BP Loses Big in Court, McDonnell's Jurors Say Evidence Was 'Overwhelming,' Questions About de Blasio's Pre-K Program: A.M. Links

|

  • Chicken
    Markus Koljonen / Wikimedia Commons

    A federal judge determined that BP was mostly responsible for the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The decision could force BP to pay out $20 billion in new damage claims.

  • Jurors in the corruption trial of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell said their decision wasn't particularly difficult—the evidence against McDonnell and his wife was "overwhelming."
  • A community came together to seek justice for a little boy whose pet chicken was beheaded by a police officer to defend a police officer who beheaded a little boy's pet chicken. The Minnesota boy was not allowed to keep chickens in his home per regulation.
  • For the first time ever, Cosmopolitan's editors will endorse candidates in the midterm elections. I can't think of anything less sexy than that.
  • Comedians pay tribute to comedy legend Joan Rivers, who passed away on Thursday at the age of 81.
  • Federal regulators are working hard to keep some fine cheeses off store shelves, and that stinks.
  • New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is determined to enroll the city's young children in preschool programs, but the initiative is facing criticism.

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

NEXT: One-Third of Americans Are Freelancers Now

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. The decision could force BP to pay out $20 billion in new damage claims.

    So is the Gulf officially dead like predicted?

    1. Wow, that takes me back. I did my bachelor trip to clear water to fish the gulf in 2010. The captain said he had so many cancelations and he tried telling people the spill was hundreds of miles a way, but it really hurt his business. I caught some nice king fish and grouper.

      1. And then you ate it and died, right?

        1. Let me check….. (Checks pulse) nope I appear to be alive. Also I was a libertarian before the trip so you can’t blame brain damage for my political beliefs.

          1. This being the Internet, someone whom you’ve never met will shortly be along to tell you whether you’re alive or dead.

            1. Florida Man is both dead and alive

              1. Schrodinger’s Florida Man!

                1. Schrodinger’s Florida Man!

                  DO NOT OPEN THE BOX!

            2. He’s mostly dead. Which is slightly alive.

              1. Truuuuueeeee lloooovvvveeeee

                1. LOL. I did NOT see that coming.

      2. The non-stop news coverage did far more to damage the Gulf Coast tourism industry than the oil ever did.

        1. Maybe somebody should sue CNN.

          1. Oooohhh… I would love to see that.

          2. That would be one hell of a large class.

            1. Not really, who watches CNN anymore?

      3. it really hurt his business

        I’m sure there was a huge drop in business. But he probably got a check from BP for compensation already. Everyone even remotely related to tourism who can dubiously show harm already has, at least here in the panhandle. It was distributed from that multi-billion dollar fine they paid.

        Then there was actually a surge of people who started going to the beach in Panama City (east of the areas where any oil washed up) because they thought it was their opportunity to do so before the beach was ruined forever.

    2. A lot of people really don’t get just how big the ocean is.

      1. It can’t be that big, I mean, I am always on land.

        1. Only because Dear Leader healed the oceans with his magic Nobel prize.

    3. Bom dia.

      It’s still dead, just like Lou Reed.

    4. Remember, cleanup efforts involved using a dispersant which caused the oil to sink to depths of a few thousand feet. There were reports that the dispersant was pretty toxic. I’m not sure anyone knows what effect the oil or dispersant had on the life down there. Nor do I know if that life is really even part of the same food chain as fish, shrimp, etc., that live nearer the surface. For example, there are fish on the bottom of deep oceans that subsist only on scraps that drop down there, like dead whales. I don’t know if any of that biomass ever makes it back up to the surface, because those fish are only adapted to live at those extreme depths, so if something toxic were introduced, it might never make it back into the normal food chain of things we humans eat.

      1. So, no harm no foul?

    5. Stuff that bugs me about our justice system: BP has already pleaded guilty to manslaughter and other charges and agreed to pay $4 billion in federal criminal penalties.

      Which I suspect they paid to the Feds. Instead of to the families of the people they have been found guilty of, er, manslaughtering. Which would make sense, since those are the people who were actually affected by the deaths.

      1. This smells a lot like the tobacco settlement, where attorneys and the states made a shitload of money. The alleged victims, not so much.

