurisdiction?

      3. If the sun gets closer to the Earth, then the Earth also gets closer to the Sun.

        1. He said the sun getting closer to the Earth, not the other way around. Don’t get all relative on me.

          1. Well, then that woudl probably mean the sun getting bigger. It’s been a while since I studied stellar evolution, but I think that there are some phases where the size and luminosity change significantly even before it gets to red giant. I think that in red giant phase, the sun is supposed to expand to the size of Earth’s orbit, more or less.

            1. It’s best that we relocate well before then, in any case.

      4. Shouldn’t the Earth along with all the other planets (other than Mercury which is already tidally locked) be moving away from the Sun due to tidal friction?

      5. But the Earth is orbiting the Sun, how could the Sun get closer? If the Earth’s orbit shrinks, then the Earth becomes closer to the Sun.

    3. “University of East Anglia”
      Where have I heard of that before?


      1. Fortunately it is fairly difficult to politicize astronomy.

        1. Well, you’d think, but remember that there’s no room in creationism for most cosmology.

    4. The IPCC was right! Off by a few billion years, but right!

    5. Bush inflated the sun first!


    6. THIS, has it as slightly less, about 800M years and for a differnt reason. And it’s a pretty cool graphic on time perspective.

    7. We don’t get closer, but the sun gets slightly hotter as it gets older, thus eventually it will get too hot on Earth.

  16. I know that Russian definitively discriminates against alt-texuals.

    1. In Soviet Russia, alt text make YOU disappear!

  17. Most Americans do not think that tougher gun control would have prevented the recent shooting at the Washington Navy Yard.

    So no sensible gun control legislation? 🙁

    It looks like we’ll just have to settle for DHS buying up all the ammunition stock.


  18. Actual Headline: Ottawa bus crash victims include students, public servants

    Who were the rest, homeless vagrants?

    1. That’s even worse than the regular “ten people were killed; three of them were children” formulations that make me scream at the TV.

    2. Who were the rest, homeless vagrants?


    3. The rest worked in the private sector and are of no importance.

  19. With so many Reasoniods having children this fall and winter, I think it’s time for Banjos and I to get ahead of the curve and announce the latest installment of the “Reason Hit & Run Baby Middle-Naming Rights For Liberty Campaign”. Our blog site will be up shortly, but in the interim, you are free to open the bidding wherever you see fit. As we do every time we have a kid, all proceeds will go to charity.*

    Just so you all know, it’s a girl again this year and we will almost certainly be naming her Liberty. (Hence the snappy title to the campaign.) So get your wallets and/or pocketbooks open and start the bidding war.

    *We are planning on the Reason Foundation, but may allow the winner to give to a couple of others if they so choose.

    1. $100 on “Valance”

      1. Archduke, is that real dollars or Canadian dollars?

        1. Still essentially at parity with 1.02 loonies being one greenback.

          1. But what is the milk bag/carton exchange rate?

            1. The Canucks have cartons, too, but they’re all homo. NTTAWWT.

    2. Is this going to be an annual event?

      1. It probably will be for the next couple of years anyway.

        1. welcome to hell

          s/Parent of Three

        2. Breeding your own army? Or corps of child slaves? I figured it’d come to that.

          1. Child-slaves to start with, if they live long enough then gladiators, if they survive that – king!

    3. Will Mary be infecting this new blog as well?

      1. Jesus, I hope not. Depends if John decides to bid.

        1. I thought John would bring MNG out of hiding. Your blog could be their new love shack….cozy

    4. Clovis or nothing. Yes, for a girl.

      1. Clovis or nothing.

        Liberty Nothing Spicer?

        1. I’ll accept Charles Martel has an alternative.

          1. Sorry, “as” an alternative. Don’t know why I like Frankish names.

            1. Because they sound awesome, and Charles Martel has a built in nickname.

              1. Definitely for a boy. Of course, I can’t abide people who say Charles “The Hammer” Martel. I do so loathe redundancy.

              2. Chas-Mart?

                1. Chas-Mart?

                  I think I bought gas there once.

                  1. Good name for a hardware store.

            2. Why be wishy washy? Instead of Frankish, go straight to Frank.

              1. Ferret Face?

            3. Don’t know why I like Frankish names.

              Man crush?

    5. Oh, PS, congratulations to you and Banjos! and

      “Capitalist Pig”

      My wife has two middle names. Unfortunately, they are not “Capitalist Pig”.

      1. Unfortunately, they are not “Capitalist Pig”.

        Naked Capitalist?

