A.M. Links: Officials Say Iranian Men on Malaysia Airlines Flight With Stolen Passports Have No Links to Terror Groups, Kerry Rejects Talks With Putin, Obama Sits Down With Zach Galifianakis


Funny or Die screengrab

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

NEXT: UNICEF: Syria One of the Most Dangerous Places For Children — Syria News Roundup

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. Secretary of State John Kerry has rejected an offer for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the ongoing crisis in Ukraine.

    You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him negotiate.

    1. Hello.

      “Secretary of State John Kerry has rejected an offer for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the ongoing crisis in Ukraine.”

      I thought it was all about dialogue with progressives.

      1. The situation needs to be talked through. This no time for a negotiation.

      2. They realize that Putin would force them to take the same type of compromise they want to force on their opponents in the US – Give me half of what I want and call it reasonable when I’m entitled to none.

      3. Dobry den’.

        Progressives like dialogue as long as it’s really monologue.

    2. John Kerry told his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov that Moscow’s military intervention in Crimea had made any negotiations extremely difficult.

      I’m sure, upon hearing that the U.S. isn’t going to talk until the Russians pull out of Crimea, the Russian troops will be sent scurrying back to their bases! Oh my goodness, without talks, Putin won’t get what he wants!

      Basically, the Obama admin, yet again, have backed themselves into a corner where their only options are to walk away (yes please!) or to engage in military action.

      I would love to see a credible, doable plan for unilateral U.S. military action that would deny the Russians access to the Crimea. The Turks are fed up with the U.S. because of Iraq (and the Kurdish issue), and good luck getting overflight rights from the pro-slavic states in the balkans.

      1. We aren’t going to talk about you leaving the Crimea until you leave the Crimea. Take that you poopyheads.

        1. Ah, the Palestinian pre-requisite – give us everything we want before we come to the negotiating table if you want us to come to the table.

      2. Not that experience solves all woes, but maybe appointing people with none in foreign policy isn’t such a great idea for State. Clinton was a joke–which, of course, means she’s qualified for the White House under the new standards for the position, and Kerry is at least as bad.

        1. …but maybe appointing people with none in foreign policy isn’t such a great idea for State

          But, he was conducting foreign policy on his gunboat!

      3. Stick warships at the entrance to the Dardanelles and only let non-Russian ships through.

        1. Is that the territorial waters of Turkey?

      4. The EU could admit Turkey.

        1. Only if they go back to using Constantinople.

          1. Hey, its Istanbul, not Constantinople.

            1. Well, even old New York was once New Amsterdam. Why they changed it I can’t say. I guess they liked it better that way.

              1. TMBG. Thumbs up.

    3. This is not a Josiah Bartlett administration, willing to put the good of the nation ahead of politics. Seeing Kerry getting dressed down by Putin on TV – in English – would be political disaster for establishment Democrats (and their “war party” Republican cohorts, too, as Pat Buchanan would say), which is another reason why it needs to happen.

  2. State revenue officials claim that Colorado raised roughly $2 million in marijuana taxes in January.

    $$$, that’s what’s going to be the selling point to other state legislatures.

    1. As long as it offsets the forfeiture loot that they’ll forgo.

      1. That goes to the cops in large part, so this loot…the Legislature gets this alone.

    2. Yes, I expect the MMJ amendment on the ballot in FL (polling well above the 60% threshold) to be a referendum on whether we want to sell pot to tourists (openly) and tax it.

  3. So much CO2 warm air exhausted about CO2 making air warm. Do politicians grasp irony? How about reality? Carbontology would be so laughable if it wasn’t so insipid.

    1. I thought it was methane coming out of their rear ends, not CO2.

      1. I thought it was methane coming out of their rear ends, not CO2.

        There is a difference in which end they emit gas from?

        1. The secondary constituent molecules, and the noise it makes.

        2. Their massive methane emissions have 25 times more global warming potential than their CO2 emissions, tonne-by-tonne.

          In addition to being a total waste of resources, this really is a pathetic stunt. The only upside is that the politicians who participated will be too tired today to do their usual damage. Carbontology would be hilarious if it wasn’t so damned expensive.

  4. Voting Records Raise Questions After Mummified Body Found

    The body found last Wednesday in Pontiac is that of Pia Farrenkopf ? according to her sister, Paula Logan. Authorities investigating the case haven’t released her name, but they have said that the woman apparently died in 2008 at the age of 49.

    According to a report in the Detroit Free Press, records show Farrenkopf as voting in the November 2010 gubernatorial election. Officials say, however, that it may represent an administrative error. Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard says the information must be checked out.

    1. Voter Fraud is a right-wing meme.

      /palin’s retarded buttplug

    2. Officials say, however, that it may represent an administrative error.

      The administrative error is that they did not somehow destroy the record of a dead person having voted.

    3. I saw the “body found” article, but it hadn’t been linked to voting records yet.

  5. State revenue officials claim that Colorado raised roughly $2 million in marijuana taxes in January.

    How many armored cars does that buy?

    1. As many as they want. If they need more armored cars, they’ll just raise the tax.

  6. Over two dozen Democratic senators spoke through last night and this morning in the Senate chamber about the threat of climate change.

    Heating the air about the Capitol Building to the point the hole in the ozone redeveloped there.

    1. And talk about carbon footprints!

  7. Poverty is driving people to sell their internal organs on the black market

    Advertising organs for sale is illegal in the UK and anyone caught attempting it can face a three-year jail term.

    But a Sunday Post investigation found people across the country so desperate for cash they were willing to flout the law.

    Our reporter posed as the brother of a woman desperately needing a transplant and placed an advert on a Facebook page specifically set up to buy and sell organs.

    Within a week he had received 11 offers from desperate people worldwide willing to risk their lives to drag themselves out of poverty.

    1. Neat! Haven’t the writers here been agitating for this for almost a decade now? It must be like Christmas to them!

  8. President Obama joined Zach Galifianakis for an episode of Funny or Die’s “Between Two Ferns.”

    This is going to ruin that show for me.

    1. Did anyone point out O’s intro to “Cosmos”? It’s a wonder the guy has time for golf!

      1. He wanted to be Reagan and he’s turned out to be Eisenhower.

        1. Meaner than Nixon, less diplomatic than Carter, dumber than GWB, more delusional than Reagan in his 2nd term.

          1. And less soulful than Clinton…

    2. good to know Obama is focused on his job. Oh, wait; he thinks his job is celebrity.

      1. Even though he sucks at his actual job the whole OMG OBAMA CELEBRITY!!!! bullshit really pisses me off. It’s like his PR people are trying to piss me off.

        1. When Michelle Obama bullied Olympic gold medalist Gabby Douglas on the Tonight Show back in 2012 over Douglas’ decision to go to McDonalds, I mentioned elsewhere that Michelle is a woman whose sole claim to fame is sleeping with a prominent elected official. Unsurprisingly, people responded as though I’m some sort of freak.

          1. My wife and I watched a report on Michelle’s stupid campaign. I told her my mother used to beat a raw egg mixed with Marsala as part of our breakfast as far back as I can remember. She may have put nutmeg in it not sure. Anyway, we wondered if this would shock and scare nanny-staters. I mean, a raw egg with liquor…before school?

            Head. Poof!

            1. Well, if the liquor was strong enough, it’d kill the salmonella.

              1. Yes but you could imagine doing that with all these nannies around?

                Dunno if Marsala wine is strong enough to kill salmonella – I guess it was or I’d have gotten sick or died.

      2. Any good cult of personality has to paint itself with the brush of celebrity.

    3. Obama is totally cool and hip, guys. Also he’s really into sports, and his favorite football team is the Miami Heats.

      1. And he has an encyclopedic knowledge of White Sox players!

        1. Yes, he also takes an interest in hockey.

          1. I call bullshit on that. Because… I mean, c’mon.


            2. god, if he did, he’d be that guy shouting “shoooot it” during a power play.

      2. President Obama joined Zach Galifianakis for an episode of Funny or Die’s “Between Two Ferns.”

        I didn’t know Galifianakis was a ferner.

    4. I found the ferns extremely witty and interesting.

        1. From a conservative Prime Minister, no less. I’d suggest a black background with two silver ferns crossed below a skull

          1. Jolly good!

          2. A flag that says: SHOWS US YER TITS!

        2. Uniquely New Zealand?

          That would be a rugby player over crossed kiwi beaks.

  9. Miss Nebraska dissects a shark to promote science education

    “I would shake your hand, but I’ve got fish goo all over them,” said Michael Sibbernsen, science and technology coordinator at the Strategic Air & Space Museum, as he handed her a white lab coat.

    On Saturday morning, Miss Nebraska 2013 JaCee Pilkington assisted her first-ever dissection as part of the museum’s 60 Days of Science program. The program aims to promote a variety of sciences in new ways, Sibbernsen said ? and it’s hard to get more unique than a pageant winner digging through shark entrails.

    1. “I would shake your hand, but I’ve got fish goo all over them,”

      His post-masturbation etiquette is spotless

      1. I wonder if his “post masturbation etiquette” took the form of a fist?

    2. He blew the line!

      Should have been “If I didn’t have puke breath, I’d kiss you”


  10. It is estimated that at least 10,000 children have been killed in Syria’s ongoing civil war.

    Would it make ya feel any better, little goil, if they was killed by one of Obama’s drones?

    1. Gee, a shooting war isn’t a safe place for children, who’d have thought?

    2. The children killed by the Obamessiah’s peace drones were all actually terrorists. An Obot told me so.

  11. Now that’s a campaign I can rally around!

    Don’t be bossy!

    Oh, the inherent contradictions and projections in this round of celebrity retardedness knows no bounds.

    I want to ban Beyonce’s suggestive sexual gyrations that can lead to rape-rape.


    1. And the War on Reality continues…

    2. This is really odd. How is it even a thing? Boys who are pushy know-it-alls who think they can tell everyone what to do are annoying too. Don’t they get called “bossy” as well?

