EU Countries Threaten Russia with Sanctions, CIA Denies Snooping on Senate Committee, America's Cheeses Under Attack: P.M. Links


  • "This doesn't smell nearly enough like stinky feet to be authentic!"
    Credit: shazam791 / Foter / CC BY-NC-ND

    Poland and Germany will likely launch some sanctions against Russia next week if it doesn't back off Crimea.

  • CIA Director John Brennan's response to Sen. Dianne Feinstein's accusations that his employees had spied on congressional staff computers connected to an investigation of the CIA's torture methods under the Bush Administration was to say, "Nothing could be further from the truth. We wouldn't do that." Since Feinstein referenced an actual meeting with Brennan where he revealed the searches, this means that either the head of the CIA or the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee is outright lying, so that's fun.
  • President Barack Obama added more than 1,600 acres of California coastline to a national monument, bypassing Congress in the process.
  • The European Union wants to ban the use of European names like Parmesan and feta on cheese made in the United States in an especially blatant effort at product protectionism to reduce competition.
  • Twitter went down for a little while, which media outlets are dutifully reporting so that they'll appear hip about social media. #TwitterOutage
  • More protests are coming to Turkey after a teen boy struck in the head by a tear gas canister during last summer's protests died this morning in a hospital.

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

NEXT: DC Reasonoids: Booze, Books, and The Lost Sisterhood with Anne Fortier, 3/12

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. CIA Director John Brennan’s response to Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s accusations that his employees had spied on congressional staff computers connected to an investigation of the CIA’s torture methods under the Bush Administration was to say, “Nothing could be further from the truth. We wouldn’t do that.”

    That, of course, means the CIA spied on Senate Intelligence Committee computers.

    1. “this means that either the head of the CIA or the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee is outright lying, so that’s fun.”

      The real question is “how could anyone believe that either one of them is telling the truth?”

      1. “how could anyone believe that either one of them is telling the truth?”


    2. this means that either the head of the CIA or the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee is outright lying, so that’s fun.

      And I’m sure all the major media outlets are running this right behind the latest Justin Bieber news.

    3. HeLO!

    4. It’s hard to know how a Pak Protector thinks, really.

    5. Maybe they delegated the dirty work to the NSA or the FBI. So technically he is not lying.

    6. [Brennan denied that] his employees had spied on congressional staff computers connected to an investigation of the CIA’s torture methods under the Bush Administration

      Truthy possibilities:
      1. Not congressional (Senate)
      2. Not staff (interns, congresscritters, spouses, kids)
      3. Not computers (books, notes, laptops, smart phones)
      4. Not connect to investigation of CIA’s torture methods (any other topic)
      5. Not under Bush

      1. 6. Not his employees (some other division)

        1. ^ Probably used Booz Allen contractors instead of direct employees.

  2. WV teachers union upset over dress code for teachers–no flip-flops and jeans at work
    I remember we, as students, were not allowed to wear flip-flops. Why should teachers be allowed?

    1. Dress like professionals? But they only pay us $55k for 9 months of work!

      1. Yes, but when they do work its a intense 6.5 hour day.

    2. The art of wearing fine threads is dead.

      Get this. In university, the hipster doofuses thought dressing down was proof of what constituted a true student whereas those who dressed well (like myself) were seen as superficial. It was usually the other way around. It’s just that we respected the institution is all.

      It was truly pathetic how they dressed. One professor kicked a student out for having holes all over his jeans. Good for him.


      1. Another time I was waiting my turn in a municipal court to contest a ticket in court. The guy in front of me was dressed like he just came back from the beach. All the time the judge listened I wondered how he could tolerate such a defendant in his court. Sure enough, the judge ripped right into him for his lack of respect. To his credit, it didn’t get in the way in ruling in favor of the person but it was still priceless.

        I was next up – in my fine, tailored made suit as I was working that day.

        I won too.

        1. Man, I keep remembering stories.

          When I worked at the bank as a mutual fund specialist at a national call center, we were required to wear a tie. Our boss decided, after much deliberation, to allow casual Friday.

          The very first Friday some jerkoff came in shorts and flip flops. Some people have no common sense. The boss flipped and stopped casual Fridays.

          Again. Couldn’t blame him. Boy, did that guy take a ribbing.

          1. Okay okay, rufus. We’ll get off your lawn. Jeez…

            1. Heh. I did get a little excited.


            2. Terr, the irony is I no longer need to wear suits to work!

              1. I’m one of the few engineers that wears jeans. When someone asks, I tell them I work in a factory and am not interested in destroying my dress pants.

                1. Casual is okay. It’s those that go a step beyond casual I’m talking about.

                  1. Why do you think you even get to have an opinion about how other people dress, much less crybaby so much about it?

                    They don’t give a fuck what you think about their clothing. That will never change.

          2. I took a shit in Canada once.

            1. I hope the toilet was clean.

              1. I’m sure it flushed better than the Government mandated crappy crappers we have in the US …

        2. I agree with you in general about dressing appropriate for the setting, but a Municipal Court deserves nothing but scorn and contempt.

      2. Is “in university” Canuckistani for “being in college”?

        1. Yes.


          Everywhere else in the PLANET says ‘uni’, and you, YOU are the exception!

          Also: ‘Maths’, please.

          1. WE…are exceptional (just ask John), and therefore correct, irregardless of what the rest of the world says.

            …and King George…and WWII…and sumthin, sumthin the queen…

      3. Yeah, man, not respecting people for wearing clothes I don’t like isn’t being superficial. It’s those assholes that don’t dress how I would like them to that are the superficial ones.

        1. In HS I can remember the teacher who had to enforce discipline – hit guys with paddles and the like – once said (this was late 60’s so everyone had very long hair): “I don’t teach a head of hair, I teach a kid.” He gained my respect that day and I never got another detention.

    1. Delicious. Thank you for that, Matrix.

    2. Some “gyny’s” deserve the “miso” …

  3. President Barack Obama added more than 1,600 acres of California coastline to a national monument, bypassing Congress in the process.

    But my mother lives in Hackensack.

    1. “Domini, Domini, Domini! You’re all Catholics now!”

      1. Come on Father, no one would live in this stinking desert!

        1. “God have mercy on their pagan souls.”

          1. Ah, Fireheads. We’re everywhere! For everybody!

            … Hobbit

    2. Bypassing who?

  4. Tiny dog confronts a SWAT team during standoff
    I’m surprised the dog survived the encounter. I’m pretty sure several officers got reprimanded for not following proper procedures and neutralizing the canine.

    1. But it had “nasty, big, pointy teeth!” and they did not have the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.

      1. Isn’t this where “Some call me Tim” should step in?

      2. … or didn’t know how to count to Three …

    2. I can’t believe they let the pug disrespect their canine brother in blue like that.

    3. They move fast and are small targets. Require good marksmanship to hit.

      1. You know what would have been tragic? All the police officers began firing at the dog, which in turn dodges in and among the officers…

    1. “the Coles County Sheriff’s Office traded 11 pistols, shotguns and rifles to Kaskaskia Firearms for two AR-15 rifles.”

