A.M. Links: McDaniel a Sad Panda After Senate Loss, Jon Stewart Says IRS Is Criminally Incompetent, Disfigured Children Actually Welcome in KFC (Hoax Alert)

Thanks, democracy.


  • Thad Cochran
    U.S. Government / Wikimedia Commons

    Longtime Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran prevailed over his more conservative Tea Party challenger, state Sen. Chris McDaniel, in a closely watched Republican primary contest on Tuesday. Assuming that he wins the general election in November, Cochran will return to Congress to serve a seventh term that he barely wanted. Thanks, democracy.

  • Remember that story about the heartless KFC employees who kicked a little girl out of the restaurant because her ugly face was allegedly disturbing customers? Well, it's not true. The family of three-year-old Victoria Wilcher initially maintained that a Jackson, Mississippi, branch of the popular food chain had treated the girl—who was recovering from a pitbull attack in which she had lost an eye—cruelly. But investigators found no evidence that the incident ever occurred. KFC has decided to contribute $30,000 to the girl's medical bills, anyway. Those evil corporations, at it again.
  • In the wake of recent developments in the IRS scandal, Jon Stewart assailed the agency as "totally incompetent" and bordering on "criminal idiocy" on his latest show.
  • Queen Elizabeth visited the set of HBO's "Game of Thrones" and somehow resisted the malevolent call of the Iron Throne. She shook hands with cast members and producers but declined to sit in the ultimate seat of royal power. Long may she reign, in any case.
  • Robert Morris University-Illinois has added League of Legends as a varsity sport.

NEXT: "Every single VA senior executive received an evaluation of 'fully successful' or better over a 4-year period."

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. Longtime Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran prevailed over his more conservative Tea Party challenger, state Sen. Chris McDaniel, in a closely watched Republican primary contest on Tuesday.

    When you’re GOP and getting by on liberal Democrat votes, you know you’re doing something right.

    1. Hello.

      Jon Stewart commented on a fake scandal?

      1. Well, he is a fake news guy.

        1. so two fakes make a real?

          1. A fake artist and a fake curator makes fakes into art, so why not news?

      2. Sounds like he’s downplaying a scandal. Calling them incompetent is doing them a favor when what they did was intentional and illegal.

        1. Precisely. Of course, one thing these people willing to buy a ridiculous cover-up story don’t realize is that increasing dislike and contempt for the IRS just makes it a little more likely that some flat tax or similar IRS-gutting proposal might become generally popular. Which would give them a sad face, by and large.

          1. You’re a Calvin & Hobbes fan, right? Did you see that Bill Watterson may have done a brief guest appearance on a different comic strip?

            1. I believe that’s been confirmed. Now he just needs to return to power.

        2. Mistakes were made.

          1. What interests me about the leaps being taken to pretend this isn’t a massive cover-up is that they wouldn’t be going to so much trouble if they–the defenders, I mean–didn’t believe just as firmly as the rest of us that the president was involved. That doesn’t bother them, of course, which is the reason they don’t want answers.

            1. If it is stupidity instead of deliberate, isn’t that still a reason to take its power away?

              1. Exactly. It shows the scale of the desperation at work that they’d risk the slight traces of credibility the agency had left to perform this cover-up. Without the income tax scam, the whole house of cards might be hard to keep up.

            2. The most you’re going to get is something like a Karl Rove resignation–but wasn’t that resignation forced in response to a congressional subpoena for email?

              Yet another example of the Obama Administration being even worse than Bush’s was.

        3. “Atanarjuat|6.25.14 @ 9:33AM|#

          Sounds like he’s downplaying a scandal”

          Same thing he did with Obamacare and everything else

          He keeps saying that Obama is ‘making mistakes’ by ‘vindicating critics’ – not that the acts themselves are horrible.

          He does this wrist slapping routine because it gives him some kind of ‘faux credibility’ amongst the ProgBorg as being OPENMINDED DERP OBJECTIVE MINDS ALL AGREE…

  2. Cop accused of fighting a kid

    Cop is actually arrested. After five years of picking fights with teenagers. Sometimes in uniform.

    1. That shit scars kids forever. I was bullied by a shitty, racist STM worker (transit Metro) in Montreal when I was a teenager and it stayed with me. I never use public transit. Ever.

      1. He made a good libertarian out of you, didn’t he?

        1. Probably had something to do with it!

        2. Our operatives have been beating kids in libertarianism for thirty years. Le Trine, the agent to whom Rufus references, converted nearly 100 during his tenure, before being killed in a mysterious and suspicious kiln explosion.

    2. Story includes the excellent Philly name LATEEFAH SAVAGE.

  3. Republican congressman’s chief of staff resigns after his jilted porn star girlfriend tweets photo of his genitals
    Rep Steve Stivers, a Republican from Ohio, accepted Adam Kuhn’s resignation Tuesday
    Kuhn’s married ex-girlfriend, Jennifer ‘Ruby’ Roubenes Allbaugh, tweeted at least one image of his privates to Stivers as payback for their split
    Allbaugh retired from porn industry after 11 years and 500 films; she won Golden G String award in 2007
    In 2013 interview, Allbaugh said she loves politics and plans to run for office when she is ‘old and non-threatening’
    Adam Kuhn was promoted to chief of staff last year with annual salary of $130,000; he is single

    Too bad he wasn’t a Democrat. He would have been promoted.

  4. The private mission to Mars set to beat Nasa: New York firm reveals plan to bring dust from the red planet’s atmosphere back to Earth in 2018
    Craft will pass 40km above the Martian surface
    Will collect dust during a Martian storm in gel disc
    Disc will parachute back to earth for analysis

    But, but, but I thought government had to fund space exploration because no one else would!

    1. Whoever said that must have assumed that space exploration is only possible if you spend as much as the government spends on it.

    2. Is it a British English style standard to write acronyms with.only the first letter capitalized, as in “Nasa” vs “NASA?”

      That always gets me for some reason. These are not real words.

      1. Only in headlines, apparently.

      2. If I ever become libertarian president, for the duration of the time NASA continues to exist, I will rename it N?SA and make it more metal. Warty, of course, will be named administrator.

      3. Yeah, it seems to be a recent “thing” with them. And it only applies to acronyms that read as words. I have seen “Fifa” and “Nato” too.

  5. Horrific moment Chechen man stopped by a policeman calmly pulls out a gun and shoots him in the back of the head
    CCTV footage shows Chechen man stopped for bag search in hallway
    Agrees, calmly steps behind officer, pulls out gun, shoots him in the head
    Murderer and accomplice found dead later that day, officials claim
    Video released by Chechen government now going viral online

    The comments were moderated in advance. Could there be that much cop-hate out there?

    1. Nah, just Chechen love.

    2. I don’t think this is a cop issue.

    3. What the heck? Why did he turn his back?

      The video was preceded by a commercial for Finish pods. How macabre.

      Nothing beats the video I saw of Al-queda decapitating that kid years ago. Awful. Hits you deep within.

      1. You never turn your back. I was talking to a realtor once, she said even they get training on how you should never turn your back on a client you don’t know, aand never, ever be the first to enter a room.

        1. Like Tommy in Goodfellas.

        2. Wow, how did you get that conversation started?

  6. Remember that story about the heartless KFC employees who kicked a little girl out of the restaurant because her ugly face was allegedly disturbing customers? Well, it’s not true.

    They kicked her out because she wasn’t overweight. She was scaring the KFC regulars.

