Bitcoin Crashes Thanks to China, White House Releases NSA Report Early, Feds Smacked Around Again About Secrecy: P.M. Links


  • Laid low by government authority, of course.
    Credit: antanacoins / / CC BY-SA

    Bitcoin's prices have plunged significantly after China ordered local payment companies to stop offering exchange services.

  • The White House had been planning to wait until next year to release an internal report recommending various changes to National Security Agency surveillance rules, but given the week they're having, they decided to release it sometime this afternoon.
  • Getting much less attention, another federal judge also smacked around the Obama Administration's secrecy for refusing to release a foreign policy document in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, despite the fact that the document is completely unclassified.
  • Colleagues doubt Rep. Paul Ryan will run for president in 2016 and will instead pursue leadership of the House Ways and Means Committee.
  • Deposed Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi will face charges that he conspired with Hamas and Hezbollah to destabilize the country after his ouster.
  • Ronnie Biggs, notorious for Britain's "Great Train Robbery" of 1963, has died at age 84.

Get 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.

NEXT: Govt Survey: 60 Percent of High School Seniors Don't View Marijuana as Harmful

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The White House had been planning to wait until next year to release an internal report recommending various changes to National Security Agency surveillance rules, but given the week they’re having, they decided to release it sometime this afternoon.

    They had to bring in more black markers for the redactions.

    1. RACIST!!!

  2. Colleagues doubt Rep. Paul Ryan will run for president in 2016 and will instead pursue leadership of the House Ways and Means Committee.

    America isn’t ready for Munster in the White House.

    1. Waiting for Clinton’s four/eight years to be over?

    2. The attack of Eddie Munster!

      1. Herman Munster ran against Bush

  3. …another federal judge also smacked around the Obama Administration’s secrecy for refusing to release a foreign policy document in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, despite the fact that the document is completely unclassified.

    Apparently this judge hasn’t heard. Most. Transparent. Ever.

    1. How could Obama lie? /Ron Bailey

  4. If the NSA is the American NKVD then who will be the American Putin?

      1. He’s more of a Willi M?nzenberg: an eager agent doomed to be gotten rid of by his own side.

      2. Why would you call yourself someone else’s buttplug? That seems like a strange self-chosen moniker.

        Just curious,


  5. Ronnie Biggs, notorious for Britain’s “Great Train Robbery” of 1963, has died at age 84.

    And they did it without using guns.

    1. Although they still managed to inflict injuries:

  6. In a change of course, the White House on Wednesday afternoon will publicly release an internal report on government surveillance efforts

    “We’re releasing it into a *blast furnace*! BWAHAHAHAAA!!”

  7. So was that budget deal an actual budget or something else?

    1. It was an agreement to spend more now, and cut spending a little 20 years from now, pending further agreements.

  8. Matt Yglesias suggests killing off Silicon Valley by subjecting them to the Cleveland Browns.

    At least that’s what I think he wrote.

    1. My god.

      What the fuck is wrong with Matt Yglesias’s parents? Why aren’t they intervening? I mean if my kids was a retard, and people were encouraging him to make a spectacle of himself so that they could laugh at him and mock him, I’d put a stop to it.

      1. Sometimes he is just offensively stupid. This one is too poorly written to even be categorized as stupid. An article has to at least make a point to be considered stupid. This is more juvenile nonsense.

      2. I think Vernon (from the comments) is his dad:

        This is exactly why we need a central, planned economy. Instead of waiting for “the market” (ugh) to solve this kind of thing, a Technology Sector Czar could just say “make it so,” and the problem would be completely solved.

        1. The commenter is definitely taking the piss.

      3. I’m more and more convinced that the thugs who played Knockout King on him did permanent damage. A licensed medical professional needs to do a CAT scan.

      4. Gawker was going off on how MattY has two houses in DC.

        My guess is that his parents got one as well.

      5. Wait, I just scanned the first paragraph. I don’t have a problem with what he’s saying. Unless he veers into insanity-land, he’s saying that California’s stupid lefty political climate doesn’t appreciate SV, so SV(s) should move to places that would appreciate them… and need them.

    2. I think I might agree with him except that he is such a poor writer I can’t be entirely sure what point he is making.

      1. He wants the Federal government to establish a new silicon valley in Ohio.

        The Fed Gov lacks the power to do that. Even if it did, the scheme would collapse like all the previous effort to have the government promote entrepeneurial centers, including the biotech silicon valley that Ohio tried to create in Cleveland.

        Silicon Valley developed because California was far away from the East Coast, and hence less regulated, at jut the right moment. It was then sustained by network effects.

        Moreover, why wouldn’t the same tensions exist in Cleveland? It’s not like the working poor are going to suddenly become PHP programmers.

        Moreover, the problem is a non-problem. Techies taking privately funded buses to their jobs should have progs like Yglesias orgasming buckets into his Molicare adult diapers. HE IS TRYING TO ELIMINATE A FEATURE HE LOVES AS IF IT WERE A BUG.

        He literally is trying to spend lots of money to move something he loves to someplace else hoping it won’t be a problem anymore.

        1. Techies taking privately funded buses to their jobs should have progs like Yglesias orgasming buckets into his Molicare adult diapers. HE IS TRYING TO ELIMINATE A FEATURE HE LOVES AS IF IT WERE A BUG

          You don’t get it.

          He doesn’t love bus transportation. He loves government provided bus transportation.

          1. Exactly. It’s patently unfair for those techies to take the bus directly to their jobs while their poor neighbors are forced to make do with transportation the state provides, because everyone knows that the poor neighbors would be highly skilled techies if they only equal transportation.

          2. And if google encouraged its employers to take the BART, he’d be bitching about them freeloading off of the state subsidized system.

            1. They likely do. My company will gladly buy bus passes for any employee who wants one. Don’t tell SadBeard!

        2. He wants the Federal government to establish a new silicon valley in Ohio.

          I’m not sure if he was serious about that.

    3. It’s time for federal authorities to step in and move the show someplace else.

      A trail of tears for silicon valley techies?

      1. He can’t be serious. That reads like something out of the Onion.

        1. Never underestimate the stupid:

          The relocation of big tech companies to the North Coast would immediately create new business and employment opportunities in terms of high-end dining, fancy coffee, and other Bay Area amenities but without crowding out existing local businesses. Cleveland’s local tech companies would stand a better chance of getting investment, and over time, some employees of the big four relocators would leave and launch their own startups or VC firms. The Bay Area economy, meanwhile, will cool down considerably without negatively impacting real living standards for most people, since much of the lost activity will simply translate into cheaper real estate prices. Firms left behind will even find it easier to expand.

          1. high-end dining, fancy coffee, and other Bay Area amenities

            So it’s an elaborate plan to bring fancy coffee to Cleveland?

            1. I don’t know if you know, but he went to Harvard. Only a Harvard grad could be smart enough to connect the dots to fancy coffee reviving a city.

              1. We have fancy coffee in Nicholasville, KY.

                It’s still a shithole.

                1. I am pretty sure you can get fancy coffee anywhere in the US now.

          2. That fucking retard would seriously support exiling people and forced migrations. I said t his yesterday. It is easy to think of him as the silly slow kid. But if you pay attention to what he says, it becomes clear he is the silly slow kid who tortures cats and sets things on fire for fun.

            1. I have to admit that I have no real interest in owning firearms (though I fully support the right of everyone that wants one to have one). But sadbeard actually makes me contemplate getting one, cause I will need to be able to shoot people if people like him ever take control of the US.

              1. if people like him ever take control of the US.


