Inmate Languished for Two Hours After Botched Lethal Injection, Kim Jong-Un Mad About Dance Video: A.M. Links

Jar Jar Binks is more popular than the U.S. Congress.

|

  • Kim Jong-Un
    Harry Crane / Wikimedia Commons

    The two-hour-long death of convicted murder Joseph R. Wood III has renewed calls for the abolition of the death penalty. Wood was given a lethal injection in an Arizona prison on Wednesday, but did not die for another two hours. He "gasped and snorted" for a long time before succumbing, according to reports.

  • U.S. Ninth Circuit Court Judge Alex Kozinski said lethal injections should be replaced with firing squads. The injection shields the public "from the reality that we are shedding human blood," he said.
  • North Korean officials have asked China to remove a dance video that mocks leader King Jong-Un from the internet. The video features Jong-Un's head superimposed over kung-fu dancers and fighters. Chinese officials were unable to do anything about it, they said.
  • President Obama is drawing criticism for refusing to let the press accompany him to several fundraising events this week.
  • Jar Jar Binks is more popular than the U.S. Congress.

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. You can also get the top stories mailed to youā€”sign up here.

NEXT: Ben Bernanke: Life is "Absolutely" Better Now Than He's No Longer at Fed; Doesn't Want to Talk About Auditing the Fed

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. Jar Jar Binks is more popular than the U.S. Congress.

    Me not know how to feel about this.

    1. “Meesa move for a vote of no confidence in Speaker Boehner”

    2. Yousa cansa turn offsa lightsa now, meesa thinks the Republic issa finished.

    3. Meesa want to see both-a put in sack and drowned!

    4. “Jar Jar makes the Ewoks look like fucking Shaft!”

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4TX6x2WLgk

      1. “Who’re the little furry things that make all-l-l the troopers dead?
        “‘WOKS!”
        “You’re daammn right!”

    5. Who cares if some Star Trek character is more popular than Congress?

      1. I saw that.

    6. Didn’t Jar Jar become some kind of senator? Could Lucas have been making some kind of pointed attack at our political system?

      No! That’s impossible!

      1. I believe he was only a representative, so he’d be in the House.

        1. I think he was ‘acting senator’ when Amidala was having mensies or whatever. As representative he carried at least 89% of the Gungan vote as well. If it’s racist for a Nabooan to not vote for someone on the basis of being Gungan, then how is it not racist for the Gungans to monolithically vote for their candidates on racial grounds? Whenever they vote for a non-Gungan, it’s only cause their Nabooan candidate pandered to their racial sensitivities. The Nabooan left is doing

          1. *The Nabooan left is doing this to keep the Gungans on the seaweed plantation.

            1. +2 Space Limbaugh

      2. Search your feelings; you know it to be true!

    7. Hello.

      Too late?

    8. Doing the Jar Jar comparison is worse than doing the Godwin.

      You know else is worse than Jar Jar?

      Nikki would be the only correct answer.

  2. President Obama is drawing criticism for refusing to let the press accompany him to several fundraising events this week.

    They’ll have to wait a few hours to resume humping his leg. So what.

    1. They are worried there might be a gap in cover they can gratefully provide him.

      1. The work of a courtier is never done.

    2. They wait at the door like a lonely and loyal golden retriever.. tail wagging as he steps out through the door.. Walkies!

  3. The injection shields the public “from the reality that we are shedding human blood,” he said.

    I’d hate to see how he wants us to pay our taxes.

    1. In pounds of flesh. They way it should be.

      1. Yes, but measured in standard or troy ounces?

        1. Depends on which bracket you’re in.

    2. Should have had Obama swing by and do it. He claims he’s good at killing people.

    3. I agree with him. Bring back the firing squad. Might want to consider that ‘off with their head’ thing too.

      1. Supposedly an impetus for the end of the French Revolution beheading frenzy was a women NOT going with dignity but screaming and crying her head off.

        Kinda brings it home to the folks in the front row.

      2. Or even better, if the government insists on killing people, they could do it with a single shot to the head while a person is sleeping. Why should the condemned be forced to undergo an entire elaborate ceremony that ultimately ends in their death? Just take them out cleanly when they’re not expecting it and let them go in peace.

    4. Hey bullets are probably cheaper than the drugs

  4. Chinese officials were unable to do anything about it

    China banned from /r/pyongyang!

  5. North Korean officials have asked China to remove a dance video that mocks leader King Jong-Un from the internet.

    “I have a dream… that you will take down that video…”

    1. I’m afraid I’m going to have to insist that someone acknowledge what I did here.

      1. I will acknowledge that I now just have this confused image in my head of Jong-Un menacingly stabbing a watermelon.

      2. Is the Norks would’ve only spontaneously rioted over that video, and slaughtered some Chinese ambassador and his gunrunners staff, your concerns and theirs would have been righteously acknowledged…

      3. Once again, I’m really going to have to insist that people read carefully my comment, including the accurately quoted text.

        1. Why would we acknowledge the vile, disgusting racist humor that tickles your inscrutable China-man savage sense of humor?

          1. I think “man” should also be capitalized there.

        2. I consider comment joke re-emphasizing a far greater sin than comment second-joking.

          1. I hate allowing mediocrity in my audience to stand unaddressed.

  6. Makes sense. Given the lack of traction for ending the Drug War, Jar Jar Binks is less of a racist caricature than Congress at this point.

  7. The video features Jong-Un’s head superimposed over kung-fu dancers and fighters.

    China said they were only able to superimpose the Yangtze River over the kung-fu dancers and fighters.

    1. Dear Jim,

      The late Kim Jong-il was a massive fan of both the Spice Girls and fancy dress. Could you paint me a collage of Polaroids he took dressed up as every member standing in front of a giant letter such that it spells the word ‘Spice’. Note he hasn’t taken his glasses off for any of the pictures and when dressed as ginger spice he is wearing a North Korean flag dress instead of the Union Jack dress. He has also included magazine cut outs saying ‘girl power’ and ‘spice up your life’.

      http://jimllpaintit.tumblr.com/image/87611475979

  8. Australian woman arrested in Lebanon for adultery ‘deserves it’, says brother

    http://www.theguardian.com/wor…..ys-brother

    1. Let me guess, even though they are from Australia they don’t look like Paul Hogan. They are fucked up crazy Muslims who managed to immigrate to Australia.

      1. RACIST!

        But…

        Her brother Ahmed, speaking from Sydney, said Issa “deserves what she gets”.

      2. You win the prize.

        Her brother Ahmed, speaking from Sydney, said Issa “deserves what she gets”.

        “She has wronged the system,” he told Macquarie Radio.

        Wronged the system? Was she fucking it too?

        1. “Was she fucking it too?”

          No, she was cheating on the system, by fucking the arbitrary 12 month restriction.

      3. Reading the article confirms your suspicion.

  9. Gee, maybe the anti death penalty people shouldn’t have made the good drugs unavailable or maybe not insisted on lethal injection in the first place. When we hanged people or put them before a firing squad, this sort of thing never happened.

    1. I’m wonder if anyone is acutally going to try inert atmosphere asphyxiation.

      1. In the early 90’s it was floated as a serious alternative by some conservative groups, including National Review.

        1. But it wasn’t actually tried!

      2. That’s only for suicides.

      3. I oppose the death penalty, but if we’re going to have one, I don’t see why firing squads or guillotines are so horrible.

        1. Cross bow!

        2. Load them into a trebuchet, and fling them against the prison’s tallest wall… That ought to awaken them to “the reality that we are shedding human blood,”

          1. A circus cannon, to keep it a little more festive.

    2. Morphine: Cheap, Plentiful and Effective

      1. So are bullets. Done well, you never know what hit you.

      2. Yeah, I just don’t understand this problem. A great big syringe of morphine would do the trick in a minute.

    3. Actually, it did happen. Jesse James’ step-father, I believe, was saved from a hanging, and suffered neck problems for the rest of his life as a result.

    4. I saw send them on a one-way trip to Mars. I mean, people are volunteering for this, so it’s not cruel. We’ll regularly resupply them and provide equipment and housing; otherwise, they are free.

        1. So like Alien 3

          1. No drop bears? We’d have to send some.

      1. Mars ain’t the kind of place to raise your kids. In fact, it’s cold as hell.

        1. It’s going to be all men anyway, so there won’t be any kids to raise.

          Where the female criminals are sent is left as an exercise to the reader…

          1. Venus. It only makes sense.

          2. Split between Warty’s basement and SugarFree’s dungeon?

            Maybe send a couple to STEVE SMITH?

