Obama Swings into Action with Sounds Bites Over VA Outrage, Democrats Join Benghazi Panel, Boko Haram Attacks Escalate: P.M. Links


  • The whole "I got this" Obama meme seems to have died off, hasn't it?

    President Barack Obama said today he won't "tolerate" the cover-up of long wait times and extreme problems with health treatment of veterans through the Veterans Affairs office. He said there will be investigations and people held "accountable" and continued to act as though this were a new development and not a problem that had been known for years. He is not firing VA Secretary Eric Shineski as yet.

  • Democrats will be participating in the special Republican-led House panel investigating the circumstances surrounding the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
  • Online room rental service Airbnb has agreed to provide user data to New York City's attorney general in his pursuit of people running illegal hotels, but names will be kept confidential unless the city identifies particular users they believe are breaking the law.
  • Police investigating NFL football player Aaron Hernandez for murder are looking for evidence from the people who tattooed him.
  • Boko Haram attacks escalate in Nigeria, and the country is asking the United Nations to classify the group as a terrorist organization. No word as to whether their efforts include a hashtag campaign.
  • Dozens of people from all walks of life were arrested in the New York City area for possession of child pornography.

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

NEXT: The Answer to Detroit's Problems: Rich Guys Calling Each Other to Discuss Their 'Neat' Ideas

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. He said there will be investigations and people held “accountable” and continued to act as though this were a new development and not a problem that had been known for years.

    “Now, watch this drive.”

    1. You are IMPOSSIBLE


      Die in a fire Fist

        1. HACKZ!!!

      1. Once, a few weeks ago, I managed to see the PM links with “Leave a comment” at the bottom instead of “View comments.” Somehow I had clicked during that golden microsecond before Fist makes a witty retort. It was like catching a fly with chopsticks.

        1. yes but yours wasn’t relevant, on-topic, and formatted with at least one alternate style. Bonus points for all four, by the way, and I have not see even FIST get that done.

          1. No, don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying I posted any sort of comment before Fist. I’m saying I witnessed a point in time when the PM links were up but before Fist commented.

            1. I once beat him on AM links. It’s been champagne and babes ever since.

        2. On that day I wept, but for joy, as if a great burden had been lifted from me, if only for a moment.

          1. I’m not saying I posted any sort of comment before Fist.

            Ugh. YOU’RE WORTHLESS.

            1. Oh, Fist! How could you?

              /runs from room sobbing

      2. Next book by Mike Lewis: Fist Boys, a stunning expose of how High Frequency Commenting is ruining blogging.

        1. I’ll take a copy

    2. Hello.

      President Barack Obama won’t “tolerate”.

      Now that’s bumper sticker material right there.

  2. Police investigating NFL football player Aaron Hernandez for murder are looking for evidence from the people who tattooed him.

    Artist-canvas privilege.

    1. Those police just want to fuck with people.

    2. Yet another reason why tattoos are a bad idea. You think they might be a good thing at the moment, but years later they can come back to haunt you.

  3. Dozens of people from all walks of life were arrested in the New York City area for possession of child pornography.

    Um, yay for multiculturalism?

    1. “at least 70 men and one woman charged in a five-week operation by the Homeland Security Investigations arm of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement”

      OK, looking at kiddie sex is awful but… what does this have to do with Immigration or “Homeland Security”?

      1. Osama bin Laden’s ghost is powered entirely by the fapping motion made when one diddles oneself to kiddie porn.

        Stopping this influx of ectoplasmic energy is paramount to preserving the homeland.

        1. Bill Murray for DHS chief!

  4. Police investigating NFL football player Aaron Hernandez for murder are looking for evidence from the people who tattooed him.

    Not sure what linebackers or strong safeties are going to know about the situation.

  5. Looks like local LE (NY of course) is as bad as the NSA AND definitively violating federal law. Check out this MiTM attack vector here. Being as this is my wheelhouse I can say with certainty this is possible, not terribly difficult, and will get you 20 years in prison if you get caught (and aren’t an agent of the government).

    simply set your MNC to that of AT&T Mobility and no one’s the wiser. If so, I had found a Man in the Middle, where state law enforcement was masquerading as civilian communications infrastructure.

    1. Dude, I think you SF’d the link.

      1. fuck … and… me

        I was in a hurry to be 5th


        1. Thanks.

          Re, the article: so simple. We are so screwed.

    1. But, how on Earth could an establishment with a No Guns Allowed sign be robbed at gunpoint? It just deosn’t make sense.

      1. It’s a story planted by the Koch brothers.

      2. yeah, this is clearly BS since they couldn’t have been robbed at gunpoint. There is obviously something missing from the story.

      3. The poor robber is probably just illiterate and couldn’t read the sign, thanks to Republicans and the Koch brothers slashing funds to public schools in order to deny children an education.

          1. +1

            Check your education privilege, dammit!

            1. +1 child fag

    2. I did encounter a new-to-me piece of gun control stupidity yesterday: legislators / Republicans are hypocrites because government buildings are gun-free zones. So they implicitly agree that gun-free zones are good.

      As if we could all enjoy the fortification and security systems of many legislative buildings.

      1. I like the fact that you can’t get into federal buildings or Democrat party conventions without a photo ID, but requiring them for voting is racist and oppressive.

      2. Expecting our rulers and betters to live by the same rules as the rest of us – how quaint.

      3. Government buildings like navy yards and Fort Hood?

        1. well, it is government security theatre, so you get gov-level safety.

      4. Not all are gun free zones. The KY state capitol, for example, allows guns. They arent allowed in the chambers of either house or committee rooms, but offices and hallways and etc is fine.

    3. Next up: Restaurant with custom-made “no guns allowed” sign that was held up at gun point now has custom-made “no robberies allowed” sign

    4. You all clearly have reading comprehension issues. The sign states “No weapons” and “No concealed firearms”. From what I read in the article the robber only had one weapon. The sign stated “weapons” – plural. He also had the gun out in plain view – so no concealed firearm either.

      1. Ah…like the “No Homers” Club. They could have one homer.

  6. The indignant progressive

    So, one of the world’s most powerful women [Christine Lagarde] politely withdrew, allowing the private women’s college to remain uncontaminated by her presence. And her knowledge.

    Such a victory for higher learning. There is perhaps no creature more self-righteously censorious than an indignant progressive at a North American university.

    1. The entire progressive personal archetype is fighting the other. Once they take over an institution they just eat their own, because there always has to be an enemy and they have purged all of their real enemies. Progs own the universities and have purged everyone else. Now we are treated to the spectacle of them purging each other because there always must be a Goldstein.

      1. At my last university, one of my profs-someone who I worked closely with on a project-praised Wal-Mart. Another praised libertarianism. The paranoid part of my brain started thinking about the Inner Party guy from 1984.

        1. There are a couple of level-headed professors sprinkled here and there in universities across the continent but for the most part, they are left-wing. Simple, known fact. A couple of my buddies work at universities and lemme tell ya, they hold minority views. Some faculties would put up Che if they could.

          1. I hardly agree with a lot of what he’s about but Mike Adams has done a great job consistantly trolling liberals in academia for years.

        2. A former President of Cal Berkley was protested out of giving a commencement speech this spring. I don’t know the guy, but I am thinking it is a good bet he is pretty fucking liberal. That didn’t save him from the spring commencement speech purge.

          1. That’s covered:

            Birgeneau was chancellor of UC Berkeley in 2011 when campus police became nasty with Occupy movement protesters. He later apologized for what happened.