                1. They have enormous influence and cause enormous damage, but they do not control it (yet).

                2. We are not the Soviet Union. We are not even France. But we are also no longer America.

              2. You can always buy one and put it in a glass case marked “Break Glass In Case of Emergency”

            2. Its writings like this that reveal that people like him are just fascists who who deflect accusations of being socialists because they want to nominally keep private actors around.

          3. would immediately create new business and employment opportunities in terms of high-end dining, fancy coffee, and other Bay Area amenities but without crowding out existing local businesses.

            Let me guess…MattY is OK with tech companies moving to Ohio but is totally against what is actually happening which is tech companies moving to places all over the world….Cuz “Stealing our jobs!!!”

          4. That’s just another example of how mind-bendingly stupid progs can be about economics. One lefty FB friend was claiming that doubling the minimum wage would boost the GNP, because suddenly all these poor people would have more money to spend. The idea that the money would have to come from somewhere did not seem to cross her mind.

            1. Not to mention the corresponding inflation that would go along with a mass wage increase.

              1. And the fact that many people would be priced out of a job. And many businesses would close. And many prices would rise. But other than all that, it’s a great idea.

      2. Weren’t all the cool tech startups along 128 in Massivetwoshits 30 years ago? Seems the stuff will eventually move elsewhere when the state fucks it up, no need to get the Feds involved or all the stuff will move to Canada.

    4. Two things frighten me about Sadbeard. One is someone pays him to pontificate and translate whatever is in his mind into gibberish. Yglesias is proof life isn’t fair. So when will the government step in and make it “fair?”

      Two, he has readers. And readers who take the time comment.

      1. Yeah but they are all hipster douches who majored in philosophy of gender, but fancy themselves armchair economists. Not a high impact bunch.

    5. I heard there was space available in the ruins of Detriot.

      1. There was space in Detroit, but the Chinese bought it, and they drink tea not fancy coffee, so Yglesias in his wisdom has focused on Cleveland, where the economy could focus more on the coffee.

    6. Just what we need. More tech IPOs letting us down.

    1. That sounds shitty.

      Just feel lucky you’re not fighting a church that doesn’t want a microbrewery down the block, like some folks I.know.of ran into. Eventually they persevered after about 3 years or more of legal action. Now the North Country Brewery in Slippery Rock, PA is a popular destination for folks all over western PA. Keep your.chin.up.

      1. A church is moving into part of that building, they are going to use the event hall for Sunday meetings. My real estate agent is a member. They are cool with it. Well, he is, anyway.

        There are a number of reason I wont be using that space, other than this, but its just another strike.

    1. Obligatory: Those who control the past control the future yadda yadda yadda

    2. [President] Ford said: “As a soldier, Gen. Lee left his mark on military strategy. As a man, he stood as the symbol of valor and of duty. As an educator, he appealed to reason and learning to achieve understanding and to build a stronger nation. The course he chose after the war became a symbol to all those who had marched with him in the bitter years towards Appomattox.”

      Therefore, remove his portrait.

      1. Fought his own county to defend slavery.

        Fuck that guy. Should have been taken down and burned a century ago.

          1. The British have portraits of George Washington in their military schools? I didn’t know that.

            1. They should. He was a better officer as an Englishman than most of the generals he served under.

            2. No, but the British Royal Court once had a portrait of George Washington in their WC. It helped scare the crap out of them.

        1. Getting rid of Stonewall and Lee deals with only part of the problem the vainglorious louts have with coming to terms with who they are. No, actually it reinforces that ignorance.

        2. So you’re one of those Radical Republicans, eh? None of that mercy or let-bygones-be-bygones stuff for you. You’re probably a carpetbagger as well.

          1. I may not have been clear. The War College is now treating the memory of Lee and Jackson as war criminals; whereas, if standards be applied, they honor far worse men, who just happen not to have gone out of vogue for the moment.

            1. I was addressing Corning.

              1. Oh, my bad. I reread my passage after your response to Corning and realized the language could use tightening. But, in my defense, I did consider it my error from the start.

    3. after at least one official questioned why the school honors those who fought against America.

      Oh, probably why Airborne traditionally shouts “Geronimo” and they name their Helicopters after indigenous tribes who fought against them. Those asshole officials can go fuck themselves.

      Although, God forbid young officers at the USMA learn that some graduates during the Civil War thought the States had the right to secede, however poor their rationale for doing so.

      1. It’s because RACIST!1!


    4. And still no love for Benedict Arnold, perhaps one of the best strategists to have ever lead the Army.

      1. Even he has a tribute at Saratoga, albeit with his name struck.

        1. There is one at West Point, also nameless. There is a marker commemorating his Canadian expedition in Danvers, MA.

      2. Lee and Jackson werent traitors. They were revolutionaries.

        1. Maybe technically traitors, since they lost, but they werent sneaky about it. They were upfront about what they were doing.

          1. Here is the thing. We reached a peace about the Civil War. The North won and got to make the rules but in return the South got to keep its myths and everyone agreed to honor what a brave fight they put up.

            So sure, lets break the terms of the peace and start giving people a reason to get pissed off about the conflict again. That should work out well.

            1. Quite a bit glossed over there, John, like what happened to blacks (or whites who wanted to associate with them in certain ways) in that ‘peace.’

              1. Yes, let us talk about the Irish rioting in Boston when all public housing was opened to blacks.

                1. Which happened when I was in high school in the 80’s

                  1. You were in high school in the 1880’s? That’s awesome! What was it like back then?

                2. We got from Benedict Arnold to this?

                  Let’s do some spec. history as to what would have happened if Arnold was successful in taking Montreal.

                  1. We have a few more states?

                    1. Maybe Obama comes from an alternate universe where we do have 57 states:

                      Maritime, Quebec, Ottawa, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatachewan.

                      Yup, there it is.

                    2. Technically, the Maritime provinces is just a term that encompasses PEI, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. Like New England for Massachusetts, Connecticut Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont and New Hampshire.

                      So that would put you over 57.

                      Just saying.

                    3. Also technically speaking “Canada” until 1867 referred to Southern Ontario and Southern Quebec. Not sure if the Americans wanted the Maritimes or the fur trading country as well at the time. Well I guess they did but I’m not sure what sort of effort they would have expended to get them.

                    4. Do you mean Upper and Lower Canada?

                    5. Do you mean Upper and Lower Canada?

                      Yes. The two combined were sometimes called “Canada.”

                    6. They were because at the time, there was no Confederation as the provinces to the east were still independent and the expansion west had yet to begun. So in effect, ‘Canada’ was Quebec and Ontario.

                3. What would you like to talk about regarding it?

                  1. Racism was a nationwide problem, and the War Between the States wasn’t started because of racism. For example the reason why the U.S. has a federal minimum wage was because the politicians in the rust belt were freaking out about blacks moving north for work (read the floor debate about the Davis Bacon act – refreshingly honest about the need to keep whites from having to compete with negros for negro wages).

                    The Confederates were fucking outgunned from the begining. They were saddled with a civilian leadership that made some very stupid decisions.

                    Some of their officers were awful men, some were great men. The memorials were built by men who served beside them and then fought them. Honoring honored enemies is a cultural trait that civilizes people who bear arms. It innoculates against the dehumanization of their enemies – which is invariably the prelude for horrific atrocities.

                    It should be accepted if not encouraged.

                    Consider a more extreme case: Saburo Sakai

                    Imperial Japan was far more vile than the Confederates on every measure. He provided air cover for the guys who raped Nanking. At his funeral, the U.S. Air Force honored him with a fly by of aircraft in the Missing Man formation.

                    Was that a bad thing?

                    I would argue that it is a good thing. Once the hatchet is buried and the peace treaty is signed, it is time to stop fighting the war.

                    1. The South was dedicated into actual, brutal enslavement of their fellow man. Not ‘mandate to buy insurance’ slavery, but actual chattel slavery.