      2. Bring them robot wives, too.

          1. +1 Twilight Zone

      3. Mars is a Harsh Mistress?

    5. When we hanged people or put them before a firing squad, this sort of thing never happened.

      Actually, they fucked up hangings all the time (the gallows broke, the length of rope was miscalculated (couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy), the rope wasn’t tight enough to snap the neck but enough to let the guy slowly suffocate for several minutes, etc.

      The difference is no one gave a shit.

      1. There is a reason why the US Navy has tables and tables of data for cross-referencing rope material, rope thickness, and number of turns needed to have an effective hanging.

    6. There are gallons of good drugs available for this. Why we decided to use some exotic cocktail, I have no idea.

      Just jack full of damn near any barbituate or opiate, and they’ll go super fast and easy. An easier death than most people.

      This ain’t rocket surgery.

  10. A Minneapolis family was asked to get off a Southwest Airlines flight in Colorado because of a tweet the father sent out complaining about the airline’s service before the departure from Denver International Airport.

    http://www.smh.com.au/travel/t…..z38OHrQAAP

    1. Don’t send back your food in a restaurant. And don’t complain about a company until after the service has been rendered.

    2. Southwest is learning about the Streisand Effect.

    3. Holy fuck, have airlines become preening little cunts, post 9-11.

      “His 6-year old paralyzed son made me fear for my life!”

  11. Wood was given a lethal injection in an Arizona prison on Wednesday, but did not die for another two hours.

    I blame environmentalists and their low-flow syringes.

    1. Low flow? I don’t like the sound of that…

    2. Sometimes you have to inject the same syringe two or three times.

      1. A syringe full of air would work, too.

  12. I know we make fun of Obama for going off and golfing, and people made fun of Bush for being at his ranch instead of at the White House, but something about this article bothers me:

    People going nuts because politician runs a triathlon instead of constantly talking about geopolitics

    Premier Alexander Stubb took part in Saturday’s Joroinen Triathlon, and he was very pleased with his performance. That much was clear from his twitter feed, which was filled with photos, reports and insight into how the head of government’s race was progressing.

    Unfortunately for the athletic prime minister, the Finnish media was quick to note that other statesmen in the Nordic countries were at the time tweeting and speaking about the crises in Gaza and Ukraine. Helsingin Sanomat and Kotimaa published critical articles on Stubb’s behaviour.

    It’s not as though those situations were changing rapidly enough that every politician in the world needed to be commenting on them every hour. And perhaps it’s not a bad thing if we’ve got politicians who realize they’re not the be-all and end-all. And really, what’s the PM of a country of 5.5M people really going to be able to do about any of these situations?

    This isn’t the first time people went off the deep end over Stubb, either.

    1. What the hell is Finland supposed to do about Ukraine? Let the man do his triathlon.

      1. ‘Finnish them off’ is their slogan. Didn’t you know that?

      2. Fight the Russians to a standstill again?

        1. There is always that.

          1. Then he should be doing Biathlons.

      3. Send people in incredible shape to fight, regardless of whether they have to run, swim, or bike their way to the battlefield?

    2. other statesmen in the Nordic countries were at the time tweeting and speaking

      They were doing so much

    3. You’ll have to remind me why you follow Finnish affairs again?

      1. I spent a week in Finland ages ago on the way to my semester in Russia, and always wanted to try to learn Finnish to keep my mind active (since it’s so different from Indo-European languages). I’ve always wanted to go back and see Lapland and the like, but haven’t gotten the chance.

        Or the alternative answer is that I’m just a weirdo.

    4. Don’t just run there! DO SOMETHING!!one1!!

  13. Jar Jar Binks is more popular than the U.S. Congress.

    That’s because he, compared to any Congressman, is impressively articulate and knowledgeable.

    1. …and less corrupt.

      1. Except for that whole giving the emperor emergency powers thing.

        1. His child like naivety… and mental capacity. Useful fool is useful.

  14. Euthanasia advocate banned from practising medicine after murder suspect tops himself

    http://www.smh.com.au/national…..z38OIyaJ3g

    1. Voluntary or involuntary euthenasia? Or just in favor of killing in general?

      1. Mr Brayley died in May after taking a fatal overdose of a drug discussed at Exit International forums.

        His wife, Lina, 37, died in February 2011 after she fell from the top of a quarry while taking photographs. The death was initially believed to be an accident, but it emerged after Mr Brayley took his life that he was being investigated for his alleged involvement.

        Apparently he counseled a suspected murderer on how to kill himself. The horror.

        1. Exit International…given the subject, what a fabulously named conference

    2. I’ve never understood the desire to keep a murder suspect or convict from killing themselves. They are both admitting guilt and somewhat atoning for their actions.

      1. Because in a lot of common law countries, if you die a mere suspect, they can’t out and out say you killed the person.

        1. OK, it does inhibit wrongful death lawsuits and such. But surely convicts should be able to use the suicide booth.

          1. I am no peace freak, in defense I will destroy anything threatening my family. BUT the power we give to the government in the death penalty is purely for revenge. The same reason why they want to be the one to execute it. No other rational reason. I know John will come here and say it is expensive to keep them alive, or some Hammurabi code BS but the truth is I am of the belief that we should let 10 criminals go before killing one falsely convicted.

            1. Since we let far more than 10 go free every day, you should be fine with the death penalty.

      2. There are innocent people whose lives are so fucked up by prosecutors that they commit suicide.

        Not that I’m saying pepole shouldn’t have the right to end their life at a time of their own choosing.

        1. But not killing yourself in that situation really doesn’t keep the evil shits from destroying your life. Killing yourself can be a rational choice when confronted with a Kafkaesque nightmare.

          1. Sure, but if it closes the case and the actual guilty party is still on the loose, there’s a problem.

            1. there’s a problem.

              I agree, but if you are getting railroaded, they aren’t looking for the real killer anyway. This is exactly what happened to OJ.

              1. “This is exactly what happened to OJ”

                Nice. +3 ring of troll power.

          2. You know, for those of us who actually pay taxes, we should be able to opt for the style of imprisonment we get when they start locking people up for political beliefs. “Sir, we have four options for your incarceration today, Turkish, Black Hole of Calcutta, gulag, or, our special today, the Kafka.”

          3. Would you not rather take out the source of the nightmare?

            1. If you could. But I doubt the choice is ever: murder corrupt prosecutor or kill yourself.

              I’m not saying you should kill yourself, just that I don’t think it’s a choice you should have taken away from you.

              And besides, until conviction you still retain the right of self-ownership which means you life is your to do with as you see fit.

        2. There are innocent people whose lives are so fucked up by prosecutors that they commit suicide.

          If I got to that point, I have to believe I’d want to see how many of the fuckers I could take with me.

      3. And saving the rest of us a lot of money.

      4. True, but it robs The State of it’s revenge.

        1. THIS

        2. True, but it robs The State of it’s revenge perceived control.

          Asking the government to forgo frog-marching the suspect before the cameras, a solid hammering at the hands of a prosecutor more concerned with his own conviction ratio and political machinations based on those ratios, than the defendants guilt or innocence, and degrading ignominy of prison, and finally, state execution… that’s out of the question. They need the circus to instill the perception of control.

  15. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/g…..d-n1865078

    CNN Poll, twice as many Americans say they were harmed by Obamacare as say they were helped. But it is a big nothing. Shreeky told me.

    And it looks like the free shit brigade might be a little under manned on this one.

    1. More than half of Americans believe that they or others are better off with Obamacare, a new poll shows.

      The CNN poll released Wednesday found that 18 percent of respondents said they or their family had benefited from the health care law, while an additional 35 percent said while they may not be better off, the lives of others have improved.

      Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/…..z38OKLN3ff

      The ACA won’t be a factor in November. You know I am right.

      1. More than half of Americans believe that they or others are better off with Obamacare, a new poll shows.

        The OR OTHERS retard. The reality is the millions of people will harmed by this. But don’t let the fact that Obama is a fucking retard fucked up everyone’s healthcare from you claiming RACISM when the Democrats get their asses handed to them in November.

        Why does Obama hate Americans with health insurance? Why does Obama hate doctors and healthcare?

        1. I read that, you jackass. The point you missed is that a slight plurality find positives in the ACA. Of course 40% of the US that are hard core conservatives will always hate it but they vote GOP anyway.

          Again, you were predicting DOOM! in November for Dems – and now you don’t spout that bullshit anymore. Even Kay Hagan is moving up in NC.

          1. Walsh in Montana is now toast.

            http://www.politico.com/story/…..09293.html

            1. MT, WV, SD are all toast. That makes it 52-48 with six tossup states deciding who gets the Senate.

              LA, IA, AR, NC, AK, CO

              KY is a wild card.