  7. Video reveals drunk Fox anchor Gregg Jarrett calling airport cop a ‘f***ing stupid a**’ before brawl that got him arrested
    Fox News anchor Gregg Jarrett had been drinking for three hours before his arrest at Minneapolis-St Paul International Airport on May 21
    He admitted he had taken prescription drugs, refused to produce ID and was taken into custody for evaluation by medical staff
    Papers he was carrying indicated he had just been released from rehab
    Video shows him calling a police officer a ‘f***ing stupid a**’ before he is forced against a wall

    As usual the video shows the police report to be full of lies, and as usual nothing else happens. Many of the tolerant comments gloat that he deserved to get beaten because he works for that intolerant FOX News agency.

    1. I wonder if he can use the fact that the airport cop was almost certainly in fact a fucking stupid ass in his defense?

    2. Our society has a 97% tolerance policy for police brutality.

    3. I take 1200 mg. of Gabapentin everyday for neuropathic pain in my feet. There is absolutely zero buzz involved, with or without alcohol.

  8. Once upon a time in America: First color postcards of the ‘New World’ showcase life in the U.S. more than 120 years ago

    A collection of the first color photographs taken of the New World have been compiled in a new book entitled An American Odyssey
    The images dates back to the late 19th century and early 20th century and made into postcards celebrating cities, landscapes and everyday life across the country
    Many of the images were produced using a photochrom process, taking black and white negatives and filling them with color by transferring them onto lithographic printing stones
    The process predated the autochrome by nearly 20 years and offered people the very first color photographs of The United States

    Cools stuff.

    1. Yeah, not really color photographs. Neat images, but people where painting false color on salt prints and daguerreotypes decades before this.

      Autochromes are still the earliest color photographs, using dyed potato starch granules for color capture.

      1. I wish they wouldn’t colorize them. They’re more authentic in B&W.

        1. There are loads of original B&W glass negatives out there and the colorization was done long ago, which is why this collection is particularly interesting.
          I like the color.

      2. I found a salt print in my old house of some of the first baseball players. Sold it at auction for 50k. It was from 1862.

        1. Did you at least go on Antiques Roadshow beforehand?

          1. No, I brought it right to Robert Edwards auction house. I dont have a face for TV.

            1. http://bid.robertedwardauction…..emid=10907
              Pretty cool right?

              1. Well I’ll be. That is pretty cool. What did you do with the money?

                1. Fixed up the house a bit, nothing crazy.

              2. So fake. Took them for suckers with some photoshop and old paper. Nice work.

                1. I wish I were that talented.

  9. Extra special! Maria Menounos shows off her perfectly toned bikini body in Bora Bora… despite claiming she has cellulite

    She could put a woody on a statue.

    1. She [Menounos} could put a woody on a statue.

      And not much else. The woman is pretty useless except as eye candy.

  10. I hate to be a bearer of optimistic news, but I’m skeptical of all GDP reports.

    Government spending, personal consumption, and exports are considered as pluses. Imports are considered to be negatives.

    1. The recent figures seem like sharp declines, but how much is due to reduced investments and how much is do to reduced government spending?

      1. What I am skeptical about is the widespread idea that somehow increased GDP equals increased wealth.

        Cash for Clunkers increased GDP but in fact destroyed wealth by destroying useable older cars

        1. Exactly my point. Apparently, state and local government spending was reduced over the last quarter. I doubt that’s a bad thing.

          I also don’t see imports as a bad thing, but GDP counts them as a negative.

          1. There is no logic whatsoever in subtracting imports. If I buy a Sony TV that does not make America poorer, which is essentially how it shows up in GDP statistics.

            1. GDP is more an indicator of economic activity in the US then anything else. Whether that economic activity increases wealth or decreases wealth is a far more complex question.

              Yet because government taxes economic activity whenever they can they are very interested in it

              1. Government taxes everything whenever they can.

            2. GDP confuses money and wealth. If you buy a Sony TV, then you’re poorer because you don’t have that money anymore. And if you sell something to someone in Japan, you’re richer because you’ve got money instead of what you sold.

              It’s as if you’d be best off if you sold everything you own and bought nothing. Sitting on a park bench with a suitcase full of cash, but no bed to sleep in, you’d be rich!

            3. I think GDP is supposed to measure something other than whether America is richer or poorer. If it’s name has anything to do with reality, then it should measure what is produced domestically, in which case not counting imports makes some sense.
              How useful the number is and whether certain interpretations of its meaning are wrong is another question.

              1. GDP is a useless measurement as long as it includes government spending.

                1. GDP is useless because it values exports more than imports. Think about it on a personal scale. Are you richer for buying (importing) stuff or for selling (exporting) stuff? If you sold everything you own and packed the money into a suitcase, according to GDP you’d be rich. If you lived on a subsistence farm, selling (exporting) some vegetables now and then while buying (importing) very little, your GDP would be awesome. It’s totally misleading because it confuses money and wealth.

                  1. GDP is just a number. It is the people interpreting it that confuse money and wealth.

        2. Well, for what its worth, GDP was revised down (final revision) for Q1 to -2.9%. It’s likely that Q2 will be negative also which means we’ll official be in a recession.

          1. So, our definition of recession is tied to quarterly GDP reports…so, our definition of recession has no real connection with reality?

            1. Pretty much.

              I ignore anything that relies on a useless metric likd GDP, because it’s been so ‘adjusted’ and filtered that it no longer reflects actual activity.

            2. *technically* a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP. With the -2.9% revision it’s incredibly unlikely we’ll print above zero for Q2.

              But, yeah if you’re a GDP denier, it’s pretty much meaningless. There are better measures, but THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED so STFU.

              1. Double dipper recession confirmed? So, great recession or greatest recession?

      2. *due

  11. Thanks, democracy.
    Those evil corporations, at it again.

    So, Robby, you want to both post links and comment on them? Expect a union grievance on your boss’s desk within the hour.

  12. In the wake of recent developments in the IRS scandal, Jon Stewart assailed the agency as “totally incompetent” and bordering on “criminal idiocy” on his latest show.

    And wondered why Fox News and Glenn Beck had made the IRS that way?

    1. Jon Stewart mixed up his words. In reality, it was idiotic criminality, not criminal idiocy. The “criminal” in their behavior is not an adjective.

      1. Yeah, a friend and I were just discussing his choice of phrasing there. I suppose I’ll have to look at the whole thing in context.

      2. I’d guess that “criminal idiocy” just made a smoother and funnier turn of phrase (in the opinion of the writers/Stuart). I wouldn’t read much into it.

  13. Tuco shot first!

    1. Well, he always did have excellent timing.

    2. Speaking of Tuco, Eli Wallach died yesterday.


      1. Somebody mentioned this in an earlier thread this morning. 😉

        1. But mine was in the A.M. Links so it’s official! Or something.

      2. He was great in the Magnificent Seven.

        Love that movie. Especially the part when Chris allows Harry to believe they were looking for gold after all just before he died. The whole ‘was it worth defending a town on altruistic grounds’ subjective sub-plot was great.

        1. The.

        2. Wallach’s first movie was Baby Doll, with Karl Malden. Wallach’s wife (of 66 years, who survives him) saw either the daily rushes or a completed preview, and said of Wallach and Malden, “Never before have two noses filled the screen so completely.”

          1. And what a ripper of a movie that was.

            Sometimes, big shot, you don’t seem to give me credit for very much intelligence at all. I’ve been to school in my life – and I’m a magazine reader!

  14. A warning in the official NSW government handbook for learner drivers, stating that climate change could cause dangerous road conditions due to heatwaves, storms, flooding and bushfires, is set to be removed.