        Except for the tourism hit, I’ve heard virtually nothing about serious aftereffects.

  2. A community came together to seek justice for a little boy whose pet chicken was beheaded by a police officer.

    1. A community came together to seek justice for a little boy whose pet chicken was beheaded by a police officer.

      He can always get a job with ISIS.

      1. American Journalists. Chickens.

        I see what you did there.

    2. The wording of that link is misleading. The article talks of a town who backed the police chief – who “choked back tears” after receiving a complaint about lopping the head off a kid’s pet and leaving said head behind in the yard.

      1. At least he didn’t choke the chicken.

        1. not until he got home.

      2. no one trained him that cutting off heads wasn’t part of code enforcement.

        Mistakes were made, lessons were learned, training budgets need to be increases.

        HTH

      3. One concerned citizen even said the mother was bullying the police chief. Because she filed a complaint after he chopped the head off of her kid’s chicken with a shovel. No kidding.

        1. This was utterly demoralizing. This is pretty much why libertarians will never win.

  3. Video: Dead American jihadi once worked at Minneapolis-St. Paul airport
    This exclusive last night from the local Fox affiliate in the Twin Cities certainly will shake up anyone who’s flown through our international airport, which includes my whole family and all of my friends out here. One of the two Americans confirmed to have been killed while fighting for ISIS turns out to have had a pretty good job here in the US that he left behind ? cleaning commercial passenger jets at Minneapolis-St. Paul airport….

      1. Nothing happened at the airport, so the system worked!

      2. TSA-inspired.

        That’s why he joined ISI*.

        *=random character; since this seems to change with some regularity.

    1. Once again, proof background checks and clearances are next to useless

  4. NEW EMAILS: IRS Obtained Donor Lists For ‘Secret Research Project’
    The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) improperly obtained donor lists from nonprofit groups as part of a “secret research project” being run by Lois Lerner and other officials.

    IRS official David Fish revealed the “secret research project” in a June 27, 2012 email to Lerner’s direct subordinate Holly Paz, according to emails released Thursday by the nonprofit group Judicial Watch, which obtained the emails in a pending Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

    “Joseph Urban [IRS Technical Advisor, Tax Exempt and Government Entities] had actually started a secret research project on whether we could, consistent with 6104, argue that [REDACTED],” Fish wrote.

    “Joe was quite agitated yesterday when I told him what we were doing. (He was involved when the initial question was raised, but we didn’t continue reading him in),” Fish continued. “At one point he started saying that this was a decision for Steve Miller?I told him we were already doing it, and that I didn’t know whether Lois had already talked to Nikole [Flax, former IRS Chief of Staff to IRS Commissioner Steve Miller] about this. Would not be surprised if he already started working on Lois.”…

    1. FAKE SCANDAL!!!111!!!

      1. I saw a license plate that read “elevn11” yesterday. I lol’d a little.

    2. Fish continued. “At one point he started saying that this was a decision for Steve Miller

      Don’t bring the Midnight Toker into this.

      1. Abracadabra, there go the e-mails.

        1. Go on, take the e-mails and run.

          1. And fly like an eagle?

            or a Big ol jet airliner?

            Get some Jungle Love?

            1. Although, he does have a whole crate of papayas, for some reason.

  5. For the first time ever, Cosmopolitan‘s editors will endorse candidates in the midterm elections.

    Women don’t need to be told to vote Democrat.

    1. 20 toe curling ways to vote Donkey!!!!

      1. Ha ha, Donkey Punch…

  6. Wherever did this guy get $20,000 from?

    The man who has been scammed THREE TIMES by ‘lovers’ he met online… and now he plans to propose to a woman he’s only ever seen via Skype

    Ben Ivey, 32, has handed over more than $20,000 to online scammers

    He admits being duped that many times is ‘crazy’ and has now put his parents in control of his bank accounts

    1. Student loans?

    2. He’s 32 and needs his parents to handle his money? What do millennials thinks? Oh, and if he is Joe Average, we are fucked.

    3. I’ve got a feeling Princess S. Usan M’Binga should drop this guy a line…

  7. Jurors in the corruption trial of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell said their decision wasn’t particularly difficult…

    The lesson being don’t treat your in house staff like shite.