                      When the Union won they had built up the moral courage to try to ensure the South did not oppress and terrorize black citizens out of basic rights. They had to do this militarily because the South was so wedded to their evil ways they developed governmental and non-governmental coercions to continue to dominate the basic rights of blacks.
                      But the will to carry this out was there because after the war much of the Union recognized the South as a morally terrible regime.

                      Then this mythos began to be built about the noble South and evil, carpetbaggers of the North. That myth played a role in the loss of will on the part of the Union to make sure black citizens (and whites who happened to be Republicans), and the result was decades of Jim Crow.

                      When libertarians go soft on the South, a regime built on actual enslavement, we live up to the worst caricatures of us.

                    2. That myth played a role in the loss of will on the part of the Union to make sure black citizens (and whites who happened to be Republicans)

                      So you support federal militarized police then?

                    3. Also you do your logic could easily be applied to justify interventions in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Vietnam, China, Russia, etc.?

                    4. That is like saying that enforcing the second amendment in Chicago means you also want to invade China to safeguard their 2nd Amendment rights.

                    5. I support federal efforts to protect the constitutional rights of citizens which are being oppressed by local or state officials (or, as was often the case in the South, thugs).

                    6. The South was dedicated into actual, brutal enslavement of their fellow man. Not ‘mandate to buy insurance’ slavery, but actual chattel slavery.

                      Which has fuck all to do with the honor given to the military men who fought for the two slavery-permitting nation states fighting the war.

                      Again. Was the U.S. Air Force wrong for honoring Imperial Navy Sub Lieutenant Saburo Sakai? Should we condemn the U.S. Navy for inviting him to address gatherings of its officers?

                    7. Is it wrong for WWII vets to meet with German or Japanese Vets?

                    8. Do you think meeting vets (many of whom were compelled to serve)=hanging a portrait of the leadership, by choice, of a rebellion based on slavery in our War College?

                    9. Do you think meeting vets (many of whom were compelled to serve)=hanging a portrait of the leadership, by choice, of a rebellion based on slavery in our War College?

                      They seem perfectly fine with the guys who, by choice, conscripted them.

                      Also didn’t Washington by choice lead a rebellion in order to keep his slaves?

                    10. I do not think Washington joined the rebellion to keep his slaves.

                      “They seem perfectly fine with the guys who, by choice, conscripted them.”

                      I am not sure who you are talking about here.

                    11. I do not think Washington joined the rebellion to keep his slaves.

                      Neither did Robert E. Lee. Also if the Revolutionaries lost the Brits would have taken Washington’s slaves which I doubt he would have wanted.

                      I am not sure who you are talking about here.

                      Lincoln, Wilson and FDR who implemented conscription in the US.

                    12. Lee joined a movement which he well knew was based on maintaining slavery. Washington’s movement was not.

                    13. I pretty sure the American Revolutionary was a movement based on maintaining slavery? I don’t believe there was much of a movement to turn the colonial economy away from slave labor?

                    14. “the American Revolutionary was a movement based on maintaining slavery”

                      Asburd. You are conflating a movement to break off from England and establish a more democratic, free and equal government which also happened to tolerate slavery with a movement that broke off exactly because and in order to maintain what they saw as the fundamental institution of their society, slavery.

                    15. Asburd.

                      Asburder’s syndrome?

                    16. Lee joined a movement which he well knew was based on maintaining slavery. Washington’s movement was not.

                      The North was every bit as willing to maintain slavery as the South. See: Corwin Amendment.

                      he North won and got to make the rules but in return the South got to keep its myths and everyone agreed to honor what a brave fight they put up.

                      The North got to keep a few of its own myths.

                      1. The North’s invasive war was started to end slavery.

                      2. Abraham Lincoln was a great president.

                      3. The South was wrong to secede.

                      It is amusing how susceptible the Yankee is to his own propaganda.

                    17. “Which has fuck all to do with the honor given to the military men who fought for the two slavery-permitting nation states fighting the war.”

                      Slavery was allowed in the North, but curbed, it was the defining principle of the South. And Lee and Jackson knew this when deciding to fight for them rather than the Union. Others in their position chose rightly.

                      “Was the U.S. Air Force wrong for honoring Imperial Navy Sub Lieutenant Saburo Sakai? Should we condemn the U.S. Navy for inviting him to address gatherings of its officers?”

                      Perhaps, but hanging his portrait in our War College might also be a different thing than that.

                    18. So, having an enemy officer lecture your officer corps about how to be a good officer and gentleman is OK, but having his portrait hanging mutely on a wall is not?

                      Wow, Bo. I never took you for the sort that would engage in totemism.

                    19. I said perhaps.

                      Hanging a portrait is something we do to honor someone.

                      Inviting someone to speak about their specialized field is not necessarily that.

                    20. And let me ask you fellows, where do you draw the line? Should Bedford Forrest’s portrait hang at West Point? What about Henry Wirz (lets hypothesize that he was shown to be an effective commandant apart from his abuses)?

                    21. Bedford Forrest should be revered on a military basis for being arguably the finest Cavalry Officer to serve in the civil war.

                      He should be reviled for his conduct in establishing the KKK.

              2. You mean when they were forced to dig trenches as indentured laborers for the union after they fled Mississippi?

                The Union fought for two years without anyone giving one shit, even a political shit (significantly less weighty than a real-world shit) about the fate of slaves in the South. Pretending that Lincoln, the US Congress, or anyone other than the 1% that voted abolitionist gave a damn about the fate of blacks or the opinion of white abolitionists is absurd. Lincoln and his cohorts cared about power and money, and they weren’t about to watch while the breadbasket of the US left the union, regardless of its reason for doing so.

                Consider how Obama would react if Puerto Rico declared its independence today for whatever reason you’d like to imagine and you’ve put your finger on why Lincoln wouldn’t allow the South to conclude a “voluntary” compact.

                1. This is silly revisionism and moral myopia.

                  The Union was not perfect. For a variety of reasons (some practical, not wanting to lose the border states, others legal, doubting the Constitutionality of ending slavery) when the war was started their official policy was not to free the slaves (but of course many Unionists saw the war as a chance for this).

                  But the Confederacy was clearly worse from any coherent libertarian point of view. Their defining focus was the actual, non-metaphorical enslavement of a large fraction of their fellow men. For anyone who pontificates about liberty and denounces the coerced domination of man by another man to engage in apologia for the South is frankly incredible.

                  1. That is myopia and revisionism. The Civil War was not just, or even primarily, about slavery.

                    You are full of shit, Bo.

                  2. This is silly revisionism and moral myopia.

                    Struck a bit close to home, did I?

                    The men and boys who volunteered or were conscripted into the army of the Confederacy didn’t do so because they loved slavery or even because they loved the idea of the Confederacy; they did it because they were forced to or because invaders were bearing down on their families and communities. They fought for the same reason anyone would fight an army of foreign invaders who sought to destroy his livelihood and threaten his home. And hundreds of thousands of them, many of them teenaged boys, died horribly, not that this matters much to people like you, for whom the human price of war is purely academic.

                    That you would fail to recognize this is just another indication of how little empathy, much less sympathy, human beings have for their fellow men and how easily the imperial mindset takes root in the minds of the pious and arrogant.

                    You love powerful men, you love to root for winners, and you’ve long since abdicated moral judgment, if you ever had it to begin with.