    1. As long as they don’t remove the warnings about Lord Humungus. I’ve seen the documentary on him.

    2. Weather is not climate*!

      *unless it’s warm weather

    3. What is it with these religious fanatics always pushing their faith based feces all over. What’s worse is they really infiltrate the bowels of government and really shit up the place.

      1. Hey, come on now. The NSW government just wants to look after its citizens. After all, just a few months back it protected them from Uber:


    4. Aren’t those all things that have always happened in Australia with some regularity?

  15. Queen Elizabeth visited the set of HBO’s “Game of Thrones” and somehow resisted the malevolent call of the Iron Throne.

    Ned Stark made the same mistake.

    1. Actually he did sit in it, at least in the show, while acting as Robert’s Hand.

        1. That’s a bit ironic, considering your own post.

        2. Okay chicken little why don’t you cry wolf some more before you fall asleep in the hay.

  16. British Seconomics Fail

    When a housing unit is sold, it doesn’t disappear, it’s still there and there is still someone living in it and there is no diminishment of the number of units available overall. If the waiting lists for housing keep getting longer you need to stop blocking people from building more housing. The only effect blocking current residents from buying their unit will have is a decrease in the number of homeowners. It will NOT shorten the waiting lists because there will be an increase in the number of people in “social housing” since the policy will prevent people from getting out of the system.

  17. Guy falsely accused of armed robbery “is justifiably angry over the incident that could have gotten him killed?police snipers were waiting on his front lawn before he was arrested.”

    But his dog survived, so what’s he complaining about?


    1. Luckily Oaks didn’t get hurt and the family was able to retrieve their belongings with Abby adding that, “They got them back because of me being a superhero.”

      Superman never snitched.

        1. Are you that stupid? Oh. Yes, you are. Never mind.

      1. That costume of his doesn’t appear stitchless, so maybe it’s time to rethink that theory.

  18. A Nigerian man has been sent to a mental institute in Kano state after he declared that he did not believe in God


    1. Well, clearly he’s suicidal as he made such a declaration in a country currently split along religious lines. Both sides would want to kill him. He must be mentally unbalanced to take that risk.

      1. Um…I don’t think the Nigerian Christians or Animists would want to kill him.

        1. I’m not so sure. But it was snark anyway, so I wasn’t going for accuracy.

  19. The Bloombergers were giddily babbling about this latest repudiation of the Tea Party and everything they stand for. Also, it is apparently fair play for Democrats to vote in Republican primaries, because they are doing their part to save the nation from anarchy and chaos, whereas Republicans voting in Democratic primaries undermines the pure truth and goodness of democracy.

    The ends justify the means.

    1. I love that when McConnell won it was evidence that the Tea Party was dead, when Brat won it was evidence the Tea Party was ascendant and would be eternally victorious, and when Cochran won it was evidence the Tea Party’s dead again.

    2. “…Democrats to vote in Republican primaries..”

      I have been suspicious of that all morning. Given what I know about the demographics of MS the only way I figured Cochran won was if he had the votes of Dems.

  20. In the wake of recent developments in the IRS scandal, Jon Stewart assailed the agency as “totally incompetent” and bordering on “criminal idiocy” on his latest show.

    But what does Gary Oldman say?

    1. Who cares, what does the fox say?

    2. Yap Yap Yap Yap Yap Yap Yap Yap Yap Yap Yap Yap Yap Yap Yap ?

  21. KFC has decided to contribute $30,000 to the girl’s medical bills, anyway.

    Don’t they know you get more of what you reward?

    1. Yeah. This seems like a really bad business practice. Maybe they’ll get enough business from the positive press to make up for this, but giving $30k to every person willing to try and scam you seems pretty bad for your bottom line.

      1. As soon as I saw that initial story pop up on facebook and yahoo news I knew it was a hoax.

        1. And not a very good one. There should have been a homophobic insult on the bill as well

          1. That would have been a spoiler, because they were ‘thrown out’ without service according to the fictitious narrative presented. How would they get a bill?

            1. Way to step on my snark, UnCivil

  22. Hey, good morning everybody.

    I see from my Facebook feed that the public shaming and ritual denunciation of Gary Oldman has begun.

    1. He’s big enough to ignore it. So far I’ve only seen him apologize for comments about Jews that I didn’t see.

    2. Your friends suck.

      1. Well, I definitely need more friends in Auric’s Type 3 category, that’s for sure.

    3. Thanks to the addition of the unfollow-but-not-unfriend option, my facebook feed now consists mostly of stuff from people who:

      1) Don’t post often, but did put up this sporadic update

      2) Post their latest runs

      3) Are hot girls with hot friends and love posting pictures

      1. I like the decisions you make.

      2. This is wisdom right here. Political arguments of any knd on facebook just amounts to a retarded slapfight.

    1. Good thing some criminals are dumber than cops, otherwise they’d never catch anyone.

  23. Thanks, democracy.

    Yeah, it’s the voters fault, and has nothing to do with McDaniel’s campaign breaking into a nursing home.

    1. Any excuse will do. Can you just put a D by your name so we can ignore you?

  24. Olga Kotelko, 1919-2014

    Back in March I posted a link to an interview she did with Radio New Zealand (~5.1 MB MP3, 14 minutes) as she was preparing for the Track and Field Championships in Budapest. I’m always fascinated by the stories of extremely active extremely elderly people.

    1. I’m more interested in the athletic endeavors of Olga Kurylenko

  25. The family of three-year-old Victoria Wilcher initially maintained that a Jackson, Mississippi, branch of the popular food chain had treated the girl?who was recovering from a pitbull attack in which she had lost an eye?cruelly.

    I’m calling bullshit on this aspect of the story as well. According to the media, there are more Pit Bull attacks in America every year than there are actual Pit Bulls.

    Whenever any random mutt bites someone, the media claims it’s a Pit Bull regardless of what kind of dog it is.

      1. Hahaha, that reminds if the one Balko posted a few years ago of aggressive dog behavior for cops.

    1. We thought it was a pit bull, but it turned out to be either a mutant Norway Rat or a small Skaven.

    2. She was attacked by several of the ten pitbulls owned by a family member. Wanna guess why a family member would have ten pitbulls?

      1. So she was attacked by a dog that was almost certainly being raised for dog fighting.

        Clearly this is the dog’s fault.

  26. Random Update No one asked for.

    I’ve passed the halfway mark on applying the final edits to Shadowboy and am aiming for a July 4 release date for the eBook edition. The print on demand edition will be delayed until I can wrest the work product from my cover artist.

  27. The other day, IFH asked why some Americans hate soccer.

    I don’t really hate soccer. I hate have soccer crammed down my throat by hectoring SWPLs who heard on NPR that Europeans like soccer, so therefore we must as well, but who aren’t real fans. It’s kind of like being taken to a Broadway-style musical with your wife. You can’t make me like this if you don’t like it, and just want to be seen as the sort of worldly person who does like it.

    When I was getting my hair cut by Haitians, who explained that I should watch soccer because “it’s a manly sport”, I didn’t mind that at all. They’re real fans who are sharing something they enjoy.

    1. Come on. You don’t run into that many people hectoring you about its “European-ness”. Stop it. You don’t like it. Why do you feel you have to justify not liking it by blaming hipsters who probably don’t do anything offensive outside of gathering in groups in bars watching the games?

      And it’s BETTER that Haitians hector you by calling it a “manly sport”, when you know full well that if standard whitebread American had said the same, you’d probably complain bitterly here about it.

      You don’t like it. That’s fine. Taking the time to declare that you don’t like it here is…well, pretty fucking stupid.

      1. Actually, I do get hectored about people who put their noses in the air and say “futbol”, so fuck you for minimizing someone else’s experiences.