    1. I guess McDonnell was a bit too transparent as what he was caught at seems to be s.o.p. in Washington, state capitals, mayor’s offices, etc. Not really too much different than a president’s child pulling down $600K a year is it?

      1. His timing was wrong, first you make a deal, then you leave or change office and the deal makers pay you off.

        1. He never really did anything for the guy. In fact the prosecution was willing to plea down to bank fraud because he under-reported his assets on a loan application, he put the bare minimum he needed to get approval. The whole case was political to prevent him from running in the senate seat against Warner.

          1. bank fraud because he under-reported his assets on a loan application, he put the bare minimum he needed to get approval.

            What?? Nothing says you have to state all your assets.

            1. Apparently it’s enough to have a federal prosecutor come calling if your about to run for a senate seat against a Dem.

      2. That’s the thing, If I was on the jury I would have convicted him on principle. But if a jury convicted him on this shit, McAulliffe’s trial is going to be awesome and they should just wrap the capital in evidence tape.

        1. But McAuliffe is TEAM BLUE.

          1. True but these people really shot their load. Their will be a Republican AG or Gov. again in this state. I don’t think anyone really thought this would even go to trial. This type of shit is standard operating procedure for McAullife he just knows when to fold up shop and slink out before fed indictment comes along.

  8. A community came together to seek justice for a little boy whose pet chicken was beheaded by a police officer. The Minnesota boy was not allowed to keep chickens in his home per regulation.

    Um, that’s the exact opposite of what happened. They rallied in support of the pig who killed the chicken. Disgusting.

    1. Yeah, I was going to make the same point. The morons in the town were more supportive of the petkilling than the petkiller was (the story says he at least apologized to the kid and has since begun to try to get the law changed to allow chickens as pets).

    2. Was chicken served at the rally?

  9. Student Forced to Wear ‘Shame Suit’ for Dress Code Violation

    Oakleaf’s dress code dictates that skirts must be knee-length or longer. Miranda’s skirt was shorter than that, but she said the violation was unintentional. She was a new student to the school, having just moved to Florida from Seattle eight days before school started.

    That’s fucking dumb, I…

    “My problem is not with the dress code itself,” she [her mother] wrote. “I am actually a proponent of school uniforms (which trust me does NOT make my kids happy), and believe that if you break the rules of the school you should be punished regardless of your opinion of the rule itself. My problem is with the public shaming of kids.”

    Nevermind, fuck you and your mom.

    1. Requiring people to wear any extra clothing in Florida is a human rights violation. I would go naked if the state wasn’t so prudish.

      1. If you see the girl, the skirt is maybe two inches from her knee, hardly a short skirt, so I want to sympathize.

        But if your whore mother supports school uniforms and punishments for breaking the rules (RULES ARE RULZ!) then I will save my sympathy for something else.

        1. I feel bad for the girl for having dumb mother and being harassed by the state.

          1. Learning early that life is the spot between a rock and a hard place.

      2. I think your going naked would violate the NAP.

        1. Stop freak-shaming me!!!
          /runs from internet sobbing

    2. Why the fuck you to the girl? I don’t see where she should lose our sympathy just because her mom is a bitch.

      1. I assume she hasn’t really learned anything from this.

        1. Didn’t anyone ever tell you that to assume makes an ass of you and me?

  10. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is determined to enroll the city’s young children in preschool programs…

    A jobs program for teachers?

    1. Not a jobs program for teachers – “enrolling” actually means “incarcerating” so the whole point of public education becomes brainwashing kids into uquestioningly doing as they’re told. Think of it as a “pre-education camp” which prepares you for the education camp and the re-education camp that awaits you at Rikers if you don’t get your mind right.

  11. Don’t call terrorists “terrorists”, says Greens senator

    1. “Bad guys”, then?

        1. ‘Those people”

          1. Social Conservatives?

    2. Call them “greens” instead.

      1. That… actually makes sense.

    3. “Criminally misguided.”

    4. “Zealots”?

    5. Future Australian Citizens?

    1. Other improper accounting procedures might have made it difficult to spot abnormal balances.

      Ah, HA! So, you’re saying everything might be OK!