      2. How come a boy can’t be named Liberty? Like in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance?

        1. There was a sexy singer/actress popular in Latin America named Libertad Lamarque. She was rumored to have slapped Eva Peron on the set of a movie they were both acting in.

    6. Is this auction regular style or QuiBids style?

      1. Ugh, regular-style. Jesus, man, I’m an auctioneer. QuiBids ought to be burnt to the ground (metaphorically). They give us a worse name than those dumbasses on Storage Wars.

        Bids will be in $10 increments, and I will accept proxy bids via e-mail if somebody doesn’t want to take the time to keep seeing if they’re outbid.

        1. You’re an auctioneer?

          1. Yep. Why do you think I talk so fast?

            1. Fast? That took 13 minutes.

    7. In honor of the guy who posts Nordic death metal, how about Vapaus? Or maybe Frihet?

      1. You mean Warty?
        Warty has no honor.

    8. I’m tempted to offer up ‘Regina’ or ‘Fanny’ for consideration, but on second thought, I probably shouldn’t.

      1. Step One: Give her the name “Fanny”
        Step Two: Send her to school in the U.K.
        Step Three: Traumatic Childhood

    9. Liberty Artisanal Mayonaise…..(I forget Sloops last name insert here at a later date).

      1. ….Spicer….Liberty Artisanal Mayonaise Spicer …….curse my senility!

    10. Call her Liberty Mutual. I bet you can get some sort of naming rights sponsorship.

      1. Maybe Liberty Baptist…

    11. Didn’t you name your first child “Reason”? How could you waste an opportunity to name the next one “Rhyme”?

    12. My mother sat in stunned silence when I told her we were planning on naming our next child “Liberty”. After at least 10 seconds, she said “are you letting those weird people buy her middle name again?” When I said yes, she reminded me that the baby will have the name we give her for the rest of her life.

      I mean, really? Aren’t there enough kids named Sophia and Isabella? Fuck that shit, we want something with a little panache!

    13. If she turns out to not be very smart, I’ll legally change her name to “Cleveland Browns” when she’s a little older for obvious reasons.

    14. Liberty Jefferdaughter Inca?

      Liberty H&R Inca?

      Liberty FYTW Inca?

      Liberty FTW Inca?

      Liberty CutSpending Inca?

    15. I’ll buy Bell for a dollar. Okay, 20.

    1. What the fuck is an “MSNBC”?

      1. The propaganda wing of the DNC.

    2. Jesus christ man, I made it to 1:13 before I puked all up in my pants.


      The pseudo-concern shown was so over the top as to be laughable. “The CHILDREN!” *shakes head*

      1. You think that strawmen, emotional appeals, and insults are bad? That is just the beginning. I’ve seen Derp you’ve only seen in your nightmares. Derp you can’t even imagine. Derp you can’t even see. There is Derp that hunts you in the night. Then something screams. Then you hear them babbling, and you hope to God that you’re not going insane. Annoyed? You don’t even know what annoyed is. You would not last five minutes without me.

        1. All I know is that if you can watch that entire video without your head exploding, then you’re made of sturdier stuff than I am.

          1. Spending 28 years in Derpmanji will do that to you.

      2. Wasn’t Joe allegedly a conservative at one point?

        Just goes to show what close association with rabid progs will do to you.

        WARNING…keep your distance.

        1. Where was the outrage when progressives were smirking “we” should draft Jenna and Barbara Bush?

  20. Amanda Marcotte exposes Ken Cuccinelli’s insidious plot to end no-fault divorce

    Beyond that, McAuliffe’s campaign is right to be suspicious of Cuccinelli’s gendered intentions. It is true that Cuccinelli has been pointedly gender-neutral in his public statements about the bills, defending his attacks on no-fault divorce by saying, “This law has everything to do with the breakdown of the family. The state says marriage is so unimportant that if you just separate for a few months, you can basically nullify the marriage.” No doubt that’s how he’d like it to appear to female voters.

    However, a deeper look suggests that his desire to eliminate no-fault divorce is about more than a gender-neutral concern for the “breakdown of the family.” The bills Cuccinelli drafted were specifically about empowering spouses who resist the divorce. As the Washington Post reported, Cuccinelli has ties to the “fathers rights” movement, a group of men who agitate to give men more power over divorce proceedings. These groups supported Cuccinelli’s bid to end no-fault divorce presumably because they saw it as a way to make it harder for women to end their marriages.

    What is the libertarian position on no-fault divorce?