        1. Do you hector them back for “triggering” you?

          Most of these stories are embellished bullshit, borrowed largely from douchebag sports-talk hosts.

          1. I get irritated by the douchebag sports-talk hosts who denigrate soccer in a way they’d never denigrate other sports that don’t necessarily interest them. Wimbledon started the other day, and you don’t hear the sort of intelligence-insulting stuff about tennis that I’ve heard people say about soccer.

            1. It is odd that they reserve a special level of “disinterest” for one game versus all the others that aren’t “interesting”.

              1. Joe Beningo on WFAN is bitching right now that Suarez’s biting Chiellini was on the front page of a newspaper, and not one regular-season baseball game out of 162.

                1. Sports talk radio is truly the last stronghold of the total assholes about this subject. They’re particularly awful. Even the old stodgy newspaper guys are softening.

                  1. Sports talk radio is truly the last stronghold of the total assholes about this subject.


                    I occasionally listen to sports radios to get scores, but I can’t stand the typical host’s demands that I care about the outrage de jour. Sports journalism is almost as bad a celebrity journalism in that regard.

          2. Sure, you know exactly what happened to me at lunch on Thursday when I asked a coworker if he wanted to toss the football around, just because you don’t want to think that soccer fans can be obnoxious about it.

            1. I KNOW they can be obnoxious about it. That doesn’t mean reports of it aren’t exaggerated.

        2. As a pushback against brevity, prefer to call it soccerball.

    2. Here is the thing with all sports; they are only interesting if you have a rooting interest and developing a rooting interest usually requires growing up around people who instill it in you.

      Most Americans don’t grow up around soccer and therefore do not have a rooting interest most of the time. I enjoy the World Cup because I have a rooting interest. I would like to the see the US team do well. Turn on some EPL game between the Chelsea Park Rangers and the Arsenal City Uniteds or whatever and I will be bored to tears because I didn’t grow up around it and have no rooting interest. In the same way, some English bloke is going to be bored to death by an NFL game because he has no reason to care who wins. It is the rooting interest that makes it interesting not something about one sport being better than another. It is the same reason every horse track has betting. If you didn’t bet, you would have no reason to care about any race because the horses are different in every race.

      1. This is a point worth repeating. I’d add that there are a shitload more Americans growing up with the game. At least two generations’ worth, and the game is available more readily than ever.

        Do some of these people happen to be hipsters? Yes, especially in Seattle and Portland. Actually spend some time with an American Outlaws chapter or, hell, any random pub that has the games on and you’ll see ALL KINDS, and they care rather deeply for the game.

        1. See below. The problem with soccer in the US is that a good number of its fans have turned it into a weapon in the culture war.

          The other thing is that soccer will never be as big in this country as it is in others because the US is too big and too diverse for any one sport to dominate here the way it does in other places. England has professional cricket and rugby but those leagues are bush leagues compared to the EPL. Countries like the UK, France, Spain, Brazil and such are obsessed with the sport in a way the US never will be. It is also limited in the US because the US will never have the world’s top league the way it does in hockey and basketball.

          Still though, the US is large enough that it ought to over the next ten years or so become a legitimate second rate world power in the sport on a level with say England or Mexico. I doubt we will ever see the US win a World Cup, but I bet they make a semi final before too long.

          1. Dude, we’ve owned Mexico for the last decade-plus.

            England are crap.

            1. Dos a cero, amigo! Dos a cero!

              1. I was so pissed that I missed out on the latest edition of Dos a Cero from beautiful Columbus, OH.

                1. The US should have let Panama win in Panama last November. 🙂

                  1. Yeah, I had major mixed feelings about that. It’s sort of nice for them to owe us big, though.

                2. You snicker, but Columbus is like the Paris of central Ohio.

                  1. I thought it was the Ann Arbor of central Ohio.

                  2. I don’t snicker. I spent many a year there learnin’ and going to see the Crew.

                    It’s a great place. Underrated, as always.

            2. England is still a legit European power that usually gets to the knockout rounds of the European Championships. If you are actually a soccer fan, you should know that the European Championships is a tougher top to bottom tournament than the World Cup. There are no North Koreas in the Euros. Every team is really good. I doubt the US could get to the knockout round in the Euros most years.

              And yeah, we will probably surpass Mexico. And considering how vile Mexican fans are, we can all hope that is soon and in some horrible heartbreaking way for Mexico.

              1. Although, oddly enough, it is not unusual for (comparatively) weaker/smaller nations to win the Euros: Denmark, 1992; Greece, 2004.

              2. John, this is the wrong edition of the World Cup to trot out that old argument that European fans of middling European teams use to comfort themselves.

                England has a problem. It’s probably largely mental at this point, because they DO have some very talented youngsters now. But they have a problem. They talk about it ALL THE TIME. They get unreasonably optimistic at the beginning of every tournament, but before and after, they are constantly blasting their team for not living up to their history.

                1. One world cup doesn’t disprove decades of evidence. CONCACAF teams not named Brazil and Argentina have never done squat in the World cup before this year. And we still haven’t gotten to the knockout rounds. Lets see how those play out.

                  I haven’t looked at the bracket so this may be impossible, but if the final four teams were Brazil, Germany, the Netherlands and some out of left field Euro team like the Belgians or Dutch, would anyone be surprised?

                  It is great to see Chili and Costa Rica and Mexico do well. But call me when they do something in the knockout rounds.

                  1. Brazil & Argentina are CONEMBOL not CONCACAF.

                  2. Brazil and Argentina are in Conmebol, not Concacaf.

                    1. Since it was John, I just assumed it was a spelling error.

                    2. Regardless Ted, no team outside Europe other than Brazil and Argentina and Uruguay back in the 50s has ever won a World Cup. The majority of the really good teams are in Europe.

                  3. Decades of evidence show that, since 1966, England has massively underachieved.

                    Brazil and Argentina aren’t in CONCACAF.

                    It doesn’t matter that the US hasn’t gotten out (yet), or if they do at all. This particular tournament has been chock full of surprises, and it’s been awesome.

                    It also is evidence of the growing parity among the top 40-some teams in the world.

                    How in the world are the Dutch “out of left field”? They were finalists 4 years ago, just missed on at least two other occasions in the last half of the last century and are looking like one of the teams to beat this time around.

                    The Belgians have made the semis in the past and were almost universally regarded as dark horses for this tournament.

                    1. I mistyped. The Dutch are not out of left field. The bottom line is no one outside of Europe other than Brazil and Argentina and Uruguay back in the 1950s has ever won a world cup. That is unlikely to change any time in the near future.

                    2. This changes now!

              3. Watching England go out on penalties never gets old.

                1. Ted, neutral site, US versus England in a game that means something, how many years of the last ten would the US have been favored?

                  England’s failures only seem to blatant because they are a power and more is expected.

                  1. “Favored” in soccer is a funny thing. The US will never be favored against those perceived to be the Big Guns until the US repeatedly bashes them in the face with their superior scorelines. Which, of course, may never happen.

                    The US has always had to do more to even be slightly considered a favorite against anyone remotely established as “good”. Silly argument.

            3. England is crap.

              1. They is indeed.

          2. John, I find it interesting you mention France and Spain but not Italy.

            You do realize Italy is more obsessed with the game than those countries, right? Even they admit as much.

            1. I just picked them at random. And yes, Italy is obsessed even though their entire league is run and fixed by the mafia.

              1. I would love to see evidence of this.

                Actually, Belgium, Germany and England have been hit with bigger match fixing scandals.

                Read ‘The Fix.’ Best book on soccer corruption out there.