            To be fair, the Haverford petitioners weren’t absolutely unyielding in their opposition to Birgeneau, who’s been a champion of gay rights.

            They offered to withdraw their protest if he agreed to several acts of public self-mortification, including explicit apologies going much further than his earlier one, a pledge of reparations to the Occupy protesters, an admission of being “instrumental” in the way police behaved toward them, and a detailed explanation, in an open letter to the students of Haverford, of what he has learned from the event and why he is repenting.

            Birgeneau demurred, and withdrew. The speaker who replaced him, former Princeton president William Bowen, used the commencement address to reveal his own patriarchal oppressiveness.

            He bluntly confronted what he called the arrogant and immature behaviour of Birgeneau’s detractors.

            “In my view, they should have encouraged him to come and engage in a genuine discussion, not to come, tail between his legs, to respond to an indictment that a self-chosen jury had reached without hearing counterarguments.”

            1. I don’t see these Haverford students in Philly outside of city hall protesting all the things that the police here get away with.

              1. As someone who’s lived in the area for quite some time I can say that Haverford students only go into town to cop weed. And rarely even then.

            2. Isn’t publicly shaming officials for backing up thug cops a good thing? The incident we’re talking about is that one where the cop started hosing off people with mace for sitting on the sidewalk with no provocation (and nearly starting a riot in the process).

              1. He backed them up?

              2. Isn’t publicly shaming officials for backing up thug cops a good thing?

                I actually think it’s heartening that some of these progs in academia end up getting consumed by the monster they helped create.

                The laundry list of conditions that he needed to apologize for was especially LOL because of its resemblance to a Catholic absolution. These people are subconsicously religious and they don’t even realize it.

            3. Does a commencement speaker actually engage in Q&A sessions? I just don’t get how a mostly generic speech can be considered discussion.

    2. 1) Musta been hard for the CBC to print that.

      2) The author opens with “If I were to imagine an icon of global patriarchal oppression, I suppose I might pick one of America’s male Republican “family values” crusaders.”

      Naturally, Democrats get a free pass.

      1. He must have been out of brilliant thoughts about firearms policy, like the one recently where he criticized US gun nuts for idiotically boycotting “smart” guns in the same article he quoted New Jersey law to ban all “stupid” handguns three years after the first smart gun goes on sale anywhere in the country. Fuck Neil Macdonald with a rusty chainsaw.

        1. He’s just another CBC comrade.

          My sister forwarded me a link about how the CBC is begging for financial help. Stuff like we only ‘pay $29″ per person for such an awesome service that binds Canadians. I explained I don’t pay anything voluntarily it all comes out of my taxes. Next time, don’t be so god dang left-wing and maybe I’d give.

          Fuck them.

          Instead, Le Quebecois Libre and Reason get some small coin from me.

          1. I’m going to pretend to be a bit of a democrat here and allow that I wouldn’t be seriously grieved if the government stole a small amount of my money to provide radio programming in, say, Nunavut but the 7% of Canadians who watch CBC TV can go fuck themselves, their sheep, picnic tables, or anything but me.

          2. Le Quebecois Libre

            Wow. French-Canadien libertarians. Who knew?

    3. “the indignant progressive” sounds like grammatical term. “Class, can anyone tell me what the indignant progressive of ‘to walk’ is?”


        1. Perfect.


      2. “the indignant progressive” sounds like you’re repeating yourself.

  7. Online room rental service Airbnb has agreed to provide user data to New York City’s attorney general in his pursuit of people running illegal hotels, but names will be kept confidential unless the city identifies particular users they believe are breaking the law.

    It’s NYC. Everyone’s breaking the law.

    1. Well, what you gonna do with that rent-controlled apartment anyways?

    2. Well, everyone’s breaking a law. And if they’re not, there’s always interference with government function or resisting arrest.

      1. The “A” was supposed to be bold. I blame the squirrels.

    3. It’s understandable, but it still pisses me off that no business seems to have a spine at all.

  8. Const. Ismail Bhabha on trial for allegedly punching cyclist in head

    A Vancouver police officer is expected to plead not guilty today to an alleged assault on a cyclist after a video of the incident was posted on Facebook.

    1. There’s no way any unrecorded part of that confrontation justified that action. It wasn’t even for compliance, it was out of frustration and anger.

    2. Ismail Bhabha was handcuffing cyclist Andishea Akhavan Kharazi after pulling him over for riding without a helmet and running a red light.

      You sure this was Vancouver, and not Beirut?

      1. So a moving violation requires an arrest? For real?

    3. “It appears to show Bhabha punching Kharazi in the face.”

      No. It shows the fucker punching the victim in the face.

      He didn’t look like he was resisting too much. Cop’s an asshole is all.

      1. It’s possible one of the persons depicted was neither Bhabha nor Kharazi? Maybe it’s that I’ve had a few beer, but I could have sworn somebody got punched in the face.

    4. “Let me do my job.”

      Too funny. Does his job description include punching people in the face?

  9. names will be kept confidential unless the city identifies particular users they believe are breaking the law

    This will be all of them, and is more about NYC collecting tax revenue than any great moral concern about ‘illegal’ hotels, whatever that is.

  10. Pamela Anderson rape allegations followed up by B.C. police

    Police on Vancouver Island are reaching out to entertainer Pamela Anderson, after the B.C.-born Hollywood star recently alleged she was raped and sexually molested in childhood.

    1. Interesting. There’s no statute of limitations on sexual assault in Canada.

  11. Seahawks visit White House; Obama refers to noise at stadium as ‘kind of cheating’

    ? Obama on the Seahawks’ renowned home-field advantage: “You all have that stadium that is kind of cheating because it’s so loud. (More laughs) You hired some physicists to make it so … there are a lot of really smart people at Microsoft and up in those places that can design these things.”

    At least he didn’t joke about offering the team a hand by drone bombing their opponents or spying on the other teams and learning their plays.

    1. “As a guy who was elected president named Barack Obama, I root for the underdogs,” Obama said


      1. I dislike that man so much. And, really, the Seahawks had good Vegas odds, but they’ve knocked on the door a couple of times in the past and failed, and they just squeaked by San Francisco in the playoffs. So not sure they were some mighty favorite against the Broncos’ meek underdogs. That’s only true in hindsight.

        1. Did Seattle win something?

          1. Yes, some sort of American rugby-like sport title.

            1. Interesting. I somehow missed that.

              1. I believe it was mentioned on some televisor programs.

        2. The Seahawks were the underdogs, therefore, Obama is just like them, kicking ass in big events, or something.

          But yes, I hate him too.

          1. Racist.

    2. That quote is quite possibly one of the most inarticulate things I have ever read. Dubya was a better speaker for gods sake.

      1. He was. Of all of the lies Obama’s cult members have told, the claim that he is even a competent public speaker, much less a great one is the most self evidently ridiculous one. He is a fucking embarrassment.

        1. It’s funny coming from the left, because Bill Clinton was a competent speaker. Not awesome, but solid, at least when he gave a shit. You’d think they’d notice the contrast.

          Even the speech Obama was most famous for, at the DNC convention, I thought was pretty lame. That’s at the time, before I knew anything about him.

          1. Remember when they called the Philadelphia “my grandmother was a typical white person” speech the greatest American political speech since Lincoln’s second inaugural?

            Every President, even Bush II and Clinton, manages to make some speech while in office that contains some great line or summing up of the moment. All except Obama that is. Name me one thing he has said as President that anyone remembers now much less will remember in 10 or 20 years?