          2. I was going to say “If you shoot at a king, kill him,” but then I remembered what happened right after the war.

        2. They didn’t consider themselves traitors, they considered themselves in allegiance with their state, Virginia, back in the time when the United States was plural instead of singular. Lee would have fought for the Union if VA had stayed in, heck, he wanted VA to stay in because he figured the South would lose but following American custom as an officer did not want to get involved with politics. Now, maybe if he had decided to go down to Richmond before the vote and give expert testimony to the effect of “those gentlemen from the North aren’t going to stop before they kick our asses and burn our cities.” maybe VA wouldn’t have seceded.

          1. back in the time when the United States was plural instead of singular.

            Now you know why they’re trying to control the past.

          2. THIS, a thousand times this.

          3. This is actually what I was taught in school growing up, twenty years ago, when apparently Lee was in favor. He was always portrayed as a sympathetic character, but now he seems to have fallen out of favor.

    5. Right, let’s remove arguably two of the finest military commanders ever produced by this country. Can’t see why a War College would want to idealize those two.

      1. It’s idiotic, PC bullshit. At least that’s what it sounds like. I assume there are no portraits of other great generals that were the products of less than savory regimes?

    6. This retard move smells of a mindset of :”You’d better not even think about challenging the State. You will lose and your name wiped from memory.” It feels like a warning to younger generations.

      1. Well, this is at the War College, and it is for higher ranking officers and civilians.

        Won’t see cadets there.

    7. Good. If two German-American West Pointers had decided to fight, albeit quite ably, for Nazi Germany they should not get portraits there either.

      1. Once Virginia left the union, Lee and Jackson werent Virginian-Americans any more.

        1. But once Lee lost and surrendered, he was a Virginian-American again.

        2. Citizens of the Confederate States of America were still Americans, in the same way that citizens of Peru are Americans today. Lee was always an American, he just wasn’t a citizen of the US.

          The nationalism that leads people to believe that America = the federal government of the US needs to be squashed in language as well as politics.

          1. Actually, wasn’t the Unionist point of view that succession was illegitimate, and so the rebels were always citizens?

            1. I’m assuming that the only legitimate way that you can be a citizen–an inhabitant of a city or a member of a congregation of individuals–is without bowing the knee to a monopoly of violence. That’s a subject, not a citizen.

      2. Should Washington and Jefferson memorials be banished as well?

        1. Washington and Jefferson, whatever their faults, seceded to further the principles of freedom and equality, while Lee and Jackson joined a cause focused primarily on preserving chattel slavery.

          1. I’m pretty sure Lee and Jackson saw their cause as a liberty one as well.

            1. “I’m pretty sure Lee and Jackson saw their cause as a liberty one as well.”

              The liberty to enslave others?

              1. The liberty to not be told what to do by racist Northern shitbags?*

                *Obviously everyone here agrees that chattel slavery is wrong, reprehensible, and grossly immoral. But that wasn’t the only cause for the Civil War and anybody worth a spec of knowledge should know that.

                1. *Obviously everyone here agrees that chattel slavery is wrong, reprehensible, and grossly immoral. But that wasn’t the only cause for the Civil War and anybody worth a spec of knowledge should know that.

                  Unfortunately most people have virtually no knowledge of the Civil War.

                  1. Bo being most people…

                2. What the Northerners were telling them was that they could not expand slavery.

                  1. What the Northerners were telling them was that they could not expand slavery.

                    Interesting theory you have there given Maryland and Delaware were slave states even after the start of the war. Perhaps the cause were a bit more complex than the crusade of goodness you were taught in grade school?

                    1. What does Maryland and Delaware have to do with EXPANDING slavery?

                    2. Come on, now, by supporting the Corwin amendment, no one seriously believed at the time Lincoln had any inclination towards either ending slavery, nor stopping its expansion.

                      The amendment passed in 1861, which he expressed approval read as such:

                      No amendment of this Constitution, having for its object any interference within the States with the relations between their citizens and those described in second section of the first article of the Constitution as “all other persons”, shall originate with any State that does not recognize that relation within its own limits, or shall be valid without the assent of every one of the States composing the Union.

                      There is nothing there that would have prevented a newly formed slave state from gaining admittance to the union. If anything, it would have made it easier for them to do so if it became an amendment. I just didn’t take your use of the word ‘expansion’ seriously because abolitionist thought it was horseshit pounded into an artful lie too.

              2. As they saw it, from Northern aggression.

              3. Hey Bo, who was General Custer? Whose army did he serve? What battle did he die in? What was the purpose of his battle? Should his portrait also be on those walls? Should he be honored? I mean ,if you are going to castigate the brutal institution of slavery what about the much more brutal one of genocide? Or, are you one of those stereotypical libertarians that give us all a bad name?

                1. I think apologists for the greatest liberty oppressing regime in North America are what would give libertarians a bad name, not those who insist we not honor members of that regime.

                  1. I think the “greatest liberty oppressing regime in North America” was the Aztecs.

                  2. Do you have any idea what occurred in the Plains Wars after the Civil War? You really sound like you don’t if you think washing the hands of the US military of Lee and Jackson will cleanse them of taint.

                    1. I think what happened in the Plains was more morally ambiguous than what happened in the Civil War. Having said that, I would support taking down a general who engaged in unambiguously immoral acts, like blatant massacres, in that war (and others).

                    2. Plains was more morally ambiguous than what happened in the Civil War.

                      Yeah, there was no cause more subtle in American history than Manifest Destiny. That’s a real head pounder there.

                  3. No one here is apologizing for Canada, except the Canadians.

                    1. They cleaned our clocks on four separate occasions. It’s why there should never be a Canadian NFL team. Whose going to keep watching in the major viewing markets after the third Montreal Snow Hawks victory in the Superbowl?

                    2. Montreal Snow Hawks

                      Is that where the Cleveland Browns will move next?


          2. seceded to further the principles of freedom and equality

            Except for the whole chattel slavery part.

            1. Which is why I said principles of liberty and equality. Jackson and Lee do not even have that.

              1. Lee, unlike Washington and Jefferson, never actually owned any slaves (as far as I know).

                1. Actually, he did. Or rather his wife did, she – a granddaughter of Martha Washington – inherited a plantation that was seized by the US Government and turned into Arlington National Cemetery. It used slave labor.

                2. He oversaw his father-in-law’s estate after he died which involved a heavily indebted plantation and slaves. The slaves were emancipated (via the will).

              2. Creating heroes out of military men (and women) is always a stupid thing to do.

              3. Neither does George Washington. He owned slaves. He supported slavery.

                Jefferson at least made a half-hearted aborted attempt to get it sort of outlawed (of course his slaves were collateral in a bunch of mortgages – he was mortgaged to the hilt – and so there will always be a question as to whether he kept slaves because he thought it was awesome, or because he lacked the money to free them).

                1. I hope Bo’s disdain also goes towards Grant who was a slave owner.

                  1. I wonder – how similar/dissimilar is this whitewash to the ‘banning’ of portraits of Mohammad?

                    Do you beleive in free expression or not? If you do – then you do regardless what it represents.

                    1. “They seem perfectly fine with the guys who, by choice, conscripted them.”

                      Your misunderstandings of free expression rivals that of basic liberty: we are talking about the War College taking down a portrait they own from a hall they own. That is no more a violation of ‘free expression’ than if McDondalds decided to remove pictures of Grimace from the wall of their stores.

                  2. The funny thing is that from what I know (and I am *not* well versed on the subject because I don’t really give a shit) Lee and Grant had very similar attitudes towards slavery, viewing it as a regrettable institution but willing to profit off of it and treating it as a fact of life.

                    They had fought together in the Mexican American War. They were in the same social circle. When the war broke out, the officers at West Point helf a final pass in review together, before the officers choosing to remain loyal to the Confederate States left to join that army.