    1. Is it in the marriage contract?

    2. What is the libertarian position on no-fault divorce?

      I would think the libertarian position would be to split all assets under any agreement the parties agreed to. So wouldn’t that mean that if they got divorced in a no-fault state that their agreement was implied when they decided to move to that state? Excepting, of course, in cases where they signed an agreement determining how assets would be split in case of divorce.

    3. I do not see how requiring someone to stay married to someone can pass libertarian muster.

      Having said that, I tend to dismiss anything that follows as silly of a comment as ‘gendered intentions.’

      1. I do not see how requiring someone to stay married to someone can pass libertarian muster.

        When you say your vows you are freely entering into a contract.

        Why should you be able to terminate a contract unilaterally? The logical solution to this is to simply not rush into marriage or have a pre-nup.

        1. Not every vow is a contract. When you tell a starry eyed young woman ‘I will love you forever’ should a court hold you to that?

          Marriages are relationships. It makes as much sense to hold people to one as it does a friendship.

          1. Not every vow is a contract. When you tell a starry eyed young woman ‘I will love you forever’ should a court hold you to that?

            Big difference between whispering that into a girl’s ear and saying a vow in front of a judge or religious cleric in the presence of witnesses. Marriage is very much a contract.

            Marriages are relationships. It makes as much sense to hold people to one as it does a friendship.

            They’re relationships, but they are relationships that come with legal sanction and thus benefits and responsibilities.

            1. “To have and to hold” is a property phrase.

              1. Yeah, but just try to get a mortgage on your wife, and see what happens.

                1. That’s how it should really work–each spouse is legally the slave of the other.

              2. Really? I thought it was a sex thing?

                1. Gotta admit, it does sound kinda sexy.

          2. Also, would not Cucinnelli’s approach apply to a couple that both agreed to divorce? As I understand it in many states you must separate for a period before a divorce is granted even if both parties want to divorce immediately. In Virginia the time seems to be six months, but his proposed bill was to extend the time. That is government paternalism at its worst.

          3. The marriage=contract is complete nonsense.

            When all you have is a hammer….

        2. Why should you be able to terminate a contract unilaterally?

          You can always unilaterally breach a contract. Marriage is pretty clearly the type of contract where specific performance wouldn’t be a suitable remedy for the breach.

          1. So should the party violating the marriage contract be liable for damages?

            1. Should the innocent party lose his/her rights, eg, re child custody? Because that’s how it works now: “We don’t care whose ‘fault’ [air quotes mandatory] it is, the fact is this marriage ended and we legislators and judges are going to split up the kids and the money based on our idea of how things should be done!”

              1. Sure, you can put whatever penalties for breach you want in the contract.

                As far as children are concerned, they aren’t a party to the contract so it would have to be handled differently. The problems with current child custody laws and the way they are implemented is a different issue.

                1. “The problems with current child custody laws and the way they are implemented is a different issue.”

                  I’m not sure I see the justice in depriving someone of all or some of his/her parental rights because the *other* spouse is an adulterer, wife-beater, or guilty of desertion.

                  As for “for the children” – for one thing, it sets children a bad example to see good conduct punished and bad conduct rewarded. Yeah, there’s a recipe for a healthy future citizen! For another thing, in a regime of fault-based divorce, if you’re the most-qualified spouse to care for your children, presumably that means you love them enough not to endanger your parental rights through misconduct.

                  1. Sure, I assume you can find some Don Draper who sleeps with anything that moves but really cares about his children, and isn’t it unfair for him to lose his paternal rights for one or two (or twenty or thirty) pecadilloes…or maybe Guido who beats up his wife after coming home from the bar every Saturday but gosh, he takes little Angelica to the park and plays catch with little Timmy, blah blah…

                    What about a law which lays down a bright-line rule: If Don and Guido want to keep their paternal rights, they should just avoid committing adultery or beating their wives? Is that too much of a sacrifice for the kids you supposedly love?

              2. Should the innocent party lose his/her rights, eg, re child custody?

                Child custody and support should be and largely is about the best interests of the child not rewarding or punishing one of its creators.

            2. What do expectance damages consist of when you’re looking at a failing marriage? A couple round of terrible sex?

              1. Well, the usual argument against specific performance is that it’s better to impose damages, not that the breaching party should get away scot-free.

        3. ‘Why should you be able to terminate a contract unilaterally?’

          You can (and always have been able to) terminate a contract unilaterally. Typically there are penalty clauses to deal with this specific situation and if there are not, courts to settle disputes over the damages owed for breaking the contract.