      1. If the private sector did this, the Fuck Schumers of the world would be holding grandstanding hearings.

        1. Most of what the government does financially would be the cause for massive SEC and PCAOB audits if the private sector did it.

  12. Another Slenderman crime

    Everytime I hear Slenderman, I think of this. Is it just me?

    1. My first thought was of this, but I can’t blame an Antipodean for not thinking of it.

      1. Are those old-timey Spanx?

        1. Control-top pantyhose. I’m a man, so I don’t know too much about the different types of hosiery.

          1. Well, Ted, it comes in two varieties:

            (1) In the way.

            (2) On the floor.

  13. Engaged mother-of-two tragically killed after being hit by a gargoyle head that fell three stories off historic church

    Sara Bean, 34, was walking to lunch with her fianc? when she was hit in the head by the falling stone
    The mother of two was rushed to the hospital where she was pronounced dead

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..hurch.html

    1. when a stone piece fell off the Second Presbyterian Church’s tower

      Well that explains it. She obviously was a Catholic or, even worse, a Wee Wee Free Presbyterian

      1. Or maybe a 1st pres member.

    2. That’s really horrible. 🙁

  14. Libertarian Dilemma time:

    http://www.startribune.com/loc…..57441.html

    Man takes pics of dressed children in public and posts them online for sexual commentary.

    1. You have no expectation of privacy in public. Dude’s still a creep, though.

    2. A non-governmental beatdown is in order

  15. Professor shoots himself in foot during class with a handgun he was carrying in his pocket…and now faces charges for firing within the city limits

    Professor Byron Bennett was treated and released from hospital on Wednesday

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..imits.html

    1. I asked this during the Plaxico Burress trial and will ask it now isn’t shooting yourself punishment enough?

      1. The people who opposed the “enhanced” carry permit must charge him with something.

    2. Probably a chambered Glock like Plaxico. Idiot.

      1. Probably a chambered Glock like Plaxico. Idiot.

        Glocks are perfectly safe as long as you do not pull the trigger.

        1. I wouldn’t carry a chambered one in anything other than a holster. But that’s just me.

          1. I wouldn’t carry a chambered one in anything other than a holster.

            I agree with you there. But the guy had to have hit the trigger for it to have fired, unless it was defective.

          2. revolvers are always chambered…

            1. revolvers are always chambered…

              And unless the hammer is cocked, it takes a fairly significant pull on the trigger to fire it. I’d carry my revolver in my pocket without any fear of accidentally firing it.

            2. And this is why the smart cowboy leaves one empty when carrying a Colt Single Action.

              Not sure if DA’s have the same issue. I have an oollllllllldd Colt Double action – model 18** Navy I think. .38 Special. Sumbitch still shoots pretty good, but I never carry it in a holster – just in a bag for the odd range shoot to confirm function.

              Anyhoo….

  16. Missing U.S. bomber loaned to Stalin that was lost over Siberia en route from Alaska during Second World War is found after 70 years

    Douglas A-20 Havoc (DB-7) crashed in 1943 en route to the eastern front
    The plane was one of 3,400 aircraft supplied by the US to the Soviet air force
    Crew of four perished in the crash and have not yet been identified

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..years.html

    1. Interesting, but the image they show of ” a large piece of the wreckage from the air” is a picture of a radio tower or something that is not an aircraft.

  17. Cyclist died after ‘he was hit by police car which then reversed over him before officer tried to ARREST him’

    Quebec City police officers under investigation for incident on Wednesday
    Guy Blouin , 48, died after being struck by police car in broad daylight

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..blood.html

    1. He was biking right at him. The officer was in fear for his life.

  18. Police telling victims to solve crimes by themselves

    Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary says that for some high-volume types of offences, such as car crime, criminal damage and non-residential burglaries, this “DIY” approach to tackling crime is an “emerging trend” among some forces. They warn that in areas where the police have given up investigating these offences, they are “on the verge of being decriminalised”.

    […]

    he report concludes that police desk-based investigations of crime are failing to serve the public and mean “little or nothing more than recording a crime without taking further action. The HMIC investigation found that it is still policy to send an officer to attend all reports of crime in only six of the 43 police forces in England and Wales. In the other 37 forces a call-handler uses set criteria to assess whether somebody should be sent.

    Too busy investigating racist Tweets and arresting assault victims for defending themselves, no doubt.