            1. If you like your plan, you can keep it.

            2. You didn’t build that.

            3. C’mon, we’ll be getting laughs out of that bit about stopping the rise of the oceans and healing the planet for decades.

            4. There’s no sugarcoating it; Obama has had some messaging problems.

            5. I found out in the newspaper?

          2. Obama’s success stems from the fact that he is great at convincing people that he is brilliant.

        1. That.

          That was painful.

        2. Obama – “My Muslim faith”

          Reporter – “Your Christian faith”

          Obama – “My Christian faith”

          This does not help me when dealing with my Dad’s theory that Obama is a secret Muslim.

          Even Obama’s fuck ups are distractions!!!!

          Note: Isn’t being a secret Muslim a sin for a Muslim?

        3. And leftists INCESSANTLY harped on Bush having a difficult time with public speaking. Man, that was unbearable.

      2. He’s a terrible public speaker. People who think he is are either sycophants or ignorant fools. Ignorant of history.

        And yes, I do think Bush was quicker with the wit.

        1. And dodging of the shoes!

          1. It’s positively uncanny. I’m no fan of the ex-president, but his dodging powers were amazing.

            Some lefties tried to say the same about Mrs. Clinton when she had a shoe thrown at her, but there was no dodging. More cowering. Which, to be fair, is how most of us would’ve reacted.

            1. She was very deft at dodging those Serbian snipers.

            2. I am thinking his wife chucks stuff at him all the time.

              Only plausible way Bush could be so casual about a pissed off Iraqi in Iraq throwing stuff at him.

            3. No shit. I don’t care for Shrub either, but his reflexes did impress me. Hilary, on the other hand, didn’t react until well after the shoe sailed over her head.

        2. And yes, I do think Bush was quicker with the wit.

          Whatever his other flaws Bush was definitely more humble, maybe that’s the difference. When you are obsessed with being taken seriously humor tends to take a back seat.

          1. Bush was definitely more humble

            Everyone has their blind spots, I guess.

    3. reminds me of thj Wookie insulting the gold medal gymnast because she has a McDs after a competition.

    4. “You all have that stadium that is kind of cheating because it’s so loud. (More laughs) You hired some physicists to make it so … there are a lot of really smart people at Microsoft and up in those places that can design these things.”

      A great pull for some future, “Who Said It: Bush or Obama?” quiz.

      1. That is a wonderful idea, MJ — full of guffaws and embarrassments.

      2. there are a lot of really smart people at Microsoft and up in those places that can design these things

        I hope he was talking about healthcare.gov.

    5. ronald reagan cheered on racists

      1. Are you the real slim shady?

        And if so why the fuck go to Palin sex toy part 2 when Shrike part 2 is readily available?

  12. Superman and Batman to square off in: DAWN OF JUSTICE

    Time Warner Inc’s Warner Bros. studio on Wednesday unveiled the title of director Zack Snyder’s anticipated superhero sequel, “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice,” in which the two legendary DC Comics heroes will face off.

    The film, scheduled for release on May 6, 2016, is the follow-up to last year’s “Man of Steel,” which grossed $668 million in worldwide ticket sales.

    “Dawn of Justice” will see Henry Cavill reprise his role as Superman opposite “Argo” actor and director Ben Affleck as Batman, a choice that split many fans of the franchise.

    The film will also star Amy Adams as Lois Lane and Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor.

    Of course they aren’t going to actually fight since Superman could kill Batman in like half a second if he wanted to.


    2. I am against this. Not so much for Affleck but that they’re pitting the Batman against Superman. It’s unrealistic, from comic canon or not.

      1. I agree. It should’ve been Ali vs. Superman.

        1. Hilarious that you remember that. And they then teamed up to rid the world of evil capitalist people who wanted to kill endangered species or something like that. And Ali said that he and Superman were “both the greatest.” Sigh.

          1. That issue got advertised like crazy. I read some Superman back then, but probably more DC war comics, like Sgt. Rock and the supernatural war one that I can’t remember the title of right now.

            1. Weird War Tales

      2. I dunno, I remember it working well in the 90s animated series in that one episode where they first meet and squared off.

        1. Also in that episode, Batman scores with Lois. He even sent her roses and a condom

    3. This is gonna suck.

      At least Godzilla was quite good.

      1. Of course it was, you can’t go wrong with Matthew Broderick.

  13. Obama Swings into Action with Sounds Bites Over VA Outrage

    Nice headline, Shackford.

  14. It was interesting listening to some Dems fake outrage over the special committee, acting like they’d boycott it. Sure they would. And let the GOP run it totally unchecked. Right. Fucking morons.

    1. They’re almost dumb enough to try it. Seriously, though. The GOP needs to start negotiating with Obama. Holder, Kerry, and the top five people at the IRS resign, and the GOP will give them a list of venal sins they would be willing to overlook in the replacements. Otherwise, 2015-2017 is going to be one long-running Joint Committee on Executive Bed-Shitting.

      1. I suspect that the GOP will impeach and attempt to remove a good number of people in the administration, always circling around Obama, but never going directly after him. Unless some of the people who end up getting in trouble decide to point fingers. If the House gets evidence linking scandals (including new ones they’re very likely going to uncover in the course of the investigation) to the president, only then will they go after him.

        And if they control the Senate, this could be a bloodbath.

        1. I have the feeling that Holder has something on Obama that makes him untouchable. I don’t think that the GOP, even were they suddenly blessed with political acumen, are going to get anywhere going after him. I think picking off lower level people with metronome like regularity would put the fear of the guilty into them and then.. well it’s the GOP we’re talking about so the end result will probably be worse, but at least the process might be entertaining.

          1. I don’t think they have enough to go after Obama, who has the race/media shield for anything less than photon torpedoes. It’s absurd that he gets this massive pass, but it’s true.

            But the subordinates? It’s open season.

            1. Obama could be found in bed with a live boy, dead hooker, on the phone with his drug dealer while smacking around his wife and kids and the prog faithful would still make excuses for him. That dog ain’t gonna hunt. If Obama was ever impeached there would be no-shit riots and he would be a political martyr for the left from now until doomsday. Better to just limit the additional damage he can do with the rest of his term and hope that some staffers wind up hard up for cash after it’s all over and write tell-all memoirs.

            2. To me it all comes down to November. If November is a blood bath for the Democrats, the Democrats in Congress facing election in 2016 will have to turn on him. If it is not, they will feel safe defending him.

              If they turn on him, the media will no longer be able to portray the various scandals as just partisan infighting by those evil Republicans. It could get very interesting at that point.

              The other thing is that Obama has little common sense or concern for the Democratic Party as a whole. You are right Republicans are unlikely to try and impeach him. Meanwhile, what are the Democrats going to do if he uses one executive order after another to ignore the law and implement unpopular programs like greenhouse gas controls that the electorate is going to hold them responsible for?

              1. If the GOP has any balls with majorities in both houses, they could really hamstring the administration, blocking any bullshit it tries through EOs and the like. And if there are really Democrats who turn on the president as the result of the 2014 elections, then veto overrides become a real possibility. Bet you Obamacare actually gets repealed in that case.

                1. Bet you Obamacare actually gets repealed in that case.

                  I have been saying that for a while.

                  Consider this possibility. Obama tells the EPA to regulate CO2. Congress passes a law preventing it, which Obama vetoes but Congress overrides. Obama then ignores the law and instructs the EPA to do it anyway. What happens then? Do the Democrats just ignore it?