              1. I think the Washington Post has it at 90% chance of GOP taking the Senate.

      2. Which is why the Team Blue guys in contested seats are running so hard on it?

        1. Some are. Hagan and Prior among others.

          1. How can AR be a toss-up? Tom Cotton is a 37yo Harvard-educated Marine veteran. Whereas David Prior is just some dude with a famous name…

            This is like when George Allen was in a fairly competitive race with Jim Webb…it boggles the mind that it’s even close…

      3. Thursday HAPPY Thursday!

    2. 8% think they were helped, 16% think they were harmed.

      Since 76% have a neutral opinion, it is a big nothing.

      1. So an 8% swing doesn’t matter? Not exactly. Actively harming 16% of the country with your “signature achievement” is a big deal.

        How many Americans actually served in Iraq much less were wounded? Was that a big nothing?

        1. Perhaps I should have included a /sarcasm tag. You’ll realize there’s a reason I said that 8% claimed to be helped.

          1. John apparently forgot about the running gag regarding PB and “8%”…

  16. WASHINGTON ? U.S. Senate Democrats included $225 million for Israel’s Iron Dome rocket interception system in an emergency funding bill on Tuesday that also cut $1 billion from President Barack Obama’s request for $3.7 billion to deal with thousands of undocumented child immigrants.

    “Israel is an essential American ally and needs these assets to defend itself,” said Maryland Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski, chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, in a statement.

    http://www.nytimes.com/reuters……html?_r=1

    1. No rider for $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts?

      1. The following people are gay:

        1. Turn it off!

    2. Are you touting this as good? Israel has their own assets with which to defend itself. They should use their assets instead of ours.

      1. Not at all. I-P pie fights don’t interest me.

        1. Why did you have to bring copyright into it?

      2. “They should use their assets instead of ours.”

        So you agree with Israeli settlers. Stop US aid (and the strings attached) and deal decisively with the barbarians who wish to “drive every Jew into the sea.”

        Oh, and by the way: once the “assets” (in the form of money) are stolen from you and I, they are no longer our assets. They are the government’s assests. Why bitch about one use of these assets over the many others?

    3. “Israel is an essential American ally…”

      Why is that, exactly?

      1. “Why is that, exactly?”

        Israel is democratic? Capitalist? Contributes to world technology advancement (laptop, cellphone)? Medical advances? Shared intelligence?

        Civilized?

        Not run by murderous lunatics?

        Sorry. I know my list is incomplete.

      2. Primarily because they opposed the Soviets in the Middle East during the Cold War

        1. Odd that it was the Soviets who were instrumental in their receiving recognition upon declaration of a state in 1948.

      3. Cause they have nukes and if we don’t keep them as an ally they will likely use those nukes on their enemies which will just kill our supply of oil

    4. Go Dems! I would prefer we not send money to anyone, but the money has already been…acquired by the gubmint and will be handed out to someone.

      Might as well be used to stop missiles launched by a bunch of guys who think of Hitler like we think of Elvis.

  17. Surgeons remove 232 teeth from Indian teenager

    Surgeons in Mumbai have removed 232 teeth from the mouth of an Indian teenager in what they believe may be a world-record operation, the hospital said Thursday.

    Ashik Gavai, 17, sought medical help for a swelling on the right side of his lower jaw and the case was referred to the city’s JJ Hospital, where they found he was suffering from a condition known as complex odontoma, head of dentistry Sunanda Dhivare-Palwankar told AFP.

    “We operated on Monday and it took us almost seven hours. We thought it may be a simple surgery but once we opened it there were multiple pearl-like teeth inside the jaw bone,” she said.

    1. That’s a whole lot of absorbed siblings…

    2. And yet another X-man is kept from reaching his full potential.

      1. His power would be something like a shark’s jaw?

          1. Good thing they nipped that Leifeldian nightmare in the bud.

            1. Nightmare? Don’t all the people you see in real life have shins that are 1/4 the length of their thighs and no feet?

    3. Surgeons removed 232 teeth except one as a joke.

      1. “….so you can have a toothache!”

    4. Was India colonized by carnies back in the day? I can’t count how many stories I’ve read like this.

      1. They have 1/7th of all the people on the planet. Odd deformity or medical anomaly appears, higher odds of it being Indian or Chinese through sheer probability.

      2. Yes, a little known fact – the East India Company had a shadow war with Midway Amusements to control the India trade. Midwest lost, but left its genetic imprint upon the hapless Indian populace…

        1. *squints*
          not sure if…well, you know the rest

  18. Came across this yesterday, article about the controversy about Glenn Beck speaking at Liberty U, and it seems there was an element present not found in some of the other ‘controversial commencement/convocation speaker controversies:’

    “According to reports, students who skipped the event were fined $10 for their failure to attend the ceremony.” http://www.gospelherald.com/ar…..tlyCd.dpuf

    1. Liberty is not known for a being a bastion of tolerant thought. I think Goldwater had Falwell pretty much nailed.

      1. Another article I read said that an anti-
        Mormon businessman stood in front of the platform and handed out 20 dollar bills to any student whose conscience moved them to leave in protest. It was a ‘I was told by some participants’ story so take it for what it is worth.

      2. I so wish the GOP had conservatives like Goldwater today. It would be respectable and he wasn’t perfect by any standard.

        1. No you don’t. You really don’t.

      3. Falwell’s such a tool, using his dad’s money from that devil liquor to set up his fleecing operation.

        Yes, fleecing operation. Personally verified, worked for his construction company.

        1. Well driller?

    2. students who skipped the event were fined $10 for their failure to attend

      Sounds like a penaltax

  19. Unfortunately for the athletic prime minister, the Finnish media was quick to note that other statesmen in the Nordic countries were at the time tweeting and speaking about the crises in Gaza and Ukraine.

    When all was said and done, who actually had accomplished something in the real world?

  20. that story isn’t evidence that we should stop the death penalty, it’s evidence we should go back to the elctric chair. Never had any problems like this. You zap the guy, he dies.

    And honestly, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, lethal injection is the most cruel way to kill someone. It’s so DELIBERATE, you have to focus on the fact that those are your last moments! When you fall asleep, you know it’s for the last time. With the electric chair, there is no shift in conciousness, there is no seeing them put in a needle or drip. You just sit in a chair, wear a hood, and just die instantaneously.
    That or firing squad. All that pain would be wonderfully distracting from the extremely heavy thoughts that YOU ARE DYING. I’d rather go out in intense pain than have to fucking ruminate on the fact that I’m going to die

    1. “it’s evidence we should go back to the elctric chair. Never had any problems like this. You zap the guy, he dies.”

      http://www.nydailynews.com/arc…..e-1.751043

      1. The chair looks like a nasty way to die.

    2. The anti death penalty people are fucking evil. They worked to make executions harder in hopes just this sort of thing would happen and they could use it to argue against the death penalty. That is horrible.

      1. I am not sure how they caused this particular result, what’s your theory?

        1. The guy languished because the anti death penalty people argued that the effective drugs were cruel and made them impossible to get. This never happened in years of lethal injections with the old drugs. The activists have worked to make every humane form of execution impossible in the hopes that states would either not do it or if they did, they would have a gruesome death to use for political ends.

          1. Fair enough, but perhaps they honestly thought the previous ‘cocktail’ was cruel and unusual also?

          2. Well, if you’ve eliminated all of the humane methods of execution then the remaining methods are at the least cruel, and most likely unusual as well, so the State shouldn’t be executing people with those methods.

        2. If they hadn’t given assistance to the Eruomaidan movement, Moscow wouldn’t be giving separatists SA-11 launchers.

          1. I stand by my defense of Ron Paul last night. I never knew there were so many Paul detractors here.

            1. I am not a detractor of Dr. Paul. I am a detractor of stupid statements and stupid positions. It is easy to hammer some people because they have no principles and are consistently on the wrong side of every argument. Paul, not so much. But when he steps in it he should be called on it.

              1. Fair enough, but I like to give the man who helped attract me to libertarianism as charitable of a reading of his comments as I can.

                1. Fair enough, but I like to give the man who helped attract me to libertarianism as charitable of a reading of his comments as I can.

                  And that person is Ron Paul? The Republican congressman? The staunchly pro-life Republican congressman?

            2. Don’t get me wrong…

              I was just pointing out that John was engaging in a form of argumentation he normally decries.

              I also would like to take this moment to express my admiration for Test Pattern.