      Must have been at gun buy-back rates. Or there’s some corruption, which can not be the case, of course.

  5. Can Matt Schaub really let you down at this point?

    Schaub is a “serious possibility” for the Browns
    The Factory of Sadness seems to be planning another stellar product line for 2014; perhaps they’ll dub it the “Pick 6.”

    With quarterback a clear need and new offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan having a prior relationship with Texans quarterback Matt Schaub, Schaub could become the next quarterback to join the Browns….

    1. If they add Revis along with Dansby and Whitner they might have a really strong defense.

      If only they could score points.


      1. Look on the bright side, it’s not Mark Sanchez.

      2. It will make you long for the days of Colt McCoy and Brandon Weeden. Schaub is horrible. He might be the worst starting QB not named Matt Cassle.

        1. Brandon Weeden made me long for the days of Colt McCoy. But fuck, he can’t be as bad as the Weeds, can he? I mean, at least he’s not a big gangly uncoordinated ancient peckerwood ginger Okie idiot, right?

          1. He is worse. Weeden was only in his second year. You can at least hope Weeden might get better. Schaub is a veteran horrible quarterback. He wasn’t that good to begin with. But then about two years ago he had a full on Jake Delhome type meltdown becoming an epic turnover machine.

            1. Why’d you have to remind me that Jake Delhomme was a Browns quarterback a few years ago? I thought I had successfully repressed that memory.

            2. Weeden was 30 in his second year. He was in decline by then. And I maintain that McCoy would’ve been a decent starter if he’d been taken by any team other than Cleveland.

            3. Schaub career rating: 89.8 130/84 TD/INT for 10 years and 6 yrs above 90

              Weeden career rating: 71.8 23/26 TD/INT for 2 years

              How is Schaub worse?????

          2. Weeden was great at Ok State. But he also had Blackmon to make him look better. Colt McCoy was fantastic at Texas, and he would’ve annihilated Alabama’s defense if he didn’t get hurt at the beginning of the championship game and had to sit out.

            But, they got stuck with the shitty ass Browns. You can’t bring in a pocket passer like Weeden with a shitty offensive line and not much else to really back up your passing game. Weeden was also one who takes too many chances with throws. Did it all the time at OSU, but can’t get away with that in the NFL.

            1. Those Browns teams had perfectly fine offensive lines. Weeden made them look bad by being an indecisive idiot. As for McCoy, he was Doug Flutie without the talent.

            2. What’s wrong with Josh Gordon and Jordan Cameron?

            3. Weeden has a huge arm. As good as he was in college, he did throw a bit too many INTs. But you are right, the lack of offensive line or receivers set him up for failure.

              And McCoy showed some promise. I never understood why they didn’t give him more of a chance.

              1. Because he failed spectacularly when they gave him a chance? Especially after James Harrison scrambled his brain. He was a mental wreck after that.

                CPA is correct. Weeden had a couple of great recievers, an offensive line with two All-Pros and three more adequate guys, and he still fucking sucked. I was at the game where this abomination happened, and it was hilarious to hear an entire stadium slapping their foreheads at the same time. Fuck Weeden.

                1. It is okay Warty. I understand. I get the same way when people on here try and tell me Matt Cassle isn’t horrible. People who don’t actually root for a team with a bad quarterback just don’t understand and never will.

                  1. Cassel is easily twice as good as Weeden. YOU KNOW NOTHING JOHN SNOW

                    1. As shitty as the Browns are to be a fan of, they provide rich fodder for writers. Amid the scorched earth of Berea, Cleveland Browns must prove to Alex Mack things will be different

                      Center Alex Mack, the club’s top free agent, is tired of grown men playing fantasy football with the organization’s coaching staff and roster.


                    2. Weeden is a Joe Montana compared to Cassle. You know nothing of the horror I know Warty. You don’t want to go where I have been.

                    3. John is a Chiefs fan?

                    4. He is, poor bastard. John is about the only guy on here who can whine about football on an equal footing with me.

                    5. Although the Chiefs are still the Real Chiefs, not some second-rate impostor frauds who coast on a reputation they shouldn’t even have. So I still win.

                    6. I will give you that Warty. The asshole Hunt sons haven’t absconded to LA, yet.

                    7. Any Raiders fans on here? They deserve some sadness too.

                      They just resigned McFadden to a one year $4 million deal because they haven’t wasted enough on him just yet.

                    8. There are at least two of us on here.

                    9. Damnit, that was in response to CPA asking if John was a Chiefs fan.

                      I am not, nor have I ever been, a Raiders fan.

                    10. Cassel is just good enough to grind your heart into a fine paste.

                      I’m glad the ViQueens got him.

                    11. Cassell 80.5 rating 93/66 TD/INT

                      worse than Schaub, better than Weeden

                  2. Matt Cassel is gone, John. Let’s be happy with Alex Smith and not relive our sinner pasts.

                2. Of course, a running game would help. But there was certainly nothing wrong with their offensive line or receivers.

                3. Ha, that was pretty bad.

        2. Handles pressure worse than Peyton Manning when Peyton doesn’t get a read, Less mobility than anyone including Matt Cassel, and has the game presence of a clipboard. But other than that, the only real mark on him is that he’s a choker.

          1. And it makes up for all of that by turning the ball over a lot.

            1. So, #WINNING all the way around.

    3. Johnny Football is the QB most like me – says Fran Tarkenton.

      #1 by the Texans or they are fucked.

    4. You won’t need 5 other Browns to let you down one last time if you get Schaub. Now if the Texans will just not draft that kid from A&M…

      /Texans fan

    5. I wanted to go AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA to this, but it really isn’t fair given it’s the Browns.

  6. Twitter went down for a little while, which media outlets are dutifully reporting so that they’ll appear hip about social media. #TwitterOutage

    With Twitter down they didn’t have anything else to report.

  7. “I have grave concerns that the CIA’s search may well have violated the separation of powers principles embodied by the United States Constitution,” [said Senator Feinstein].

    Oh, FFS, Dianne!

    1. Senator Feinstein! You’re supposed to fake orgasms, not outrage!

      1. You have to have someone willing to have sex with you in order to fake an orgasm.

        1. Well, she could use her finger. But then she would have to imagine that there is somebody out there who would be a willing partner and that is about as likely as the pope becoming a muslim. And I also wonder if her finger would object.

    1. An undersized guy with suspect hands who hasn’t impacted a game in 4 years and gets hurt a lot? SUPER BOWL!

      1. Or a rapesquatch who will make players afraid of going to the locker room, and makes Richie Incognito look like the Walter Payton man of the year? Definitely Superbowl.


  8. The European Union wants to ban the use of European names like Parmesan and feta on cheese made in the United States in an especially blatant effort at product protectionism to reduce competition.

    Hands off my Champale!

    1. “The Champale of Bottled Beer!”

  9. The European Union wants to ban the use of European names like Parmesan and feta on cheese made in the United States…

    Freedom fries!