                  Or if not CO2, Keystone or spending money to bail out the insurance companies. If Congress overrides his veto and he just ignores the law, the Democrats in Congress are going to be in one hell of a bind.

                  1. If they have the ability to override vetoes and he acts anyway, they will impeach then, I think. That’s too much.

                    It all depends on how big the victory is. I expect they’ll get control of the Senate, but there’s control and there’s winning all or almost all of the open seats. If that happens, there will be a bloodbath afterwards.

  15. I took apart a magic 8 ball toy last night in the interest of science. That thing was so child-proof, it took a hammer and saw to get the 20 sided die out. Holy shit, talk about overbuilt due to liability.

    1. Hammer? Saw? Do you not own a shotgun?

    2. Huh. I have an alternative version of one that’s lost liquid to evaporation. I had some idea about trying to refill it, but it sounds like maybe that’s non feasible.

      1. Actually, you can refill it, you just can’t get the die out. Getting the housing apart was best accomplished with a hammer, but it was non-destructive.

        1. How do I refill it then?

          1. There is a cylinder inside the round plastic housing. Mine had 3 philips head screws holding a cap on a little hole that could be used to add more liquid. I think it is food coloring and water.

    3. The one I took apart decades ago just had a jar inside with a screw-top lid.

      1. No screw top on this version. Like I said, it looks like something that was patented 60 years ago and has survived decades of liability suits.

        1. Way to destroy my childhood, Brett. I thought they were magic. 🙁

          1. They are magic. If you ask the right questions.

    4. I took apart a magic 8 ball toy last night in the interest of science.

      This is the kind of thing that keeps me coming to HnR. You just don’t see this on other political sites. I presently don’t follow enough other sites to know if there are comparable communities, but it sure seems like an interesting group of people (by and large) who comment here, a commentariat with whose members I’d want to crack a brew with anytime (and actually do, in a way, quite often while posting.)

      1. Im drinking a Schlafly APA right now. Cheers.

        1. Smuttynose Old Brown Dog.

  16. Why do the PM links always suck?

    1. ’tis a poor carpenter that blames his tools.

    2. They were better when Postrel was in charge.

  17. The most favorited comment on a Huffington Post gun control article:

    Msgirlintn Msgirlintn (msgirlintn)
    POLITICAL PUNDIT?8,983 Fans?Magnolia’s mom!
    I love my family and friends much too much to go to a restaurant that allows people to be inside or outside the restaurant with guns. I was very glad to see the news about Chipotle yesterday when it broke just like I was with the news about Starbucks.

    My daughter and I used to go to Atlanta shopping at least 3-4 times a year. It was a great little get a way for us girls. But we won’t be going back since GA is a “guns everywhere” state. I won’t put my daughter or Magnolia in that environment.

    That’s one way to get our views on guns across to these gun freaks and the lawmakers that they support. When allowing guns starts affecting their tourism dollars, and their restaurant sales, then they will have to rethink their strategy.

    Nobody is trying to take anybody’s guns away from them. But common sense gun reform does not include carrying a gun everywhere you go. If you have to take a gun to church with you, you might just be going to the wrong church.

    And a bonus:

    Kathy Levittown (Kathy_Levittown)
    SUPER USER?9,281 Fans?I love all animals better than most people!
    I wont go to any restaurant where sub humans like those shown above-have huge weapons in my grand childrens faces….

    1. Come on Geoff, is that guy a HuffPO “Super User”? If not that should get him on to that short bus real soon.

    2. I wont go to any restaurant where sub humans like those shown above-have huge weapons in my grand childrens faces….

      You know who else thought that sub-humans shouldn’t be allowed to carry weapons?

      1. Gen Urko?

        1. You mean Spock’s dad? He played Urko in the first season of the series, I believe.

    3. Kathy Levittown always orders off the vegan menu?

    4. How many times do i have to talk shit about moms before you guys realize who is really the worst?

      1. Damn, Nicole, shouldn’t you be in witness protection from the matriarchy by now or something?

    5. Political pundit!

      “But common sense gun reform”

      Common sense to whom? My sister spews all sorts of left-wing nonsense masking as “common sense.” It ain’t common sense to me whatever she says. Neither what this chick wrote.

      So don’t go eat there. It’s a free market and society.


      1. Just clink my name, Rufus…

      2. It’s a free market and society.

        Who told you that?

      3. I usually respond that if there were really common sense changes and the infamous 90 percent support for such changes, there should be no problem passing a constitutional amendment and modify the 2A to conform with these changes. What’s that? Don’t have the votes? STFU.

    1. “I’m feeling really uncomfortable and disgusted,” she said. … “[T]his man is urinating behind me with my six-year-old son just ahead of me.”

      “Why, it was almost like being at home with my husband!”

      1. Please. That woman doesn’t have a husband.

        1. “… with my lovah!”

  18. Super Tuesday: she’s dead Jim. ‘She’ being the TP. COD: infiltration by SnoConz and other crazies who put up unelectable crazies like Bevin.

    The only thing I can think of happening now for Bevin and those in his position to do is extract a token concession from the Dem running against McConnell/area RINO and then to endorse and support that Dem. If you live in McConnell’s riding, you’ve got to vote Dem. Get rid of this guy.

    That’s pretty much all that’s left for the TP to do. In any event, it’s over. The freedom movement will march on but in a different configuration.

    1. The nutroots never won anything either. But what they did do was force the establishment candidates to tack left in order to win primaries. The Tea Party is doing much the same thing. Every single one of those establishment crap weasels had to change their tune in order to win.

      1. Yeah…I’ll celebrate if I ever see some pro-freedom fallout.

        1. Time will tell. I am just telling you that the nutroots example shows you don’t have to win elections to have an effect.

        2. .I’ll celebrate if I ever see some pro-freedom fallout

          Well then just for you.

          1. You know me so well.

        3. Dude, MCCONNELL is your reason to despair?

          McConnell is now the junior Senator from his state, in all but name.

          McConnell beat off his Tea Party challenger by strewing rose petals at Paul’s feet for the last four years.

          I’d rather keep McConnell in there. He’s a known quantity now, and can be counted on to do as he is instructed.

          1. McConnel is awful and he’s not the only one who got through Super Tuesday. There were a bunch of other GOP establishment hacks that quashed their TP challengers.

            McConnell is now the junior Senator from his state, in all but name.

            I don’t understand the importance of this.

            He’s a known quantity now, and can be counted on to do as he is instructed.

            As far as I’m aware he can be counted on to support ever bigger government. Maybe I’m getting his record confused with another.

          2. McConnell beat off his Tea Party challenger

            TMI, Fluffy, TMI

          3. “McConnell beat off his Tea Party challenger ”

            Well, thats one way to win, I guess.

      2. But will they actually convert that tune into action?

        1. If it is necessary to save their sorry asses from the votes, probably.

          1. McConell killed it. I doubt it’s necessary.

    2. Riding?

      1. Canada.

        1. McConnell’s a Senator meaning he is elected statewide.

          1. I know that I’m just applying out terminology.

    3. Who’s the Dem nominee by the way?

      1. Grimes, current Sec of State.

        I forget her first name.

        1. Alison Lunderman

    4. I voted for Bevin. He was a nut. McConnell spent a TON of money to make sure he didnt lose. McConnell hired Ron’s grandson-in-law (I have the connections right?) who was Rand’s campaign guy to run his.