                1. Wasn’t Italy hit with a huge one right after they won the World Cup in 06?

                  1. You probably won’t see this but will respond again at a later date.

                    No. It was before and while it’s by no means something to be ignored, nothing on the scale of what was seen in England and Germany. It’s just that the Anglo-America media focuses on this swarthy I-talians. The biggest crime syndicates actually come from Asia.

                    The BPL is the biggest league of them all and this is where the Asians focus. The Italian corruption is largely domestic and until 2005 was mostly low level. Somehow, it was blown up to be so big. Not only that, Italy actually deals with corruption on the open. See, in Italy they don’t act all righteous while clutching pearls whenever scandals arise. It’s a fact of life and reality.

                    Even Germany cleaned up its act and we see it with a functional Bundesliga now.

        2. I played soccer growing up, and I only really enjoy it when I have a rooting interest. The US-Port game was amazing, but only because I was invested.

          Basically I feel the same way about soccer I do baseball. Am I going to watch Boston vs. the Yankees? Not unless it’s game 7 of the ALCS. There needs to be some juice in the game, otherwise I’m not going to care.

          1. That was a great game. If you had an interest who won, it was a hell of a good time.

      2. Maybe American fans can only have one team to root for. Non-American football fans develop “rooting interests”* in other leagues. It would not be surprising for some English bloke, exposed to an NFL game, to adopt whichever was the underdog in the game as his American team. Most football fans will keep watching the World Cup passionately whether their team is in it or not (trust me on that one – it’s the only explanation for the viewing figures here).

        * in Australia, “rooting” means fucking so this phrase is mildly amusing.

        1. Once you get passionately behind a team that plays all of the time, you find watching other teams to be entertaining if for no other reason than to root against your rivals. The US national team only plays something interesting every four years. So US casual US fans lose interest in between.

          1. Similar for Olympic sports like swimming, track, etc.

      3. Aresenal are the Gunners — pronounce “gooners”. Chelsea are the Russian Mafia.

    3. Thanks Atanarjuat, that makes sense. Presumably the SWPLs are only thinking of those nice Europeans with excellent food and wine and crippling social welfare programs, and not those Europeas who throw bananas and make monkey noises at black players

      1. The problem with soccer is that a good number of its fans have turned it into a weapon in the culture war. Instead of being a sport, it is for some people a brand and a way to distinguish yourself from the other. That ruins it completely.

        For normal people, soccer has risen to the level of a good Olympic sport. No one cares about swimming most of the time, but the entire country was riveted watching Micheal Phelps in the 08 Olympics. Soccer, in the years the US national team is worth watching, is the same way.

        1. Some have.

          Most go about their business and others outside the “group” project their insecurities on them.

          If your last sentence were true, why didn’t we hear as much about the US National Team’s best ever year results-wise (in USSF’s centenary year, no less) all last year?

          1. We heard about it but few outside of the small group of soccer fans cared. Sure ESPN reported on it. But ESPN cover the WNBA too. Go look at the ratings for the US national team’s games outside of the World Cup. They are not very high.

        2. I’ve never heard that; in fact, I’ve heard more of the anti-fans try to use it as an element of the culture war.

          1. You must not be looking in the right places. Various douche bags in the media have been scolding American sports fans for not being urbane enough to appreciate and follow the world sport since the 1970s.

            1. I think that’s outdated and outnumbered by the anti-fans very, VERY loudly sputtering about its anti-American-ness.

              Which is fucked up, because the game has been in this country for as long as the other kind of football, and the first international match outside the Home Nations was between the US and Canada.

              1. Alright. It’s a victim off!

      2. And their lovely architecture, which was built hundreds of years ago by a different crop of Europeans. Americans love picturesque European cities.

      3. monkey noises

        I feel othered by your micro-aggression.

    4. This “evangelizing hipsters” thing is becoming a meme here and in other places in exactly the same manner as memes get created on lefty-leaning sites about “fake scandals”, “racist Teathuglicans”, and trigger warnings.

      You’re doing exactly what lefties do when you repeat shit that is probably only barely marginally true and you embellish it.

      1. David Thompson rips Guardian columnist who complains that there aren’t any women playing in the World Cup.

        1. Hahahahahahahahahaha…ha…ha… In two years will there be an outcry when the Women’s World Cup doesn’t include men?

          This is why I have more men friends than women friends even tho I am one. I hate that there are so many idiotic women in the world.

      2. I never said hipsters. It was mostly people like my mother-in-law, aunts, other in-laws etc., who listen to way too much NPR. Also an ex-girlfriend who was a college soccer player.

        You put words in my mouth, then called me a liar. Everything I said was true. Asshole.

        1. So your family does? You made it sound like people on the street.

          There are loads of US soccer fans who want nothing to do with SWPL or NPR. You just happen to focus on them and project on the rest.

    5. There is nothing manly about flopping like a girl when you’re brushed by the opponent and then whining to the ref.

      I’m a rapid Patriots fan and I still kinda get incensed when Brady bitches for a penalty call. There, I said it.

      Soccer needs some lessons from hockey.

      1. Come to think of it, I don’t see women’s soccer players flopping down and whining. So they are way above the guys in my estimation.

      2. Lots of sports have this issue. Dwayne Wade and Russell Westbrook can flop with the best of FIFA

      3. Diving is a blight on the game. It happens precisely because there’s so much at stake.

        HOWEVER, not everything is a dive, and not all injuries are fake. It’s a characteristic of the way the game is played (mostly below the waist, on load-bearing limbs) and the type of contact coupled with the near total lack of protection. The things that happen hurt intensely, but only for short periods.

        1. Yeah. I keep reading about how Italy was flopping yesterday. Aside from the idiot Balotelli, the problem was Uruguay was clipping at the ankles. It’s a well-known South American tactic. Years ago, we played a team from Argentina and they taught us that ‘trick.’ That’s why players fall. I have no problem with that.

          I have issues with outright dives and flops as we see with Robben, Ronaldo, Neymar and Mueller.

          1. Uruguay definitely has a harder edge to them. Honduras and Guatemala both become intolerable when they’re losing in CONCACAF (or protecting a slim lead away). Nasty little shit off the ball, constantly.

      4. I’ve argued a lot that I’d like to see a 15-yard penalty on wide receivers who make the penalty flag throwing motion on every play when they think they’ve been interfered with.

        1. I agree, Ted. Just like defenders in soccer who raise their arms instead of playing.

      5. I just hate watching soccer, even the highlights. I saw the biting guy and wished I was watching hockey where he would have had all his teeth knocked out before the game was over.

        1. You mean you didn’t like how they both went whining to the ref?

    6. The only place I hear anyone mention soccer is on H&R. No one around here gives a damn one way or another.

      1. That’s self-contradictory.

        1. No, just unclear.

          “Around here” being my geographic location, not a reference to H&R.

          Sorry for the confusion.

          1. Where’s “around here”?

            1. My insular corner of the state office building in the capital district of New York.

              1. Not terribly surprising. But then the US Soccer HOF is in Oneonta.

        2. My god you have a stick up your butt about soccer.

          1. No, just this particular family of arguments about it, because it’s fucking stupid.

          2. Obviously Auric is just another victim of false consciousness.

    7. I have any number of reasons why I don’t enjoy the sport that much, but the fans really are a big part of the problem. It wasn’t this way years and years ago, but ever since the damn hipsters discovered they could wear a scarf and feel superior for liking their sport, it’s been downhill.