                    The bonds of affection between the two groups were high, because they were from the same community. The argument that the Confederates officers were evil applies to the Union officers as well. By their standards, both groups were behaving morally. Slavery was rarely a factor for the officers choosing which side duty and their oaths impelled them to support. The choice of which portraits to keep and which to throw out is really coming down to a flip of the coin. And people are acting like the outcome of the coin flip is the totality of what the men are worth.

                    What pisses me off is that each generation seems to think they need to bring up that stupid war and “win” it again. And it’s fucking tiresome.

                    1. “What pisses me off is that each generation seems to think they need to bring up that stupid war and “win” it again. And it’s fucking tiresome.”

                      I always found the Civil War to be the most interesting part of American history. But I never understood the Team aspect of it. I grew up in AZ, so I don’t get the North/South regionalism thing. I also have ancestors who fought on different sides.

                    2. What I think is pretty interesting is the conflicts in libertarianism over it. On one hand libertarians don’t like the USG but on the other hand they were fighting against slavers. They don’t like the Redeemers and Jim Crow but the only to stop that would have involved the US Army something which libertarians would oppose if done now, especially in another country.

                2. I recognized Jefferson and Washington’s faults as slave owners in my first comment. And there I also said that whatever their faults, they are not principally known for choosing to join a movement whose defining feature was maintaining chattel slavery.

                3. Instead of taking down portraits of historical figures why not just list both their strengths as well as their flaws as we see them in the area below the portraits. It is stupid to go back and try to rewrite the past in a vain effort to keep our own hands clean and our pretty little dainty souls untainted.

                  1. Adolph Hitler:

                    Strengths: Powerful orator and political party builder

                    Flaws: Bit of an anti-Semite and belligerent

                    1. Funny you should mention an anti-Semite, as General Grant ordered the persecution of Jews both in Tennessee and South Carolina. Yes, we have Jews here, always have, always will. I live beside a city whose oldest district is named Irving Park.

                    2. No one is demanding perfection from anyone, but not being on the completely morally bankrupt side, especially when you have a choice, seems to me a proper criteria for whom to honor.

                    3. You’re not? Because this reassessment seems to be only focused in one politically expedient direction. If we judge these men by libertarian standards they all fall woefully short knowing as they did hundreds of thousands of people, regular soldiers, conscripts and civilians would be murdered. Only those at the War College who resigned their commission, did not take up arms, and took up Lysander Spooner’s cause would meet that standard.

                    4. That is fucking rich.

                      The South wasn’t fighting just to keep slavery anymore than the North was fighting to end it. That you keep beating this drum as though it is holy script is so epically retarded it’s almost Tulpical.

              4. Except for the right to self government part, and the right to secession Jefferson wrote of in the Declaration.

              5. Jackson and Lee do not even have that.

                Lord Acton disagrees.

                After the South’s surrender, he wrote to Robert E. Lee that “I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo,” adding that he “deemed that you were fighting battles for our liberty, our progress, and our civilization.”[7]

        2. Maybe the ones in London.

      3. Ah, Bo, you Godwinned-out. Bzzzt.

        Thanks for being on the thread and enjoy your year’s supply of Rice-A-Roni(r), The San Francisco Treat(tm).

        The reason your comment is inappropriate is that Lee, Jackson, et als got re-integrated into the USA. Rehabilitated as our commie enemies would say.

        Lee went on to become president of Washington University in VA, which is now known as Washington and Lee. His full rights of citizenship were formally, albeit quite posthumously, restored on July 24, 1975 by President Gerald Ford.

        1. And a statue of Robert E. Lee has stood in the National Statuary Hal since 1934.

        2. I think one of the few times Godwinning can be allowed is when referring to a racialist regime focused on enslaving a significant portion of their population.

          1. Um weren’t the Revolutionaries in 1776 supporting a “a racialist regime focused on enslaving a significant portion of their population”?

            1. Shhh, you’ll blow Bo’s narrative to shit.

              1. And couldn’t the US until about 1964 be called a racialist regime?

            2. No, that was not what they saw their movement as. If you can find me somewhere our Founders said they were rebelling against the Crown because they wanted to maintain slavery which they thought the focal point of their life I would be interested to see that.

      4. Oh yeah; that’s another popular Northern myth: That the CSA was the 19th Century equivalent of Nazi Germany.

    8. The Brits had a WW2 tank named after Cromwell, didn’t they? If they can forgive a revolutionary like that, surely the Army War College can forgive Lee and Jackson.

      1. Royal families changed all the time in England. His was basically just another, eventually.

        1. Well, technically-ish, all of them have been related to each other except for Olly and Richard Cromwell.

          Maybe it suited the Brits image of themselves as sporting, like they way they felt about Rommel.

          1. House of Normandy was related to House of Wessex?

            I mean, technically, at some distant point, but we arent talking like 1st cousins are we?

            And…as I type that, I find that William I was first cousin once removed from Edward the Confessor. Not sure what that makes him to Harold or Edgar.

            1. Who is Jon Snow related to?

              1. The House of Bag End, I think.

          2. Well, George I was a fairly long way from the royal line. BUT, he was the first Protestant they got to.

      2. I wonder if that has anything to do with the reason behind having a “Royal Navy” but a “British Army.”

        1. Apparently so. Cromwell’s New Model Army was Britain’s first full time professional army so he was very important in the creation of a British standing army while the Monarchy was already supporting the creation of a navy.

    9. Nobody tell them that the USNA superintendent lives in a house named for a Confederate admiral.

      1. Obama wrote a children’s book including a slaveowner, opponents of the draft, opponents of US wars, opponents of Democrat social policies and one who actually took up arms against the USG and killed a general!

        1. … and?

    10. The Army still has a war college? I’m surprised Obama hasn’t shut it down by now.

    11. Wouldn’t the point of having a War College be to study war, up to and including all the great commanders of the past regardless of thier origin?

    12. So, the heads of the War College commissioned a historical investigation and discovered to their horror that the Confederacy was a slave republic? They waited how many generations before making this discovery?

    13. It is weird to see a country commemorate defeated rebels as much as we do. That said, Joe Johnston, or, if the War College really had balls, Nathan Bedford Forrest, would be better choices than Lee for exemplifying good Confederate generalship.

    14. Sheesh. Dozens of comments over some paintings and no mention of Ft. Benning, Ft. Bragg, Ft. Lee, Ft. Hood, etc.

  9. Non-citizens voted in 2012 presidential election in Ohio
    Voter fraud is a right-wing meme. /Progtard Buttplug

    1. Husted also found that 274 non-citizens remain on the voting rolls.

      But, to be fair, none of them has ID.

  10. Joaquin Phoenix is reportedly being pursued for a villainous role in Superman/Batman movie

    Beyond the easy choice to bring back Henry Cavill, the casting of “Batman Vs. Superman” has been a real head-scratcher. First, Ben Affleck stunned the comic book world by landing the role of Bruce Wayne. Then Warner Bros. cast the relatively unknown actress Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman, and now the studio is looking at a well-respected, but highly unorthodox pick for the main villain.

    According to Variety, Joaquin Phoenix, hot off his critically praised performance in “Her” (another WB movie), is the studio’s top choice for the lead antagonist in the upcoming superhero crossover movie, scheduled for release in July 2015. The trade is careful to mention that Phoenix’s involvement in the project thus far is entirely passive, since WB has simply expressed interest.

    Variety’s sources also mention that the role Phoenix may be offered is still unknown, but previous talk pegged Superman’s arch-nemesis Lex Luthor as the villain for the film.

    He’s suitably crazy.

    1. That is a good idea.

    2. I can picture Phoenix bald and I do think he would make a good Luthor, who basically has the same traits as Commodus from Gladiator. Basically take Commodus’s lust for power and hatred of Maximus, whom he realizes his better than he is in all ways, channel the creepy love-rape toward Lois Lane and you’re in like Flynn.