      McConnell is just about impossible to beat. The one good thing I can say about him is that he knows how to run a campaign. He knows when to go negative and when to just shut up. He went HARD negative against Bevin. You would think that winning by 25 means he didnt need to, but I think he did, he didnt want a win by 7.

      Grimes is running even with him right now, but no way in hell Im votiing for her. The LP will have some loser on the ballot for me to vote for.

      1. A tough dilemma, robc. But that you have an LP candidate is something.

        1. I assume I have one. I havent checked ballots or anything.

  19. Prince Charles likens Vladimir Putin to Hitler, woman says

  20. Dem Congressman: ‘We’ve Proved That Communism Works’

    This is the same guy recently caught on camera eating his earwax.

    1. “Eating my own earwax proves communism works, too!”

    2. I read that and the statement was so incoherent, I don’t see how you could read it as an endorsement of anything.

  21. He is not firing VA Secretary Eric Shineski as yet.

    Why on Earth would he do that?

    1. True, dat. Like Sibelius, he’s going to “fix” the problem, then be let go.

      1. Maybe he could issue fancy hats to all the veterans to wear while they slowly die patiently wait to improve their self-esteem?

  22. There were bees.
    Bees bees everywhere,

    1. NOT THE BEES!

    2. All over my eyes!

    3. From Oprah!

      Would’ve just used a GIF, but I didn’t want Ted S. to throw a clot.

      1. I love that one. It’s how I want Oprah to go out, when the time comes.

    4. “We saw bees going in an out of the eavestrough and we wondered what was going on,” said Carol Stewart, the owner of the house.

      “At first we thought it had to be our space-alien neighbour using micro-drones to de-construct our house molecule by molecule.”

  23. Mike Myers (remember him?): Kanye West ‘Spoke a truth’ about Bush and black people

    “I actually wasn’t familiar with his work,” Myers, who was paired with West for the telethon, told GQ. “Then [Kanye] said he was going to take some liberties with the thing.”

    Those liberties included West discussing his issues with the media coverage of Hurricane Katrina (“If you see a black family, it says they’re looting; see a white family, it says they’re looking for food”), and also saying that Bush “doesn’t care about black people.”

    Looking back on the event nine years later, Myers said he was “super proud” to have been next to West at that moment.

    “For me it isn’t about the look of embarrassment on my face, it is truly about the injustice that was happening in New Orleans,” Myers told GQ about the incident. “I don’t mind answering the question but the emphasis of it being that I’m the guy next to the guy who spoke a truth. I assume that George Bush does care about black people — I mean I don’t know him, I’m going to make that assumption — but I can definitively say that it appeared to me watching television that had that been white people, the government would have been there faster.”

    9 years after the fact. Very shagadelic.

    1. West spoke the revolutionary truth Serious Man.

    2. So, does he think that there are no white people in New Orleans? If not, why does he think the government didn’t press the magic “save people” button to help them?

      1. They did. All of the white people were helicoptered out, with the last one folding up the state flag as he boarded the chopper. They left all of the allied Cambodians behind, resulting in the killing fields. Which wasn’t communism, but that’s another story.

        1. I worked for FLDOC then. Florida was literally begging them to bus prisoners and offered helicopters and hospital beds to evacuate the hospital. Everybody was told, “we got this.” Including, in case everyone forgets, the National Guard who were literally waiting for the Governor’s call. The idea that the mismanagement was on behalf of whites or Republicans instead of Lousiana politicians in general and the Democratic governor and Mayor of New Orleans in specific is crazy.

          1. Of course it is. It’s not like the town’s corruption isn’t legendary, or the facts of the total lack of preparation not well known. Once again, the reality-evading community evades reality.

    3. 3 days after Hurricane Andrew, which hit the very white/Hispanic population south of Miami, the headline in the Miami Herald was “WE NEED HELP” in World War 3-size font. And that was a relatively small area of (complete) devastation with not near the number of infrastructure problems as had occurred in New Orleans.

      There’s a reason that you’re supposed to have a few days of emergency supplies on hand. Because the government’s mostly incompetent and ain’t gonna be there to help you too quickly. Don’t matter if you’re black, white, brown, blue, purple, orange, pink, yellow and pink, purple and white, purple and pink, or rainbow colored.

      1. Amazing what a difference a competent state and local government make.

        Two facts are never mentioned about Katrina. First, to the extent that it was an historically large storm, it was so because of the part of the storm that hit Mississippi. It missed New Orleans. Winds never got above category 1 in New Orleans.

        Second, the disaster that people remember as “Katrina” was not the storm. It was the failure of the levies that happened after the storm. The city survived the storm itself quite well. And its plan to have people shelter in the Super Dome worked, at least initially. When the storm passed people walked out of the dome and started to walk home. It would have been an unremarkable close call, had the levies not then burst. But the levies burst not because of the storm but because they were built poorly by the Corps of Engineers. They were going to fail at some point no matter what. If anything Katrina saved lives by weakening them just enough to fail while most of the city was evacuated. Had they failed when the city was populated tens of thousands would have died.

        1. It was the failure of the levies that happened after the storm.

          It happened during the storm. So there was 140 mph winds plus water rushing in.

          1. The top wind speed in Katrina at landfall was 110kt/125 mph (the Buras, LA landfall; second landfall was slightly weaker). The top wind speed I can find anywhere near New Orleans during the storm (according to the National Hurricane Center’s official report) was 100 MPH, and that was on top of a 120 foot tall tower at the airport. and was a wind gust, not a sustained wind. Where are you getting 140 MPH from?

            Some of the flooding occurred due to the storm surge overtopping the levees, but the majority occurred later in the day, after the storm had passed, due to erosion of the levees.

            1. And IIRC there was some corruption involving diverting funds intended for levee maintenance.

    4. “Yet the racial hustlers and far-left demagogues continue to sell victimization to Americans living in the poor precincts. The poverty pimps can’t blame the establishment fast enough for ghettos and deprivation and even hurricanes. But you rarely hear the words ‘personal responsibility’ when it comes to attacking the poverty problem.

      Here’s the end zone on this: the government can force your parents to send you to school but can’t force you to learn. If you do not educate yourself or develop a marketable skill, the chances are you will be poor and powerless. If you react to that situation by committing crimes or becoming addicted, you will sink further into the swamp of hopelessness and your life will be largely meaningless.

      Let the kids see the poor in New Orleans and the suffering they endured. Then prod the children to connect the dots and wise up. Educate yourself, work hard, and be honest. Then when disaster occurs you will have a fighting chance to beat it.

      If you don’t do those things, the odds are that you will be desperately standing on a symbolic rooftop someday yourself. And trust me, help will not be quick in coming.”

      I remembered when Bill O’Reilly said this and the progressives and black poverty pimps went apeshit over this comment.

  24. If this is what they now call racism and sexism, I guess that all the original problems are solved.

    Racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination don’t look the way they used to. Today it’s more about giving a leg up to people who are similar to you than trying to hurt people who are different, according to a review published in the American Psychologist.
    Instead of hostile acts like using racial slurs, keeping people out of certain jobs, or denying housing to certain races, the majority of of discrimination is caused by giving favorable treatment to someone who shares your characteristics, the researchers found. They analyzed 50 years of experiments and surveys on discrimination and found that “in-group favoritism” is a more significant source of discrimination than inflicting harm on people who aren’t like you. The characteristics that can make someone feel like part of your “ingroup” could be age, race, sex, religion or even occupation, neighborhood, and educational background.