              1. Apologies for misunderstanding then.

      2. The anti death penalty people are fucking evil.

        That’s a bit strong (and overly general). There are alternatives to lethal injection if the right drugs aren’t available. I’d say the people who continue to insist on using lethal injection despite not being able to do it properly are more evil anyway.

      3. Well, I’m anti-death penalty–for several reasons–but I’m not interested in making the deaths crueler to advance this position.

        Not that some of these evil fucks don’t likely deserve horrible deaths–most of them inflicted the same on someone else–but I don’t trust the government to do much of anything, including dispensing absolute justice.

        1. The humane way to execute someone?

          A rock dropped very specifically from a really high place, at a time unbeknownst to the person being executed.

          1. A bullet in the head in the middle of the night while the condemned is sleeping.

        2. I don’t have any moral qualms about the theory of the death penalty. However, in practice I oppose it for exactly the reason you said ProL. The gubbment has to be one of the worse organizations ever to entrust the duty of applying the death penalty.

          I was on jury duty last week and had to sit in on a 1st degree murder trial that would have been funny if the stakes weren’t so high. The state had no eye witnesses, no fingerprints, no dna. Nothing. All they had were the testimony of 5 guys who were in a gang together (the defendent wasn’t in the gang). What a cluster fuck.

          No way the DA and the system that put on that case should be also able to take someone’s life.

          1. The criminal trial I was a juror for (for much, much lower stakes) was a case where a whole element of the offense not only wasn’t argued, there apparently never was any evidence for it. Not sure who thought bringing that case made sense, but they did. And they lost.

          2. Agree 100 times over. As a libertarian I believe that you should treat others as you would have them treat you. A guy that goes around killing or raping or robbing other people has no good argument against killing or raping or robbing other people when he himself is the other people, does he? But the government is just about the last group I would trust to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that any given person they’ve arrested is actually guilty of killing or raping or robbing other people.

      4. Only some of them. Read my comment above.

      5. Just because I don’t trust the State enough to believe in the death penalty, I’m evil? I think the long history of exoneration cases for death row inmates should give any pro-death penalty person pause. I guess that counts for evil.

        1. So I knew I hadn’t read far enough down before commenting. A blanket “I Agree with ProL” will suffice here.

    3. I am no chemist so tell me why vets can euthanize a horse in seconds every time by lethal injection but prisons cannot do the same to a person?

      1. You ask for a miracle and I give you the F-D-A.

        1. +1 Gruber

      2. Vets are allowed to buy the correct drugs for the procedure from legit pharmacies and administer them in a more practical manner.

        1. I thought prisons bought lethal drugs from compounding labs not monitored by the FDA.

          I might be mistaken on this.

          Now industry attorneys, government regulators, and other stakeholders say Congress needs to act to clarify who has authority to regulate such practices. The FDA ? despite clamoring for such power before ? has had most, if not all, of that authority taken away and it now lies with states, where regulations and oversight vary widely.

          In a nutshell, pharmacies, including compounders, are regulated by states; drug manufacturers are overseen by the FDA.

          http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/20…..sight.html

          1. I thought prisons bought lethal drugs from compounding labs not monitored by the FDA.

            That may just have something to do with it, just sayin’. There were also rumors that some states were obtaining veterinary drugs for the procedure.

      3. Government is so fucked up that it can’t even do an overdose correctly.

    4. we should go back to the elctric chair. Never had any problems like this. You zap the guy, he dies.

      Well…

      Kemmler was executed in New York’s Auburn Prison on August 6, 1890; the “state electrician” was Edwin F. Davis. The first 17-second passage of current through Kemmler caused unconsciousness, but failed to stop his heart and breathing. The attending physicians, Edward Charles Spitzka and Charles F. Macdonald, came forward to examine Kemmler. After confirming Kemmler was still alive, Spitzka reportedly called out, “Have the current turned on again, quick, no delay.” The generator needed time to re-charge, however. In the second attempt, Kemmler was shocked with 2,000 volts. Blood vessels under the skin ruptured and bled, and the areas around the electrodes singed. The entire execution took about eight minutes. George Westinghouse later commented that “they would have done better using an axe,”[13] and a witnessing reporter claimed that it was “an awful spectacle, far worse than hanging.”[14]

      1. Does that qualify as metal?

        1. Old Sparky was mostly wooden šŸ˜‰

      2. And don’t forget about Marv in Sin City. It took those “pansies” two tries to end his crazy ass life.

    5. There are lots of real reasons to oppose the death penalty, but I agree that lethal injection being a stupid way to do it is not really a good one.

      A always thought that the electric chair was silly and needlessly elaborate as well (and there have been fuckups with it as well where death didn’t come as quickly as promised). Firing squad, hanging (done properly) or beheading would all be better in my opinion.

      1. “Firing squad, hanging (done properly) or beheading would all be better in my opinion.”

        Try and sell that to those who oppose the death penalty. Especially the pearl clutching types.

        1. I agree with Pro Libertate’s comment above. I don’t trust the state with the power to execute people because I don’t trust the state with most lesser powers, wither. Of course a lot of the people who oppose capital punishment are perfectly fine with the state having all sorts of powers, just not that one.

  21. I like this Kozinsky guy. Whether or not it is a good thing for the government to be doing, people should face the reality of what execution is: cold blooded killing.

    1. Same with war. It’s not humanitarian, it’s not setting people free, it’s war, it’s ugly, it’s bloody, it’s inherently unjust, and it should only be used when absolutely necessary.

      1. Exactly. Neither should be considered a good or noble thing. Perhaps you have to do it sometimes if the alternatives are worse, but it’s a necessary evil at best.

  22. The Bloombergers are talking about GM, right now.

    “Well, if not for the costs of recalling half the cars they built in the last ten years, they would have had a great quarter.”

    Who the fuck would walk into a GM dealer and buy a car?

    1. If not for the pounding they took at the hands of the Seahawks, the Broncos would have had a great Superbowl!
      This game is fun…

      1. I dont like you.

    2. The last two cars I’ve purchased have been Chevys. They were both cheap and have so far been reliable.

      1. I am disappoint.

        I will never again buy a new or used GM or Dodge, because of the bailout and the unions. It is very unlikely that I will ever own another Ford, because of the unions.

        For the exact same reason that I don’t buy Cuban cigars. The Castros pocket that money, and I try not to put money in the pockets of goons and crooks.

        1. The 6.0 and 6.4 diesels from Ford ought to be enough reason to never own a Ford again. Bastards got me good with those.

  23. 8th Circuit Case Decides: When may a felon, who is generally barred from possessing a gun, get it to break up a fight?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..p-a-fight/

  24. Teen who sued parents files domestic order against beau
    MORRISTOWN, N.J. ? Rachel Canning, the teenager who moved out of her parents’ home and then sued them for support and college costs, has gotten a domestic violence temporary restraining order against her boyfriend ? the man her parents had wanted her to stop seeing….

    1. Gee, she was dating a idiot bad boy and was in “love”. Never could have seen that coming.

      1. I swear, her lawyer must have thanked his lucky stars the day that girl sashayed her way into his office.

        1. Isn’t her lawyer her (now ex-) boyfriend’s father?

    2. And she hasn’t even left for college yet. I can only imagine the poor choices she’s going to continue to make this fall and over the next 4 years. But hey, keep fucking up until you learn better, I guess.

      1. At this point, shouldn’t some network offer her a reality show?

        1. I think you are right – maybe MTV?

        2. MTV can replace Jersey Shore with this.

        3. Mean Girls IRL!

      2. Day 1: Hitting up a frat party where she doesn’t know anybody. What could go wrong?

        1. Depends on what you mean by “wrong.”

    3. I wonder who is going to be lucky enough to catch this entitled, over-indulged, little princess and put a ring on it?

      1. The same guy who, three months later, will have his own tooth-marks and dried spittle on the muzzle of his shotgun.

        1. This should not have made me laugh… but it did.

  25. “Wood was convicted of fatally shooting Dietz and her father, 55-year-old Gene Dietz, at their auto repair shop in Tucson.

    Wood and Debbie Dietz had a tumultuous relationship during which he repeatedly assaulted her. She tried to end their relationship and got an order of protection against Wood.

    On the day of the shooting, Wood went to the auto shop and waited for Gene Dietz, who disapproved of his daughter’s relationship with Wood, to get off the phone. Once the father hung up, Wood pulled out a revolver, shot him in the chest and then smiled.

    Wood then turned his attention toward Debbie Dietz, who was trying to telephone for help. Wood grabbed her by the neck and put his gun to her chest. She pleaded with him to spare her life. An employee heard Wood say, “I told you I was going to do it. I have to kill you.” He then called her an expletive and fired two shots in her chest.”