      The movie should still be called The Justice League though.

      1. They have to have origin story movies for Wonder Woman and Aquaman first.

        1. I’ve actually given an Aquaman movie some thought since Batfleck. Get Matt Damon as Aquaman, have his buddy Batfleck have an extended cameo to get asses in the seats and, since the current comic is based in Gloucester, MA, make the movie one of those Damon-Affleck love-letters to Boston. Complete with a Voyage of the Mini reference for the 3 of us who will get it.

        2. They aren’t that important, you can just do that via exposition or a flashback.

          Origin stories have gotten boring.

          1. …Because Warner Bros. Has rebooted their franchises for the umpteenth time. Marvel got started off on the right track and now they won’t have to do another Iron Man origin for 30 or so years. WB has yet to demonstrate the ability to build a sustainable film franchise, hence, the constant retelling of origin stories.

            1. DC reboots their franchises every damn week.

            2. Didn’t Spider-Man get rebooted recently?

              1. Marvel doesn’t own the film rights to Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, or The X-Men. Hence the rebooting of all three.

          2. A Wonder Woman movie could be good…real good. Greek mythos monsters running amok in modern cities. Think Clash of the Titans in New York or LA.

            1. That would be epic. Who would you cast as WW though?

              1. Gal Gadot already got the part.

      2. You know, I can totally see that.

    3. Not a bad consideration.

      Maybe Bardem will get a shot at a role too one day. He’d be scary.

      1. Bardem would be great as Tommy Elliot.

    1. Wilt Chamberlain is one of em.

      1. Well, he was dead tired. After having sex with 10,000 women, you would be too.

  11. Bitcoin’s prices have plunged significantly

    Well there’s an alternative…so crypto. much coin. to the moon

    1. Bitcoin is not staying crashed and I keep missing the lows (low enough for me to buy), so I am still an impartial, yet bitter, observer.

      1. Tell me about it. I sold at 400 thinking…oh yeah it won’t get above 500 and it will come down soon and I can buy it back.

        Thinking about all the money I could have made just pisses me off.

    2. Top to bottom of this run was about 62%. April run dropped 82%.

      It’s recovered a lot of it, bouncing around 550 now (hit $382 this morning).


    Joaquin Phoenix is in discussion to become Lex Luthor. At this point, DC might have to start over for the third time.

    1. I accept my second place medal. Nothing to be ashamed of. Congrats, Serious Man.

      1. You’re forgetting what the Olympics are about: giving out medals of beautiful gold, so-so silver, and shameful bronze.

        1. Archer: I forgot, you won the Olympic gold medal in men’s downhill.
          Gillette: Well, ass, it was giant shalom and I only took bronze.
          Archer: So… you lost.
          Gillette: I came in third.
          Archer: Which is last.
          Gillette: Which is third…
          Archer: Last.
          Gillette: In the world.
          Archer: You lost. Geeze, get over it.

          1. Ray: *sighs* It actually was a huge disappointment. *sobs* I trained so hard!

          2. Giant Shalom

            You, sir, win the interwebs.

      2. Well, I’ll comment on your post, so there Serious Man.

        I was intrigued by their choice of Affleck for Batman and hope he rises to the challenge. And while Gadot is smoking hot, there’s no way in hell I’d ever call her anything remotely close to Amazon.

        I wonder if fan backlash on all of these casting decisions will cause WB pause to reconsider.

        1. Yeah. I actually didn’t mind the casting of Affleck. Aside from the fact that he’s a bit too old to be cast in a rebooted franchise, opposite a Superman than is 10 years younger than he is, Affleck is okay. Cavill sucks though, and DC missed a big opportunity by not getting Cranston for Luthor.

          1. I thought Cavill did ok. Way better than Brandon Routh anyway (that wasn’t a really high bar though).

          2. Affleck is okay

            In what movie has he ever been anything but horrible?

      3. It’s not a competition fellas.

    2. Affleck is going to be the best Batman yet.

      And Hackman and Spacey have set a pretty low bar for Phoenix to clear to be the best Lex Luthor in the movies.

  13. Just got an email from my kids’ school superintendent with this
    link to a story about kids getting busted for sexting. The comments are truly awful. These people apparently don’t realize that a 16 year old sending naked pix to her boyfriend will get them both on the sex offender registry for life, the same as a 50 year old who has naked pix of toddlers.

    1. The State is the biggest bully of them all.

    2. Instead, the data on the confiscated cell phones, now in the hands of Avon Police, will do all the talking.

      Avon police detective Brian Nugent said they’ve already returned a few of the 16 or so phones the school gave them.

      Why don’t these kids have passwords on their phones and how did the school get them? Kids are way too deferential to authority figures these days.

      1. I would be a lot more worried about the Avon Police looking at teens’ cell phones than about what teens are sending each other. Only one group is committing a real crime.

    3. I agree, mr simple. Normally you are not allowed to use your phone at all in school. It has to stay in your locker. So why is this a school issue in the first place?

      1. Bureaucracies always try to expand their scope and power.

  14. The Origins of Warty? Analysis of female Neanderthal genome reveals incestuous sex lives and inter-species breeding

    By comparing genetic evidence of the Neanderthal female who lived some 50,000 years ago, with the sequence of a Denisovan girl published in August last year, P??bo and team discovered a small but discrete signature of a much older species, which the paleoanthropologists suspect might be Homo erectus. The full analysis of the Siberian Neanderthal genome is published in the Thursday issue of Nature.

    New insights into the Neanderthal genome comes from genetic material extracted from the toe bone of a female found in the Denisova cave in the Altai mountains of Siberia. Using techniques refined in the last few years, researchers extracted enough detail to create a genetic picture of the individual’s parents.

    “We can see that the mama and papa of the individuals were very closely related ? half siblings or so,” P??bo said.

    There was also a lack of diversity in the genetic material which indicated that sex between closely related individuals within the Siberia Neanderthal community was a regular affair for generations before the girl’s time.

    1. As apes in Siberia during the ice age there probably was not much of a selection.

  15. Billionaire’s Detroit Buying Spree Starts to Spread

    DETROIT?Locals call it the ” Dan Gilbert effect,” the recent buying spree of commercial buildings in downtown Detroit by the billionaire founder of Quicken Loans.

    Now the phenomenon appears to be spreading.

    Despite a fiscal plight that forced the city to seek Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection five months ago, the real-estate market has been picking up in Detroit’s downtown core. Mr. Gilbert has led the charge by buying dozens of properties and moving in 3,800 of his employees from suburban offices and creating another 6,500 jobs downtown since 2010, according to the company.

    Enlarge Image

    Officials estimate residential occupancy in downtown Detroit is 97 percent. Campus Martius Park last month. Getty Images

    But lately, other investors have begun buying trophy buildings and starting to develop apartments to meet the rising demand from workers who prefer downtown living. City officials estimate residential occupancy downtown is 97 percent.

    1. It is almost if the market has a boundary somewhere greater than zero. You mean if things get cheap enough people will break down and start buying? So we might not have to give people money to get the economy going? The liquidity trap might be a bullshit myth?

      1. But John, that’s unpossible. I’m sure Asswipe will be along shortly to sort out this mess and school us all with his financial wizardry.

        1. Meh. It’s like anything with a perceived value after it collapses. Speculators sweep in and buy.

    2. “Downtown” Detroit is a minuscule area compared to the size of the city. The reason it’s 97% occupied is because there just isn’t very much housing to be had in the area. City officials are already bitching about preferences for new downtown residents (read suburbans, or whites if you’re really cynical) at the expense of the real city dwellers in the blast zone areas that make up the rest of the city.