          1. Unless the agreement gives you the right to terminate, that’s a breach in most cases.

      2. Assuming a libertarian marriage system where people have their own contracts, there would be no way to stop someone from breaching the contract. It would only be a matter of applying the penalties agreed to. So yeah I don’t see how you could force someone to remain married but there very well could be penalties for leaving.

        1. So to be clear, are you in favor of abolishing alimony in cases of no-fault divorces?

          Somehow I don’t think the feminists would be okay with that.

          1. I don’t see where you got that. Your contract would determine what situations alimony would be applied unless you mutually agree otherwise when you end the contract.

          2. 1. I don’t care what feminists are ok with – the vast majority of ‘official’ feminist thinking is explicitly anti-libertarian.

            2. Yes, I would be OK with abolishing alimony in the case of no-fault divorces – and replacing it with pre-nuptial contracts. If nothing else this would be a good first step towards abolishing civil marriage as a specific and one-size-fits-all legal contract.

            Today the definition of marriage seems to be between a man and a woman and a state.

    4. What is the libertarian position on no-fault divorce?

      That it breaks the oral contract so many people stupidly make on their wedding day?

    5. The ability of one party to unilaterally dissolve a contract pretty much defeats the purpose of a contract.

      1. So, what, governments should mandate specific performance? This is where the contract analogy truly gets odd.

        1. The marriage as contract construct fundamentally misconstrues the nature of contracts.

          Contracts are not indissoluble solemn vows. They are formalization of exchanges.

          So what is exchanged in a marriage? What are the tangible damages for ending the relationship?

          Marriage is more akin to a business license or building permit than a contract between multiple people

          1. So what is exchanged in a marriage?

            Traditionally? Sex and progeny (and occasionally land or a goat) for security, financial and otherwise.

            Now? STD test results and half your shit.

      2. You can almost always unilaterally dissolve a contract, albeit the dissolver will probably have to pay damages.

        1. Yeah, I don’t know where people get the idea that contracts can’t be broken. They can be and it happens all the time. Sure, there are consequences, but everything has consequences.

          And your name is still just gross.

          1. As Virginia Postrel points out, in order to keep agreements we first of all need to know what we agreed to.

      3. No it doesn’t.

        That’s like saying that once your hired you can never be allowed to quit or be fired unless you *and* the company agree to split.

    6. Michael Strickland
      Imagine how bizarre a marriage must be if only one party wants it to continue and yet, it continues.. Why would that party want to continue knowing that the other party only wants out? In what possible way would he(she) benefit by that? Are people commonly motivated by causing suffering to another?

      If one person wants out of a marriage, for any reason, there should be nothing to make her (him) stay in it for another minute.

      Do these guys not have any assets at all? Or is it willful stupidity?

      1. “Why would that party want to continue knowing that the other party only wants out?”

        Were he still alive, Ariel Castro could an swer that.

        Ironically, it turned out that he couldn’t stand confinement.

      2. Do these guys not have any assets at all? Or is it willful stupidity?

        I still don’t see why you’d want to force someone to stay in a marriage. Split the assets, leave the marriage, and consider getting some tail without signing a contract entitling your fuck-buddy to take half of what you earn during the relationship..

        1. I still don’t see why you’d want to force someone to stay in a marriage. Split the assets,

          And if the majority of your assets are currently being utilized in a business venture?

        2. Especially women will stay married for a time, knowing the guy wants out, but still believing she’ll “win him back.” And sometimes she even does.

  21. Sterlize your retarded children so they don’t have to deal with pubescent hassles.

    Merren and her husband, John Carter, put Sophie on Depo Provera birth control for five years. However, John, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of Sydney was concerned about the long-term risks of osteoporosis associated with the hormonal contraception. They began looking for an alternative solution. At first they considered endometrial ablation, a procedure that destroys the lining of the uterus, and reduces menstrual flow. They received approval from the Guardianship Tribunal of New South Wales, a governmental body that determines consent for special medical treatments for adults who are incapable of making their own decisions.

    However, the Carters decided not to go ahead with the procedure as it would have to be repeated. Instead they applied for Sophie to have a hysterectomy. The Guardianship Tribunal approved it and when Sophie was 21 she had the operation. Her limited independence is no longer compromised by menstruation, Merren said. Sophie continues to take swimming lessons without monthly interruptions and doesn’t have to have pap smears, under general anesthetic, which many of Sophie’s friends have to endure.

    1. and doesn’t have to have pap smears, under general anesthetic, which many of Sophie’s friends have to endure.

      This seems appropriate.

      1. Not clicking…..

        1. Do it, you’ll like it.

          1. Do it, you’ll like it.

            Well he doesn’t do much for me Jesse….kinda want to go see the doc though.