      1. What if the woman is actually your boss?

        1. The most effective bosses tend not to be overly bossy in my experience. Though I suppose that depends on what they are the boss of.

          1. I worked for a company president for four years. Not the least bit bossy. If he wanted me to do something he would say, “A favor to ask of you.” Total gentelman. Both successful and rich as hell.

            1. Heh. I watched a friend who owned a restaurant “ask” an employee to do something a certain way three times before telling him, “Listen, when I ask you to do something, consider it a direct goddamn order.”

      2. No, they get the crap beat out of them when they run their mouth at the bigger kids. Its pretty much self-correcting for boys between 6 and 9. You learn not to give orders you don’t want to fight about or how to lead by persuasion or become the baddest mofo at the bus stop.

    3. Revision 3 of the Newspeak dictionary will eliminate the word “bossy” as well as all the obscure vocabulary words that the new SAT exams dropped.

      Such words must be eliminated for the good of society. They facilitate hatethink and other forms of crimethink.

    4. In my experience, the problem arises when people don’t call bossiness out. My 3 year old niece is a good example of that. She’s basically a little tyrant who gets away with it because she’s an only child and an only grandchild, plus she’s “precious” and “perfect”. So how could ANYONE say no to her?

      1. Haha. My only child wife was called a “little Hitler” by her kindergarten teacher in a conference with her parents. Oh shit, did I Godwin this thing?

        1. Well I assume if you married her that she outgrew the Hitler thing. So that’s good!

          I’m reasonably optimistic about my niece too. Generally, bratty people get a dose of their own medicine sooner or later. (assuming she doesn’t get a job at MSNBC) But I fear for the next generation and those of us who have to deal with them, if it becomes a crime against the PC police to call out brattiness.

        2. My only child wife

          Only one child wife? What kind of Moslem are you?

          1. Like the Prophet, although the law allows more, I choose just the one.

            1. It is a wise man who learns from his first mistake…

  12. President Obama joined Zach Galifianakis for an episode of Funny or Die’s “Between Two Ferns.”

    So they’re dead? Because they’re certainly not funny.

    1. It really is stunning how they rally around this clown.

      I don’t seem to recall them calling Bush to be a part of fun stuff.

      I bet you Bush is more fun to be around than Obama.

      1. Probably. I mean Bush seems to actually have other interests than celebrity for celebrities sake.

        1. No wonder Putin bitch slaps Obama. He takes his job seriously. Obama is busy with frivolous activities.

      2. Being in the presence of either would sicken me.

  13. Study: States That Voted for Obama Have Most Income Inequality

    Richard Barrington, the researcher who published the report, explained on MoneyRates.com that the research points to two findings: Democrats are more sensitive to income inequality because it is more prevalent in states that elect them, and economic inequality is not necessarily a bad thing for the state’s economy. Barrington explains that, since “people in states who supported Obama are experiencing more income inequality than people in other states,” and those people also tend to vote Democrat, the Democratic Party has an incentive to vocalize concerns that Republican constituents deal with less often.

    1. California would be the poster child for that.

    2. DC has the highest income inequality? Color me shocked. Not really, you can just drive around and see it on display.

  14. Colorado Man Could Sue Divers Who Saved Him From Submerged Car

    Ferszt said the county should have closed the road during floods in September. He said the first responders were also included because they did not realize Ortiz was trapped in the car until they prepared to lift it out of the water.

    1. They will charge him with operating a water craft without proper life jackets

    1. Godammit!

    2. Oh dear god. The poor bastard.

    3. Hey, hey, he died under the supervision of the state – you would prefer he died under a bush or in a ditch?

  15. Experiments reveal that crabs and lobsters feel pain

    “Every year thousands of them are boiled or torn apart while they are still alive, and now there is strong evidence to suggest that crustaceans experience pain.

    That was the stark message delivered by Robert Elwood, an animal behaviour researcher at Queen’s University Belfast, to the Behaviour 2013 meeting in Newcastle, UK, today.”


    1. Did people assume that they didn’t feel pain?

      1. They lied to themselves to feel better about boiling bugs alive.

      2. “Crustaceans ? crabs, prawns, lobsters and other creatures ? are generally not protected by animal-welfare laws, despite huge numbers of them being caught or farmed for human consumption. The exclusion has been based on the belief that these animals cannot experience pain ? generally regarded as an ‘unpleasant feeling’ ? and instead only have nociception, a reflex response to move away from a noxious stimulus.”

      3. Yes, to rationalize throwing them in boiling water. I always suspected they felt pain and with the truth revealed I think eating lobster is even more awesome. Suffer for deliciousness arthropod!

        1. I rarely eat lobster, but that’s because I think they don’t taste very good. I don’t really care if they feel pain or not.

          1. Is not the very definition of cruelty doing something with an indifference to the pain it may be causing?

            1. cru?el?ty

              noun: cruelty; plural noun: cruelties
              1. callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering.

            2. You might have a point if you bothered to do something besides define a word.

              And if I had somewhere expressed opposition to animal cruelty.

              1. You said ” don’t really care if they feel pain or not.” I am just saying that sounds like it could fall under “callous indifference to..causing pain and suffering”

            3. That’s fucking rich coming from you.

          2. That’s because it’s a giant insect flavored with butter garlic.

      4. What about the plants?! Any of you monsters going to try and convince me that decapitating broccolli and boiling it’s heads is the act of a humane, higher order intelligence?

    2. Now I want lobster, but I’d need to buy a new giant pot.

    3. Perhaps interesting to compare with:

      “The science of fetal pain is highly complex. Most scientists who have expressed views on the issue have said they believe that if fetuses can feel pain, the neurological wiring is not in place until later, after the time when nearly all abortions occur.

      Several scientists have done research that abortion opponents say shows that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks after conception.”


      1. after the time when nearly all abortions occur.

        Okay, then lets ban the admittedly small percentage of abortions that occur after this point.

        There are very few late term abortions. Yet, any attempt to ban them is treated like an overall ban.

        1. If you read the article you will find that the idea that fetuses start feeling pain at 20 weeks is still quite controversial (scientifically).

          I just thought it interesting that apparently crabs have more conscious experience than early fetuses.

          1. 20 weeks is controversial. But I don’t think 28 or 30 is. Yet, I doubt a ban past 30 weeks would be greeted with any more support from the pro abortion people than a 20 week one is.

            1. I think a lot of people on the pro choice side see such restrictions in the same way that pro-gun rights people see things like background checks, slippery slope type things.

              1. Except there are already background checks in place. If you buy a gun from a gun store you legally have to undergo one. The records are kept for 20 years, are supposedly destroyed after that (lolol), and are collected by the ATF.

              2. Guns don’t feel pain. Sorry, but that’s a terrible analogy.

                1. The analogy is not ‘things that feel pain’ but ‘things where if restrictions are allowed, others will follow.’

                  1. The key word there is “things”. Something that feels pain, that everyone agrees becomes a human, is not a fucking thing. That’s why it’s an awful analogy.

          2. I just thought it interesting that apparently crabs have more conscious experience than early fetuses.

            So you didn’t understand biology at all?

            1. What do you mean? Does experiencing pain have nothing do with conscious experience? Or do you dispute the science of lobsters and crabs experiencing pain and fetuses under 20 weeks not?

              1. By the definition in the lobster study, it doesn’t seem like pain necessarily has anything to do with conscious experience. All they saw was that they could learn based on noxious stimuli. I am unconvinced that lobsters have a conscious experience of anything.

                1. “He then turned to crabs. If he applied a brief electric shock to one part of a hermit crab, it would rub at that spot for extended periods with its claws. Brown crabs rubbed and picked at their wound when a claw was removed, as it is in fisheries. At times the prawns and crabs would contort their limbs into awkward positions to reach the injury. ‘These are not just reflexes,’ Elwood says. ‘This is prolonged and complicated behavior, which clearly involves the central nervous system.’


              2. I’m saying you’re pretending to be an idiot if you claim that you didn’t think that a fully developed lobster would be more conscious than an “early” fetus.

                1. Given the high status many here give to early stage fetuses that hardly seems so remarkable.

                  I think this kind of fact demonstrates the light-years that a early stage fetus is from what we ordinarily recognize human rights to.

                  1. Only if you have some fucked up view that the ability to perceive pain is what grants you rights.

                    So you’ve now proven my point: You’re pretending to be an idiot because you think it will score points against your political opponents who evilly want to prevent people from killing a human people.

                    1. I do not think ability to feel pain is what grants you rights, but whatever grants you rights is related to having a certain level of development from which something which has less than a crab is light years away from.

                      I mean really, when pro-life people are screaming about babies and ‘human people’ we should all be aware they are talking about something that makes a crab look like an advanced life form.

                    2. And btw, Auric, it is the pro-life, not pro-choice side, which has latched onto the ability to feel pain as a major political selling point (‘fetal pain’ bills).

                    3. we should all be aware they are talking about something that makes a crab look like an advanced life form

                      Because feeling pain is what indicates an advanced life form. /derp

                    4. Er, the fetus is literally less developed than the born human (hence, you know, ‘human development’ classes and all) and, it seems, the crab or lobster. Unless you have some interesting theory of ‘advanced’ which does not take such development into account?

                    5. Er, the fetus is literally less developed than the born human (hence, you know, ‘human development’ classes and all) and, it seems, the crab or lobster.

                      Er, crabs and lobsters are categorically NEVER more an advanced human than a fetus whether they are conscious or not.

                    6. Humans get rights, lobsters don’t. Or, at most, lobsters don’t get the same kind of rights. It’s pretty simple.

                  2. …what we ordinarily recognize human rights to.

                    Someone with congenital analgesia is no less “what we ordinarily recognize human rights to”.

                    1. Someone with congenital analgesia does not feel pain for different reasons than the ones for why an early fetus does not, right? Might want to look at my ‘light years’ comment.

                    2. Someone with congenital analgesia does not feel pain for different reasons than the ones for why an early fetus does not, right?

                      I don’t know. Since the scientific community doesn’t even know when a fetus feels pain maybe you can enlighten the world with the reasons it does or doesn’t.