    1. If all accurate, then I’m glad he suffered.

    2. But the poor guy suffered last night so we must feel sorry for him, not the lives he destroyed.

      1. Exactly. I guess I’m cruel for wanting to discourage psychopathic behavior.

        1. His crime does not change the arguments above (about government incompetence) and this only demonstrates my point that the DP is nothing but simple revenge. It has nothing to do with justice or security. It is simply a different set of psychopaths, elected ones, doing the killing. If DP advocates would like to debate on the moral aspect of revenge by proxy of the state then fine. But not all anti-dp folks are of the same cloth.

          1. “DP is nothing but simple revenge. It has nothing to do with justice or security. ”

            I’m against the death penalty, but it certainly deters the murderer from committing more crimes. And the fact is, we don’t know how many potential murderers are deterred.

            It certainly has to do with justice and security. We simply argue over whether it is the right response to murder, and if the government should have such power. I would answer No to both questions, but most Americans would probably say Yes.

            1. I contend that it aide neither justice nor security. Not justice for the reasons I mentioned above and not security because if you are executing the DP then the person is already under your control and therefor no longer a threat to security. As for the deterrent effect i believe there has been little demonstrated in the research that has been done on the topic. Regardless, the difference in deterrent effects of life vs DP are likely to be quite small/insignificant.

              1. Pretty sure the recidivism rate of dead people is zero. Now, the recidivism rate of live people may approach the same.

                1. Was talking about life in prison not life in general. The recidivism rate of people in prison is zero with the exception of prison crimes.

              2. I don’t know if it furthers justice, but I don’t think it’s unjust, either. If a person has made it clear that he has no regard for the lives of others, I don’t think we owe any regard to his life. It’s hard to believe the world is a worse place without him (though it’s certainly possible), nor do I think it degrades ‘our’ moral character.

                That said, you need to be damn sure that the person is guilty.

            2. If the Death Penalty is going to act as a deterrent to other would-be murders, wouldnt the state have incentive to make executions public spectacle?

          2. the DP is nothing but simple revenge.

            Retribution is an element of nearly all criminal penalties.

            The indictments of the death penalty generally apply to some degree to all criminal penalties.

            The challenge for DP opponents is to show that, even though the DP shares its flaws with criminal penalties generally, the DP should nonetheless be barred but those other penalties should not.

    3. Nation of laws and all that.

  26. Mayor tells atheist group he “cannot allow” access to public space by a group “intending to ? discourage the practice of religion”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..-religion/

    1. Everyone should have access. That said, if religious groups can’t get access, anti religious groups should be prevented too. Banning religion from public, means banning anti-religion too.

      1. Everybody knows you deny permits for rallies you don’t want by deferring to public safety and inadequate security.

        1. Yes. It is always bullshit.

    2. Oh, that bozo is going to cost the taxpayers in his jurisdiction a lot of money.

  27. The two-hour-long death of convicted murder Joseph R. Wood III has renewed calls for the abolition of the death penalty.

    Why should I give shit if this scum bag suffered before he died?

    1. Because, Vag, it could be you strapped to that table next time. The conviction process isn’t infallible.

  28. people should face the reality of what execution is: cold blooded killing.

    Revenge murder.

    1. So fucking what? You say that like it is a bad thing. If you break in my house and threaten me, I will murder you too. But so fucking what? Some people need killing. Kids die of cancer every day. Spare me tears for the death of some asshole who did it to himself by killing others.

      1. “of some asshole who did it to himself by killing others.”

        As determined by out government, who always get things right in other matters!

        1. Juries are almost universally the finders of guilt or innocence, not the government itself.

          1. (For whatever that’s worth. It’s not like juries have never gotten it wrong)

            There are, of course, wildly varying degrees of certainty of guilt. That juries sometimes fuck up doesn’t make every convicted killer a victim of the system when he finally exits stage right after 25 years in prison.

          2. Its true that juries are involved, its also true that they are involved via a government organized and run process, and of course the decision to charge, or not, a capital crime is solely the decision of one elected politician each time.

            1. You can always convene a citizen grand jury, it just has no enforcement power. The government monopoly on force is kind of a defining feature of government. I’m pretty sure you’ve come down on the size of the legitimacy of the legal system and that foundation before.

              Also, half the states still use the grand jury system, so charging decisions at least theoretically aren’t in the hands of a single person.

              1. That’s pretty theoretical, remember the quote about the grand jury and ham sandwiches.

                1. I’d love to go back to private prosecutions and a legitimate grand jury system. Although I don’t think it would really resolve any of your objections.

                  1. I certainly agree that a return to the more traditional role of the grand jury would be nice.

        2. So you’re an anarchist now Bo?

          Or is it just that Joooos dominate the criminal justice system?

          1. Work it Rev. Al, work it!

        3. YEs juries. But show me where this guy was innocent and then we can talk sympathy.

      2. I think revenge is a bad thing. If people worried less about getting even with people who harmed them or their relations in the past, the world would be a much better place.

        1. If “ifs” and “buts” were candy and nuts we’d all have a merry Christmas. The entire purpose of the criminal justice system is punitive.

          1. Punishment is not necessarily revenge. It could be about deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, etc.,

          2. I don’t think that necessarily means it is about revenge, though. Once the bad person is removed from polite society, further unprovoked violence is unjustified.

            Anyway, everything about being a libertarian is all “ifs” and “buts”. Achieving anything close to a minarchist government is about as likely as convincing everyone to give up on revenge. So I’m going to stick with that.

            1. Personally, I think deterrence and rehabilitation are pretty much bullshit in terms of criminal justice. I don’t think they’re legitimate ends in the first place, and they don’t seem to work very well anyway. The purpose of civil law is restoration of the victim, the purpose of criminal law is punishment of the guilty. The distinction between retribution and revenge is mostly semantic. At an individual level it may be better to forgive. At the institutional level I think justice demands retribution for certain offenses (representing a small subset of the current list of criminal offenses).

              1. Wait, I thought the purpose of civil law was bankrupting corporations with extreme jury awards?

              2. I see the purpose of prison more as removing people who can’t play nice from society.
                I can’t deny that I get some satisfaction when people get what they deserve, but I don’t think that alone justifies imprisoning or executing someone.

              3. I also think that the idea that punishment or retribution is the legitimate purpose of criminal justice is one that is not completely obviously true. It is probably in some sense justified, but I think that you need to look beyond that and ask what good it does. If it doesn’t provide some good (such as deterrence or rehabilitation of criminals) to society in general, should it be done anyway? If so why? I’m not saying I know the answers to those questions for sure, but they need to be addressed.

                1. IMO, an asshole getting his comeuppance is a good in itself. On a practical level, it’s hard to argue that any form of imprisonment does good from a strictly utilitarian standpoint. Even in terms of public safety it probably ends up being a wash by the time you factor in second order effects.

                2. If the purpose of criminal justice is rehabilitation or removing from civil society someone who has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to live civilly in said society, what do we do with someone who has committed a one-off crime? It seems wrong that someone who is otherwise an upstanding citizen, upon it being discovered that 30 years ago murdered his wife or robbed a bank, should face no consequences for his actions just because it was demonstrably a one-time, never-to-be-repeated offense. But punishment or retribution doesn’t seem to fit with the idea that the government is doing something to you in return for your having done something to someone else.

                  Perhaps what bothers me is the whole ‘monopoly on the distribution of justice’ thing. If you steal my car, the government sends you to jail for having broken the rule against stealing other peoples stuff, not because you stole my car. If you steal my car, why shouldn’t I be able to come to your house with some friends of mine and get my car back, along with leaving you a lump on your head or a couple of extra orifices?

        2. The chaotic nature of revenge is why capital punishment evolved. “eye for an eye” was a compromise because the victims families wanted to rain revenge down on the murderer and everyone associated with him.

          1. Well, I like to think that maybe things could evolve a bit more. “Eye for an eye” was a great innovation in its time.

      3. Then let’s amend our laws to allow for cruelty in punishment.

        You are really missing the point, which is that a government that is too incompetent to properly execute someone should probably not be trusted with the power to apply the death penalty.

        1. But they are competent to lock someone in a cage for decades? You are missing the point. If you don’t trust the government to administer the death penalty, you don’t trust them to administer any justice system. So unless you are an anarchist, your position doesn’t work.

            1. No…not THIS. The government being incompetent to imprison someone is something that can have restitution applied if and when the government is found in the wrong AS HAPPENS A LOT. That option is off the table for the innocents that are killed by government.