      I’m a fan of a niche sport myself. I love hockey. Best thing ever. Grew up playing it, coached kids in it, follow my team every year. What I don’t do is go around telling people how unsophisticated they are because they can’t appreciate hockey. I don’t go around bitching about the people following hockey during the Olympics aren’t real fans. If a non fan is watching a game with me, I don’t go out of my way to be a dick to them because they haven’t been folowing the game for as long as I have.

      Soccer fans are, by and large, the biggest group of douche bags I’ve ever met. I would love to go down to a bar and watch the world cup, but I know for a fact that before the first half is over, I will have punched enough hipsters in their neckbeards to feel guilty about it.

      1. Every emerging sport has the same problem; a small group of hardcore fans who are douche bags with the “you new people just don’t get it” attitude. Hockey fans used to be a bit like that. It is totally idiotic and yet people do it all of the time. It used to only happen with hipster music fans. Now it has spread to everything.

      2. Whatever.

        I’m a huge soccer fan. I do not rub it in people’s faces around here at work because I’m not a dick. What DOES happen, and has happened far more often THIS time around is that people who profess to not care about it so deeply, they go out of their way to give me shit about it (jokingly, of course, because they’re not dicks, either, and don’t have any weird pent-up resentment) – which is funny, because they trot out all the same retarded arguments that I’ve heard for years PLUS some of these new memes.

        So, at least here, people who “don’t care” bring it up unprovoked and sound stupid, saying dumb stuff.

        1. The sport’s fans are not without sin. Here is the funny thing about soccer, its pacing is very similar to baseball. Yeah, there are no “breaks” in the action, but most of the action takes place well away from the goal and there is no danger of either team scoring for nearly all of the game. In a 95 minute game, about 90 minutes of it is build up to a few seconds of terror and excitement. Further as the game goes on, the excitement and tension build as time starts to run out and the importance of creating a scoring opportunity and that few seconds of terror/excitement increase. That exactly the script and pacing of a close baseball game. Soccer just kills the in between time kicking the ball around harmlessly at midfield and baseball does it by the pitcher standing there scratching himself.

      3. While we’re going the anecdote route, I’ll say that my experiences have largely been the opposite. I’m one of about two people in the office who like soccer. A handful of us went out to watch the second half of Italy-Costa Rica. The half wasn’t particularly thrilling(*), and prompted all sorts of comments about how boring soccer is. What I find funny is the lack of self-awareness from folks who say soccer is boring. A lot of these people are (a) football fans, a game where you sit down for three hours to watch what, 20 minutes of actual action or (b) baseball fans, a sport that has loads of down time. I say that not to bash either football or baseball — I’m a big fan of the latter, not so much the former — but just to point out that just about every non-hockey, major US sport has certain idiosyncrasies which leads to stretches of down time.

        (*)From a casual fan’s perspective. I found Costa Rica’s ability to spring offside trap after offside trap fascinating, although admittedly Italy’s mediocrity played into that.

        1. It’s amazing that Italy just could. not. figure. it. out.

          I’m pretty proud of the Ticos. Won their group, and guarantee that at least two CONCACAF teams get through. They’re less hateable than Mexico by a mile.

          1. Timon, it’s unprecedented what happened to Italy. It’s a soccer behemoth that always knew its identity and tactics. Prandelli was in over his head. He never figured things out. He wanted an open and fluid Italy but didn’t use the right players to push that. Rossi, Destro, Maggio, Immobile, Cerci, Insigne etc play that style.

            Instead he went with a strange up the middle play funneling Pirlo to Balotelli. Italy revolutionized wing-play in 1982 with Conti and have always been great at it so why did he completely remove it?

            I never saw the versatile Italians play so confused. Not only that, they’re perhaps the most composed, over-achieving soccer side in history and we saw none of that the last two world cups.

            1. The other thing that pisses me off is Italy rarely gets its props. Instead people focus on “flopping’ when in reality they’re no different than any other nation when it comes to that. Jesus, Germany won a WC in 1990 on a dive. Klinsmann was a notorious flopper.

              People don’t appreciate the technical abilities and versatility of Italian players name me ONE country outside Holland and maybe Mexico who can play so many different formations in ONE tournament!

              That’s what irritates me about comments against Italy. Four cups and six finals and they’re treated like some second rate country. Yet they’re the ONLY country who have proven to be able to beat Brazil and Germany. Heck, Germany can’t even beat them.

              Yeah. I’m a little fed up of the calls against them. /removes bias goggles.

              1. And they produce real hard bastards in defence. Franco Baresi is a god

            2. I don’t think this current version of Italy can attack from out wide. I can’t think of any out-and-out wingers (neither Insigne nor Cerci qualify — both like to cut inside) that Italy could really go with. Further, their full-backs are quite weak, too. I’ve never been all that impressed with Abate. Maggio is fine as a wing-back but not world class, and the other guys are either quite young or not full backs in the first place (Chiellini).

              I’m disappointed because Italy have been quite fun to watch under Prandelli, and you’ve got folks tarring them with the same catenaccio brush that doesn’t really apply. If you watched them at the Euros two years ago, you’d see that no team took it to Spain moreso than Italy (even including the beat-down in the final).

              I thought the game plan against Uruguay was more or less fine — cautiously try to dominate possession, don’t try to push too many men forward as you don’t want to get caught out with Cavani + Suarez running at your defense. The Marchisio red obviously changes everything, but even so, it’s not like Uruguay were creating loads of chances with the man advantage. If Suarez is sent off, Italy probably hold on for the draw.

              Will be interesting to see the next coach is. I’m a big Spalletti fan, but the other names being tossed around (Allegri, Mancini) I find to be uninspiring.

              1. KeithC.

                Spot on my friend. Abate is okay.

                There was nothing wrong in their approach. And you’re right about ‘catenaccio.’ That’s dead and buried yet people throw it around loosely like they do ‘racist.’ It’s retarded. Italy plays more open and they’re the only country to have given Spain a real run on a regular basis. They get ZERO credit for being a great soccer nation in my view. Perhaps as great as Brazil and definitely Germany.

                Spalletti and Ancelotti would be great.

                IFH, Baresi and Maldini and Nesta were the true last great masters in the art of defense. Elegant, powerful and intelligent.

                1. I’m just sick of the 4th generation guidos around here that all of a sudden claim fealty to the motherland or some shit, acting like they’re experts. It’s fun to see Italy fail purely on a shadenfreude basis, even though I secretly like them.

                  1. It’s fun to see Italy fail purely on a shadenfreude basis, even though I secretly like them

                    Ditto. Spain, too. The Schadenfreude is pretty high in this World Cup so far.

                    1. Schadenfreude for Italy?

                      Lemme ask. How many times does Italy have to hosed – and they’ve been getting hosed since 1994 with bad call after bad call – before they’re left off the hook?

                      I think they’ve paid their price.

                      Germany on the other hand. That’s one country that hasn’t had its come-uppance yet for Schumacher’s hit on Battiston to all the shameless diving that puts any nation to shame in the 1990s.

                      Even the Uruguayans complaining about Italy’s alleged ‘rough’ play when Uruguay is the country infamous for its battery abilities in soccer. In Serie A, where many have played for decades, they’re known to be the ones to commit the most fouls.

                    2. Damn, ignore the silly comment above.

                      I confused ‘schadenfraude’ with something else.

                      Yeah, I can see why. I feel the same away about Germany and Brazil – and I like both of them too.

        2. I’m not sure Mario Balotelli or whatever the Italy striker’s name is has a lot going on up top. Especially after his drop-kick for a yellow card the other day.

          1. There was a debate as to whether they should bring Rossi. I personally felt they should. Prandelli is a good man and manager but he’s no tactician.

            Convince Ancelotti to come into the national team. They will get the 5th star with a guy like that at the helm.