                      “You lose your rights because I don’t know what the fuck I’m talking about” is a strange position

          3. I just thought it interesting that apparently crabs have more conscious experience than early fetuses.

            So crabs possibly feeling pain implies consciousness? Okay.

            1. I could have sworn I wrote ‘conscious experience of pain’ instead of consciousness.

              1. So you can have a “conscious experience of pain” without consciousness? Gotcha.

                1. Conscious can refer to simply being “aware of something (such as a fact or feeling)” while consciousness often involves “the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware” or “the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought.” The latter often involves a greater sense of self-reflection than the former.

                  The difference between ‘argh, pain’ and ‘argh, I am hurting, that is the worst pain I have felt!’

                  1. The latter often involves a greater sense of self-reflection than the former.

                    So now lobsters self-reflect?

                    1. My, but you are confused. YOU said consciousness, I did not, I specifically distinguished that from what I said.

      2. Most scientists who have expressed views on the issue have said they believe

        I believe…the science is settled!

        1. An amusing comment given the tenor of the article is that no one is sure.

          1. An amusing comment given the tenor of the article is that no one is sure.

            It’s even more amusing that you say above:

            I think this kind of fact demonstrates

            1. You are too funny my trespassing friend! Do you not see I ‘resolved’ that fact in YOUR sides favor?

      3. My uncle, who was a chef, was taught a good way to kill a lobster was to drive a knife through its head. I watched him do it and noticed the lobster was clearly feeling something.

        Same if you put them in boiling water.

        Pretty cool.

      4. Well, the answer seems obvious.

        Let the crabs and lobsters live, since they feel pain, and instead cook and eat fetuses and serve them with butter.

        1. +1 Jonathan Swift

    4. Just sprinkle ’em with Old Bay first. Calms ’em right down.

      1. Uh, the lobsters, right?

        1. It’s not illegal, yet.

      2. Old Bay?! Shut your mouth blasphemer!

        If you cover them in garlic and drown them in this they die with a smile on their garlicy faces.


        1. Just give the lobster a nice hot bath.

        2. I use the powder. I find it superior.

    5. Still seems like a stretch to say that they “feel pain”. All they found out is that they can learn from noxious stimuli. You could make a robot do that. It doesn’t mean that they have a subjective experience of suffering.

      And I don’t really care. All of the animals I eat feel pain when they die. I think it is a good thing to minimize any suffering for animals with complex nervous systems. But I’ll need a lot of convincing before I believe that lobsters can experience anything I’d call suffering.

    6. Yeah, the notion that they can’t feel pain always struck me as ridiculous. And I was horrified to learn that they are boiled alive.

    7. What? I thought everybody knew that pain was what made them so sweet.

  16. Ukraine may have to go nuclear, says Kiev lawmaker

    Ukraine may have to arm itself with nuclear weapons if the United States and other world powers refuse to enforce a security pact that obligates them to reverse the Moscow-backed takeover of Crimea, a member of the Ukraine parliament told USA TODAY.

    The United States, Great Britain and Russia agreed in a pact “to assure Ukraine’s territorial integrity” in return for Ukraine giving up a nuclear arsenal it inherited from the Soviet Union after declaring independence in 1991, said Pavlo Rizanenko, a member of the Ukrainian parliament.

    “We gave up nuclear weapons because of this agreement,” said Rizanenko, a member of the Udar Party headed by Vitali Klitschko, a candidate for president. “Now there’s a strong sentiment in Ukraine that we made a big mistake.”

    1. “Now there’s a strong sentiment in Ukraine that we made a big mistake.”

      No kidding.

    2. Let me guess – the corrupt bastards will agree not to arm up in exchange for more money. And since they are completely broke (allegedly) how exactly are they going to acquire these weapons if they aren’t paid off?

    3. duh. I always assumed they stashed a few nukes just in case.

      1. If they didn’t, they must be feeling like saps right about now.

  17. Officials say that the two Iranian men who boarded the missing Malaysia Airlines flight with stolen passports do not have any apparent connections to terrorist groups.

    The American intelligence community simultaneously breathes a sigh of relief of not having missed it and laments not having this to point to the worth of their surveillance efforts.

    1. Peter King must be pissed.

      1. Pissed that more Brits weren’t killed.

    2. Last I looked, it was the Intel community’s job to make such connections “apparent”. If these guys are found to have blown this plane up, the Intel community failed.

      1. “If these guys are found to have blown this plane up, the Intel community failed.”


        Well boys, back to monitoring domestic phone and internet traffic!


        1. We just need more tools to monitor more stuff.


          The point can never be made enough that the indiscriminate monitoring of communications makes us less safe.

    3. If it turns out that those guys had nothing to do with the crash, it means that lots of flights every day have people on them who used fake ID’s to get there. Awesome. Security will get even more ridiculous.

      1. I would expect that is true. Lots of passports probably “get lost” every day, and if the government comes around asking about them, they might even be reported stolen.

  18. Officials say that the two Iranian men who boarded the missing Malaysia Airlines flight with stolen passports do not have any apparent connections to terrorist groups.

    If the connections were “apparent”, that would kind of defeat the purpose of being a terrorist now wouldn’t it?

    1. Or so they’d like you to believe ….

    2. Up until the moment you explode, yes.

  19. Al-Qaeda unveils new magazine aimed at Western jihadis
    Advert for ‘Resurgence’ magazine uses words of Malcolm X in appeal to disaffected Muslims in US and Europe, as it turns focus away from Middle East

    However, the new magazine appears to be the first English language magazine from the group’s core leadership and is advertised with a slick video from as-Sahab, its media production house. Analysts believe it marks a shift from al-Qaeda’s recent focus on Syria.

    It mixes graphics, images of George W Bush and warplanes launching missiles with a speech by Malcolm X, the African-American Muslim leader, in which he said: “You can’t ever reach a man if you don’t speak his language. If a man speaks the language of brute force, you can’t come to him with peace.”

    1. Blow up hundreds of infidels using this one weird trick!

      Beach-ready burkas, just in time for summer!

      Grow a longer beard in just days with the Beard Club for Men!

  20. Your health care round up:

    Obamcare doomed to fail:


    Physicians for single payer:


    1. More:

      How a Republican conservative came to love Canadian universal care:


      Even though it sucks:


      1. At least the Canadians got rid of the rules forcing people to go into exile to go outside the government health system.

      2. How a Republican conservative came to love Canadian universal care:

        The whole thing sounded made up.

    2. You have to be an amazing kind of stupid to volunteer to let your private sector job become a government employment one.

      1. Or amazingly bad at it and envious of your better compensated peers who know what they’re doing.

        1. Yeah, seeking public schoolteacher-like nonaccountability?

        2. If you are a clerk or receptionist, a government job is a big improvement particularly with the pension.

          A Physician? You have to be a terrible or incredibly lazy one to think it would be an improvement.

      2. Some of these guys are under the impression that under single payer, they see patients, they collect a paycheck, and they don’t have to deal with the crazy bullshit that is medical billing in the U.S.

        What they don’t realize is that it will end up being like TRICARE, with doctors who care about outcomes having to break the rules to penetrate the bureaucracy.

    3. If single payer is right for physicians, it is definitely right for lawyers. I mean, the Supreme Court found a right to an attorney (under much stronger language, IMO) the same way they found a right to penaltax health care.

    4. Now the Dems are touting a Gallup poll saying that the rate of uninsured has dropped. But it’s not real numbers. It’s a poll. The poll found that the number of uninsured has dropped 1.2%! Not only is that well within the margin of error of a poll, but it means that all the shit with Obamacare has been worth it. 1.2%!

  21. Two Myths About the SAT

    There are indeed problems with the SAT, including problems relating to parental income. Here is a persuasive argument by Charles Murray that the SAT should be scrapped entirely and replaced by subject tests like the SAT II. But we shouldn’t be shocked by the simple fact that parental income is linked to children’s academic achievement, and the effects of “gaming” the SAT have been wildly exaggerated.

    The problem with treating the SAT-income correlation as an argument in itself is that richer kids, fairly or unfairly, actually do have higher academic capabilities. As I’ve written before, and frankly as anyone with eyes in his head ought to know, there are numerous ways that parents can pass advantages on to their kids — genes, better schools, better neighborhoods, and so on. The simple correlation between income and scores tells us nothing at all about whether the SAT has an income bias, because it’s exactly what we would expect from a legitimate measure of academic ability.

    1. Inequality!

    2. Tabarrok disagrees.

  22. Which is more boringly done: the new Cosmos, or AM Links without alt-text?

    1. I was a fan of the original… how was the first episode of the new (which I obviously didnt’ watch). Facebook comment I saw “Too many commercials”

      1. It is true to the original and very visually appealing. As a Carl Sagan fan I am pleasantly surprised by the effort to avoid the malaise of stupid entertainment in the 21st century.

      2. I DVRd it and watched last night. I was pretty bored. It seemed like they were more concerned about production value than having interesting content. They also spent about a third of the episode talking about how awful the medieval church was instead of science.

        It’s possible I might just not be the target audience anymore. I will maybe give the second episode a chance.

        1. I hear they called Bruno a scientist.

        2. They also spent about a third of the episode talking about how awful the medieval church was instead of science.

          That’s mainly Tyson’s hobbyhorse. He seems to be under the impression that no science or technological innovation was practiced in the middle ages, never mind that medieval cathedrals are masterpieces of mathematics and engineering.

        3. I will be interested to see when the world population collapses again in the future due to significant famine across an entire continent whether we are able to maintain anything like our modern era. By the time the starving generation riots and rampages for survival, there will be fewer people, institutions, and infrastructure. But please, ignore the Cold Europe of about 350-1250 AD when spouting your pop-science, NDT.

  23. Sharyl Attkisson resigns from CBS News

    Attkisson’s frustrations aside, the network maintains a dedicated investigative unit, which produces packages that appear across CBS News programming.

    There’s no sugarcoating it — Dan Rather lives.