      1. Well maybe if they’re nice and patient, some of those new residents might consider buying property a mile or two away.

        The trouble is these white people might get the idea that they can vote and shit. And they aren’t even IN the union!

      2. The reason it’s 97% occupied is because there just isn’t very much housing to be had in the area.

        And it’s easier and more cost effective to provide reliable basic services (police, fire, water, SLD’s apply) to a few square blocks than to a much larger area with much lower population density.

  16. FL lawmakers think they can get private companies to provide flood insurance cheaper than federal flood insurance.

    This strikes me as crazy. By just about all the parties.

  17. Algae petroleum product without drying. Which is a huge energy (and therefore money) savings.

    In the PNNL process, a slurry of wet algae is pumped into the front end of a chemical reactor. Once the system is up and running, out comes crude oil in less than an hour, along with water and a byproduct stream of material containing phosphorus that can be recycled to grow more algae.

    1. If they ever perfect that and make petroleum a renewable source of energy, the environmentalist butt hurt is going to be epic.

      1. This article I found on Instapundit is the perfect storm: What if Climate Change forces us to use GMO crops?

      2. Why? Wouldn’t they love it?

        1. Why? Wouldn’t they love it?

          Wouldn’t it be a duplicate of their love in the 70s for natural gas, versus their attitude towards it now? I can easily see a renewable petroleum resource irritating the willful asceticism that takes the place of piety, and permeates the modern environmental movement.

        2. Greenies are often not rational. Many of them just think “oil = carbon = bad” without noting that this is carbon-neutral (I think).

    2. Fuck fuck fuck I got recruited by a company that was doing a similar process earlier this.year because moving to phoenix…

      I wonder…

      1. are periods optional?

        1. I hear with the right brand of pill they are.

          1. Should I try the veal and tip my waitress?

        2. It is my damn phone and thumbs not getting along. You learn to live with it.

  18. Broward County (FL) sheriff’s deputy discovers that you CAN be fired. If you point a gun at a colleague and pull the trigger. So at least they are consistent on officer safety being foremost.

    Deputies found the gun in her bedroom dresser drawer. Deputies Alberto Ferreras and Anthony Akhavan “attempted to open the cylinder to check if the revolver was loaded,” according to records. “After a failed attempt, Marra took the revolver from Ferreras’ hand and pulled the trigger while the firearm was pointed towards Deputy Ferreras. The firearm did not discharge.”

    1. My goodness, there are actually sentences in that using the active voice.

  19. Any fantasy fans out there know if a YA knock-off of A Song of Ice and Fire has been made yet?

      1. Goddamn, I’m not a big Harry Potter fan, but I can certainly appreciate the improve in YA literature since the dark days of the 1990s.

        1. What? Animorphs was awesome, if light, reading. Also, Goosebumps!

        2. It’s teenage kids constantly killing a bunch of collectivist, authoritarian aliens. Yeah, it was really hit and miss, but come on, mass murdering tigers!

    1. There a penis one floating around somewhere. Just heard a clip on the radio. If YA means young adult, you can probably skip searching for it…

      1. Gah. It’s a song parody. Move along…

    2. Is there any problem with a YA reading A Song of Ice and Fire itself?

      1. I wouldn’t let my 10 year old read it. Probably HS age is okay if they can handle the sex.

        1. Oh, I think a high-school kid can handle the sex…

      2. I prefer A literature myself, but ASOIAF has been around long enough, I was just curious if someone had started a YA knock-off series.

      3. Young Adult = YA?

        If yes then there is no problem.

  20. Time to buy Bitcoin.

    1. *Moves head side to side, sniffs air*

    2. That time was last night when it was $457US.

  21. Psychology and open-carry advocates

    Psychologists have theorized that the threat superiority effect is a product of evolution ? we have adapted the ability to immediately identify threats like snakes and spiders so we can avoid them. Blanchette’s research shows that people have a similarly quick reaction to seeing a weapon: We’ll immediately spot a gun among several other distracting objects.

    When you see the threat, your body will respond before you even think about it. “The most instantaneous thing that happens is that your pupils will dilate,” Blanchette says. “You can have other physiological reactions that are associated with fear. There are changes in your body, such as in your heart rate and respiration rate.”

    Last month, “Liz” (a pseudonym) experienced some of those reactions when she noticed a group of men with guns gathering just outside Blue Mesa Grill in Arlington, Texas. Liz had organized a lunch meeting for fellow members of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, and open carry activists decided to protest outside the restaurant with AK-47 and AR-15 rifles. “The only reaction I had was ‘I’m not going out there at all,'” Liz says. “They were all carrying rifles. There was a lot of firepower, and a lot of potential for carnage out in that parking lot. Absolutely I was scared.”

    1. Moms Demand Action

      Well, you demanded action, right?

    2. Matt Valentine teaches writing and photography at the University of Texas at Austin.

      Ah! The perfect person to provide analysis of psychology and the legalities of open carry.

      I look forward to Valentine’s next work on String theory and his subsequent analyses of Hawkings’ and Penrose’s views on the subject.

    3. There was a lot of firepower, and a lot of potential for carnage out in that parking lot. Absolutely I was scared.”

      Then you are fucking stupid and don’t deserve to live in decent society. God willing your kids grow up to hate you.

      1. There was a lot of firepower cars, and a lot of potential for carnage out in that parking lot. Absolutely I was scared.

    4. Blanchette’s research shows that people have a similarly quick reaction to seeing a weapon: We’ll immediately spot a gun among several other distracting objects.

      I don’t tend to open carry, aside from, say, wearing a sidearm. Occasionally read forums of people who do, though.

      It’s amazing the number of people who report “no one notices”. Someone wearing a 1911 in a holster on their hip, walking into a coffee shop, and no one picks up on it at all.

      It kind of leads to: if you end up printing while carrying concealed, the only people who will notice it is other people who carry and are looking for it/aware.

      1. Despite NH’s open carry laws being “flip a coin and see what mood the cop is in”, I’ve noticed its quite common even in the southern part of the state. Not Arizona common, mind you, but notable for the Northeast.

  22. Ronnie Biggs, notorious for Britain’s “Great Train Robbery”…

    Which was repackaged and sold to Obama admin as High Speed Rail Initiative.

  23. “Why are religious conservatives trying to change the biblical definition of marriage and curb religious liberty? The same activists who support a wide definition of religious liberty that entails sweeping legal exemptions for Christians and who believe that US laws must closely follow biblical dictates, are now upset that a religious family has successfully challenged Utah’s anti-polygamy statute. Polygamous marriage remains illegal in Utah, but the decision allows polygamous families to live together legally. –

    As we’ve pointed out, polygamy and incest were commonplace in the Hebrew Bible. ‘If you’re going to be a strict literalist, there’s nothing wrong with polygamy,’ notes biblical scholar Michael Coogan.”…..pKrT0.dpuf

    1. Depends on how one defines incest. Many states do not outlaw cousin marriages. But as far as the typical definition of incest, only uncle-niece and cousin-cousin marriage is allowed.

      1. I should point out that those are the only ones biblically allowed.

  24. “They were all carrying rifles. There was a lot of firepower, and a lot of potential for carnage out in that parking lot. Absolutely I was scared.”

    Precautionary Principle, ho!

  25. Strangely enough, Concerned Gungrabber Mommy did not look out at the assemblage of SUVs in the parking lot and see massive potential carnage on the highway.

    1. “There was a lot of horsepower, and a lot of potential for carnage out in that parking lot. Absolutely I was scared.”