  10. “The European Union wants to ban the use of European names like Parmesan and feta on cheese made in the United States in an especially blatant effort at product protectionism to reduce competition.”

    Don’t get me started about *hamburg*ers, *frankfurt*ers, *Vienna* sausages, *French* toast, *French* fries, *English* muffins, or *Irish* coffee.

    And those Euros should relabel their New York style cheesecake.

    1. Don’t forget Pilsners.

      1. America’s cheeses under attack.

        America’s chesus under attack.

        America’s Jesus under attack.

        **** Look out Moochelle.

    2. TO be fair its not “blatant protectionism” in the sense that if your in the EU you can call any hard cheese Parmesan, if you make a Parmesan like cheese in say Doncaster you cant call it Parmesan either, same way as a bloke in Parmesan cant make a Melton Mowbray pie.

      So i assume under these rules (assuming the USA signed up for them i couldn’t call some thing a “New York cheese cake” unless it was actually from new york.

      1. Well, it could be a new cheese cake recipe from York couldn’t it?

    3. We should demand they stop referring to things as “corn”, “tomato”, or “potato” since they all come from the Americas.

      1. but there not a geographic reference if there was a specfic type of potato grown in say wisconsin known as the wisconsin potatoit wouldnt be right for a tottaly diffrent type of potato not grown in wisconsin to be reffered to as a wisconsin potato, its not really any diffrent from trade marks copyrights and all that other kit and kaboodle.

        1. Like a Vidalia Onion, for example?

      2. I nominate “Feather-Not-Dot Maize” “Froggie Love Apple” and “Irish Diamond”.

  11. io9 calls them 30 cult classics, but if they would just add Chuck Heston’s sci-fi work and The Big Lebowski, it would be a fairly complete list of movie references for the H&R noob.

    1. Without looking to see if they’re on the list – ‘The Wicker Man’ and ‘Don’t Look Now’ are two great mostly unseen cult classics.

      1. Only Roeg picture on list is The Man Who Fell to Earth

        1. You like Roeg?

          Damn, you just went up 58 points on my secret H&R commentor spreadsheet.

          1. 1 Me
            2 Me
            3 Me
            4 Me
            5 Me
            6 Me
            7 Me
            8 Me
            9 Me
            10 Me
            11 Me
            12 Me
            13 Me
            14 Me
            15 Me
            16 Me
            17 Me
            18 Me
            19 Me
            20 Me
            21 Me
            22 Me
            23 Me
            … 323 Tony
            324 Me
            325 Me
            326 Me
            327 Me
            328 Me
            329 Me

    2. Pretty sure you’d need to add Princess Bride to your list.

        1. You keep using that word…

    3. Maybe throw Brazil on there as well.

    4. Your list is mostly camp. There is a subtle difference between “cult” and “camp”.

      That said – ‘Rocky Horror Picture Show’ is a deserving #1 in both categories.

    5. What about American Psycho?

      “I had all the characteristics of a human being?flesh, blood, skin, hair?but my depersonalization was so intense, had gone so deep, that my normal ability to feel compassion had been eradicated, the victim of a slow, purposeful erasure. I was simply imitating reality, a rough resemblance of a human being, with only a dim corner of my mind functioning”

      /90% of commentors

      1. no decent ‘cult movie’ ever has anyone say, “The Book Was Better”


    7. Since it’s io9 I’d guess they mean 30 sci-fi/horror/fantasy cult classics.

      Not sure The Warriors fits – you could, I guess, stretch it in a Procrustean way into horror.

    8. What’s with everyone’s hardon for Donnie Darko? I found it pretentious and pseudo-intellectual.

    9. Haven’t seen about a third of them but never finished “Donnie Darko” and “Eraserhead” SUCKED!

      … Hobbit

  12. Because it’s 3/11 (if you go by the American way of dates).

    1. My brother is in New Orleans for the apparently annual concert. They aren’t my thing, but my son is wearing a 311 onesie in support of his uncle.

  13. For SF or anyone else who may fear tazing during a diabetic event, a Taser resistant jacket.

    jacket is really just an ordinary long-sleeved coat. But he separated the lining at the bottom seam and used fusible material to hold the carbon tape in place. The carbon tape provides a better conductor than your skin, preventing the shock from stunning you as it was intended. This really is the thing of superheroes,

    1. Unfortunately not bullet-resistant, which would be good because if you don’t go down from the Taser, you’re obviously high on PCP or bath salts.

    1. That is some of the least-deserved self-congratulatory bullshit I’ve ever read.

      What a bunch of twats.

    2. If you really believe your side is incapable of excess, you are most definitely a fanatic.

    3. Amanda, the way you see yourself is not necessarily the way others see you.

      I had to read that 2x. She really did call herself non-hateful.

      1. You misspelled Amanduh.

    4. Bunch of flakes.

  14. Washington? A Dexter cancer patient featured in a conservative group’s TV ad campaign denouncing her new health care coverage as “unaffordable” willsave more than $1,000 this year.

    Julie Boonstra, 49, starred last month in an emotional television ad sponsored by Americans for Prosperity that implied Democratic U.S. Rep. Gary Peters’ vote for the Affordable Care Act made her medication so “unaffordable” she could die. Peters of Bloomfield Township is running for an open U.S. Senate seat against Republican Terri Lynn Land.

    The Detroit News and fact checkers last month cast doubt on the accuracy of the TV ad. On Monday, Boonstra acknowledged which health plan she chose, offering the first evidence of cost savings.

    Boonstra said Monday her new plan she dislikes is the Blue Cross Premier Gold health care plan, which caps patient responsibility for out-of-pocket costs at $5,100 a year, lower than the federal law’s maximum of $6,350 a year. It means the new plan will save her at least $1,200 compared with her former insurance plan she preferred that was ended under Obamacare’s coverage requirements.…../303100100

    1. “””her former insurance plan she preferred “”

      Who does this peasant think she is, Obama has ruled what plan he prefers

    2. What does she know? The Detroit news looked into this and they think her plan is just fine.

      Jesus Shreek, is that the talking point they gave you or did you just fuck it up as usual or both?

      1. He is just butthurt over the article earlier on Obumblecare’s signup numbers.

        1. Actually I will repost an earlier comment of mine:

          There is a special US House election tonight in Florida. The district has voted 49% for Obama over the last two elections.

          Many of the Peanuts have been saying that DOOM IS COMING! for Democrats due to Obamacare foibles. Tonight’s election will give us a preview of the midterms.

          I predict the Peanuts are wrong (again).

          1. Sink is going to win that election. Better name recognition, better early vote turnout, and the ‘phant got every GOP machine vote and not a singe popular vote in the primary. Of course, they’re going to blame the Libertarian candidate polling at 4%,

            1. Brett,

              The Libertarian candidate is going to ensure that the Dem candidate won’t get 50% no matter what. But a win by 300 votes with a Libertarian taking 4% will totally mean that the Republican party is dead and needs to stop talking about Obmaacare or not giving Obama everything he wants.