    1. Sharyl Attkisson resigns from CBS News

      What difference, at this point, does it make?

      1. What is this “it” to which you refer?

        1. CBS

  24. Merkel backs call for EU school lessons to counter ‘growing Euro-scepticism’

    Its manifesto for May’s European elections calls for the introduction of “EU education in schools across Europe in order to prepare the next generation for future challenges and to nurture a European approach”.

    “Europe has been in crisis for more than five years. Many people, especially the young, do not foresee a positive future. Euroscepticism is growing,” the manifesto said.

    “United, we can make sure that young people look at the future with optimism, hope and confidence.”

    1. in a different under a different set of countries governed by a different type of ideology, this would be called indoctrination. So why isn’t it that here?

    2. How about instead of propaganda they instead trying to fix things that the public is skeptical about such as the EU drive to control everything, its undemocratic process or the massive cronyism?

      Or are they features not bugs?

      1. Unleash the attack on Eurodenialism!

    1. I wish Canada would give Quebec independence. It would be fun watching it become the Mexico of the North.

      1. I’ve heard of Maine being the deep South of the far North. I suppose it only gets deeper the farther North you go.

        1. Yep. Portland is a pretty little city full of happy, self-righteous liberals. A hundred miles away in the backwoods… It’s like time traveling back a few centuries.

          1. That describes Oregon too. Hmmm

            1. I think that describes a lot of states. There isn’t so much as red state blue state divide in this country, but more of a rural and urban divide.

              1. I think that was a Portland joke.

      2. What makes you say we’re not already there?

    2. How do you successfully contest a stop sign violation unless you have video?

  25. These stats always leave me perplexed. The USA consistently ranks at the bottom. Why?

    And what do they mean by efficient outcomes?


    1. Efficient outcomes means you don’t try to save low percentage cases.

    2. Hey, Mexico is up near the top. Must mean it’s good. Too bad it got beat out by Libya.

  26. Day 2 of robc held hostage has begun.

    1. Is it at least an interesting case?

      1. Im in the jury waiting room. I havent even been drawn for a pool yet. Enough cases today, they said everyone will end up in 1-2 pools.

    2. *** raising voice ***

      So, robc, do you still think the death penalty should be applied to *all* moving violations?

      1. Tell us more about Lysander Spooner…

  27. State revenue officials claim that Colorado raised roughly $2 million in marijuana taxes in January.

    A new high in tax revenue for the state if Colorado!

  28. The evils of property taxation: Ireland to use Google Maps to go after homeowners whose property values it doesn’t like

    Using a system based on Google Street View and Google Maps, the computer programme allows the taxman to highlight properties which are valued significantly lower than neighbouring buildings. The maps show the average value of homes sold on the street and the value of each home as submitted to Revenue by the owner.

    Becuase if you artificially inflate a housing bubble, the people who use their houses as a residence should be made to pay for it.

    And, of course, the government is using guilty until proven innocent tactics: they don’t have to prove that your assessment is wrong; you have to prove that it’s right.

    1. State and local governments and real estate agents are two of the worst villains behind the housing bubble. Congress didn’t step into stop the fed from driving the housing bubble just because they are stupid, which they admittedly are. They also didn’t because the state and locals and real estate agents have a lot of pull and both of those groups got rich off of the housing bubble.

      1. State and local governments and real estate agents are two

        The THREE elements of the Inquisition are…

      2. Much, MUCH easier to pick out a single villain to sell to the public. Like banks.

      3. How on earth are Real Estate agents responsible for the housing bubble? All we do is try to find a house for people based on the criteria they give us. We don’t led people with bad credit money, or pressure banks to lend people with bad credit money, and we don’t lend poor people more money then they can afford.

        All we do is try to navigate people through the process of buying a house.

        1. And make money based on how much the house sells for. And also you have a huge lobbying organization that is very happy to see housing prices rise and thus did what they could to make sure Congress never told the Fed to knock it off or did anything to stop t he housing bubble.

          Sorry if you were being sarcastic and I missed it.

        2. All we do is try to navigate people through the process of buying a house.

          I was a real estate appraiser during the bubble. Real estate agents, not saying you, that I dealt with were regularly pushing prices beyond what they should be. I literally could not count the times I had to argue with a realtor that the sale they were attempting to push through was over priced. Without exception they simply found other appraisers willing to “get the value”.

          So include appraisers in the trinity of evil.

  29. Cruz Seeks to Make Peace With Rand Paul

    “Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) on Monday night sought to put to bed an emerging rift with his tea party compatriot Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), issuing a statement saying he will ‘stand with Rand.’

    Cruz on Sunday differentiated himself from Paul on foreign policy and likened himself more to Ronald Reagan. Paul appeared to take exception to that Monday and, in an op-ed in Time magazine, attacked those who misappropriate and misunderstand Reagan’s legacy.

    Cruz’s office declined to comment earlier Monday, but in a just-released statement, Cruz praises Paul effusively while also emphasizing they do have differences.”


    1. He will stand with Rand until Sheldon Adelson spends twenty million to boost him in the primaries.

  30. Rand Paul’s Plan for Ukraine: Bizarre and Delusional

    Paul’s enthusiasm for the oil-and-gas answer nicely illuminates the problems with a seriously libertarian foreign policy: If you believe in non-intervention, your ability to intervene in a crisis is pretty limited. Paul may not comprehend this ? or he may not care and simply be trying to fake it. Either one hardly makes him look like a serious candidate for the presidency.

    Of course, the U.S. doesn’t have a ton of good options in Ukraine, but Paul is talking up terrible or delusional ones. The other things he’s been saying about foreign policy lately don’t make a whole lot more sense: In his Breitbart column today, he tries to claim Ronald Reagan would be on his side of the foreign-policy battle, arguing the Gipper was more dovish than you’d think and might adopt Paul’s attitude toward the Ukraine crisis. It’s a little unclear why Paul thinks Mr. “Evil Empire” and “Tear Down This Wall Mr. Gorbachev” is the right ally to recruit while also complaining, as he did a couple weeks ago and repeated in his Time op-ed, that Republicans have to be sure not to “tweak” Russia.

    1. Because being a serious candidate means you seriously want to kill people. Be serious.

      1. Rand seems to be the only major potential GOP frontrunner who understands that ‘war is the health of the state.’

    2. Reagan was more dovish than people think. He could have gone to war in Lebanon over the Marine barracks bombing and didn’t. Reagan always talked a good game. But he applied force in more indirect ways through diplomacy and funding of other people to fight communism for us.

      I think it is a decent point that Poland and eastern Europe won’t want to pay for a missile defense shield. Maybe they would pay for it if they felt there was no way we would. But more likely they would just fall under Russian influence and try and get the best deal they could. The only reason those countries would want a missile defense shield is because they think they could fight off Russia. Without a trustworthy US commitment to help, they are unlikely to be able too.

      1. Well… we didn’t go to war but Marine snipers were set loose in the city, the Black Dragon unloaded on the Bekaa Valley, and supposedly the CIA car bombed a Hezbollah neighborhood.

        1. Good points. Reagan was smart enough to make his points in ways that didn’t risk escalation.

    3. there continues to be an effort to conflate non-intervention with isolation or pacifism.

      1. Okay, then what does “non-intervention” mean if not “not to intervene”? If you are willing to intervene to defend Poland, you are not very non interventionist. And if you are not, then you are isolationist and pacifist at least from Poland’s perspective.

        1. An isolationist would engage the world in trade and diplomacy.

          1. I mean, a non-interventionist would engage the world in trade and diplomacy, which is hardly ‘isolating’ oneself.

        2. From Poland’s perspective?

          Isn’t our foreign policy supposed to be based on American perspective?

          The point of non-intervention is to only intervene when American interests are at stake, not a bunch of people that have no claim on our blood and treasure.

          1. Even from Poland’s perspective how could you call a country that engaged it in trade, travel, diplomacy, etc., ‘isolating’ itself?

          2. If your idea is “I only intervene for American interests”, you are not a non-interventionist, since you clearly will intervene.

            Everyone thinks their intervention is in the US’s interests. The debate is over what is actually in our interests. The point of “non interventionism” is to say that intervening is never or nearly never in our interests.

            1. I’m just not buying your binary definition. The need to intervene in every dustup has not served us well. The line of demarcation is our interests. Sometimes, our allies are reason enough to get involved. But all-out intervention would have had militarily involved in Libya, in Syria, massing around Ukraine, and a few other places.

            2. Yes, that would be non-intervention, but that is not what you said, you conflated non-intervention with isolation and pacifism.

            3. Bullshit. It isn’t my retarded meme that non-interventionist equals isolationist.

              It is non-intervention when there isn’t good cause – contrary to the neo-con and Wilsonian left’s urges.

              1. It is non-intervention when there isn’t good cause

                What is a good cause? That is completely meaningless. Everyone who ever intervened anywhere thought it was a good cause.

                Again, your beef is not with intervention. It is with when we intervene. That is a perfectly reasonable position. But I don’t see how that makes you a “non interventionist”.

                1. What is a good cause? That is completely meaningless.

                  It is only hard to distinguish for people that can’t think – either lefties with hazy notions or righties with raging war boners.

                  1. It is only hard to distinguish for people that can’t think

                    If it involves anything short of direct attack on US citizens or soil, it supports the idea of military intervention. And that makes the person supporting it an interventionist.

                    1. If it involves anything short of direct attack on US citizens or soil

                      That’s a pretty good line in the sand right there.

        3. PAcifism is doctrine marked by a refusal to defend oneself. If the U.S. were to be militarily attacked, a pacifist would refuse to bear arms in its defense.

          Isolationism is not only a military neutrality in International affairs but also marked by an unwillingness to engage in trade.

          Non-Interventionism is a doctrine of unwillingness to engage in military interventions.

          The Swiss are non-interventionists, but they are neither isolationists nor pacifists.

          1. Since when does intervention only apply to military intervention? Reason and pretty much every non-interventionist I read has a fit every time someone even mentions economic sanctions. I would say working with the world community to isolate a country you consider a bad actor is pretty interventionist. Moreover, none of those efforts are likely to amount to anything if the world knows you will never use military force in response to anything short of direct attack on your home soil.