    1. The characteristics that can make someone feel like part of your “ingroup” could be age, race, sex, religion or even occupation, neighborhood, and educational background.

      What is being similarly warted, chopped liver?

      (Props to Ambrose Bierce.)

    2. Geez.

      1. cake makers could turn down gay wedding planners

        I’m sure it’s been said before, but who would want to eat any food prepared by someone who hates them? I’ve heard enough stories not to be anything but polite to food service people.

        1. Damn you squirrels and the horses you rode in on.

    3. I know this guy who has a black father and white mother who feels as though he is constantly victimized. Perhaps he is but I one day pointed out that he has an undergraduate degree from DePaul and a masters in Public Policy from Northwestern. How bad is your life really when you think about it? He came up with some bullshit excuses but have we really got to the point where being a victim is seen as a badge of honor?

      1. I have a buddy who recently joined the Nation of Islam, and now he is strongly discouraged from talking to me. He posted this today, with the comment “Just like Donald Sterling and the Clippers.

        I would gladly let people feed me bananas for millions of dollars a year. Gladly.

        1. Yes, Donald Sterling paid his players in bananas.

        2. Sorry about your friend going NOI, Dude. That sucks.

          1. He was in a bad place, and they told him want he wanted (or needed) to hear. He’ll come around. Eventually.

            Some of the stuff they teach is absolutely shocking. Ask someone from the NOI where white people come from. You literally won’t believe the answer.

            1. You literally won’t believe the answer.

              This is an intervention. You need to stop huffing Buzzfeed, bro.

            2. You literally won’t believe the answer.

              What the fuck?!?

              Leave us hanging like that.

              Dude you suck.

            3. I wouldn’t imagine it’s much different from where Christian Identity thinks black people or other non-Caucasians come from.

    4. Racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination don’t look the way they used to.

      Or put another way, they’ve redefined these words to encompass a broader set of more benign behavior. And why would they do that, I wonder…

    5. Instead of hostile acts like using racial slurs, keeping people out of certain jobs, or denying housing to certain races, the majority of of discrimination is caused by giving favorable treatment to someone who shares your characteristics[…]

      You can’t ever win with this crowd. They’re quick to denounce individualism whenever it does not agree with their collectivist ideals while, at the same time, demonize those that do not treat people like individuals because… racism.

  25. RESEARCHERS were shocked after a man with obsessive-compulsive disorder became a Johnny Cash fan after having a brain implant.

    1. Not only did I post this yesterday, but I posted a direct link to the case study.


      Not a fan of his, but I do like Cash’s cover of Nine Inch Nail’s “Hurt”.

      Story goes that Trent Reznor cried when he heard it.

      1. That shit was awesome. Best cover ever.

        1. I don’t know. Cash turning Personal Jesus into his bitch on that same record is pretty fucking great.

          1. Rusty Cage isn’t to shabby either.

      2. Yeah, Reznor was unhappy when he first heard about it, but later said he loved it. Having heard it, I can understand why.

        1. The NiN version kinda sucks.

          There are some times when a cover steals the song away from the original owner.

          This is one of those.

    2. People who don’t like Johnny Cash are fucking idiots whose meaningless bleating about music can safely be ignored.

      The dude’s catalog is so damned expansive that he has written/performed/covered enough songs that everybody should be able to find 2-3 they really like.

      Unless they are idiots.

  26. 2 New York City elementary students arrested for allegedly attempting to poison their teacher

    The New York City police say two students at a Brooklyn elementary school are accused of trying to poison their teacher.

    Police say the two boys, ages 9 and 12, allegedly put “a substance consistent with rat poisoning” in the teacher’s water bottle Monday. The two were charged as juveniles with attempted assault, reckless endangerment and criminal possession of a weapon.

    Police say the teacher became nauseous the next day. She was treated and is OK.

    The substance was being tested.

    The boys attend P.S. 315.

    Rat poison eh? Wonder if they intended to kill or if they just didn’t know.

    1. If he had become a Bieber or Millie Cyrus fan, just imagine the kind of malpractice settlement he would be looking at.

    2. The boys used to attend P.S. 315.


      1. The school, which has 841 students, is also called the School of Performing Arts. The building also houses PS 152, which is focused on science and technology.

        They should have been in 152, those devilish little chemists.

  27. To what extent is Boko haram a symptom of polygamy and the male losers in that system?

    1. I dunno, but maybe we could solve this whole crisis by teaching them to be more like monogamy’s male losers. Just stop the foreign aid and send them tons of pot and video games, problem solved.

    2. +72 virgins

  28. Remember that teen that got kicked out of prom because the dad’s allegedly could not stop ogling her nubile body? Well…

    Reporter Chelsea Rarrick spoke with Ann Duncan Tuesday evening. Duncan said she was a volunteer at the home-school prom and wrote to CBS 6 after seeing our stories on the air.

    Duncan started with prom dress code, and the length of the dress.

    “The dress maybe at the door when she came in was fingertip length, but it was spandex,” said Duncan. “It was very stretchy, it was riding up. It was right below her butt cheeks by the time I saw her.”

    Duncan said she did not see Clare dance, but responsed to the teen’s post where she wrote that the dads on the balcony were ogling and talking amongst themselves.

    “It was very crowded,” said Duncan. “There were 500 kids there so to be able to even say what they were looking at would have been very difficult.”

    “The words used by the young lady to describe the events were specifically chosen to debase the parents who inconvenienced her,” the woman continued. “For example, ‘ogling’ makes the dads out to be perverts, instead of concerned parents debating about the right thing to do.”

    Similar email and comments from readers who questioned the student’s claims can be found on WTVR.com and other websites around the world.

    Color me shocked: “journalists” did not accurately report a story.

    1. It’s almost like they had an alterior motive.

      1. Ulterior.

        1. Curse you for pointing that out!

          1. Maybe she had both?

            1. Regardless, it’s clear that the parents motive was anterior.

    2. If you read her original blog post she never interacts with any of the men. She assumes the parents staring up above are all ogling the women and she takes at face value “Mrs. D” when she says the dads are thinking impure thoughts. Without a second perspective the story already doesn’t hold together.

    3. I still think they overreacted, let the boys in attendance have something to look at.

    4. I had no idea teenagers lied.

    5. Wait, so was she not actually kicked out of the prom for being there with a black kid “dressing inappropriately?”

      1. She actually said, in response to a comment, that she wasn’t with her boyfriend for most of the time she was there and that she didn’t think that the dads even knew who she came with.

        1. oh i know who she came with… PBII RULZ

    6. I thought she wrote the article?

  29. While I don’t doubt that serious consumers of child pornography (the non-serious ones being teenagers getting pics from their girlfriends/boyfriends, for instance) are creeps, I don’t think the following statement expresses a different notion than intended:

    Consuming child porn “is not something that is just done by unemployed drifters who live in their parent’s basement,” said James Hayes of ICE’s New York office. “If this operation does anything, it puts the lie to the belief that the people who do this are not productive members of society.” [emphasis mine]

    1. Arresting someone for possession of child porn is arresting them for the thought crime of lusting after children. I have no use for pedophiles or perverts in general. That doesn’t make me any more supportive of thought crimes. If you want to ensure that people who make the stuff are hanged, I am with you. If you want to make it illegal to sell or distribute it, I am with you. I would even go so far as making purchasing it a crime. But I do not and never will support making the mere possession of a picture, no matter how horrific, in the privacy of one’s own home a crime.