              1. Sure. No, I agree, but my parents live in that district and I’m going to have to hear about how the “crazy Libertarians” gave away a House seat to the Dems. After the GOP picked some chairwarmer whose claim to fame was holding Bill Young’s jock for a while and then being a lobbyist. “Electability” strikes again. The sooner people stop picking “electable” candidates, the better.

              2. Landslide victory!

          2. One district in Florida so means that the various Red State senators, whom even the AFL CIO has decided are goners, are totally okay.

            You are the most epic retard in the known world.


          3. No, Florida’s special House election won’t predict November’s midterms

            There are about as many Democratic districts as Republican-held districts that look competitive at the moment, which means one party would really need to catch a wave to win them all and affect the current balance of power in the House. Moreover, those competitive races make up only a fraction (about 15 percent at the outside) of all the House seats, leaving neither side much room to maneuver. In other words, the staunch partisanship and safely-drawn districts help keep special elections like this one from predicting too much beyond their boundaries.

            Which means: The Buttwipe is making the same mistake that he ascribes to others. Typical of him, of course.

            1. I am Mr. Buttwipe to you, son.

              1. Your preferences are meaningless to me.

          4. lol – this just in – another 8% prediction from PB as Sink just lost…

            Though any day now I fully expect PB to explain why this election isn’t a “preview of the midterms”…

            As a side note – I knew nothing about this particular election until these posts and news results from my setup – so I have no opinion on whether this is or is not a preview of the midterms.

            Just noting the obvious – PB is wrong again – and I’m sure he won’t remember as soon as some left writer he likes writes an opinion stating how this is an outlier and has zero to do with Obama.

    3. That’s great, Buttwipe. It means that when Obama cancels your plan, you should be able to obtain a much cheaper plan from your provider if you happen to cry a lot in a commercial.

      The question that lingers is why would HHS issue an extension for those “subpar” or “trash” plans, which they so vehemently poo-pooed, after the 2016 election?

      1. And the HHS extension is meaningless and worthless at this point. It’s entirely too late. That ship has sailed and those plans aren’t coming back.

  15. A drug company refuses to give a dying 7-year-old boy experimental medication because doing so would cut into its profits.

    But the company’s CEO, Kenneth Moch, said Chimerix cannot agree to provide the drug for compassionate use because it would then be obligated to share the drug with other patients ? and he said that would be too costly.

    “If this were just one patient wanting this drug, then this would be a very different question,” Moch said. “But it’s yes to all or no to all.”

    Chimerix hopes to begin marketing brincidofovir by the end of 2016, and Moch said the 54-person company cannot afford to spend $50,000 on each compassionate-use patient or divert workers to handle the requests, patient records, and follow-up required by law.

    1. Of course, the whole story is not being told by major outlets to drum up sympathy for the boy and direct major outrage at “THE EVUL GREEDY FARMASOOTIKUL KORPARASHUNS!!!!1!11!!”

      1. Corporations like GE and Disney and CBS?

        1. And the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?

      2. I agree with them; it’s much better that no one have life-saving drugs than for the companies that make said drugs earn a profit on the backs of suffering people.


    2. This was posted earlier in another thread, FYI.

      1. I accidentally posted it in the wrong thread earlier.

    3. Arg, I posted in morning links, again here, yet am foiled!

      The derp in the article is profound. They have no idea what role FDA plays. Its’ all “COMPANY PROFITS ON DEAD BABIES!?”

    4. “But it’s yes to all or no to all.”

      Which is completely unreasonable and stupid, but that’s just the fact of life called bureaucracy.

  16. NPR is starting WWI centennial commemorations. First, the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

    1. Without a WWI, Hitler would have worked for an alternative medicine company!

      1. If only the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts had been for profit, Hitler would have just been known as a mediocre illustrator and painter.

        1. +1 paintbrush moustache

        2. “Adolf Hitler was rejected as a young man on his application to art school… One thing led to another… And the United States dropped two atomic bombs on the sovereign nation of Japan.”

          ~Brian Regan.

    2. You know, it completely escaped me that the centennial of the start of WWI is coming up. I’d thought of it a couple of years ago, but not so far in 2014.

      In August, let’s invade Belgium to commemorate the war.

      1. Well, we’re definitely going to have one of our resident anarchists assassinate an Archduke (looks for Pantsfan).

        1. Only if the resident anarchist is a secret Serbian.

      2. Liberate the Europeans from the EU?

        1. There’s a serious argument to be made for liberating the British from the EU and the British government, anyway.

          1. Man, the hell did we declare independence for if we have to yank their chestnuts out of every fire they can’t handle?

      3. Putin’s already planning his own commemorations.

        1. I thought he was commemorating WWII. WWI didn’t go so well for the Russians.

          1. I was thinking along the lines of creating a tinderbox by protecting fellow Russian/slavs in South East Europe with perhaps a communist revolution thrown in for good measure.

          2. What? It brought about the glorious Bolshevik revolution, which was obviously great for Russians.

  17. President Barack Obama added more than 1,600 acres of California coastline to a national monument, bypassing Congress in the process.

    At Fair Market Value, no doubt.

    1. “We are talking about over 1,600 acres of incredible coastline in California that reflects the incredible diversity of flora and fauna,” Obama said.

      Oh. Well, since you put it *that* way.

    2. And none of that coast contains any oil or gas I am sure. Obama loves oil and gas. Shreek told me so.

    3. A coastline has dimensionality between 1 and 2. So how do you measure that in acres then?

      1. I once had a discussion with a PhD GIS guy about the level of fidelity in mapping coastlines and how it could affect the area of a location by some huge amount. So I think the answer is: with great difficulty and a level of approximation.

    1. That cat is going to be shitting in that dude’s shoes for the rest of his life.

    2. That kids friend must be working the cat’s feet, because that cat is doing some awesome double bass drumming.

      1. no, he’s using his knees.

        And yes, his double-bass drumming is spot the fuck on.

  18. It’s not stinky feet it’s baby puke.

  19. “bypassing Congress”

    Part of his infrastructure agenda.

  20. First they cam for our cheese and I said nothing because I am lactose intolerant.

  21. Happy National Abortion Provider Appreciation Day!…

    1. Pfft, what a milquetoast holiday. Now Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity, that’s a holiday with heft.

      “Since January 22, 1973 over 50,000,000 babies have had their voices silenced through surgical abortion in this nation alone…On October 21st, 2014, people from all over this nation will give up their voices for a day in solidarity for these children. Red arm bands and duct tape will identify them as taking part in the Pro-life Day of Silent Solidarity.”

      1. And this offends you why? They disagree with you and want to express that. Why do you find that to be such an issue?

        1. Quit stalking Bo, John! Damn, you’re just like a jilted little queen!

          1. CHRISTFAG!!!!

            And way to throw out a homophobic insult Shreek. Thanks for reminding us what a racist homophobe and all around loathsome bigot you are.

            Not like we didn’t know that. But you can never remind us enough.

            1. I thought of you this morning while I was listening to Flava Cain on wingnut AM car radio near Atlanta.

              Damn, that sounds like John!