            To give an example, I doubt the Poles or Estonians would be too interested in helping the US isolate Russia if they thought there was no way we would ever defend them militarily. But, if the US agrees to do that, they are no longer “non interventionist” in any meaningful sense of the term.

            You pissing in the wind if you think there is some middle road that allows the US to have much of any effect on the world without some kind of commitment to military intervention.

            If you think isolationism is the way to go, you may be right. But don’t kid yourself into thinking the US can go out and entangle itself in these conflicts without committing itself to some potential military intervention.

            1. John,

              Your are well-read enough that your conflation of noninterventionism and isolationism has to be intentional.

              Stop it.

              Pre-Commodore-Perry Japan was isolationist.

              Engaging in foreign trade, allowing people to and goods to cross our borders is not isolationist.

              Yes, some people here may be snookered by the false dichotomy you are presenting, but most of us won’t be. I suggest you stop insulting our intelligence.

              1. I don’t think it is a false dichotomy as much as it is a misused term. No, President is going to be “non interventionist” in that he will only intervene to defend actual US soil or citizens. It is a question of when and how often a President will intervene not if.

                Using the term “non interventionist” is false advertising. The issue is what things do you think justify military intervention. That is the debate. I have no patience for anyone who claims to be a “non interventionist”. That either means they are an isolationist and just won’t admit it or they are not and are unwilling or unable to articulate when and why they would intervene.

                1. No, President is going to be “non interventionist” in that he will only intervene to defend actual US soil or citizens.

                  and again, you are purposely mis-defining a term in service to your desired ends. The president who only intervenes to defend US soil or citizens along with US interests and, sometimes, US allies is one who does not believe intervention is the only answer.

                  Non-intervention does not equal isolationism. It just means bothering to ask if the US has any legitimate stake in the outcome, one that is worthy of risking American blood or treasure, and saying ‘no’ if it isn’t worthy of those things.

                  1. Waregle,

                    You are just defining your flavor of interventionism. It is a perfectly reasonable position. But it isn’t “non-interventionism” by any ordinary meaning of the term.

                    Non interventionism is just that, not intervening.

            2. “Reason and pretty much every non-interventionist I read has a fit every time someone even mentions economic sanctions.”

              That makes sense, since they are not isolationists, right, but while finding military intervention to be unwise and/or unjustified, they believe that engagement through trade is usually a good thing.

              1. Being an isolationist doesn’t mean you won’t trade. You can be an isolationist and also believe in free trade.

                1. Full Definition of ISOLATIONISM
                  : a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations


                  1. : a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations

                    “Economic relations” means more than just trade. Economic relations is treaties and such as well. And like everything, there are degrees of these things. You can be a “military isolationist” and also be an economic “internationalist”. Indeed, since we are talking about “intervention”, “isolationist” in this context is about military not trade.

                    The bottom line is that you are either willing to intervene militarily abroad or you are not. If you are, then you are not a non interventionist. It is that simple.

                    1. John, it mentions ‘alliances’ separately from ‘other…economic relations.’ Surely you are familiar with the judicial canon here that suggests they do not include treaty type alliances within economic relations.

                2. Red tony redefines political terms to suit his point of the moment.

                  About as amusing as Obama and the ferns.

                  1. Bullshit. JI. You tell me how you can claim to be a “non interventionist” and then in the next sentence tell me how you really would militarily intervene abroad?

                    Non means no last I checked.

                    1. “and then in the next sentence tell me how you really would militarily intervene abroad?”

                      Where did he do that?

                    2. Where did he do that?

                      All of the talk about intervening when it is in the “US interests”.

                    3. Actually I was attacking your misuse of isolationist to fit your stupid argument. But just keep up being Red tony, don’t take a moment at all to reconsider.

                    4. Okay,

                      Then what does “isolationist” mean if not avoiding alliances and refusing to get involved in foreign conflicts?

                      You interventionist of some flavor or you are an isolationist. There is no magic in between where you only intervene just enough not to be an “isolationist”. Isolationist is just a descriptive term. What is wrong with using it?

                    5. No John. Non-intervention does not mean isolation, no matter how hard your neo-con boner is.

                      It means we don’t intervene where there are not U.S. interests at stake, like Iraq, Syria, Libya.

                      If someone invaded Canada or Mexico, we would have a reasonable case to get involved.

                      This is ALWAYS what non-interventionist has meant and is a contrast to BOTH isolationism and neo-con/Wilsonian bullshit.

                    6. If someone invaded Canada or Mexico, we would have a reasonable case to get involved.

                      Then you are willing to intervene in another country’s conflict and you are an interventionist.

                      There are degrees of all of these things. No one is all one or the other. But if you would only intervene to defend Mexico or Canada, you are about as close to being an isolationist as you can be.

                      The only reason you would intervene there is the close proximity to the US. I am not saying you are wrong. That is a different debate. I am just saying you need to be honest and not call yourself a “non interventionist”. Indeed, if you would give up the term, and admit you do support US military intervention abroad, it would keep your political enemies from painting you as extreme. They are only able to do that because you essentially call yourself that by using the term “non interventionist”.

                    7. it would keep your political enemies from painting you as extreme.

                      Fuck them. I don’t care how they “paint” me. It isn’t me that is being dishonest, it is them (and you) – wanting carte blanche to engage in military attacks where we have no reason to.

                    8. JI<<br /
                      Saying you are a “non interventionist” when in fact you do under the right circumstances support military intervention is being dishonest. Just admit up front you are an interventionist but only support such under a limited set of circumstances. Then it is your opponents who look extreme and it has the added bonus of it being the truth.

                    9. One more time Red tony. There is isolationism, non-intervention and neo-con/Wilson militarism.

                      There are hard breaks and soft ones in that spectrum of approaches to international relations, but notice the one end that you refuse to even acknowledge. No, you insist that it is all about isolation or not. You are fucking dishonest about this whole thing.

                    10. JI,

                      Why do you have such an irrational commitment to being a “non interventionist”? What is so great about a term that both implies a finality about your position you claim doesn’t exist and also allows your opponents to portray you as an isolationist?

                      Your not a non-interventionist. You admit you would intervene in lots of conflicts that don’t directly involve the US. Why you insist on owning a term that is pejorative and doesn’t accurately describe your position is beyond me.

                    11. It is pejorative only because it has been abused by those who can’t stand the thought of NOT bullying the whole fucking world. It is pejorative because it has been EQUATED to isolationist. You continue to support that.

                    12. Isolationist means what it literally implies, a nation which does not engage the rest of the world politically, economically or militarily (unless attacked, it will repel attacks on its borders).

                      Intervene literally implies to ‘come between’ two sides, a non-interventionist is one that will not ‘come between’ two sides in conflict.

        4. non-intervention means you don’t go all military if your interests are not threatened. If an ally is attacked, then it may well be your interest to get involved. You’re making this into something binary and it’s not.

          1. If you are willing to make alliances and then intervene to enforce those alliances, I don’t see how you are much of a “non-interventionist”.

            If that is your position, why call yourself such a term when you clearly will intervene under the right circumstances? Again, the debate is over when we should intervene, not if.

            1. you are treating the term as binary; it’s not. An interventionist policy would have had the US fully involved in multiple Middle Eastern states by now, and we would be doing far more re: Ukraine.

              Non-intervention can be used as a delineation between isolationism and jumping into fray. We intervene when it serves our interests to do so. If you have a better term, then put it out there. There are already other terms for not getting involved for any reason.

              1. We intervene when it serves our interests to do so.

                Since every intervention in the history of the world has been considered to have “served the interests” of the country doing so, you are telling me you support intervention.

                The better term is “interventionist”, because that is what you are. You define yourself by what you think justifies intervention. And that definition has to be more than “when it is in our interests”. Well, what constitutes our interests? That is where the meaning lies.

                1. Since every intervention in the history of the world


                  1. Yes JI. The country that engaged in those interventions thought it was in their interest or they wouldn’t have done it.

                    Saying “I will only do this when it is in the US’s interests” is no different than saying “I will only do this when I want to”. That is nice, but when will you want to?

                    1. Well, if you mean by “in their interests” things like expanding their empire, sure, then every act of war has always been in the interest of the state.

                      You will note I did not say what is in the interest of the U.S. govt and the slimeball creatures called politicians. I said what is in American interests. You going to play all Red tony and claim that the govt is us and we are the govt?

                    2. I said what is in American interests.

                      Okay, so you support the US military intervening in foreign conflicts where doing so furthers Americans’ interest.

                      Fine. That makes you an interventionist since there are times that you think military interventions are justified and proper.

                      You are not a “non interventionist”, since you will clearly intervene. Why do you insist on using the term?

                2. you are telling me you support intervention.

                  no, I’m not. Interventionists support US involvement on damn near everything because they see it as America’s role to do so. I’m telling you I support protecting US citizens, US interests and, occasionally, US allies. Those things justify our getting involved and not always by military means.

                  The chattering class views interventionism as though the US must “do something” whenever two or more factions are at odds with each other. It never dawns on them that the question of “why does this matter to us” is often legitimate.

                  1. I’m not. Interventionists support US involvement on damn near everything because they see it as America’s role to do so. I’m telling you I support protecting US citizens,

                    No. Some interventionists support those things. Others support interventions in more limited circumstances. When and where is the entire debate. But neither side is “non interventionist” by any useful meaning of the term.

                    1. No John, only you are using non-interventionist in the way that the political establishment does – as equal to isolationist.

                      And you are doing it for the same dishonest reasons – so that you can justify killing people around the world to satisfy your war boner.

                    2. No JI,

                      I am using non-interventionist as it is written. Non means no. If you say you are willing to make alliances and go to war over those alliances, you are an interventionist. Going to war to defend Japan from China or South Korea from the NORKS is a form of military intervention.