          1. I don’t trust them to administer any justice system fairly and without serious mistakes. That’s why I like the things they do in the justice system not to be permanent and irreversible.
            You don’t have to believe that any government is completely illegitimate to think this way. You just have to see that governments are run by fallible and often corrupt individuals.

            1. Time is irreversible.

              1. You know what I mean. Yeah, wrongful imprisonment can’t be undone either, but at least there is something that can be done.

          2. If I’m ever falsely accused of murder, I’ll take the life in prison option over the strapped to a gurney and injected with lethal chemicals option any day.

          3. “Only the Sith deal in absolutes.”

            -Obi Wan Kenobi

    2. Socially managed revenge murder to discourage blood feuds. It didn’t come from nowhere.

  29. Opening ceremony for Commonwealth games go surreal.
    “Personally I felt the ceremony was a brilliant representation of Scotland’s rich history of caning loads of mind-altering drugs.”
    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/…..4072488874

    1. Did the Scottish golfer on Bugs Bunny, Myers doing ‘if it’s not Scottish it’s crap!’ and Groundskeeper Willie make an appearance?

  30. OT, but thanks to the folks who showed up at last night’s DC area Reason meetup. I think a good time was had by all, except for my liver and my brain. They’re upset with me today.

    1. Where did you go?

      1. O’Shaughnessey’s Pub in Old Town Alexandria. Dive bar above a NY style Deli. Kinda small but it’s a good spot to hang out, if you don’t mind cigarette smoke.

        1. oh yeah. right on King. good times.

  31. Two cops fired for beating the shit out of a prisoner.

    One has been charged with assault too. It took a while, but it’s nice to see something go that way. Interested to see what happens with the guy who was charged with assault.

    1. Don’t worry, I’m sure the union will get things straitened out.

      1. And even if they can’t, the prosecutor will decide it’s too difficult and won’t do anything about it.

      2. I’ve heard a bunch of stories about this and so far no union guys making excuses for it. I’ll remain cautiously optimistic.

  32. Ever wondered how you end up on the terror watch list?

    Among other things, if you’re on the list, expect them to rifle thru your stuff at any given chance.

    In addition to data like fingerprints, travel itineraries, identification documents and gun licenses, the rules encourage screeners to acquire health insurance information, drug prescriptions, “any cards with an electronic strip on it (hotel cards, grocery cards, gift cards, frequent flyer cards),” cellphones, email addresses, binoculars, peroxide, bank account numbers, pay stubs, academic transcripts, parking and speeding tickets, and want ads. The digital information singled out for collection includes social media accounts, cell phone lists, speed dial numbers, laptop images, thumb drives, iPods, Kindles, and cameras. All of the information is then uploaded to the TIDE database.

    1. Screeners are also instructed to collect data on any “pocket litter,” scuba gear, EZ Passes, library cards, and the titles of any books, along with information about their condition?”e.g., new, dog-eared, annotated, unopened.” Business cards and conference materials are also targeted, as well as “anything with an account number” and information about any gold or jewelry worn by the watchlisted individual. Even “animal information”?details about pets from veterinarians or tracking chips?is requested. The rulebook also encourages the collection of biometric or biographical data about the travel partners of watchlisted individuals.

    2. Ever wondered how you end up on the terror watch list?

      Not for a second. I presume visiting this site is more than sufficient.

    3. “To meet the REASONABLE SUSPICION standard, the NOMINATOR, based on the totality of the circumstances, must rely upon articulable intelligence or information which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrants a determination that an individual is known or suspected to be or has been knowingly engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to TERRORISM and/or TERRORIST ACTIVITIES.”

      “In determining whether a REASONABLE SUSPICION exists, due weight should be given to the specific reasonable inferences that a NOMINATOR is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his/her experience and not on unfounded suspicions or hunches. Although irrefutable evidence or concrete facts are not necessary, to be reasonable, suspicion should be as clear and as fully developed as circumstances permit.”

      Chopped word salad for the win.

      1. It doesn’t matter what standard they use. There is no way to know you are on the list or anyway to challenge your being on it if you did know. Without oversight, the standards are meaningless. The standard is “put whoever the person nominating wants to put on there”.

        The entire thing boils down to FUTY or to put their spin on it, “trust us”.

        1. The guidelines document is officially unclassified but has never been released until now as the government has fought tooth and nail to keep it secret. Kafka would be proud.

        2. I’d like to nominate FUTY as the new standard acronym for what we know John meant.

      2. They actually used the phrase “totality of the circumstances”? Did Dunphy write that?

    4. Most people would be appalled by this if they knew. Thanks to our sorry ass boot licking ignorant media, most people have no idea this is going on.

      Remember, they are able to get away with this first because they are able to do it with little notice. And they are only able to do that because of our ignorant, craven media.

      1. In 2012 Tim Healy, the former director of the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, described to CBS News how watchlists are used by police officers. “So if you are speeding, you get pulled over, they’ll query that name,” he said. “And if they are encountering a known or suspected terrorist, it will pop up and say call the Terrorist Screening Center?. So now the officer on the street knows he may be dealing with a known or suspected terrorist.” Of course, the problem is that the “known or suspected terrorist” might just be an ordinary citizen who should not be treated as a menace to public safety.

        What could possibly go wrong?

        1. I work in this field. Having what some redneck flatfoot who pulls you over considers “Islamist Literature” in your car can get you on this list. It is insane.

          1. So my handy dandy Arabic pocket dictionary would do the trick?

            1. *Scruffy starts to consider whether he can score points by turning someone in to the DHS*

    5. Not even death provides a guarantee of getting off the list. The guidelines say the names of dead people will stay on the list if there is reason to believe the deceased’s identity may be used by a suspected terrorist?which the National Counterterrorism Center calls a “demonstrated terrorist tactic.” In fact, for the same reason, the rules permit the deceased spouses of suspected terrorists to be placed onto the list after they have died.

      1. Shouldn’t every dead person be put on the list at death. The fact that you’ve died should be a pretty big clue to the cops that you’re up to something.

        1. Just tell them youre on your way to the voting booth!

    6. Get this

      In a recent court filing, the government disclosed that there were 468,749 KST nominations in 2013, of which only 4,915 were rejected?a rate of about one percent. The rulebook appears to invert the legal principle of due process, defining nominations as “presumptively valid.”

      There are 468,749 suspected terrorists? There haven’t been that many terrorists in the entire history of the world.

      And remember the incentive structure here. Even if they are not abusing this and are trying to do the right thing, they have every reason to list as many people as possible since there is no downside to listing but a huge downside to not listing the person and later have it turn out that they were a terrorist.

      1. No, there are only 463,834 suspected terrorists. Our overlords magnanimously scratched 4,915 of them off the list.

        1. Worse still, there is no way even the Soviets could “watch” that many people. So it is nothing but an official harassment list. It does nothing to prevent terrorism.

          1. It’s bureaucratic CYA. They were on the list! We were doing our job!

            Of course, if everyone is on the list….

            1. That is exactly what it is. Actual counter terrorism is hard. Making lists and creating databases is easy. So that is what they do.

              1. You would think it would work the other way – he was on your list and he still [did something terrorist-y]!!!!!!!!

                1. As long as the paperwork was properly filled out, there will never be any repercussions for a bureaucrat.

                  1. But Scruffy, there will be repercussions for their politically appointed masters.

                    1. there will be repercussions for their politically appointed masters.

                      Prove it. I’m not seeing much of it lately.

                2. Yes, it can work that way. They are basically screwed either way. But, they figure they are better off putting them on the list and then they can blame the cops. “Hey man, we put him on the list, why didn’t you stop him?”

  33. Weather reports from the vicinity of the Air Algerie disappearance showed probable severe thunderstorms with cumulonimbus clouds extending up to 49000 feet. They would have had to go way, way around that, not over it. You don’t fuck with thunderstorms.

    1. Sorry, sandstorms in this case.

    2. I was wondering if the plane was struck by lightning or possibly experienced some really strong crosswinds that forced it down. Still, yet another airplane issue this month. Hopefully this plane is found and maybe some folks survived, but I doubt it based on the terrain where it went missing.

      1. Well, winds across a course aren’t going to make much difference at cruising altitude. Thunderstorms and CB clouds are highly dangerous, and not to be tricked with. There are reports that the pilots requested a course deviation to avoid storms. Unfortunately, they may have been too late to get around or foolishly tried to get between storms.

        1. Shit…. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/break…..er-1458125

          looks like everyone was lost.

  34. …U.S. Ninth Circuit Court Judge Alex Kosinski…
    That’s Judge Alex Kozinski
    Alex Kosinski is er, different.