        2. You need to have your browser set up not to have Youtube videos start playing until you click on them. That way you can see the title of the video and then decide whether to play it.

          (In this case, it’s safe for work.)

      2. That guy will never live that down…. never.

      3. Personally, I don’t go around scheduling medical appointments for people unless I am given power of attorney first. But that’s just me…

  22. -Tell Radisson Not to Host the XBIZ Porn Conference!

    Radisson is set to host the XBIZ porn conference in London on September 22-25th. We are outraged that they will provide space to an industry that is based on making a profit from brutalizing women.

    Email Radisson and let them know your opposition. The hotel is not only supporting the sexual exploitation of women but also putting female employees at risk because men who sexually abuse women for profit will be staying there and in close proximity to female employees.

    Pornography puts all women at risk by teaching men that women only have value as sexual objects, are always available as willing participants, and are thus legitimate targets of sexual harassment, abuse and rape.


    1. “Pornography puts all women at risk by teaching men that women only have value as sexual objects”

      It looks like feminism is starting to fracture. On the way hand, you have stuff like this. On the other, you have slut pride.

      1. “Pornography puts all women at risk by teaching men that women only have value as sexual objects”

        No, they’re also good at ordering pizza. And plumbing services, etc.

        1. How ya gonna keep ’em down on the farm once they’ve seen Karl Hungus?

    2. Feminists or SoCons? Sometimes it’s so hard to tell.

    3. But nothing about the male actors. Kinda like they didn’t give a shit about rape in the military until women started joining.

      1. And remember kids gay porn demeans women because it says that women aren’t necessary.

        /college nemesis

        1. She is not alone in that opinion. It’s a cherished rad-fem belief.

        2. I never even knew that real people thought this, just five or six dunces on the internet.

          1. Nope, a classmate of mine in college went on a tirade about the horrors of porn degrading women. She specifically said “all porn degrades women” and I decided to glibly interject “mine doesn’t.” Her response was swift and talking-points-practiced. and I was so stunned by the absurdity of it that I sat there slack-jawed and uncomprehending for the rest of the encounter.

            If only the third wave feminists had remembered to lock the door, after feeding time, to the cellar they were keeping the second wave feminists during the ’90s, the world would be a better place.

            1. God but I love this fucking website!!

            2. What’s the argument against lez porn? (the kind that lesbians actually watch)

              1. No idea. There isn’t enough of it? Those people are having more fun than the radfems are?

                The women who create and consume lesbian porn are just acting out degrading behavioral patterns inculcated by exposure to the patriarchy, which must be rooted out and destroyed, possibly with fire for the good of womyn kind?

                1. No, you’re thinking of lesbian porn made for men. Lesbian porn for women mostly features fully-dressed women in tastefully decorated parlors reading Judith Butler to each other over soft violin music.

        3. Umm, wouldn’t fucking any woman besides the rad-fem speaker say that the rad-fem speaker isn’t necessary?

        4. Wouldn’t that also imply that the very existence of gay men implies that women aren’t necessary?

          But of course that is a very stuid argument. At the very least some women are necessary as raw materials for making the axlotl tanks.

          1. Wouldn’t that also imply that the very existence of gay men implies that women aren’t necessary?

            It’s an inherently an anti-gay (male) worldview, which is funny since her New Left politics made her an active (and really fucking obnoxious) supporter for gay rights.

    4. Did they include the email address? It almost makes me want to email Radisson and ask them to tell this “porn harms” group how evil they are for suggesting women have no independent agency.

      1. They’re easily deceived dude. Eve was a total bimbo.

        1. Eve deceived Adam, not the other way around.

          1. Adam knew what he was doing. At least according to Timothy.

            “And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.” 1 Tim 2:14

    5. Are you quoting this or supporting this?

  23. Feminists talk about the click-bait piece on slate about circumcision.

    Without getting into the slate piece, what does it say about main-stream feminists that they uncritically accept any piece of information that says that men’s issues aren’t really important? How does that mesh with their favorite definition of their religion?

  24. Gavin Newsom on gun control

    So why are public policy makers denying that gun violence and gun deaths are?

    The easy answer is the National Rifle Association (NRA). In the two-year 2012 political cycle alone the NRA spent $27,251,944 according to Center for Responsive Politics, with almost $20 million coming in the form of independent expenditures and electioneering communications. But don’t get caught up in the abstractness of big numbers. What is most alarming is what happened in Colorado just a few weeks ago when an NRA initiated recall of two state senators, including the Senate president, successfully ousted two politicians for daring to support tougher gun laws in Colorado.