                      And refusing to have any alliances and or go to war for anything less than a direst attack on US citizens or soil is isolationism. If the media rapes the meanings of these terms, well that is the media’s fault. But that doesn’t change their actual meanings or create any obligation on my part to go along.

                    3. Non-intervention means we don’t get involved in fights that don’t involve us. You, like the left and right establishment consensus want the U.S. to be more routinely involved in conflicts because war is the health of the state.

                      I’m not the one being dishonest about what words means or my motives are.

                    4. Non-intervention means we don’t get involved in fights that don’t involve us.

                      What does it mean to involve us? If “involving us” means attacking an ally, then you are an interventionist since you are signing treaties that involve us in conflicts where we wouldn’t otherwise be. If you refuse to sign treaties, then you are an isolationist.

                    5. What does it mean to involve us?

                      Is this an act? Do you seriously have that much trouble with the concept?

                    6. JI,

                      It is not an act. I am just pointing out how amorphous these terms are. “Involve us” can mean about anything. It drives me nuts when people use cop out terms like that. All I am asking is that you say what you mean. If you mean, “I will only use military force in response to a military attack on US soil or citizens” then say it. If you mean “I will only use military force in the event of an attack on the US or one of our allies”, then say that. But if it is the second one, don’t tell me you are a “non interventionist”.

                    7. “Involve us” can mean about anything.

                      No actually it can’t – at least not to an honest discussion. You refuse to admit that there isn’t a conflict in the world that we don’t have a stake in. I’ve given examples of situations we could be legitimately involved in and you discard those.

                    8. No actually it can’t – at least not to an honest discussion.

                      Bullshit. Anything that happens in the world involves the US in some way. Now does it always “directly involve us”? No. But if that is your point, then use the modifier and tell me what you think “directly” means in this context.

                      What you shouldn’t do and what I am calling you out for is saying “I am not an isolationist I support intervention if it ‘involves us'” and then never say what that actually means. That is horseshit. That is just you trying to avoid articulating your position.

        5. Poland is a member of NATO. We’re bound by treaty to defend them.

          1. Sure. But we could break that treaty. If you support the making of treaties and committing the US to go to war as a result of them, you support military intervention. I don’t see how you can be a “non interventionist” and then support making treaties that bind the US to intervene in conflicts that don’t immediately involve them.

            1. I think when people refer to themselves as non-interventionists they usually do so with specific situations and methods in mind.

              JI said as much above. “Non-intervention means we don’t get involved in fights that don’t involve us.”

              Syria is a prime example of the crap we shouldn’t be getting involved with in any way, shape, or form.

              The US and the rest of Europe are treaty-bound to defend Poland in case they are attacked. Neither Rand Paul nor any other magical libertarian President would be able to undo it even if they wanted to.

              1. And that is my point Outlaw. The term is stupid and deciving. No one is a “non interventionist”. What they are is a believer in real politik and think things like UN authority or humanitarian crisis do not justify military intervention.

                That is perfectly reasonable position. It is in fact the position I subscribe to. But it is not “non interventionism”. Worse, when people claim that it is, it just allows their opponents to paint them as extremists who never support any action abroad.

                I don’t understand why people can’t just be honest and say “yes I support US military intervention. I just support it when doing so directly advances US interests and do not think preventing humanitarian crisis or supporting the authority of the UN ever advances US interests enough to justify war.”

                That seems to be the position here. I don’t understand why the people on here insist on clinging to the term “non interventionist” when it is both doesn’t reflect what they actually believe and allows their opponents to pretend they are something they are not.

                1. The term is stupid and deciving.

                  Only the way you and the foreign policy establishment use it.

                  Non-intervention clearly stands between isolationism and neo-con/Wilsonian militarism.

                  You dishonestly attempt to conflate non-intervention with isolation to attempt to draw people toward the unstated alternative.

                  1. I am not being dishonest at all. I am pointing out what the term you use means. And I am also telling you that you need to be honest and upfront about what you mean and stop using weasel words like “involve us” or “US interests” without any further refinement.

                    There is a middle ground between Wilsonian internationalism and isolationism. It is called Real Politik. It says the US will do what is in its best interest as a great power and will not act in the interests of the international community or to further humanitarian ends where those ends do not further US interests.

                    It is a perfectly sensible position. But it is not a “non interventionist” position.

                    1. It says the US will do what is in its best interest as a great power

                      So that is in the interest of the American people? Sure, it is in the interest of those that profit from war, but I don’t see those two things as the same.

                    2. So that is in the interest of the American people?

                      If you don’t think going to war is ever in the interests of the American people, then you are an isolationist.

                      You tell me when the US should go to war. And don’t use bullshit terms like “involves us”. Tell me in concrete terms when you think war is justified.

                    3. I did you asshole. I said if Canada or Mexico were invaded. I don’t give a shit about ANYONE in the Middle East.

                    4. If you would only go to war for Mexico of Canada, you are an isolationist.

    4. If you believe in non-intervention, your ability to intervene in a crisis is pretty limited.


      1. So don’t pretend that you can be a noninterventionist and have much of an effect on the world. People who claim to be “non-interventionist” seem to want to pretend that they can be that but not be an isolationist. That is fantasy. You can’t just sort of get involved in global politics. Either you go full Swiss and just say “we will do business with anyone but will not maintain any alliances or intervene militarily unless attacked” or you go out and get involved and risk going to war over an alliance or something short of direct attack. The first choice is clearly isolationism. The second choice is some degree of interventionism. There is no third “non interventionist interventionist” position.

        1. be a noninterventionist and have much of an effect on the world.

          Ah, the mask slips – we must have an effect on the world. Just minding our own business isn’t enough.

          1. Where did I say it wasn’t? Just minding your own business is called isolationism. I am sorry that that word has become a pejorative. It shouldn’t be. It is just a description.

            My problem is not with your position. My problem is with your dishonesty about what it is. Either admit you just want us to mind our own business and avoid foreign entanglements and are thus an isolationist or stop claiming to be a non interventionist. Non means no. That means you won’t do it, as intervene abroad. If you will intervene abroad, you are an interventionist.

            I am just asking you to use words by their meanings.

            1. Just minding your own business is called isolationism.

              So when I kick your door in to kill you, take your wife and property I am just avoiding being an isolationist.

              Nice Red tony, real nice.

              1. So when I kick your door in to kill you, take your wife and property I am just avoiding being an isolationist.

                That would be aggression. And yes, that would make you not an isolationist. But since when are the choices only “isolation or aggression”?

                I don’t understand why you have such a problem with the term isolationist?

                1. That would be aggression.

                  Since every intervention in the history of the world has been considered to have “served the interests” of the country doing so, you are telling me you support intervention.

                  So John, it appears that even aggression “serves the interests” of every intervention (read “military action”) in history.

            2. Isolationism is not just minding your business. Isolationism is also not letting others interact with you. Militarily they are the same, but isolationism also includes a trade element.

              1. AD,

                There are different forms of isolationist. You can be a military isolationist and not be an economic one. Switzerland would be an example.

                No one here is talking about protectionism or economic isolation. We are talking about military policy. When someone says they are a “non interventionist” no listener takes that to mean anything but military intervention.

                Can you say “well I am not an isolationist because I believe in free trade”? Sure. But that doesn’t really answer the question asked. The question is do you support military intervention abroad. And if you do, you are not a “non interventionist”. You are just maybe less of an interventionist than others. But you sure as hell are not “non interventionist”.

                All I am saying is people need to either advocate for a full on Swiss style foreign policy where we trade with everyone but ally with or fight for no one or admit they in fact support military intervention abroad under the right circumstances. There isn’t a third way. And that seems to be what people are claiming here. If you think it is okay to ally with Western Europe or Japan and to go to war to defend those countries, you are an interventionist. It is that simple.

                1. The Swiss are not isolationist and you are being dishonest about characterizing them thus.

                  1. The Swiss are not isolationist

                    With regards to foreign policy, the Swiss are absolutely isolationist. If anything is dishonest, it is claiming that just because you support trade somehow means you are not an isolationist in other areas. As I keep saying, there are degrees of all of this. And we are talking about military and foreign policy. And in that area, the Swiss are most certainly isolationist.

                    1. The only degree you want is the military adventurist. If we can’t jump into any fight in the world we aren’t “engaging”.

                    2. Sure JI,

                      It is the position I explain above. You can be something besides a Wilsonian or a Buchanan like isolationist. But understand being that, means you are putting the US at risk of going to war in conflicts that do not involve a direct military attack on its soil or citizens.

                    3. You can be something besides a Wilsonian or a Buchanan like isolationist.

                      No fucking shit.

                      But understand being that, means you are putting the US at risk of going to war in conflicts that do not involve a direct military attack on its soil or citizens.

                      Possible, sure, but not highly likely.

                      I’m glad you finally admitted there is an alternative to neo-con world nanny.

                    4. I am not finally admitting anything. You just refuse to read what I have been saying.

                      Either you are really an isolationist and just won’t admit it or you have some bizarre attraction to the term “non interventionist”. If you believe in the US acting in its interests and going to war in circumstances where it hasn’t been attacked but doing so will promote its interests, you are neither an isolationist or a non-interventionist.

            3. John everybody here seems to have two different things in mind when they say Isolationist and non-Interventionist. So you insistence that they are, and must be, the same thing is pretty assy. We are going to to keep using the words to mean 2 different things. And yes, we are going to keep calling you a doosh for insisting that they are the same thing. Your method of argumentation of “No they are the same, because I insist they are” isn’t going to work on us.

              Isolationism : the fucking dictionary definition above. It is pejorative, and you know it is.

              Non-interventionist : a general disinclination to use military force. Or a higher threshold for what constitutes a “legitimate national interest” for when force must be used. That’s it. They aren’t the same fucking thing. Sorry if that robs you of convenient insults to throw around.

    5. “the U.S. doesn’t have a ton of good options in Ukraine, but Paul is talking up terrible or delusional ones.”

      What’s the author’s suggestion? Apparently, it is more severe than sanctions.

      I know – let’s send troops to the Crimean peninsula! Lord Raglan says it’s a great idea.