    1. “Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary…”

      What a name.

      1. “Her Majesty’s Royal Ass Whoretillery”

      2. Here are some splendid job titles, also from the UK. I’ve got first dibs on being the Rouge Dragon Pursuivant

    2. Is anybody really surprised?

    3. Return to thief-takers?

      1. Return to thief-takers?

        Insurance companies would probably go for that.

    4. Of course, I have no doubt that the police would react quite vigorously to anyone actually acting on those investigations.

      At this point, I really wonder if the Brits wouldn’t be better off just disbanding their police forces.

      1. We have the same situation over here. My father got scammed by a “tree cutting service” who tricked my mother into paying him before he finished the job. And paying more than was agreed. Not surprisingly, he promptly disappeared without finishing the work.

        The police didn’t do anything so he investigated himself. It turned out the guy was wanted in two other counties for similar scams. The police still were not interested, so my dad drove around to various small engine repair shops until he found the guy’s equipment being worked on.

        The shop was across the street from the police station. The shop owner told him the criminal was coming in about two hours to pick up his equipment. So he called the sheriff’s office. They were not interested.

        So my dad waited in the police station parking lot until the guy showed up, and then walked over to the two deputies who were parked door to door and chatting in front of the station and handed them the information on the wanted man and pointed him out as he entered the shop.

        Surprisingly, they drove the 80 feet to the shop and arrested him. The thief, not my dad.

    5. “little or nothing more than recording a crime without taking further action.”

      Which is also exactly what they do if you actually send them out to the scene. Unless, of course, they take the opportunity to bust the victim of the crime because they smelled weed coming from his apartment. Having them do their “investigation” from their desk is probably an improvement.

      1. Yep. One time I made the mistake of calling the cops after my apartment had been broken into. The cops came and asked if they could look around for drugs. They didn’t look at the broken window or ask what was missing, they wanted to look for drugs. And when I declined, they left.

        1. Justice!

          What else do people think they’re doing to do? “Dust for prints” ?

          1. Take a report?

            1. I think that’s the “recording a crime without taking further action” part.

              1. In my case they didn’t record anything. They just left when I wouldn’t let them look for drugs.

                1. Jeez. At least filling out the damn paperwork would help with the insurance claim, I thought that was the only actual value they provided.

                  I had my car stolen from the parking lot at work a few years ago. The city sent out one of their finest, who asked me super-smart questions that they only teach you in police school like, “did you try pressing the alarm button on the keyfob?” Mind you, it was 7:00pm and we’re standing on a huge parking deck which was vacant except for maybe 3 other cars. I guess Dudley Dooright thought maybe one of those three cars was mine and I just didn’t notice it.

                  But, neither of us got shot so…hooray, I guess.

          2. Could they dust for vomit?

          3. When one of our cars was stolen (and found, one day before we could write it off), the cops actually did take the car and dust it for prints.

            When we got it back, we found a school picture under one of the seats. There was actually a photo of one of the perps (or their friends) left in the car. We took it to the cops.

            AND NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED.

            Fuckin’ useless.

        2. Did they take the Creedence?

          1. Don’t forget about all of the business papers.

  19. Newly discovered dinosaur, Dreadnoughtus, takes title of largest terrestrial animal

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..hollywood/

    1. “It would have been a catastrophic event in the life of a Dreadnoughtus if it fell over.”

      Nature is funny.

      1. Wonder if T-Rex adolescents went out Dreadnought tipping.

        1. How many T-Rexes does it take to tip over a Dreadnoghtus?

    2. As my son would shout “Biiig Dido!!!!!”

      1. sadly, my mind inserted an extra letter L in there…

    1. It’s Queensland, which is just a bit braindead. Check other bits from the article:

      Others, like parent Melissa Forrester, contend that the cartwheel ban is simply the latest in a line of other no fun policies in the school district.

      Her children were banned from playing with their friends immediately before or after class.

      “They have to sit quietly and wait in designated areas or in their classrooms for school to begin,” she said…

      At least one former school principal, however, believes the cartwheel ban is more about protecting school employees than students.