              1. And who is the stalker? Trust me shreek, no one here ever thinks of you.

                1. John, you kidding me? Every time I see that brown plug fall from my butt into the toilet I remember the “Shriek of H&R.”

      2. This isn’t about religion, it’s about guns.

        “Kentucky’s Baptist congregations are taking fire nationally for their evangelism. Their method? Invite people to eat wild game and win free guns.”…..ism_events

        1. I’d meant to start a new thread.

  22. There is a lot of vehement disagreement here, but I wonder if we can all come together and agree that Dianne Feinstein is now undoubtedly the most awful, laughable politician in the country?

    1. Sorry, Bo. Sheila Jackson-Lee has my vote.

      1. Hmm. I had you pegged as a Maxine Waters man, Brett.

        1. Alan Grayson occasionally makes sense, so I had to take him off the list.

          1. Sheila-Jackson Lee supports school choice.

      2. What? No love for Alan Grayson?

        1. Certainly not by the courts. Bet he thinks twice about that VAWA vote now.

          1. Violence against women? He’s in favor!

            1. I hate to defend the turd, especially since he’s helped sow the seeds of his own destruction, but he’s getting railroaded by an obviously false claim.

    2. If you restrict that to the US Senate or the whole US Congress, maybe. There are some serious compttitors at the state level.

    3. Louis Gohmert is a the biggest fucking idiot in Congress. I have the quotes to back it up.

      1. Lay ’em on us, please.

          1. Ed Brayton is not a libertarian.

          2. But I agree that Gohmert is an idiot.

    4. Not even the worst in CA.

      She’s just part of the triumvirate of evil from sunny CA.

      Pelosi, Boxer, and Feinstein are interchangeable.

      1. The Three DISgraces.

    5. Dianne Feinstein is evil like the Emperor from Star Wars, but I’m convinced that Barbara Boxer is actually retarded.

      She makes Sarah Palin sound eloquent by comparison when she speaks.

    6. Sorry Chuck Schumer wins in my world. Fienstein might make the the top 5. But Schumer is as close to pure evil as I’ve seen. And he is total asshole.

      1. Emmerson gets it. Although he did neglect to mention the man’s most recognizable feature.

        1. cmon. it’s right there in my handle.

    7. Bitch. Tits.

  23. So can someone tell me why libertarians like to go on about “social tolerance”? Aren’t they pretty much agreeing with the progs that they should be sent to camps?

    And are the people who vote for smoking bans, plastic bag bans, plastic water bottle bans and not wanting Wal-Mart in their neighborhood “socially tolerant”?

    1. There is nothing socially tolerant about the Left. Sadly, some Libertarians think “social tolerance” means Gayz!! and nothing else.

      1. The “Socially Tolerant” want to ban behavior they don’t like. How exactly is this different from the Socons besides differing ideas of what is acceptable?

        1. It is not. In fact it is worse. The SOCONS chase windmills pretending they can ban things like Porn that they have no hope of ever banning. Liberals in contrast ban things like light bulbs and large sodas and other things that they can actually prevent me from getting and that not having access too affects my daily life.

    2. Could it be that rather than being stuck in the Team Red-Team Blue dichotomy they are offering a third way, one distinguished from Team Red by being more, I do not know, ‘socially tolerant’ on some issues?

      Nah, must be COSMOS!

      1. Using TEAM BLUE buzzwords in the exact same way TEAM BLUE uses them is offering a “third way”?

        1. Not wanting to agree nor help Bo necessarily…. but I think his point was maybe people around here, libertarians anyway, already agree that both the left and the right want control.

          & that there is a third way to look at it – from the libertarian perspective where control isn’t used expect to punish/enforce laws against NAP.

    3. Aren’t they pretty much agreeing with the progs that they should be sent to camps?

      No. Derp.

      And are the people who vote for smoking bans, plastic bag bans, plastic water bottle bans and not wanting Wal-Mart in their neighborhood “socially tolerant”?

      No. Derp.


      1. So does that mean the people aren’t growing more “socially tolerant”?

        1. *Shrug*. Some are. Some aren’t.

          1. But what does “social tolerance” even mean? Does it mean “people can do whatever they want as long as they don’t hurt other people”? Or “whatever the progs like”? Since there is nothing stopping the plastic water bottle bans, plastic bags, smoking bans, fast food bans, light bulb bans then I think “social tolerance” means the latter.

            1. Apply Hayek here. Actual plain “tolerance” is good. I think we are all for tolerance, and are actually pretty tolerant.

              As soon as you apply the modifier “social” though, you know you are encountering a nonsense (at best) phrase which is mostly just rhetorical cover for communist bullshit.

              Yep …. “social” decoder ring still works.

            2. Winston the issue you’re going to run into is that almost everyone defines “social tolerance” differently from others.

              On the left – the number one rule of supreme social tolerance, is completely intolerance, isolation, and mocking of any idea that disagrees with their core efforts.

              On the right – I’m not sure they really define social tolerance as anything different from the standard definition, of which I think libertarians would normally agree (see note below – disclaimer re: right defines tolerance same as libertarians):

              Being able to live and let live – being tolerant of others’ behaviors/lifestyles so long as any negative impacts of those decisions are paid by the individual.

              Of course tolerance doesn’t mean agreement so one can be socially tolerant and disagree with behaviors or actions. They can show their tolerance simply by not trying to promote negative stereotypes about that behavior, or at a minimum, not trying to legislate it out of existence.

              Does that help?

              *Note here this isn’t because I think people on the right are libertarian or that they are so much smarter/better than the left – but since the right doesn’t really make it a point to call themselves “socially tolerant” nor do they seem to care about it as a specific idea, they have no reason to modify the definition from its normal meaning)

  24. The European Union wants to ban the use of European names like Parmesan and feta on cheese made in the United States in an especially blatant effort at product protectionism to reduce competition.

    The new names will definitively have to convey some sort of payback like, for instance: Kraft Smelly Frenchman cheese 10OZ.

    1. Freedom toast! Cheese Hamlets!

    2. “Pasta Topper Cheese Product”
      “Greek-style Crumbly Cheese”

    3. Just pronounce it “Par-mee-zee-ann”, the way God intended.

      1. I think we should dress it up in different disguises, such as a bear with balloons, a Mexican, a janitor, and a firefighter and call it Gene Parmesan. Only *we* will know its true identity.

      2. Jesus, I met some people from Indiana that asked me to pass that to them once. I said “WHAT kind of cheese?!”

  25. And do libertarians think the New Deal was an appropriate compromise to end Prohibtion? And was The Great Society a necessary sacrifice to end Segregation?

    1. Good grief, Winston.

      “Enquiring minds want to *know*!”

      1. The Progs of today want to legalize pot and support gay marriage. How is this not relevant to today?

        1. “I submit to you!”

        2. Because libertarians don’t vote for progressives.

          1. Because libertarians don’t vote for progressives.
            Okay the Reason (drink!) I brought this up is because right now there is some debate over whether or not libertarians should ally with the likes of Polis or Wyden to repeal things libertarians hate despite these guys having other views that libertarians hate.
            Are the NSA, WOD, Gay Marriage, Immigration, WOT, etc. important enough to sacrifice some principles over?