    Make no mistake about it, what we saw in Colorado was the NRA’s version of a kidnapper shooting two hostages to make sure everyone knows they are in charge and willing to take out whomever steps out of line. I hope NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre and his thug buddies feel good about taking out two admittedly “cherry-picked” candidates from marginal, conservative leaning districts.
    California has lead the way on strengthening gun laws for decades and several bills currently sit on the governor’s desk that could serve as national models. The time to act is now.

    Our future Governor, fellow California Reasonoids.

    1. Every gun control thread I see, someone comes in and points out that violent crime has risen, while it was previously falling, in every country that enacts it.

      These people are derided as “paid NRA goons”. But their facts aren’t disputed. Now I realize that the other arguments against gun control are more important, but how do the “pragmatists” square this?

      1. Unimportant. Feelings matter.

        1. Apparently absolutely true. They even admit it explicitly. Look at the link I posted down-thread.

    2. So that how’s that libertarian moment coming along?

      1. Er…So how’s that libertarian moment coming along?

        1. The budget is going up, the NSA is spying on us, the debt ceiling will no doubt be raised, and Obamacare is unstoppable, that’s how.

    3. Hopefully, this video will come back to bite him when he runs for national office:

    4. I believe both those districts went for Obama, so it’s a bit much to call them “conservative leaning.”

      1. I think the term you are looking for is “patently false”.

    5. I like how they complain about how much money the NRA spends, but never point out that millions of individuals give that money to the NRA specifically for that purpose. I do.

      1. He also ignored the fact that Mikey Bloomberg and his lobby spent a shit ton of money in Colorado and still lost to what was truly a grassroots recall campaign.

        1. They did! My boyfriend was incensed and worried that they spent millions on an ad campaign. I told him, “So? Let them waste their money! Because they’re gonna lose.” And they did.

      2. As do I. Lifetime.

      3. Yup. I donate yearly to get my American Rifleman magazine and also whenever asked at a gun bash or retailer. If they stopped hounding the banners and went soft, legislatively that is, I’d give them nary a dollar again.

      4. I would if they’d stop calling me at home. I have a rule that I never give money to people who call me on the telephone to ask for money.

        1. Aren’t you on the no-call list?

          I’ve given to the NRA off and on for over a decade and have never been called by them. They send me mailings all the time, but I just toss that shit.

  25. From the Twitter:

    Kim Dotcom ?@KimDotcom 2h
    How to stop piracy:
    1. Create great content
    2. Make it easy to buy
    3. Same day global release
    4. Works on any device
    5. Fair price

    Or just pay politicians to pass ever more draconian legislation and enforcement.

    1. Legislation has never stop piracy.

      Number 5 is where his list goes wonky. Fair price means different things to different people. There are those who genuinely believe in that “information wants to be free” bullshit.

      1. True. I’m sort of one of them. Sort of.

        1. I think information wants to cost $0.99.

  26. Tinkertoy-like blocks could be used to build airplanes and spacecraft if those damn fraggles don’t eat them first. It’s described as a digital material, so there’s bound to be hipster material scientists insisting their analog materials are cooler.

  27. Happy National Talk Like A Pirate Day, everyone!

    Does anyone have a bit torrent link to season 3 of Game of Thrones?

    1. Didn’t we already have Arrr-bor Day?

  28. I do not think the man in this article who cut off his testicles was also the groom in the wedding, but the poor pronoun usage makes it difficult to know.

    A couple’s wedding was delayed after a man allegedly cut off his testicles before storming into a church just an hour before the ceremony was to take place.

    1. But they have the NHS over there. Don’t worry, that man will get the help that he needs…

  29. So can anyone tell me if there is an acclaimed tv show out there that doesn’t feature an asshole protagonist whose relationships are all dysfunctional?

    1. Doctor Who? Actually… hmm.

    2. That new Michael J. Fox show is said to be bland but refreshing in that he’s playing a decent, stand-up guy with a normal family.

      1. Family Ties: The Next Generation?

    3. Stan and Wendy have been back together for a while now.

    4. Jeopardy!?

      Alex Trebek used to be an asshole about lecturing contestants about the need to know more about Canada, but he became a US citizen 15 or so years ago and hasn’t done that stuff since.

    5. Band of Brothers?

    6. SpongeBob SquarePants and Shaun the Sheep.

      1. Shaun the Sheep is just the tops. The one where they play soccer kills me.

        1. Aardman stuff is really good. The original Wallace and Gromit short film is fantastic.

          1. What’s wrong with the rest of Wallace & Gromit?

        2. I prefer the one where they wreck the house and blame it on the cat.

    7. ‘So can anyone tell me if there is an acclaimed tv show out there that doesn’t feature an asshole protagonist whose relationships are all dysfunctional?’