      1. What’s sad is that America’s laws are actually better than other countries’. In some countries (like Canada) you can get arrested for possessing the equivalent of a comic book or animated movie that might depict the equivalent of child porn. In the UK, you can get in trouble for a story that’s purely text-based fantasy.

        The likelihood is that child porn, as disgusting as it is regarding people who consume it, reduces, not increases, the chance of a child actually being molested.

        1. Actually that happens in America too, under the name of obscenity. Reason covered a story last year about a guy who got 3 years for possessing some comics.

          1. Some lady got busted in the US a few years back for writing stories as well.

      2. I dunno if I’d call it a thought crime. Prosecuting people for possessing simulated cheese pizza would be closer.

        1. Wait. Are you suggesting that people make pizza with cheese product, like Velveeta? Are you sure? That sounds unconstitutional to me.

      3. How is it a thoughtcrime? Whether or not its good policy, “possession” is not a thought. Thoughtcrime would be punishing someone for desiring to possess a picture.

        1. What is the harm of the possession? No one is victimized? If it is not a thought crime, then how would making possession of an offensive book criminal also not be a thought crime?

          The reason why the possession is a crime is because your possession of it is assumed to be accompanied by you lusting after children.

          1. So it isn’t thoughtcrime.

            1. It is. Again, if it is not, making possession of any material isn’t. Why shouldn’t we make possession of say lude books or offensive magazine material a crime? By punishing someone for the nature of the material, you are punishing them for liking and possessing the material and that is a thought crime.

              1. You are arguing about policy, and I agree with you. But possession is an action, and there are some things (to take an extreme case, a nuclear weapon), the possession of which is so dangerous, even if it is extremely likely ever will be harmed, that possession should be illegal by itself.

                I think it is more than just semantics to point out that possession is an act. Actually punishing thoughtcrime, as in punishing just thinking about disapproved forms of sex, is very different and much more dangerous.

                1. When there is no material difference between things that are legal (pictures of clothed people under 18) and things that are illegal (pictures of unclothed people under 18) then the only difference is what your brain makes. Your thoughts.

                  Even illegal substances are banned based upon chemical structures. Atomic weapons are materially different than pistols.

                  1. I think most people would argue there is a material difference between an unsexualized picture of a clothed child and a sexualized picture of a nude child.

                    1. I think most people would argue there is a material difference

                      Please describe the material. Preferably using standard chemical notation.

                    2. I don’t think you know what material means in this context.

                    3. Enlighten me.

                    4. Legally relevant or, if you like, distinct in a way that makes a difference.

                    5. distinct in a way that makes a difference.

                      And what makes it distinct?

                    6. pornographic picture vs. not pornographic picture.

                    7. And what makes something pornographic?

                    8. jury or your peers says it is pornographic, like many areas of law. we can make it more objective if you want – naked child vs not naked child/picture of adult engaged in sex act vs. picture of child engaged in sex act

                    9. jury or your peers says it is pornographic,

                      So the distinction lies purely and subjectively in their mind, yes?

                      (your attempt to make it objective is at odds with the way the law is applied)

                    10. Note that the distinction between pornographic or not does not depend on whether the accused believes it is pornographic. Juries decide “subjective” stuff all the time – was a murder depraved enough to warrant the “first-degree” label, for example.

                      Your parenthetical doesn’t make sense. There are objective standards in law – marijuana or not marijuana, for example. Child pornography laws are often like this – naked child, and then leave it up to the DA to decide whether to prosecute (which may be stupid, but not what we are arguing).

                    11. Child pornography laws are often like this – naked child,

                      The only criteria that is used to determine whether it is pornographic is whether the images are sexually titillating to the possessor.

                      otherwise, explain the different treatment afforded between a picture of toddler taking a bath and a 16 year old (based on any text of any of these laws).

                    12. You are fighting the hypo rather than attacking my logic, but you do raise interesting points.

                      The distinction we are making is not pornographic or not – it is illegal/legal. The law could define that distinction as pornographic or not, or it could define it as over/under 18 and naked.

                      To your point though, it is not true that we must define “pornographic” based on the possessor. “Pornographic” could be “what a reasonable person would think is pornographic”, and that is the kind of thing we ask juries about all the time. Just like in civil cases juries decide whether someone acted objectively reasonable in a situation without consider such person’s subjective state of mind.

                    13. To your point though, it is not true that we must define “pornographic” based on the possessor

                      But we do in child porn cases, which makes them thought crime. Otherwise it would be illegal for anyone to view the photos in order to prosecute.

                    14. Here is the Texas statute, which I am guessing is typical: http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/43.26.00.html

                      It does not define whether something is child porn based on what the person believes.

                    15. 43.26. POSSESSION OR PROMOTION OF CHILD
                      PORNOGRAPHY. (a) A person commits an offense if:
                      (1) the person knowingly or intentionally possesses
                      visual material that visually depicts a child younger than 18 years
                      of age at the time the image of the child was made who is engaging in
                      sexual conduct; and
                      (2) the person knows that the material depicts the
                      child as described by Subdivision (1).
                      (b) In this section:
                      (1) “Promote” has the meaning assigned by Section
                      (2) “Sexual conduct” has the meaning assigned by
                      Section 43.25.

                      to which a defense is:

                      (2) the conduct was for a bona fide educational,
                      medical, psychological, psychiatric, judicial, law enforcement, or
                      legislative purpose; or

                      The difference between “educational,
                      medical, psychological, psychiatric, judicial, law enforcement, or legislative purpose” and not is simply that possession that doesn’t fall under these is automatically considered to be for sexual titillation of the possessor.

                      It could not be any clearer that this is a thought crime.

                    16. Where is the thought crime?

                      A person (1) knows (2) that they possess (3) visual material (4) depicting a child (5) engaged in sexual conduct. No step in that process depends on what the person believes, only that they know the material is of sexual conduct (which is defined such that it is an objective standard)

                      The defenses aren’t really subjective, they are exceptions for easily defined purposes. A jury would still need to decide if you were actually engaged in an excepted purpose.

                    17. Maybe a better question is to ask what you define as thoughtcrime. I think that you think it means any law which criminalizes an action that demonstrates a bad purpose.

                      Thoughtcrime is generally thought of as criminalizing a though, like in Orwell in which it is a crime to think poorly of big brother, whether or not you act on it. Or am I wrong?

                    18. Under what rational is possession illegal?

                      Remember, someone possessing photos taken for medical purposes that is not a medical professional is considered to be in possession of child pornography.

                      The photo is the exact same photo.

                    19. Thoughtcrime is generally thought of as criminalizing a though, like in Orwell in which it is a crime to think poorly of big brother, whether or not you act on it. Or am I wrong?

                      No you are not. The difference between legal possession and illegal possession is perceived sexual titillation.

                      A thought.

                  2. Classic crim law hypo re attempt: man buys what he believes to be marijuana. in fact it is oregano. has he committed the crime of attempted possession of marijuana?

                    This scenario (attempting a crime which, in the situation, is impossible to commit) is much closer to thoughtcrime than what we are discussing, but I would proffer that it is a much more difficult question to answer than you may think. It also illustrates why the law requires an action (possession) rather than just thought (wanting to possess) before criminalizing something.

                2. If it’s not a thought crime, then why aren’t judges, juries, prosecutors, and investigators criminals for looking at it? How about someone doing academic or journalistic research on the subject?

        2. Possession defies logical causality, so the only possible reason would be thoughtcrime. Otherwise, how do you explain investigators, law enforcement, and even sometimes juries who possess and must look at it without being criminalized?