            If so wouldn’t it be the same for Prohibition and Segregation? And libertarians of today aren’t so forgiving of the men who repealed these things for their numerous faults.

            1. I brought this up is because right now there is some debate

              Some debate by whom, troll?

              1. So there isn’t any debate about whether or not libertarians should ally with Socon or Progs to get things they want?

                1. Winston – if you’re honestly curious and not trolling:

                  So there isn’t any debate about whether or not libertarians should ally with Socon or Progs to get things they want?

                  Sure – there is a “debate”, but it’s not really a debate in the same way the country is debating Obama-care… it’s more like a debate as in a continual and constant conversation.

                  Since libertarians, unlike the two major parties of today, attempt to frame things all from within a specific philosophical framework based upon NAP principles – the desires/wishes of libertarians remains fairly stationary over time.

                  Sure – the things libertarians might debate at any given time changes with debates in broader society – but Reason was writing about gay marriage 30/40 years ago.

                  Compare that against the two major parties…. one party loved using the military in the late 90s, the other hated it, in the 2000’s they swapped sides, in 2010… to the right’s credit, they still love war, but D’s flipped from hating it to tripling down.

                  In that world – for libertarians looking for possible allies on say foreign policy entanglements it was the right, then the left, and now no one.

                  This result is due to the fact that neither major party relies on principles to stake out platform ideas – they rely on other nebulous things such as “don’t do/agree/support what the evil guy is doing” – and as they flip-flop, the libertarians continue to debate which party makes a better ally (if either).


                  1. Lastly – in case you were curious – for me personally, and I do think of myself as a libertarian, I think since at least FDR forward, libertarians have more hopes of moving the right more towards libertarians ideals than the left.

                    I say this because while the left is more socially open in some ways; the disagree very strongly with economic freedoms.

                    & since most decisions that the US government makes which negatively impacts every individual is based upon economic polices/ideas – I think even attempting to ally with Dems dies with any discussion such as ending minimum wage or allowing smoking in restaurants (if the owners wish to).

                    However, since many people get to libertarinism after being a voter/member of one of the other parties – they are naturally inclined to believe the party they left holds the best possibility for an ally.

                    Of course that’s just human bias, but it’s there (though note a small percentage of die hard right/left who switched to become die hard libertarian will *hate* their former allies more than their former enemies – just like a small percentage of ex-alcoholics are rampant teetotalers… the normal behavior seems to be if you were a D before L, then you tend to think allying with D’s is better, just as if you were an R before…).

                    Hope that helps (if you read it 🙂 ).

            2. Also is this really any different than what David Boaz said in this magazine a few years ago?

              If you had to choose, would you rather live in a country with a department of labor and even an income tax or a Dred Scott decision and a Fugitive Slave Act

              False choice is false.

            3. Wyden is a prog? You sure about that?

              1. Well he does support gun control and voted for ObamaCare.

                1. While not good, I don’t know any prog legislators who feel that more gov control of everything isn’t in the public good. Ron doesn’t really qualify.

            4. Why is this hard to understand? You get together with people who agree with you on that particular issue to get something done. The people who agree with you on each issue will change.

        3. The Progs of today want to legalize pot

          {{Citation needed}}

          1. The Progs of today want to legalize pot

            {{Citation needed}}

            So they can tax and regulate the shit out of it. Something which most articles on pot legalization gloss over.

            1. [citation needed] means news articles and such…. and given Obama’s DOJ is still putting people in jail for selling/growing pot legally in their state, the request for a citation was somewhat in jest…

              As it wasn’t meant for you to answer – but more meant for you to understand that it doesn’t matter what they keep saying – their actions prove their real beliefs.

              Just as President Obama can reschedule marijuana tomorrow, by stroke of a pen, and decriminalize it immediately, he chooses not too.

              Just as commander-in-Chief he could’ve, with a presidential order, gotten rid of DADT – he did not. He deferred to Congress.

              Conversely, ask the WH if they can ignore O-care legislation deadlines of the 4th Amendment when murderdroning “terrorists” however and the answer is “What choice do we have but to do what’s necessary to ensure the common sense proposals all decent Americans agree with are put into place immediately… or later as the WH sees fit.”

              But I digress… citation needed means show links to news reports showing actual proof of your assertion or at least show logical/rational thoughts as to why your assertion should be taken on its face.

              But again here – you were being screwed with – as Obama/the left is not pro-legal marijuana.

              After all, even though you would think pro-drugs would be on the socially liberal side, remember their actions prove one thing conclusively: they hate freedom even more than the right.

    2. Re: Winston,

      And do libertarians think the New Deal was an appropriate compromise to end Prohibtion?

      The question is loaded.

      And was The Great Society a necessary sacrifice to end Segregation?

      CRA 64 =/= Great Society.

      1. Okay let me rephrase: FDR ended Prohibition while LBJ ended Segregation. Do these facts balance out everything else they did? Would you have voted for them because they ended these unlibertarian things or would everything else they ended up doing be too much.

        1. Re: Winston,

          Do these facts balance out everything else they did?

          No. FDR and LBJ were particularly evil people. Besides, Prohibition was repealed by the states, not by FDR alone. And Segregation was ended by Congress, not by LBJ only.

        2. Prohibition was repealed by the States on Dec 5, 1933, 3 months before FDR took office.

          And for your reading pleasure, some Mencken, which is very apropos to our situation vis a vis Obamacare:

          Five years of Prohibition have had, at least, this one benign effect: they have completely disposed of all the favorite arguments of the Prohibitionists. None of the great boons and usufructs that were to follow the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment has come to pass. There is not less drunkenness in the Republic, but more. There is not less crime, but more. There is not less insanity, but more. The cost of government is not smaller, but vastly greater. Respect for law has not increased, but diminished.

          1. Prohibition was repealed by the States on Dec 5, 1933, 3 months before FDR took office

            You mean nine months after his inauguration?

    3. Great troll, or greatest troll?

    4. And do libertarians think the New Deal was an appropriate compromise to end Prohibtion?

      The one has nothing to do with the other.

      And was The Great Society a necessary sacrifice to end Segregation?

      A nice attempt to compare two unreleated policies.

      1. I think you may be missing the point.

    5. no. and no.

      next question.

    6. Winston: Does Santa Claus sleep with his beard in the covers or out? Inquiring minds want to know!

  26. Under the Canadian agreement, for example, new feta products manufactured in Canada can only be marketed as feta-like or feta-style, and they can’t use Greek letters or other symbols that evoke Greece.

    Just wait until the Arabs want their numerals back.

    1. APPROPRIATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      1. I think you mean “cultural appropriation”. When I hear “appropriations” (plural, no modifiers) I think of taxes.

        1. Yes. Thanks for clearing that up.

    2. other symbols that evoke Greece.

      So, no “300”-style blood splatters?