      They double-down on the dysfunctionality if he’s really smart – see L&O:CI, Sherlock, Monk

      1. Why is that the acclaimed nonformualic TV beloved by elitist snobs is so formulaic?

      2. At least Sherlock is based on a brilliant, dysfunctional character from over a century ago.

        1. And there’s no point to Watson if Sherlock can function correctly.

          Plus Benedict is just funny when he’s cluelessly rude.

    8. It depends on where you’re setting the bar for “acclaimed”

    9. Psychic Tia!

  30. Cleveland Browns let their fans down once again, it seems.


    1. They’re stockpiling number one picks for 2014, so they can let their fans down once again on draft night, by passing on Johnny Manziel.

      1. Manziel? He’s going to be Matt Jones 2.0 in the NFL.

  31. ‘Ender’s Game’ promotes genocide

    Card’s defense of genocide has several levels. The most explicit is also the most familiar ? basic pragmatism and self-defense. “[I]f you can’t kill then you are always subject to those who can, and nothing and no one will ever save you,” Ender, the military genius child protagonist thinks at one point, and the novel repeatedly and carefully validates this insight. On the personal level, Ender is subject to dangerous bullying, to which he responds with deadly force. The force is presented as absolutely justified; if confronted with violence you must respond with violence.
    Graff blames violence on “genes.” He conflates evolutionary psychology just-so stories both with science and with common sense, so that genocide becomes not merely a moral choice but a biological necessity. You need to murder millions the way you need to defecate. Birds do it, bees do it, and if they don’t, what’s wrong with them?

    Again, though the reasoning here is more explicit, this isn’t out of line with the way most pop narratives treat genocide. Killing orcs or vampires or zombies is natural; you do it because if you don’t, they’ll kill you, and also because they are evil, antagonistic creatures that any moral, natural human being would want to kill.

    1. We are going to have to knock you down to a baronetcy for not reading the entire comment thread.

      1. In my defense you can do a better job labeling the link so I wouldn’t make this mistake.

        1. It wasn’t my link. I’m really only here to complain and point out other people’s faults.

        2. You know if you hover over a link, you can see the full URL and guess what lays beyond.

          1. Yes, but I prefer to post a paragraph from the article so passersby will A. notice it, and B. get an idea of what the article is saying.

            1. And sometimes, the tease is more effective.

    2. You’re a bit too late.

    3. Killing people who post links that were already posted, that is justified, absolutely justified. If confronted with redundant links you must respond with violence.

      1. My campaign to get the rest of you to bitch about people reposting already posted links grows apace!

        Now if we can just kill people who create slideshow lists.

      2. Careful friend, I have a Molecular Detachment Device and I’m not afraid to use it.

      3. And therein lies my trap.

    4. Maybe they didn’t read the rest of the book where Ender lives to experience the utter contempt of the culture for what he did, or the rest of the series in which he restores the race he was thought to have destroyed. IIRC the Formics even helped create Ender (or his ability) as a means of self-punishment for having once killed humans. (It’s been a while so I might be misinterpreting something I think I read.)

      I hate reductionist criticism. Those books say a lot of things from several sides of the issues.

    5. I think we all need to spend more time worrying about the genocide of fictitious races.

    1. Do you think the reason he doesn’t come out is because he plays Wolverine?

      1. No idea, for all I know he’s straight and just has a rep for being gay because he used to do musical theater. Were he gay, he might be trying to keep things normal for his two kids until they’re out of the house.

      2. He also did Oklahoma!, so…

        1. Not to stereotype, but….he is an actor…so….

  32. Waiting for the media to cluck their tongues at Obama’s obstructionist veto threats…

    Gonna need a Snickers, I think.

  33. Looking for love in all the wrong places? Researchers say that modern courtships between young adults take the equivalent of just 224 tweets.

    Twitter is now the most common way to secure a new partner and the ‘three day rule’ for calling a date back has been abandoned for a few hours.
    A study found modern technology is speeding things up for couples who now rely on social media and texting to secure a relationship, rather than old fashioned methods of their parents’ generation which took twice as long.
    Couples aged 55 and over said on average their courting process took more than two and a half months (78 days) whereas for those under the age of 25 it takes just under one month (24 days) for them to refer to each other as boyfriend and girlfriend, according to the study by PIXmania.
    Instead of obeying the ‘three day rule’ to contact a date, the research revealed 68 per cent of people said they were now happy to communicate with their new love interest within four hours of a first date.
    It also found it now takes couples an average of 224 tweets, 163 text messages, 70 Facebook messages, 37 emails and 30 phone calls to fall head over heels in love.