      1. I don’t think it is dellusional to think the proper response to this is to strengthen the Poles and Estonians’ defenses against Russian missiles.

        If Paul is overly optimistic, it is in thinking we can do that without paying for it. But I wouldn’t call anything Paul said delusional. It all pretty realistic to me.

        The most important thing is that Paul seems to understand that there are no quick fixes. The response to this has to be more strategic and long term. If anyone is being delusional, it is the people pretending that there is some kind of quick solution to this problem via military threats or economic sanctions.

    6. If you believe in non-intervention, your ability to intervene in a crisis is pretty limited.

      Non-intervention means there would be limits on intervening? Why didn’t I see that before?

  31. This may literally be the best thing he’s ever done.

    Yet somehow one of the dumbest. This whole thing is going to be hilarious when all the books come out.

    1. Ted mentioned it above.

      I just watched it. Pretty funny.

      North Ikea. Good stuff.

      Liked when he looked at his watch as he gave Obama his healthcare ‘plug.’

    2. There are no words that adequately capture all that is wrong with that.

      1. Bah. Roll with it.

        1. You are probably right…I think I woke up with a bad case of serious this morning.

    3. I almost don’t want to gag him.

      1. Oh wait, he got to the part where he’s plugging for his healthcare crap.

        Now I want to gag him again. “Yeah we’re trying to get these young kids to sign up for health insurance at rates near elderly folks’ rates for their own good.”

        1. That’s why it’s hilarious.

          He keeps with that ‘they think they’re invincible’ rhetoric.


    1. Oh for the love of God. Put a pair of gloves on and move the cat. Or just run it under something. It was probably terrified. Let it calm down. Cats are not going to stalk and kill you.

      1. Rabbits on the other hand…

        1. House cats I mean.

      2. If the cops could catch it without any gunfire, it can’t have been that bad. Sounds like it was a pet.

        Had it been a feral cat, all bets are off. Those things are scary when cornered. You’d want heavy gloves and a face shield anyway.

        1. I have a friend who ran to the aid of a woman being attacked by a bobcat. He choked that little fucker out (but not dead). He says the scariest part is when the Sheriff’s deputy showed up with the shotgun. There was a moment when he was sure he was getting a face-full of .00 buck. Luckily, the moment passed.

    2. PCP and Satanic heavy metal.

    3. “the parents and baby, along with their dog, retreated into a bedroom as the father called police”

      Yeah, I don’t think this will look good on the dog’s performance review.

      1. “I weigh 60 lbs. Mr. 185-and-thumbs over here outran me to the bedroom. I don’t want to hear it.”

    1. Whoop Whoop!

  32. Good morning, Reasonoids.

    Submitted for your scrutiny; this commenter Edwin from a food truck thread. Tulpa sockpuppet, or not?

    1. Let’s see, claims specialized local knowledge upon his first arrival; immediately takes up a contradictory position; but when challenged peevishly starts impugning those who are unconvinced of being too stupid to accept that he is right…

      If it ain’t tulpa, it’s someone similarly worthless.

    2. Yes. That was Tulpa. There was something very familiar about the “Edwin” blend of intentional misreading, hot-headed assertions and arrogant ignorance.

  33. Tea Party Must be Crushed

    When the Tea Party started, it was a national movement of good people who were worried about the future of the country.

    But today’s Tea Party has morphed into something far different. It has become a collection of wing-nuts, racists, hucksters, extremists, con-men and front-men, who collaborate with Hollywood and left-wing organizations to plot the demise of Republicans in good standing, Republicans such as Mitch McConnell, who is probably the most conservative leader of either party in the history of the Senate.

    Tea Time is over. Republicans need to unite to take on Barack Obama and the Democrats. The Tea Party needs to decide if it is with us or with the President.

    1. This seems incredibly out of touch with what people actually want. The Republicans deserve their failure.

    2. The Tea Party needs to decide if it is with us or with the President.

      ah, the smell of false choice in the morning. Fire on the people who made the GOP takeover of the House possible. That those in charge subsequently proved feckless is an indictment of them, not the TP.

      1. A better writer than this man said it best: “A pox on both your houses”

    3. The Tea Party has always sucked it up and voted R in general elestions even after it lost primaries. It is the crapweasel establishment like Mike Castle and Frank Lugar and Charlie Crist who have refused to support R candidates after losing.

      The whole point of that article seems to be that the GOP needs to be like the Democrats and never hold any of its own to any standard of behavior.

      I understand that someone might think “well anyone is better than the Democrats” given how insane the Democrats have become. But, the lunacy of the Democrats makes compromising with them that much worse. The days of settling for electing someone who will only give the Democrats half of what they want are over.

    4. Concern troll is concerned.

  34. True Detective’s Woman Problem?

    “The series was not oblivious to questions of female representation?the show’s writer and creator Nic Pizzolatto has said as much?but women remained ancillary to the end.”

    Look at this selection:

    “The “best dramas of all time,” that four-way race between Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Wire, and The Sopranos, with Deadwood or Twin Peaks or Buffy tossed in for variety on occasion, are all exceedingly male shows, playing around with male-centric cop, mobster, and druglord genres.”

    Buffy is a ‘male-centric’ show? I would also argue that Twin Peaks and Mad Man are hardly ‘male-centric.’


    1. These people cannot be pleased only appeased. And appeasing these people results in crappy art. Fuck em.

    2. Problem? They had some of the finest women ever cast.

    3. Oh, they can fuck off.

  35. Virginia Postrel: ‘Average’ Barbie Is Just as Fake

    “Average is beautiful,” proclaims her maker, who has raised more than $370,000 in de facto pre-orders. Average is also supposedly “realistic” and “normal.”

    In fact, average is neither desirable nor realistic.

    Before embracing the reassuring claim that “average is beautiful,” consider the CDC statistics behind Lammily’s physique. Based on a representative sample of 118 people, the agency reports that the average 19-year-old female American stands 5 feet 4 inches tall. She has a 33.6-inch waist and a 14.1-inch upper arm. She weighs 150 pounds, giving her a body mass index of 25.5. That indicates that she is overweight. BMI is, however, a crude and controversial measure. Better are the CDC’s direct body-fat measurements. They confirm the same bad news: The average 19-year-old’s body is about 32 percent fat, just at the threshold for obesity.

    1. She has a 33.6-inch waist

      Average 19 y/o female has a 33.6″ waist?

      Those Millennial chicks are FAT.

      1. Hell, 19 year old MEN probably have an average waist of 33.6″.

    2. 150lbs is average????? Whales.

      1. My wife is 150 lbs. She’s also 5’8″ and 6 months pregant with kid #3. If she were 150 lbs when she was 19, the age we met, she wouldn’t be my wife right now. I guess that makes me an asshole.

    3. The 33.6 inch waist doesn’t tell you anything unless you know the WHR. That’s a better determinant of health risks.

      1. I’m betting the ratio isn’t so good.

        1. That could be, but if they want to give the most useful information it should be mentioned explicitly, not implied. It’s possible for someone with a 30 inch waist to be at higher risk of heart disease than someone with a 33 inch waist, if the WHR is worse for the former.

          1. For me personally, a 30 inch waist is too big because I don’t gain weight in my hips.

      2. More Hannah than Marnie, I’d guess.

  36. ‘It’s not going to happen’: Extraordinary moment Australian shopkeeper stared down gun-wielding thug during bungled robbery

    Would-be armed robber pulls gun in regional Victoria, Australia
    Brave worker flatly refuses his demands for cash, even with gun in his face
    After a tense stand-off, thief drops his head and leaves empty-handed
    Quick-thinking staff member had instantly recognised the gun as a replica


    1. Dunno why they’re calling the bloke brave if he knew it was a replica

      1. I was thinking the same thing, minus the word “bloke”

    2. Replica?

      Might as well bring a snake instead, you’re already in Australia.

      1. Snakes don’t scare us. I’d suggest brandishing a low-alcohol beer

        1. How about if they are on a motherfucking plane?

        2. IFH, I thought you were a New Zealander.

          1. Now thems is just fightin’ words.

          2. you are dead to me. My vowels are lovely

            1. Appologies if the resident expert on the country didn’t happen to live there. The only context I ever saw was queries to you about NZ.

              1. I thought you were taking the piss. Every other query to me about NZ around here was a pisstake. Actually pretty much every query to me about Australia is a pisstake too…

                1. What about queries about New Guinea? You’re actually closer to them than to the Kiwis.

                2. No, I honestly have no idea which country you’re posting from.

                  1. ifh = Aussie. We like to have fun with posts about the Kiwis, since they are Australia’s slightly peeved little brother/lesser rival in many ways.

                    Except rugby, mostly.

                    You will note any “deadly creature, plant, unexplained thing” story from Australia brings us to make many queries of ifh, to explain how humans may survive in such a fatal demesne.

        3. Was in Sydney a couple weeks ago- the obsession with low-alcohol beer is disturbing. It’s all they sold at Soundwave.

      2. Right? Hell, a bag of flying spiders would be more effective than a real gun.

    3. I thought there weren’t any guns in Australia.

      1. It was a ‘Replica’

    4. Now, dicks have drive and clarity of vision, but they are not clever. They smell pussy and they want a piece of the action. And you thought you smelled some good old pussy, and have brought your two little mincey faggot balls along for a good old time. But you’ve got your parties muddled up. There’s no pussy here, just a dose that’ll make you wish you were born a woman. Like a prick, you are having second thoughts. You are shrinking, and your two little balls are shrinking with you. And the fact that you’ve got “Replica” written down the side of your guns…

      And the fact that I’ve got “Desert Eagle point five O”…

      Written down the side of mine…

      Should precipitate your balls into shrinking, along with your presence. Now… Fuck off!

      1. A buddy of mine tells a story about his brother who had moved to Houston, TX for school and got a job at a convenience store.

        The first week he was held up at gunpoint three times.

        The next robbery was a guy with a knife – to which he simply told him he wasn’t going to give him anything if all he had was a knife. He told the thug to leave and come back with a at least a gun… …the guy with the knife just left.