    3. Ahem. That’s an Indian numbering system, not Arabic.

      1. Damn Arabic cultural appropriation!

      2. Next you’ll tell me that pasta didn’t come from Italy.

      3. I for one +1 that.

    4. A year or so ago I met a guy right off of the boat from Vietnam. He grew up in a bamboo hut with banana leaves for a roof. I saw the photos.

      Anyway, I got sick of hearing him go on about how culture, food, way of doing things in Vietnam was better. I know, it is a common behavior for people out of their element, but I just wore out on it.

      He and his girlfriend were over for dinner one night and I cooked for them. I grilled lemongrass pork and made cajun rice. He thought it was great.

      That is when I pointed out to him that that is what americans do. We take anything we like from other cultures and make it our own, and we make it better. Then I gave him a thousand examples, but excluded anything Vietnamese from the list.

      I never heard another word about how Vietnam is better.

      Hey Europe! Go fuck yourself.

      1. ‘We take anything we like from other cultures and make it our own, and we make it better.”

        That’s pretty much how Italian cuisine evolved. From Ancient Greece, Rome, to the Normans, Celts, Germanic tribes to Austria-Hungary, to France, to spices and food imported from the Orient and the Middle-East and even the New World (etc.)- Italians took what the world had to offer and became masters of it.

        America is EXACTLY what Italy was during the Renaissance. Part of being a great society is ABSORBING the ideas and cultures of other societies. People under estimate this fact.

        When I went to Italy over numerous visits it was amazing how they knew the origins of their dishes.

        I see that in American cuisine. You don’t have that kind of depth in any nation on earth.

        So, let me amend that, fuck the world. You can’t live beyond yourself, whereas the USA takes in the world.

        1. And you are Canadian? We should confer honorary citizenship to you Mr. Firefly! Well said.

    5. Well until the Arabs have nukes there is shit they can do about it…

      1. Someone I know who served in the Canadian military said the one big problem with America is that when they decide to go to war they care too much for public opinion. It’s the only country he observed this happen to. He admired it but it posed problems in terms of needing to be ruthless to win. From what he saw, the USA could have easily handled a lot of the places that became disasters.

        1. If the goal of those wars was DESTROY THE ENEMY, then yeah the US could have won everything, but that was not the goal of those wars.

        2. Someone I know who served in the Canadian military said the one big problem with America is that when they decide to go to war they care too much for public opinion.

          That may or may not be true as “caring too much for public opinion” in a representative government isn’t really definable… but note that this is a result of the US government’s founding principle that the military should be under civilian control.

          Just like historically socialism’s all encompassing vision of the “collective” being very bad to the well being of any state – the US Constitution tried to define freedom from an idividual view point…

          In the same way, historically allowing the military or some other unelected, unaccountable entity control didn’t work out well, so the US Constitution specifically yielded military control to civilian and elected authorities. & to try to slow down war-lovers, balance of powers.

          All of which is ignored today… but there is a reason this exists and I’m not sure what the alternative is.

          Secondarily – if there’s ever a reason for people to be active in politics – it seems that when the government plans to send people to kill others and put themselves in mortal danger is a good time to speak up.

          Having said that, I still agree in that when the US public today thinks they want to go to war, they don’t contemplate the realities – and later don’t agree with war due solely to the realities.

          This is idiotic – but a consequence idiots, not civilian control.


  28. The European Union wants to ban the use of European names like Parmesan and feta on cheese made in the United States in an especially blatant effort at product protectionism to reduce competition.

    Well you can’t get Danish feta either anymore. Some Greek guy complained.

    1. Not to say natting, but parmesan is not parmiggiano so I get the angle.

    2. We should agree to these restrictions and brand everything forbidden “Hasbeen.”

      1. The cheese formally known as parmiggiano.

    1. Its genetic, dude. They’re getting bigger. I was a distance runner for a long time. My wife loves me like I am.

        1. “and stay at home son”

          /Snot bubble

  29. “Why does the USA have to be the only country in the whole frigging world that does not think that health care is a human right? How in the hell can anyone enjoy the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness if they are sick and bankrupt from paying health bills?”

    In comments from this link:…..-care.html

    1. How can the people enjoy equality when they are starving in a prison camp?

    2. I don’t understand. Every American has the right to obtain their own healthcare. What the fuck is the commenter talking about?

      1. Wealth redistribution.

    3. Some people having the means to see a doctor while others wait is unfair.

      Therefore, everyone should have to wait.

      /progtard 101

    4. I have a feeling that this person was not who they say they were.

  30. This isn’t about religion, it’s about guns.

    “Kentucky’s Baptist congregations are taking fire nationally for their evangelism. Their method? Invite people to eat wild game and win free guns.”…..ism_events

    1. It is about culture. Liberals hate any kind of self reliant culture that makes one independent of the state. This includes non state sponsored and state worshiping religion and of course Guns.

  31. Blaine Gabbert to 49ers?

    1. Someone has to hold the clipboard.

      1. I guess, not sure why they want to burn a 6th round pick on him though.

    2. In good football news, it appears that Red Lightning will be returning to the FSU sidelines next fall. I read a local article about that guy. He’s been swimming in hot tail and appears to be enjoying it all in a bemused fashion. Why, God? Why didn’t you make me a gangly, but enthusiastic ginger?

  32. Judge Napolitano will debate everyone’s favorite subject with Jon Stewart!

    “Judge Napolitano ?@Judgenap 6m

    “Thrilled to join @TheDailyShow tonight. Jon & I face off on Lincoln’s legacy, Civil War & more! Don’t miss on @ComedyCentral at 11/10c”

    1. Just a heads up in case your friends start asking, “why do you libertarians hate Abe Lincoln?”

    2. Oh crap. They are going to sandbag him. They will just edit it to make him look foolish. Why on earth would the Judge think he is going to get a fair shake on a program like that?

      1. I don’t know how the show works, but it sounds like a live discussion. Am I mistaken?

        The edited-for-TV interviews are generally done by underlings.

        1. Yeah, the actual guest for the night gets to sit down and answer questions of varying seriousness.

          But if an interview runs over they’ll post it unedited on the website. He once had a 20 minute discussion with Jonah Goldberg about liberalism and fascism. The edited one that aired on TV was almost incoherent.

      2. They don’t need to do that. History and facts are not on Napolitano’s side.

        1. History and facts are not on Napolitano’s side.

          [citation needed]

    3. You ever watch those nature shows when the gazelle is about to stick its face into the water for a drink, completely oblivious to the crocodile less than a foot away from it?

      That’s about how this episode of the Daily Show is going to work.

      1. He’s been on the show in 2012 and 2011. Probably selling his books, but there we are.

    1. Wait, Skynet downed that Malaysia Air jet?

  33. How about a Gadsden flag that reads “Don’t Spy On Me”?

    1. Great idea!!! Someone will steal it and make a few $$$

  34. It’s a myth. We know because we concealed the data.

    2. Who street harasses has nothing to do with the race of the harassers. Street harassment is a form of sexual violence, and while there is little data on street harassment specifically, studies done on sexual violence has shown that perpetrators of sexual violence fall evenly along race/class lines. We’ve seen this in action and, as part of our anti-discrimination policy, we’ve been pulling racial identifiers off posts since 2005, because we know that people will read a story differently if a man of color is doing the harassing vs. a White man. Having pulled thousands of racial identifiers off posts, we can attest that street harassment falls evenly along race and class lines.