          1. Maybe. But we can define possession in the law as possession in a non-investigatory capacity if we want. The point is that it isn’t thought-crime because to avoid breaking the law all I have to do is not possess the disapproved thing.

            Of course the law is getting at the bad-thought, but that is what almost all law does. It’s just that we punish an action indicative of that thought.

      4. – 1 for perverts

  30. Diary of an abortion

    I believe it’s a woman’s choice to choose when life begins and she should have the opportunity to choose an abortion, within the state legislated time frame.

    I came to the decision that this wasn’t the right time for me. For the life of the child to be, I knew I wasn’t ready. There were many things weighing on my decision. Firstly, finances. I’m only 23, just starting out in my career, making just enough money to support myself. I live paycheck to paycheck, with minimal savings. I don’t have family to support me, everything I have in my life comes from the money I work for…

    Secondly, I know I’m not ready for motherhood. I have no doubt that I will be an amazing mother, when I’m ready. I’ve always been great with kids, I was a second mother to my seven younger siblings and spent most of my high school and college years working in a daycare. I studied psychology with an emphasis on child development and taking care of children always came easy to me.

    Though, I still have so many things I want to do before I devote my entire life to raising a child. Find stability within my life. Travel the world. Get married to the person I see as my life partner. Be young. Make more mistakes. Learn. These are things I know I want before I’m a mother. For the sake of my children. I want to give them a life of consistency, the life I didn’t have growing up.

    1. I believe it’s a woman’s choice to choose when life begins

      It sounds like she had good reason to opt for an abortion, and hopefully she’ll take more precautions in the future, but that is just awful. Or maybe she means to say, “choose when they are ready to create new life.”

    2. I believe it’s a woman’s choice to choose when life begins and she should have the opportunity to choose an abortion, within the state legislated time frame.

      Looks like among the other things a woman has a right to choose is NOT to write coherent sentences that do not logically contradict each other.

      Secondly, I know I’m not ready for motherhood. I have no doubt that I will be an amazing mother, when I’m ready.

      And I agree with her. She will have all the opportunity in the world to demonstrate how wonderful a mother she can be just as soon as she stops murdering her children.

    3. “I believe it’s a woman’s choice to choose when life begins”

      “For the sake of my children. I want to give them a life of consistency, the life I didn’t have growing up.”

      Dammit, I may be able to arbitrarily decide when you are alive but at least I’m consistently arbitrary.

    4. as an aborted child i too have a diary. i began as just a normal junk bond until fanny and freddie gave me life and lifted me up…

    5. So why did she try to get pregnant?

      After all, if she went to high school and apparently college, she must have some concept of how babies are made.

  31. Catholic priest: Denying climate change is a sin…and racist to boot

    “The church has indicated that this is a moral issue,” Beck explained to CNN’s Carol Costello on Wednesday. “We’re stewards of creation, we need to care for it. This is God’s gift to us. And if you abuse it, then you are really maligning that gift.”

    The reverend pointed out that Sajak had not thought the comparison to racism all of the way through.

    “What’s interesting to me is ? the racist, unpatriotic ? is how you link the two,” Beck said. “I think the argument could be made that it is more racist to deny climate change because those being effected by it are the poor. The global poor are effected most by climate change, not the rich, who can afford air conditioning, and who can get around all the deleterious effects of climate change.”

    Evangelical Rev. Mitchell Hescox told Costello that he was praying for Sajak to get over his “angry hatredness.”

    “You just have to look at the world around you,” he added. “You know, the world is changing. And we need to do something about it before it’s too late.”

    Really padre? I think it’s racist to deny poor Third Worlders access to life-saving and life-improving technology. Which is a result of climate change alarmism.

    1. Trying to light the Eddie signal?


    3. Without the poor the reverend is powerless.

    4. Please. Catholic priests were leaders of Social Justice Theory in South America and did a fine job of turning some promising developing economies into caudillo states. Excuse me if I don’t rush to repentence because some random dude with a Religio Doctorare tells me about science.

      1. Ever read The Power and the Glory? It’s not about this topic–rather the reverse, in fact–but your comment made me think about it.

        For those who haven’t read it, it’s set in the period in Mexican history when some Mexican states were killing priests.

        1. Oh Graham Greene. Supported Castro and was surprised to find that a Commie doesn’t like Catholicism.

          1. Yeah, well, I love his books, anyway. Ditto someone with even worse views, Gore Vidal, at least for a couple of his historical novels. Greene’s the better writer, though.

            To be sure, there’s nothing very pro-communist or socialist in The Power and the Glory. Not that I recall, anyway.

            1. He wrote the Power and Glory before the Cold War, that’s why. During the Cold War he came out against American Imperialism hence the love for Castro. Also in 1980 he complained that the PRI was not as leftist as Castro.

              Seems he was someone who realized that the British Empire wasn’t so great and he thought Communism might solve that but without the whole totalitarianism and such. I guess he was like Orwell in that way.

              1. I suppose one must make allowances for artists. He was a fine writer, and I like a number of his books.

                A little surprisingly for me, because I usually find the books first, I ran across him first because of a movie–The Third Man. Read the novella for that movie and then moved to The Power and the Glory. Many years ago.

  32. Markets are up, I am up and yall can kiss my double plug grits

    1. Where’s the libelous statement about a public figure?


    2. How do we know you’re the real shriek?

      1. John thinks Aquaman is the best superhero

        1. I don’t…know…what…this…what?

          1. yep yep move along soCon
            OBAMA Rulz

      2. You can’t fake that kind of insanity and retardation.

        1. want to bet left hands???

      3. The real *snicker* shriek posted here: https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_4527233

        1. palinsExtrabuttplug|5.21.14 @ 6:29PM|#

          FAKE Palins!!!!!!!!!!!!!
          i know who i am

    3. What, no link to the Nazi with your handle anymore?

      1. I’m really a fake and a drunk one at that but god damn it i’m a MAN!!

    4. Shrike quick talk shit about Bitcoin.

      Last time you did it jumped 50 points.

  33. Amazon is running a sale on intro to Raspberry Pi, 3D Printing, Arduino and some other related things. ~$2 for kindle editions.

    Reason may chew up the URL.

    1. nope i’ll chew up that url and spit it in your face… FACE

    2. Ohh….. I thought they were selling the Pi for $2.

  34. Krugman can’t even be consistent in a single article.

    People are pretty down on European economic performance these days, with good reason. But mainly what we’re looking at is bad macroeconomic policy, the result of premature monetary union plus austerity mania. That’s a very different story from the old version of Eurotrashing, which focused on Eurosclerosis ? persistent low employment allegedly caused by excessive welfare states.

    Since the late 1990s we have completely traded places: prime-age French adults are now much more likely than their US counterparts to have jobs.

    Strange how amid the incessant bad-mouthing of French performance this fact never gets mentioned.

    Strange how they did that under their “austerity mania”, when Kruggie has said time and time again that the only way to increase employment is with stimulus.

    1. French employment is not better then US.

      1. He qualified it. French “adults” may be more likely to have jobs.

        The youth, however, get fucked over. Just a bit.

        1. I’ll bet the cherries were picked with even more discretion than that.
          But then Obo has screwed the US economy such that it is possible to find those aberrations.

  35. Anyone in Houston — the partners took off early so I am headed over to State Bar for a bit before I go back to work. Beer is on me.

    1. Go back to work? I thought you said the partners left.

      1. They will show up tomorrow morning.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.