          2. It’s so unfair – just because he set fire to his house by letting off fireworks in his bathroom people think he’s an idiot.

            I rather adore him for his reaction when he was pulled over for speeding in England. Cops were mildly curious why a young man, speaking little English, had such a flash car and five grand in is pocket.

            “Sir, why do you have five thousand pounds in your pocket?”

            “Because I am rich.”


            1. Yeah but his head was screwed on wrong against Uruguay.

              Italy had to fight Prandelli’s indecisive tactics, the hot weather, and the refs.

              They never had a chance!

            2. I think Balotelli gets a terrible rap. The man is a fantastic player and he bleeds for the shirt. He probably loves playing for his country more than guys on the team who aren’t off-the-boat immigrants.

              I don’t think he’s stupid, either. Every in-depth interview with him seems to show quite the opposite – a thoughtful, emotional, elite athlete.

            3. I don’t hate Balotelli because he’s an idiot – I hate him because he’s a spoiled brat. Managers can’t stand him either – that says something.

  28. http://www.latimes.com/nation/…..story.html

    Judge in Oregon rules no fly lists unconstitutional. Sadly, it is only a District Court judge. The precedent that air travel is a constitutional right in this day and age will hopefully be important. International travel is also a right in my view. Of all the things done after 911, the no fly list was by far the most blatantly unconstitutional and outrageous. It is totally a creature of the executive so I guess re-electing that Damned Bush character in 08 is why it is still there. If only we could have elected Obama and changed a few things.

    1. I’m sure the government will win on appeal. I mean, like terrorism and stuff, you know?

      1. I don’t think they will. They don’t have a leg to stand on. The fear with the appeal is that the appellate court won’t uphold the right to travel and will rule on abuse of discretion.

        In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if the government doesn’t appeal. Better to live with a district court decision that can be safely ignored outside of that district than risk a Circuit Court or worse a Supreme Court decision that could effect a large part or all of the country.

        1. Better to live with a district court decision that can be safely ignored outside of that district

          But doesn’t it set precedent that can be used later by other challengers in other districts?

          1. Yes it does. But it is not binding. The government will ignore it outside of that district until a court there tells them otherwise.

    2. The precedent that air travel is a constitutional right in this day and age will hopefully be important.

      I hope, but doubt, that the judged used the Ninth Amendment for his justification?

    3. Saw that, ACLU brought the suit on due process grounds

    4. To me, it isn’t about a constitutional right to air travel.

      It’s about violating the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

      Fifth Amendment violations – People on the no-fly list are being deprived of their liberty without due process of law.

      Sixth Amendment violations – People on the no-fly list are having the following rights violated:

      *Right to a public trial
      *Right to a trial by a jury
      *Right to be informed of the charges against them
      *Right to compel witnesses to appear in court
      *Right to confront witnesses
      *Right to legal counsel

      All of those rights are being violated by the no-fly list–we don’t need a constitutionally protected right to fly. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments will suffice–the government cannot deprive people of their liberty without due process.

      1. “We have a process, we fill out this form and have the clerk enter it in the system. It’s what a peasant is due, therfore it’s due process” /fedgov

      2. The fifth and sixth Amendment violations only matter if air travel is a right. Those Amendments protect you against the government depriving you of your rights. You have to be talking about a right to start with. The government has always claimed that air travel isn’t a right so therefore those amendments don’t apply. If it is, then they clearly do. So the debate is about rights not those amendments.

        1. The fifth and sixth Amendment violations only matter if air travel is a right.

          We can split hairs all day. I think of travel as essential to any definition of liberty–just ask anyone in prison. Not being able to leave is the definition of not having liberty.

          And the government cannot deprive of your liberty without due process.

          Regardless of whether the courts recognize the right to travel as a right (rather than liberty), you have a right to confront your accusers–and no one on the no-fly list is permitted to do that. No one on the no-fly list was represented by legal counsel at the hearing that put them on the list. There was no jury!

          No need for the courts to do anything novel, here. Simply enforce the Fifth and Sixth Amendments–as they’ve always been interpreted before.

          1. And the government cannot deprive of your liberty without due process.

            Sure it can. The government can tell me I can’t go on a secret military base can’t it? That is depriving me of my liberty and I don’t get any due process for that.

            These questions are a bit more subtle than you think they are Ken.

            1. If I’m not allowed onto a military base, that prohibition is a function of a) that being government property and b) because restricting access to military bases is fundamental to the president’s responsibilities to protect the nation as Commander-in-chief.

              The government prohibiting me from going onto government property is not the same as the government prohibiting me from using any privately owned commercial airline that’s selling tickets to the general public.

              There’s also a legitimate question as to whether the president refusing to let unarmed people fly from Phoenix to Omaha on commercial airlines is a legitimate function of the president’s responsibilities as Commander-in-chief–like keeping snoops out of military bases is.

              I’m not buying that comparison.

              1. Ken. It is a restriction on my “liberty”. It is not a violation of my Constitutionally guaranteed “liberty”. The latter is a term of art. It is not meant as a comparison. I give the example to show you that “liberty” in this context doesn’t mean what you think it does. It has to be something that is protected by the document. That is the initial issue that you have to answer before you get to the amendments you mention.

                No one would argue that air travel is exempt from those provisions you list, IF it is a constitutionally protected liberty issue. The problem is that the government has claimed it isn’t. That is the issue here not those things you mention.

                I don’t know how to explain it any clearer than that.

      3. I think the only that might justify these violations is the AUMF, ultimately, which needs to be repealed so freakin’ bad.

        We’re still in a state of war until the AUMF is repealed, and the president will argue that the power to put people on the no-fly list is a function of his responsibilities as Commander-in-chief during wartime.

        …and the courts will probably support the president on that–and maybe they’re right to do so! If we want to repeal the AUMF, there’s an easy way for Congress to do that. You bring it up for a vote–like Rand Paul is trying to do–and put a stake through its hateful heart with a simple vote.

        1. The AUMF doesn’t suspend the constitution for US citizens and the no fly list applies to those suspected of being in any terrorist group, not just the ones covered by the AUMF.

          1. There’s the way the world should be, and there’s the way it is.

            The way it is? The president is going to argue that the no-fly list is material to his responsibilities in protecting the U.S. from hijackers, like those who attacked us 9/11. He’s going to argue that the AUMF effectively requires him to create a no-fly list as part of his Constitutional responsibilities as Commander-in-chief.

            I’m not saying this is the way I’d rule if I were on the Supreme Court. I’m not saying this is the way the Supreme Court should rule. I’m saying this is the argument that the president has made on numerous other apparent violations of our Constitutional rights (from the NSA to assassinating American citizens abroad), and the courts are unlikely to suddenly circumscribe the president’s powers as Commander-in-chief–when Congress can simply repeal the AUMF instead.

            And it really is time to repeal the president’s fig-leaf, so why don’t we all rally behind Rand Paul and get the vile AUMF repealed already?

            1. He can argue whatever he wants. That won’t make it anymore rational. And the AUMF doesn’t justify this and no court is going to say it does.

    5. The precedent that air travel is a constitutional right

      I had a discussion with some Canadian friends last year about this and they insisted that air travel was a privilege granted by government and government could regulate it any way it wanted.

      Of course, they were also unsure about free speech being a right.

      1. nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property

        I would argue that travel restrictions are a deprivation of liberty.

        1. No doubt. They were just coming from a very different perspective.

  29. For the pessimists who thought this story wasn’t getting any traction:

    A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son.

    1. Saw this linked from Drudge. Unfortunately, it references the ACLU enough to cause most conservatives to reflexively disagree with the content.