    Just trust us.

    1. Also this:

      3. Last but not least, experiencing street harassment can cause people to release their inner racism. It’s goes like this: person gets harassed, person gets scared, POOF! Out comes the racism. It may manifest itself in terms of assumptions and stereotypes, where one incidence is applied to a whole group of people, i.e. “It’s Black men doing most of the harassing,” or even the more gently phrased but equally annoying, “it must be a cultural thing.”

      Women are to be believed about everything, except this.

  35. GTFO, crocodile, mammals represent!

    Warning, autoplay.

    Case in point: This video captures the moment when a hippo came to the rescue of a gnu that had been attacked by a crocodile.

    1. Anything animals do, mammals do best.

    2. If you come up on a group of gnus in the woods, you better well walk softly, stranger.

      1. I’ll remember that next time I see an implausability.

  36. Rick Barnes for some reason thought it was a good idea to tweet a picture of himself with Justin Bieber. I don’t care how improved the team is or how many of the current players are actually going to graduate, fire this idiot for terrible judgement.

  37. Libertarian ideals are responsible for sexual harassment.

    From what I can tell, the communities have this problem because of a serious entrenchment and enshrinement of entitlement. That’s what you get when you found a movement on the libertarian ideals of don’t-regulate-anything and equality-by-fiat.

    1. In the secular community, people who’ve otherwise experienced no oppression whatsoever consider the oppression that they experience at the hands of religious privilege to be the only problem that rustles their jimmies. Those of us who recognize and empathize with other folks’ fights might actually realize that there are enough problems in this world that a “big tent” that comprises all atheists will actually put both the oppressed and the oppressors from another axis of privilege together; and in almost every case, since religious privilege is pernicious but does not actually result in any abrogations of atheist rights in western society, those other axes might actually be more important. It’s wholly understandable and wholly believable if atheist women might chafe at the idea of atheist harassers or atheist libertarians or atheist Republicans being in the same tent as them, even where both experience the negative effects of religious privilege.

      1. In the secular community, people who’ve otherwise experienced no oppression whatsoever consider the oppression that they experience at the hands of religious privilege to be the only problem that rustles their jimmies.

        I fail to imagine what sort of oppression the secular community could experience at the hands of “religious privilege” (whatever that means). The awkward logic of the composition does not allow much clarity. It would seem to me that the author assumes the meaning of the concept “religious privilege” is either self-explanatory, or know to only the small cadre of readers to whom he writes. To me, it is a completely meaningless term and I am not even religious.

        1. When it was discovered that I was an atheist in highschool, I often had to put up with taunting from students and teachers. I believe that that is what they’re referring to.

          1. Wow. Really? Small town?

            1. Yep, graduating class of 73 people.

      2. Wait… a leftist progressive called libertarians entitled? What the fuck is wrong with these people?

      3. Look at some of the comments. They refer to themselves as “compassionate” men. It really is all about the feelings with these folks.

    2. My days of wanting nothing to do with the organized skeptic and/or atheist community are definitely coming to a middle.

      1. I’ve recently been reading from a “resistance” group, for lack of a better term.

        Most of them are proggies, but they don’t try to purify the ranks of unclean thought. They mock these guys as much as I do, and there appear to be a few libertarians there as well.

    3. “Equality-by-fiat” is a libertarian ideal?

      1. The rule of political and economic terms: Any political or economic term can have one of only two possible meanings, which are “whatever I like” and “whatever I don’t like.”

      2. Is not trying to make a false equality by law “Equality-by-fiat”?


    Chart of pipelines.


  39. reposted from late A.M. Links

    ‘Company denies drug to dying child’…..ef=edition

    A completely unbiased story about….

    …no wait, its about how EVIL PROFIT COMPANIES aren’t giving their unapproved by the FDA drug to DYING CHILDREN because EVIL PROFITS and something about how FDA might not approve the drug if the kid dies but fuck that the company is just FUCKING EVIL FOR NOT GIVING DRUGS TO DYING CHILDREN even though like they did 415 times before but this ONE IS GOING TO DIE and that’s why money is fucked up and has nothing to do with FDA regulations because that shit is complicated and we can’t bother with that we’re just journalists….

    Oh, and the comments go into depths of derp heretofore never seen.

    Its basically, “COMPANIES EVIL = MONEY” and no one seems to have the faintest clue how the FDA actually works.

    Sort by ‘best commment’ and an actual Biotech employee explains in perfect detail what the issue is. however, 90% still have their liberal heads explode saying, BUT CHILDREN DYING?!

    1. I like how the morons are calling for drug companies to be nationalized. Because removing the incentive to innovate and create new drugs by centralizing the process and making it even more bureaucratic will encourage new ideas.

      It’s all about the FEELZ.

      1. It makes me realize that any appeal to rationality goes out the fucking window with these people when they go, “CAPITALISM HAS FAILED IF ONE CHILD CAN NOT BE SAVED!”

        …any pointing out that the kids probably going to die anyway, that the government has put enormous roadblocks in the way of ‘saving’ people, that approval of the drug means millions can get access but if the kid gets organ failure it may setback this drug by years in clinical trials proving no connections, that….

        no, there is nothing but pearl-clutching anti-capitalist froth.

        I think there’s a reason environmentalism and ‘national healthcare’ are things the commie-progs have latched on…because it is the zone in which REASON DIES for so many people.. Logic is the enemy. These people are utterly uninterested in the mechanics of FDA approval, its all just an opportunity to scream DEAD BABIES! And weep in public.

    1. WTF is ‘triggering’?

      I just fucking learned SJW and still don’t understand why its a ‘thing’ anyone cares about*….

      oh, ok I read the thread there.

      My mind was just gangraped by stupid.

      I still don’t understand how ‘triggering’ is a word people treat like a real thing. Synonym? Use in a sentence that clarifies why other more-specific words are insufficient?

      *this point about “treat like a real thing”-re “SJW” – my thinking here? I don’t use any words for internet-behavior that have no equal in ‘real life’. I don’t think a “SJW” exists because who is that person in ‘real life’? are they in the Peace Corps rescuing children from genital mutilation? if so = is that what they CALL THEMSELVES? If “No” – then “SJW” doesn’t exist. Its a word to label bullshit internet stuff that isn’t real. I don’t know what ‘triggering’ is either in this context, really. Triggering *what*, again?

      Just a thought.
      also, this Blog thing….?

      1. Not sure that I really know as this isn’t a word/phrase I’d ever use, but based upon it’s use – triggering appears to mean “something one read/saw/heard which made them feel bad about themselves”. IE – that thing “triggered” painful feelings of being “othered”.

        & I think the mere fact I “understand” this…. makes me dumber… but here we are 🙂

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.