    1. And Alex Koszinski…still different.

  35. I want a lesbian love affair, but I don’t want to leave my male partner

    I lost my virginity to the same man I have been with since I was 19. I’m now 26 and still very attracted to him, and can’t imagine being with anyone else. But I’ve started visiting lesbian dating sites and mostly fantasise about women, though I feel guilty. Would it be wrong to ask my partner if I could experiment with women? I don’t want to hurt people, but I crave a discreet but honest love affair with a woman.

    Obviously you are imagining being with someone else. Maybe not another man, but a woman is certainly someone else.

    1. If you’re serious about it, ask your other for a three way. Otherwise, you’re just looking to screw around on him.

      1. Or at least let him watch.

      2. Indeed. Some guys might not care about his SO messing around with other women. Some might find it a turn on, and want to watch or join. But plenty of others would not be cool with any of that.

        So, if the guy says “no way,” you have to decide which means more to you–that relationship or the possibility of your lesbian tryst.

      3. That’s what I was thinking, too.

    2. Leave the poor bastard now before his looks go and don’t bankrupt him on the way out for something that is your fault. And if you can’t have the decency to respect him this much, at least don’t have any kids.

      1. ^^THIS^^

        I have nothing against gays. But people who know or think they might be gay and get married to an opposite sex spouse anyway, are narcissistic scum.

        1. people who know or think they might be gay and get married to an opposite sex spouse anyway, are narcissistic scum

          Or, they were raised in any one of numerous cultures where this happens every single day – is, in fact, expected.

          1. Yeah, I doubt that narcissism is often much of a motivation there. Rather the opposite, really. And some people really are bisexual.

          2. In Afghanistan, sure. In 2014, America, not so much.

        2. My ahuvah has a cousin that is gay. He is marrying her arch-rival because he got her pregnant. But he does not want to really come out, and just wants to just try to “do it right” or whatever.

          I’ve said he needs to be honest, but she says he won’t change his mind. He’s only going to hurt himself, this woman, their child(ren), and their families.

          Now theirs is a very traditional Orthodox Jewish family, so he will likely have some fallout from coming out. But it’s going to be much better than getting married and going through all of that.

    3. I don’t want to hurt people, but I crave a discreet but honest love affair with a woman.

      Can I have my cake and eat it too?

      1. Millennials can’t even do affairs right. Jesus christ.

      2. A girl I was dating this spring told me she didn’t want a relationship, and I said that was OK. About 3 weeks later she complained that I was just using her for sex.

        1. Was your response, Well then, why don’t you make up your damn mind?

          1. It turns out she wanted both (not a relationship, but not just sex) at the same time. She wanted to have her cake and eat it too.

            1. Just tell her what you really wnt is the intimacy and honesty that comes with sex – not the sex itself. Think of all the other stuff that happens after you screw and say those are the things you enjoy – but they only happen after sex.

              1. Brilliant.

            2. Friends with benefits? I mean, you’re still friends. Still hang out. Maybe no romantic shit and going on dates. But still friends with a little extra on the side? Or did she want more than that?

              Or more like, she wanted a relationship, but didn’t want to be afraid of ‘stepping out’ and being called a cheater? Basically wanting you to treat it like a relationship, and she can do as she pleases?

              If the latter, that’s definitely a deal breaker.

        2. Were you on campus on the time? If so, you might be a rapist.

        3. That’s code for she doesn’t enjoy it most of the time. Sorry.

          1. Considering that she kept trying to get me to screw her after I’d decided her inconsistency wasn’t worth dealing with, I doubt it.

          2. I think what guys don’t understand about girls is that the anticipation is usually way better than the act itself. Sex with no strings attached can seem great to a girl, until she’s doing it. Then it sucks because guys who don’t like a girl they’re having sex with are usually terrible at it.

            1. Sounds like Auric committed the unforgivable sin of not being able to read her mind.

              What an asshole you are, Auric.

              1. There are differences between the genders. That’s not exactly news, is it?

                1. Of course it isn’t, but she could have told the poor lad what she was thinking instead of either lying to him, lying to herself or changing the rules mid-game without notification.

                  1. I have had truly honest girlfriends tell me “Women are fucked up, including me sometimes.” Seriously, in a rare lucid logical moment I had one say she has enough trouble dealing with her own comflicting desires there is no way she can communicate them to me MUCH LESS put up with a woman lover.

                    I felt much more secure in my mental capacity after that…it ISN”T me, cool.

              2. I don’t think he’s an asshole, btw. I was just trying to give a possible female perspective.

      3. Cake? Is that the new slang for hair pie? I can’t keep up with the lingo anymore…

    4. I am pretty sure that at least a few husbands might go along, if they can watch.

      1. Yeah, but she wants an “honest love affair” which to me means she also wants to be emotionally involved with other women. So you might get to watch two chicks get it on but the price will be two chicks hassling you when they aren’t getting it on.

        1. Yeah. I was being factious. She is gay and just won’t admit it. She sucks.

        2. What’s an honest love affair? Sounds to me like just wants to muncha muncha. Love ain’t got nothin’ to do with it.

      2. Pedantic, but I don’t see anything suggesting that they are married.

        1. Good point. This makes more sense then. It does sound more like a petty gf/bf problem than a typical marriage problem.

          1. i’m very happily married. but some of my friends aren’t — and they have no intention of doing so. For them, the risk/reward calculation just doesn’t make sense.

          2. 6 years is common law in a lot of jurisdictions if they were living together. Thanks to the government, there’s vanishingly few things that can still be regarded as petty gf/bf problems.

    5. “I believe it’s called menage a trois…”

    6. If she really wants to be “honest”, she’ll suggest an open marriage. I can’t see any way he’d be OK with her having an affair without wanting to have one too.

  36. His Pestilence declares that legal tax avoidance is akin to renouncing citizenship.

    1. I’d prefer if he renounced his throne..uh, I mean, the Presidency of the United States.

    2. What an asshole.

    3. Well, he’s right. And an ethical government that respects the rights of the individual would allow its constituents that option. To suggest otherwise is the definition of serfdom.

      1. So by taking advantage of the laws in place to minimize my tax burden, I’m effectively abandoning my country? Not sure what you’re getting at here, HM.

        1. It’s also legal for you to not donate to the treasury. So by not donating all your money to the treasury, you are abandoning the country.

        2. He’s saying you should be allowed to renounce your citizenship. You’re technically allowed to do so now, but it is very difficult, and the government will ensure you are as close to bankrupt on your way out the door as they possibly can.

        3. What I’m saying is that many countries allow one to renounce one’s citizenship quite easily if one is living abroad. For a developed country, the United States makes the process of renouncing citizenship draconian. Indeed, it is not even a right, but completely up to the fiat of whatever consular officer is reviewing your case. There is a word for that, it begins with “S” and rhymes with “Lavery”

            1. It works as long as you remember to keep that final vowel long.

          1. Point taken

          2. You shouldn’t even have to “renounce” your citizenship. If somebody stops paying their taxes and moves out of the country, they should just be quietly dropped from the rolls.

            1. It’s the opposite of Hotel California. You can leave any time you like, but you can never checkout.

    4. Of course, Not My Fault doesn’t mention that the US still goes after you for danegeld even if you do renounce your citizenship.

      America owns you, boy.

  37. National Science Foundation is giving $10 million to build robot companions for children

    I’m sure the child Sheldon Coopers will appreciate the effort, so they can actually have friends.

    The National Science Foundation has committed $10 million to build robots that will act as “personal trainers” for children, in an effort to influence their behavior and eating habits.

    Of course Mrs. Obama had her input…

    1. So if the kid decides to eat a bag of Doritos in secret and the robot finds the kid doing that evil deed, does the robot dish out punishment? I’m sure MO would just love that.

      1. does the robot dish out punishment

        What could possibly go wrong in that scenario.

        1. I’ll just leave this here.

      2. “Mom, the robot trainer gave me bad touch!”

  38. As a surprise to those who forget the sun rises in the east, we offer:
    “California climate change policies to hit pocketbooks”
    http://www.sfgate.com/default/…..642825.php

    Money pull-quote:
    “Among respondents making less than $40,000, 77 percent support cutting fuel emissions. That number falls to 32 percent if lowering emissions forces them to pay more.”
    Gee, you mean WE have to pay for that?!

      1. Hey, Obo and Moonbeam promised free shit!

      2. Well, at least lots of people who don’t know what “socialism” is are now getting a first-hand lesson.

      3. I’ve probably seen that before, but it drains my schadenfreude tank every time.

        Of course, I won’t be satisfied until they’re ruined financially. But, by then, we all will be as well.