      1. The young eggs break the easiest and make the Omelette of State taste the best, apparently.

    2. Now my kids don’t want to go to sleep at night because they’re afraid the cops will kill them or their family.

      The sad part is that this is more likely than my childhood fear of being nuked by the Soviets.

      Personally, I would be looking for some vengeance.

    3. Shockingly, there are no comments. Salon must have turned them off of this article.

      1. Check your script blocking.

        Some fantastic derp from the comments:

        On the gun debate here: The urge of the police to be overwhelmingly armed is not in response to the criminal and tea party elements being heavily armed. Instead it’s exactly the same urge the criminal and tea party elements have. The urge of the police to terrify the public with their heavy arms is not in response to the criminal and tea party elements terrifying the public with their heavy arms (all the recent “open carry” madness by the tea partiers, for instance), it’s exactly the same urge. There is little psychological or social separation between the police, the criminals, and the tea partiers. While they all have certain positive benefits for society, including the preservation of certain sorts of freedoms – different freedoms – all maintain their effective power through a dose of terror. Police, criminals and tea partiers are all necessarily to a significant degree terrorists. Their armaments and methods are of a piece, maintainers of the edge in terror they all have over the less-well-armed, more peaceful citizenry.

        1. cont.

          Yes, each of those three semi-terrorist groups helps protect the rest of us from the other two, to some degree. In practical terms the police in particular communities often align with either the criminals or the tea partiers, but not necessarily, and only in the Deep South are all those three semi-terrorist groups fully integrated in many communities.

          Longer term, the peaceful citizens need to disarm them all. Until we do, they will all continue to thrive by asserting their power to terrorize.

          1. Longer term, the peaceful citizens need to disarm them all. Until we do, they will all continue to thrive by asserting their power to terrorize.

            Question: How do people without guns disarm people with guns?

            I have a feeling that this guy would end up overseeing the massacre of millions of innocent people and would claim he was peaceful the entire time.

            1. Question: How do people without guns disarm people with guns?

              Kumbayaaaaa, my Lord, Kumbayaaaaa …

          2. Well, that was something.

            How do you suppose that person thinks that “peaceful citizens” will be able to disarm the “semi-terrorists”, including the police?

        2. Check your script blocking.

          Good to know I unknowingly protected myself from the derpitude at Salon.

      2. You must have your script blockers set to 11. I see 1327 comments and counting.

      3. Huh, there were yesterday; I recall being shocked that they were sympathetic and anti-cop-violence. Salon must’ve decided that they were not representative of their usual commenting standards.

    4. Salon comments are the bestest:

      Alecia Phonesavanh — If you can stomach reading this comment thread, which has been predictably hijacked by a bunch of libertarian nuts, I’m so sorry for what your family is suffering

      Yes. It’s those darn libertarians that love cops who blow holes in children for the sake of a low level drug sale. We love the militarization of cops.

      Fucking retards.

      1. They should come to H&R and see what real libertarian nuts are like

        1. You know, this would be a real cool thing. This year for the drown-the-r fundraiser, instead of “Ask A Libertarian” videos where you end up submitting questions to a reason staffer, they could do “Ask an H&R commenter”. Fifty bucks the question. A real moneymaker, amirite?

          1. Pimping out SugarFree will only make you feel cheap and dirty. He’ll be fine about it, of course.

            1. Of course.

      2. Ah yes, all those children who get burned by libertarians who tell the parents to shut up and sit down while their two year old is screaming in pain and fear.

    5. Between liberals wanting to disarm the citizenry, and conservatives wanting to arm the government beyond measure, I’m sure this movie is going to end great.

    6. I can’t copy and paste from that stupid site for some reason.

      After the initial raid the cops wouldn’t let her hold her son. All she could see was a pool of blood near the crib. The cops said he was fine but lost a tooth (how the fuck is that fine, on a 2-year-old?).

      Draw and quarter those motherfuckers.

  30. Since. Cochran openly campaigned for Democrats to come vote for him in a GOP primary then McDaniels supporters should not feel bound by the primary pledge to vote for the GOP nominee in November. They can stay home or vote third party and see how the establishment likes them apples.

    1. s.pecksniff returns

  31. House GOP members plan to prevent DC Marijuana Decriminalization

    “Maryland Rep. Andy Harris plans to use his power as an appropriator to try to stop the District of Columbia from moving forward with decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana.

    The Republican lawmaker confirmed to CQ Roll Call that he intends to introduce an amendment during a Wednesday markup of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill, which includes D.C.’s local and federal funds, to “target” decriminalization.”


  32. My sister sent me this Doonsebury today:



    1. I don’t read the Doonsebury strips. Maybe it is because I’m Mexican or because I am not a stupid liberal gringo who can’t see the difference between double-blind testing of drugs and climate theory; I just can’t see what is funny about Doonsebury.

      1. Never found him funny.

        Calvin & Hobbes on the other hand…priceless.

    2. Your diagnosis has been provided by the best bureaucratic apparatchiks across the globe.

    3. That is stunning.

      Not accepting a theory for which the evidence is questionable, which has a 100% failure rate for it’s predictions, on a subject which is poorly understood has no connection whatsoever to acceptance of a theory for which the exact opposite is true.

      Moreover it is a pure ad hominem. Does it strengthen a theory to call its doubters ignorant? It is also an ad populum assertion. Do they have any arguments at all that are not pure fallacy?

      This is the kind of shit poured daily out of the pot over the public’s head that makes the warmistas such transparent frauds.

      1. 99% of all climate scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming, although we didn’t ask the ones who are deniers their opinion because they don’t count.

    4. So, exactly like low-fat, high-fiber diets, then?

    5. What do you expect from a flappy-headed, beady-eyed Canuck?

  33. Doonesbury is still around?

  34. A diamond the size of the Earth. I really wanted to insert a witty reference to the F. Scott Fitzgerald short story, but I got nothing.

    1. Was Lucy up there with it?


        (Isn’t that what I’m supposed to do in this situation? Not sure.)

    2. So, A.C. Clarke was right, but got the location a bit wrong?

      /of course, “Why can’t it be both?”

  35. instead of “Ask A Libertarian” videos where you end up submitting questions to a reason staffer, they could do “Ask an H&R commenter”.

    An excellent suggestion.

  36. SCOTUS went 1-for-2 today. They screwed over Aereo (with the conservatives dissenting), but found (unanimously!) that police need a warrant to search a cellphone of someone they arrest.

    1. The police are so out of control even a government hack like Kagan or Scalia couldn’t find for them. How stupid and out of control must you be to get all nine of the Narzgul to agree you need to be slapped down?

  37. You know what’s more boring than soccer?

    1. Is it Adolf Hitler?

    2. Football? Golf?

      Oh, I know. It’s discussions about soccer on the internet.

    3. Golf for one. I understand why people play golf. It is a maddeningly challenging sport. How people watch it for entertainment is beyond me.

      1. The only good thing about golf coverage is that you aren’t following just one player. Imagine how much worse it would be if you weren’t jumping from hole to hole and just had to wait 5 minutes between shots.

  38. Calvin & Hobbes on the other hand…priceless.

    And Bill Watterson was wise enough to stop while it was still good.

    Trudeau, on the other hand….

    1. I’m not sure Doonesbury’s been funny (or relevant) since the Nixon administration.

    2. I got a letter in the state newspaper when I was a kid where I tried to convince Watterson to keep going (or maybe just “take a brake”).

  39. Oh, I know. It’s discussions about soccer on the internet.

    Very good. You win a cookie.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.