  26. Senator Warren is right, employers shouldn’t care about applicant credit

    Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, is trying to rectify this serious, long-standing injustice. This week she introduced the Equal Employment For All Act, which would prohibit employers from requiring applicants to disclose their credit histories or disqualifying people based on poor credit ratings or information on creditworthiness…

    Research has shown that people with poor credit histories are not automatically poor job prospects. And there’s good reason to doubt the quality of credit reports. A study produced earlier this year by the Federal Trade Commission found that five percent of consumers ? or perhaps as many as ten million people ? had errors in their credit reports that could result in them having to pay more for loans.

    In addition, a study of low- and middle-income families released in February by Demos, a research and policy group, suggested that most of those who acquired damaged credit ratings during the Great Recession did not do so because of irresponsible behavior. It appears they either lost their jobs, lacked medical insurance or descended into debt when they were injured or got sick. “Poor credit,” the study said, “tells a story of medical misfortune far more convincingly than one of poor work habits.”

    1. I wonder what her credit history is like?

      1. And her employer’s.

    2. Ok, and employers have the obligation to hire those who a probably too sickly to do the job because….?

      1. Social Justice. Or something.

    3. Eh. I think anyone who employs someone to handle large sums of money responsibly has a duty to be diligent about possible pressures for employees to embezzle. Whether or not they do so by simply refusing to hire applicants with poor credit or to vet those with questionable credit more tightly ought to be up to them.

      1. Exactly. We’re always taught to do due diligence. If an employer takes someone to court and the judge finds out they didn’t do a background check the judge will use that against them.

        I don’t know how many good people are victims of credit errors, but I’m pretty sure those with bad credit reports are deserved.

        Massachusetts has more prisoner advocacy groups than victim groups. Think about that for a second and that may lend some insights into her mindset.

    4. What about the right of landlords to check on the credit history of renters?

      Is that next?

      1. We can’t allow people to use their own judgment to decide what information they need. We need the government to decide for us.

    5. I love how the study claims that people have no responsibility for their credit.

      1. It’s sort of true, since these kinds of people aren’t responsible at all.

    6. Why not stop all the ‘pussyfooting’ and just flat out mandate every applicant for every job be hired?

      1. The French solution.

      2. Oh, Bo, that’s coming.

        Don’t you worry.

  27. Thieves break into mall kiosk and steal sexy calendars, leave “FUCK THE PATRIARCHY” signs

    Earlier this month, someone stole $2000 worth of “racy” calendars from a kiosk in the Metro Atlanta Mall of Georgia. But this wasn’t your average shoplifting job: The thieves left behind placards saying “Sorry, misogyny is out of stock,” “the female body is not a commodity,” and, yes, “fuck the patriarchy.”

    WSB-TV spoke to an employee, who said “all the girlie calendars” were taken. Think Sports Illustrated and Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders.

    It gets weirder! WSB-TV reports that someone has claimed responsibility anonymously on a website for “Christian anarchists” called The perpetrators explain themselves:

    Every day on the way to work, we had to walk by this kiosk. Each passing encounter forced a specific sexuality and beauty standard upon us, and we couldn’t take it anymore. We were sick of being told that our worth is equivalent to what aesthetic pleasure our bodies can afford someone else (typically a man).

    The post also goes into great detail about how they pulled off this marvelous caper they’re so delighted with, as well as providing helpful hints for your own misadventure. Never mind that if you’ve got to be told to wear face-obscuring hat while stealing, you’re probably never going to be Danny Ocean.

    The commenters seemed torn.

    1. Those bitches* need to get laid.

      (Blah blah no libertarian women.)

      *Whether they be male or female.

  28. What did I find on my climb?

    When you see terrain from a distance it always seems like it’s no problem; like it’s easily navicable. The angles aren’t too steep. This hill’s not that tall. The deception was so thorough as I looked at the mountain from the closed window of the truck that even out of shape and overweight as I am, before I stepped foot on that mountain I was convinced that it would be a moderate climb no more difficult than any other climb I had done before. I’ve hiked some rugged country here in Kentucky, and I’ve done some backcountry hiking in Montana. This would be no different. I couldn’t have been more wrong.

    /blatant blog whoring

    1. Son, that aint no mountain.

      Come do Long’s Peak with me.

  29. DARPA once attempted to build Skynet

    From 1983 to 1993 DARPA spent over $1 billion on a program called the Strategic Computing Initiative. The agency’s goal was to push the boundaries of computers, artificial intelligence, and robotics to build something that, in hindsight, looks strikingly similar to the dystopian future of the Terminator movies. They wanted to build Skynet.

    Much like Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars program, the idea behind Strategic Computing proved too futuristic for its time. But with the stunning advancements we’re witnessing today in military AI and autonomous robots, it’s worth revisiting this nearly forgotten program, and asking ourselves if we’re ready for a world of hyperconnected killing machines.

    The system was supposed to create a world where autonomous vehicles not only provide intelligence on any enemy worldwide, but could strike with deadly precision from land, sea, and air. It was to be a global network that connected every aspect of the U.S. military’s technological capabilities?capabilities that depended on new, impossibly fast computers.

    But the network wasn’t supposed to process information in a cold, matter-of-fact way. No, this new system was supposed to see, hear, act, and react. Most importantly, it was supposed to understand, all without human prompting.

    Without government, who will build the killing machines?

    1. I for one welcome our imminent robotic overlords.

    2. Don’t worry. Now that Google has purchased Boston Dynamics, SkyNet will be created by free enterprise.

    1. It’s very convenient to have people I don’t like grouped together. Makes it easier to ignore.

    2. Serious question: Do Sharpton and The Rev. Jackson speak unclearly on purpose in order to sound, um, more Black?

    3. I hope he does a credit check on her.

    4. That. Should be priceless.

      Her diction annoys me for some reason.

  30. Serious question: Do Sharpton and The Rev. Jackson speak reason unclearly on purpose in order to sound, um, more Black?

    1. Wouldn’t that be a clear reason then?

      Maybe they’re just fucking stupid.

  31. There’s this guy challenging Pat Roberts and I think he’s cool.

    The GOP establishment claimed in the 2000s that we were on the verge of a permanent Republican majority if we would just coopt the Democrats’ issues (translation: surrender to Democrats). And so, it was the GOP establishment that gave us the largest expansion of Medicare in the history of the program. It was the GOP establishment that gave us “No Bureaucrat Left Behind” for our schools. It was the GOP establishment that gave us the bank bailouts. And it was the GOP establishment that opened the White House doors for Barack Obama.…..not-Enough

    1. I’ve been a Republican all my life?a loyal Republican.

      Came out of the womb with an I Like Ike button.

  32. I’d vote for Elizabeth Warren.

    We need a real liberal. Not an Oreo in every aspect.

    This has been Obama’s downfall.

    1. Can someone translate this for me? I lost my derp to English dictionary.

      1. I can explain.

        Alice is stupid and desperate for some Cudillo to stick it to the oligarchs. There fore he would support a caudilo, even whent the caudillo is in league with one faction of the oligarchs because it would feel good.

        Also Alice is a racist who exerts social pressure to keep blacks in bad socioeconomic circumstances, I suspect because like many proggies, Alice secretly hates black people.

      2. Sure. When an American says liberal, what s/he means is illiberal (or fascist, if you’re not terribly sensitive). That will clear up every conundrum that the libertarian has with modern American politics.

        So Alice is saying that she would vote for Elizabeth Warren due to the fact that we need a real illiberal fascist occupying the executive throne of power, not the milquetoasts we’ve had since the days of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

    2. Please tell me you’re kidding.

    3. ? Strap on! Your Helmets! The Derp has begun!

      ? derpderpderpderp The Windowlicker Polka!

      ? It’s started! it’s going! There’s no way to stop…

      ? derpderpderpderp The Windowlicker Polka!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.