  39. http://www.laweekly.com/2014-0…..alifornia/

    There are advantages to the internet. One of them is that hopefully will allow people to make Supervisory Park Ranger Bonnie Clarfield’s life miserable and subject her to public shame and humiliation.

    1. What makes the situation delicious is that he is one of the assholes who tried to turn that land into National Park in the first place.

    2. Is Bonnie the problem, or the ADA who decided Gladwin’s actions were a major crime spree worth spunking away public resources to stop? Either way, they only do it because they hate Australians, so fuck them

      1. Bonnie is only part of the problem. That is true.

    3. The prosecutor is engaging in pure revenge for the crime of refusing to take the plea bargain and as such, should be disbarred.

    4. Why in the fuck is a leash violation a criminal matter?

      1. Because authority was denied. Contempt of prosecutor occurred.

        1. Why didn’t they just shoot this monster?!? And his weapon of mass wagging?

    5. *sigh*
      …Until one reads the comments, as usual

    6. I’m through giving a fuck for people who have been victimized by the system they happily helped to create.

      Cry me a fucking river or do something about cleaning up the shit sandwich you created.

  40. http://washingtonexaminer.com/…..y0.twitter

    According to Democrats on the FEC, publishing a book that might promote your campaign should not be allowed. That is right, you shouldn’t be able to publish a book because it might support a political cause or candidate.

    1. They want nothing short of total government control over elections and speech.

    2. I’m sure Hillary will be immediately sanctioned for the coffetable turd she published.

      1. Of course not. Her book is serious personal history not some tea bagging piece of political trash like Ryan’s book.

      2. There were no sumptuous photo spreads in it, so technically it was a bedside table turd

        1. I don’t think anyone actually read it, but just bought it to display as a class signal.

          Which makes all the e-reader sales a twisted form of penance.

          1. I doubt anyone other than her ghost writer and their editor has ever read that book. I would bet you good money Hillary has never read it.

            1. It took a village to write it

            2. I know people who probably read and rubbed one out while doing so.

      3. A book for coffee tables about coffee tables.

    3. Freedom of the press doesn’t even apply to the literal press anymore. We’re through the looking glass here people.

      1. Remember, Citizens United that they hate so much was about a group that made a movie criticizing a political candidate.

        1. That such as thing was even an issue is just depressing.

        2. Has anyone investigated to see if Lerner & Co. had their fingerprints on that one? She was in the FEC until a few years ago.

  41. Race-based university grading

    It calls for “proportional participation of historically underrepresented racial-ethnic groups at all levels of an institution, including … in the distribution of grades.”

    Just give every American resident a Ph.D and be done with it already.

    1. Because that would require giving white males PHDs. Check your privilege Rich.

      1. It’d be OK, John, because everyone would know simply by looking that it wasn’t a *real* Ph.D.

        1. Really? Because plenty of people are hired despite attending Yale.

          I keed, I keed.

          1. “When were you in Yale?”

            “Oh, I yust got out.”

    2. Yeah, the day my university tells me to factor race in my grading is the day they will have a long and expensive grievance suit to deal with as they attempt to look for loopholes in the tenure process.

      1. There is no way such a system would stand up in court. You have an equal protection right in fair grading from a state run school.

        Of course progs don’t think white makes are entitled to Constitutional rights.

        1. You have an equal protection right in fair grading from a state run school.

          Well, my school is private.

          1. But they are a public accommodation and subject to the CRA.

      2. Exactly. We have to put up with enough shit in the hiring process.

    3. Reason covered that one a couple days ago:

      https://reason.com/blog/2014/07…..tribute-gr

      1. Damn. Sorry!

        1. Don’t apologise, damn you. You’re a Reason tribute poster, or something

          1. Note to self: Use less-subtle sarcasm.

    4. Do they mean “distribution” in the statistical sense, or in the sense of “handing out?” Because grades are supposed to be earned, not assigned.

      *teehee*

      1. Yeah, I always make that point to my students.

        Student: Professor, I want to talk about this D you gave me on the paper.

        Me: Oh, I didn’t give you a D, you earned that all by yourself.

        Most of them don’t appreciate that.

        1. Ha! That’s choice

  42. “Wood was given a lethal injection in an Arizona prison on Wednesday, but did not die for another two hours.”

    Play stupid games; win stupid prizes.

    1. Indeed. No sympathy from me for this game contestant.

    2. Reading what this guy pretty-much-undoubtedly did to earn that sentence, six hours would have been better than two.

    1. You me’d the link.

        1. Goes to a 404.

          1. What can I say, I’m stressed here!

        2. F him and the horse he rode in on. Take his commission, break his sword and set him facing backward on a mule and slow walk it out the front gate of Fort Lee.

          1. 156 Episodes.. the bulk Of series

            1. A short, but effective story from the Oxford Book of Military Anecdotes. #70:

              How to sack a divisional commander: Tewkesbury, 4 May 1471.

              Lord Wenlock not having advanced to the support of the first line, but remaining stationary, contrary to the expectations of Somerset, the latter, in a rage, rode up to him, reviled him and beat his brains out with an axe.

          2. ^ This. He was a battalion commander (of a fucking NG unit) during his time in Iraq. It is highly unlikely that he ever personally participated in combat. Battalion Commanders are given combat infantry badges when their unit gets into a fight, because it would look bad for all his subordinates to come back decorated and the commander not.
            I know I should be thankful that this generation of veterans is treated better than Vietnam era veterans, but all of this PTSD BS is creating a new, different, but still negative stereotype that the rest of us have to overcome during job interviews, etc.

            1. Agreed. What a fucking insult that this BC is called a “decorated war hero”…LMFAO! Like those guys EVER go on a patrol. The most ours did (USMC) was make the whole battalion do tons of forced marches – stateside. Of course, he came to the BAS beforehand for shots of NSAIDs to his knees (which we were supposed to keep a secret) and then berates other Marines whose legs couldn’t take it. But go outside the wire with us, a line company? Yeah, right!

              Here’s a little secret about this whole PTSD thing: they’ll give that diagnosis to anyone, almost automatically, if you were in a combat situation and later have problems sleeping, anxiety, depression, etc. It’s like the new ADHD but for veterans who, like DOL states above, may have been in a unit that was awarded a Combat Action Ribbon, EVEN IF THEY NEVER ACTUALLY SAW COMBAT. I was medical and saw this firsthand.

              Doesn’t stop me from exploiting the gullible troop-worshipers, though…yes, I’ll take free stuff and retail store/restaurant discounts, gladly šŸ˜‰

        3. Was he suffering from PTSD when he became a Democrat?

      1. “John Walsh is a decorated war hero, and it’s disgusting that Steve Daines and Washington Republicans are going to try to denigrate John’s distinguished service after multiple polls show him gaining,” Barasky said.

        But I bet Justin Barasky chortles and touches himself every time Rachel Maddow accuses Rand Paul of plagiarism.

    2. “I don’t want to blame my mistake on PTSD, but I do want to say it may have been a factor,” the senator said. “My head was not in a place very conducive to a classroom and an academic environment.”

      Very well, Senator. Simply relinquish that Master’s degree. You can try again now that you’re better.

      1. But he is perfectly suited to be a Senator!

    3. They take that shit seriously normally. I can’t believe they didn’t kick him out. He must have been one hell of an ass kissing crony.

    4. The Army War College is sure going to be sympathetic to someone who blamed his misbehavior on the tragic incidents of Army service.

      /sarc

      1. (I’m not actually a veteran, but I have an interest in a thesis making policy recommendations)

    5. It’s a non-defense; no sympathy here. The type of plagiarizing he did was deliberate. If he was struggling, all he had to do was talk to the faculty and they would have bent over backwards to get him through. If Army’s like the other services, they aren’t in the business of failing people who are making the slightest honest effort. “Gentleman’s ‘B'”

  43. Love to hear your take on Senator John Walsh’s PTSD defense for plagiarizing his US Army War College Master’s thesis.

    IT WAS JUST A TYPO!

    1. no .. drafting error. the intent and history is obvious.

    2. “drafting error”

      /borrows from O!care defenders

    3. What difference, at this point, does it make?

    1. Nothing these clowns do surprises me anymore.

      TTFN

    2. Ethics Waiver.

      That such a thing exists tells you everything you need to know about the state of our republic.

      Can I get one of those for use in my private employment ? I could engage in some double-dealing and embezzlement, and if caught, just pull out my handy Ethics Waiver.

  44. I think they should go back to executing people by having an elephant stomp on them.

  45. Botched lethal injection? He’s dead, isn’t he?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.