  37. Apologies if this has been posted, this is a couple of days old and I’ve been busy at work:

    Evil Koch’s further hideous neo-nazi libertarian agenda by donating $100 million to a hospital in NY; enlightened masses protest.

    1. The shitbag mayor of New York went on a friendly radio show to explain his killing the NY Charter schools. His justification was, I kid you not, that even though those schools worked, they were funded by a lot of big private money. His position is that it doesn’t matter if those schools give kids the decent education the public schools can’t. They are funded by the wrong people and therefore are bad.

      Now you see how these people, if given enough time and enough power, always end up starving and killing people. They would rather someone die or go without than take money from the wrong class of people. They are insane and evil.

      1. Well, they do want those rich people to pay for it. They just want the money to go through the IRS first.

  38. And this is the master bedroom… Furious homeowner releases footage of realtors having sex 10 TIMES in $650,000 property they were supposed to be selling

    Richard Weiner has chosen to make video of Richard Lindsay and Jeannemarie Phelan having sex inside his home public for the first time
    Security cameras in his home caught them having sex at least 10 times
    They used his marital bed
    Weiner is suing the pair – claiming they inflated the price of his home so no one would buy it
    That meant they could continue using it for their secret trysts
    Lindsay and Phelan are counter-suing Weiner for $1 million claiming he tried to blackmail them with the video


    1. This could be a new niche.

    2. Richard Weiner…

      Dick Weiner?!?

      I’m changing my name, dammit!

      1. This was clearly supposed to be the start of a porn production.

      2. I’m thinking its more like wi-ner, which is ironically close to whiner.

        1. Might it be ‘Viner’ using a central european W?

        2. My aunt and uncle pronounce their last name “Whine-er”. But I had a client that pronounced his last name “ween-er”. I think either is acceptable.

          1. My aunt and uncle pronounce their last name “Whine-er”.

            Spelt C-H-O-L-M-O-N-D-L-E-Y F-E-A-T-H-E-R-S-T-O-N-E-H-A-U-G-H M-A-R-J-O-R-I-B-A-N-K-S, I suppose

            1. Yes. Of the New Haven Cholmondleyfeatherstonehaughmarjoribanks, naturally.

              1. No, it is spelled Raymond Luxury Yacht but is pronounced Throatwarbeler Mangrove

      3. It’s pronounced “whiner”.

    3. She’s pretty hot. Is it part of the tour?

  39. I’m here to bring the hard hittin’ news stories…

    Photo Essay: Goats in Sweaters

    For the past 17 years, Brooklyn-based artist Alexander Gorlizki has been traveling to Jaipur, India, to work. And while there over the last few years, he began photographing something very exciting: goats wearing sweaters.

  40. ADHD doesn’t exist and drugs do more harm than good: Doctor claims symptoms can have routine causes that are ignored due to knee-jerk diagnosis

    After 50 years in practice Dr Saul says there is no such thing as ADHD
    Improving your diet, exercising and sleeping more can alleviate symptoms


    1. I agree. I have mountains of anecdotal evidence to assert this. Society has made being a young man a disease, at least to some extent. These dopamine acting drugs can set many people up to become addicts. I guess there was money to be made and diet, exercise, and regular sleep can be more difficult to achieve than taking some speed every day.

      1. what could possibly go wrong with rearing a child to believe that prescription meds are all that separate him from normalcy and going off the rails. Yeah, this ends well.

        Also, moobs. They are a telltale sign of young men who’ve been on Ritalin and similar meds.

      2. Yes, ADHD is mostly about acting like too much of a boy, though girls are also diagnosed. I’m sure I would’ve been diagnosed, my elementary school teachers mostly hated me. We used to race in order to see who could be first in line, oh the humanity.

    2. I think for adults it has become a way to get around the ban on speed. Speed used to be legal and adults in high stress jobs took it to stay alert and focused. Now they tell the doc they have ADHD and get it from the pharmacy.

      1. Fuck yeah. Legalize adult OTC purchases of Adderall and watch ADHD vanish.

        1. If used in moderation, it is perfectly fine.

    3. Routine causes like “being a kid”?

    4. I’m glad somebody’s filling the void left by Thomas Szasz.

    5. My mom has ADHD and has never taken drugs for it. Basically she is very scatter-brained and flighty, but she is a great pianist, is kind to everyone, and has a good sense of humor. If you’re good at what you do and people like you, people will forgive you for being bad at mundane things.

  41. Deep sea skiving: Drunk captain ditches night time Hawaii snorkeling group out at sea and disappears in boat

    Drunk captain from company Iruka Hawaii abandons 30 snorkelers at sea
    Captain Spencer Erwin, 30, later found bobbing in his boat The Sea Wolf
    Erwin was arrested for suspicion of operating under the influence
    Snorkelers pay some $100 for dive in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii


    1. His boat was really named The Sea Wolf?

      1. That is a Real Thing.

  42. Off the leash: Maltese terrier saved from poisoning death by miraculous vodka cure

    Maltese terrier puppy Charlie was poisoned after licking toxic engine coolant from a garage floor
    A vet recognised ethylene glycol poisoning, which can cause death
    In a two-day procedure, 700ml of vodka was intravenously fed into the dog’s stomach to counteract the poisoning
    Charlie made a full recovery despite being drunk form the procedure and suffering a gruelling hangover


    1. and suffering a gruelling hangover

      The cheap bastards used Popov’s.

      1. Kommisar Wodka…if you wake up, your head will feel like it is in Gulag!

    2. This is also the cure for methanol poisoning.

  43. $15,000 in manhole covers stolen

    nearly 50 manhole covers have gone missing

    So, $300 per. No wonder they weld ’em down.

    1. I think you mean personnel access hatch, you sexist!

  44. “Just to be clear: Kallos is a sitting city council member who attended a protest *against the addition of a new hospital care center in the neighborhood he represents* because ? Koch brothers!”


    1. Halal slaughter is performed by a Muslim butcher in the name of Allah in a way to avoid severing the spinal cord.

      Then, with all due respect, couldn’t the school provide halal pork sausages?

      1. Are you mad?

        Animal intestines packed with unidentifiable bits of the original owner are one of the few culinary specialties of the UK. You can’t change the methods and formulation!

          1. shit that’s the wrong spot for this.

            1. Yeah, Democrats are definately non-halal.

    1. *Please*, SIV — Say “the D-word”.

    2. Your link goes to the wiki page for the DNC. Is that statement about NPR true?

      1. The link goes to the wikipedia page for the use of “Democrat” as an epithet.

    1. Look he has to look cool somehow as Putin turns him into chopped liver.

    2. The president was also billed on-screen as a “community organiser”.

      Many a word spoken in jest…

    3. “US President Barack Obama has followed in the footsteps of Justin Bieber and Bradley Cooper…”

      Damn, how is that NOT a bitchslap of epic proportion?

      1. Right? What did Bradley Cooper do to deserve being lumped in with Bieber and Obama?

  45. Canadian taxpayers baulk at paying for science

    Researchers crowd-source funds to back Ouija board science project

    1. Docky Duncan, a research assistant with UBC’s Visual Cognition Lab, said in an interview Tuesday that the project is “off the beaten track” and there has been “incredible difficulty” getting even the modest $2,000 in funding it needs.

      Sheesh, Docky, ask the fucking Ouija board how to get the funding!

      Must I think of *everything*?

      1. Hey, look what it is saying!


        Guess its no funding then.

    1. Sceptre recently celebrated its 15 anniversary, and is distinguished as one of India’s longest-running metal bands. Their latest recording taps into their genre’s liberal-leaning ideological tradition

      Is metal liberal-leaning? Discuss.

      1. It has nihilistic tendencies, and adheres to no real moral standard. You could make such a claim. Or realize that it’s just music (or noise if done poorly).

      2. I’d say generally metalheads sort of lean liberal. Mostly the kids do. Or at least anti authority.
        Metal is way too varied as an art form now to categorize it one way or the other. There’s always been a huge debate in the community about NS white power bands.

      3. If you interpret ‘their genre’ as ‘liberal-leaning metal’ than yes, of course liberal-leaning metal is liberal-leaning. If it’s not liberal-leaning, then it’s not their genre, is it? Anti-authoritarian and anarchy-leaning metal are a different genre. And much more popular.

  46. Over two dozen Democratic senators spoke through last night and this morning in the Senate chamber about the threat of climate change.

    And tonight they will be discussing the threat of Bigfoot.

    1. Three Canukistani Sasquatch regiments have taken control of a good quarter of the nation’s smug reserves by encircling Seattle!

    1. A college student paid someone to inject their buttocks with silicone? They’re even stupider than I remember.

      1. We had several of these cases in FL where woman were paying some random immigrant lady with no medical training to do that. And she was using tire sealant. It was sad and sick, but people are incredibly bad at evaluating risks sometimes.

  47. OT: I’m back to court to defend today. For two guys charged with first offense domestic violence. Should be interesting. The third DV defendant got arrested for armed robbery & fleeing/eluding after his DV. So he won’t be my client anymore b/c those are felonies and I am not on the felony court appointed list.

    1. I’d go with the Marion Barry defense.

  48. Feinstein has a sad because the CIA allegedly spied on Congressional staffers

    But it’s perfectly okay for the NSA to spy on the rest of us?

  49. CNN runs story about dying child – concludes problem is that company with pre-approval drug is to blame because they are *too cognizant of the risks that it poses to their FDA approval* to offer it for ‘compassionate use’

    i.e. they looked at the risk-factors for failure and passed on helping the kid.

    Authors of story and readers go on anticapitalist rampage.


    No one seems to notice the elephant in the room is the fact that FDA is the sine qua non of the whole fucking problem. No, its *profits*.

    Meanwhile, the fact that the ACA is restricting drug availability for tens of thousands of chronic illness sufferers is completely overlooked.

    1. Why blame bureaucracy – even if that is the appropriate target – when you can rant about ghoulish capitalists with top hats and monocles?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.