    This seems to be relevant to the no-fault divorce thread above.

    1. Now that DADT has been repealed…

      1. They had striped before they finished boot camp.

        That was about the biggest inaccuracy I saw.

  34. Feminists vs The Jacket: FIGHT!!!

    The false dichotomy between “heart” and “mind,” used to imply that emotion can never be rational, is always specious garbage. But I have a special sort of contempt for people who use it to emotionally audit responses to violence and trauma. Don’t get all emotional about it. Fuck off. Humans are built to have emotional responses to such things.

    1. Ugly and fat in a weird hat.

      not surprised/10

    2. Didn’t Star Trek teach you than humans, seemingly handicapped by their emotions, will always triumph in the end, thanks to those emotions?

      1. Only the Shat matters.

    3. Also this:

      (Meanwhile, the same people who lecture us about not getting all feely about people dying at the end of a gun, are totes cool with the lizard-brain fear that underwrites lashing out at a shooter’s religion, or race, or mental health, or fondness for video games.)

      Man, she must have a direct line to Nicks brain.

    4. It’s funny that The Jacket, who is widely condemned as a liberal by retards on these very pages, is now the teabgging, macho, baby-saving misogynistic asshole that the progressives hate.

      1. The same way that Republicans are condemned by Democrats as anarchists while libertarians attack them for the opposite reasons?

    5. Seriously? Content note? WTF is up with that?

    6. “MUH FEELZ!!!”

    7. FtBP: [Content Note: Guns; violence; emotional auditing.]

      So feminism is stealing terminology from Scientology now?

      1. I don’t know if I really want to go further down the rabbit hole of this madness, but curiosity compels me…I’m guessing to “emotionally audit” someone is to try to judge the extent to which their personal feeling have any bearing on a particular issue?

        1. Correct. You can see how a movement based on manufactured outrage might have an issue with that.

  35. Fun is a fundamental human right.

    To be clear, I actually believe the Mark Zuckerbergs and other people who are focused on these kinds of initiatives are thinking is that it is important for poor people to have fun, pleasure, and entertainment. Indeed, Bill and Melinda Gates have been thankfully getting bolder about framing their sexual health initiatives in terms of enhancing people’s sexual pleasure. I doubt very much that any of them have any argument with Joseph whatsoever on this front. Instead, I think what we’re seeing here is people who are speaking from a defensive crouch. As long as they frame their arguments in terms of what people need to survive, it becomes much harder for conservatives to attack them. I think they have no intention of reinforcing the idea that there’s something suspect about poor people having fun, but just don’t want to have to waste time arguing with people who do hold that belief.

    The disease has completely taken over. Now, if you’re against the government buying toys for people, you’re against fun.

    1. Again, it’s not the government’s responsibility to provide you with the means to have fun, but there’s also a disturbingly Puritan streak in American society. It manifests in the Left as constant hand wringing about people spending too much time on activities that aren’t “socially useful” and on the Right as people who seem to flip out whenever they see a poor person who isn’t sufficiently miserable for their tastes.

      1. Agree with Stormy. I think it’s a Protestant thing.

    2. “I must not have fun. Fun is the time-killer. Fun is for inferiors, servants, and the help. I will ignore fun. I will work through it. And when the fun is gone only I will remain–I, and my will to win. Damn, I’m good.”

      1. Did you have *fun* coming up with that?

    3. I guess it’s Soma tablets for everyone, then.

    4. Here’s the thing…

      I live in a pretty ghetto area with lots of people on public assistance and I don’t have a problem with people making fun for themselves. The problem is that all they fucking do is have fun. When your whole fucking life is having fun at the expense of someone working you’ll encounter a lot of anger and hostility.

      These upper class liberal twits have no idea what life is like outside of their little homogeneous enclaves. If Marcotte had to actually work for one goddamn day in her life and had to give her money to one of the poor “funless” leeches she might feel a bit differently. I guess when mommy and daddy have given you everything and you can make decent dough puking up content it seems odd that some people actually have to work for what they have and may want to keep it. Fuck her.

    5. Why not just send them old copies of GTA 4 then?

  36. Speaking of video games from earlier threads…


  37. Can’t pass out copies of the Constitution, but how bout “The Communist Manifesto”? Bet that would be just nifty!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.