      “Having sat in a principal’s chair and having had to deal with the fallout from unrealistic parents wanting to sue the teacher on playground duty when kids will be kids doing what kids should do, and break an arm or leg, I can understand the decision, as much as it saddens me.”

      1. It’s nice to know they are beginning to stop pretending these schools are essentially prisons. I predict a ban on going to the restroom soon.

  20. Man admits to ejaculating into coworker’s coffee to get her attention

    MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. (PIX11) ? A Minnesota hardware-store employee with a crush on a female co-worker repeatedly ejaculated into her coffee and onto her desk in an attempt to attract her attention, police said.

    John R. Lind, 34, admitted to ejaculating into the woman’s coffee at least twice in six months and on her desk four times, according to a criminal complaint. Lind also said he wiped the evidence with her hair scrunchy, according to CBS Minnesota. The incidents allegedly began in February. The woman told police she had noticed repeatedly that her coffee tasted weird, and concluded the milk had gone sour.

    Went with the Male Glaze when he should have gone with the Male Gaze. Rookie mistake.

    1. According to the criminal complaint, the woman called police Aug. 26 after she caught Lind at her desk with his hands on his crotch and a “deer in the headlights” expression.

      I laughed.

      After he left the room, the complaint said, the woman found bodily fluids on her desk, dripping onto the floor and soaked up in her scrunchy.

      I threw up.

    2. Sheesh, Jordan, don’t leave us in suspense!

      *Did* he get her attention?

      1. Oh, he certainly did.

        1. It would have gotten my attention too.

          1. Good to know, for future reference.

    3. What the fuck is this — Minnesota Day??

      1. It’s late summer, when the ice is finally off the lake, and Minnesota Man’s thoughts turn to fancy.

        1. And to returning Sen. Al to Washington.

    4. Man admits to ejaculating into coworker’s coffee to get her attention

      Well, uh, that’s one way to do it, I guess.

    5. Just confirming the stories down under that all American coffee is awful

      1. Probably why so many Americans drink the coffee equivalent of a milk shake.

        1. Probably why so many Americans drink the coffee equivalent of a milk shake.

          I like my coffee like I like my women; hot and black.

          **disclaimer – I am happily married, so only one woman**

          1. I usually drink my coffee, like I have my women…

            Old and bitter.

            1. “Cold, dark and bitter” was what my grand-pappy would always say. To the waitress. Everywhere we went. It was quite entertaining.

              1. I was out with Dr. Girlfriend’s grandparents once,when the waitress asked her granddad if he wanted more bread.

                His response? “No thanks, I get bred enough at home.”

      2. I’m going to start roasting my own next week. I’ve got an 8 lb green coffee sampler coming in Wednesday.

        1. Cool, that’s something I’ve been wanting to get into.

          1. I got most of my info from sweet maria’s. They have roasting guides and methods, all free online. There are a lot of different ways to roast. I’m starting simple. A camp stove and a stove top popcorn popper. I’ll let you know how it goes.

      3. There is plenty of excellent coffee in America, thank you. There is still plenty of awful coffee as well.

    6. “Cream in your coffee?”

      “Not lately.”

    7. Did seem like there was a bit of wang to her coffee

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMiPjnNF7Dc

    8. Sour milk?

    9. That guy needs to stop getting his dating tips from Matthew Yglesias.

    10. What kind of a brainless moron do you have to be?

  21. Benghazi heating up in time for the midterms

    “We were told to wait, stand– and stand down. We were delayed three times.”

    “Says *you*!”

  22. Federal regulators are working hard to keep some fine cheeses off store shelves,

    First it was mimolette. Now they’re adding a host of other cheeses that people have been eating for centuries. And yet these are the same charletans who pat themselves on the back about how oh-so-much-more sophisticated their tastes are than those rubes in flyover country.

    1. Your joke is bad, and you should feel bad.

      1. Hey, it’s not *my* joke.

        My conscience is clear!

  23. Kiss and sell! Banking heir pays ?50,000 to lock lips with Elizabeth Hurley during charity auction at Elton John’s extravagant summer ball

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..-ball.html

    1. Cash is wasted on the rich.

  24. Albino cobra on the loose is finally captured in Southern California two days after attacking a dog

    A deadly albino cobra that ran loose for days in a Southern California neighborhood was captured on Thursday
    It attacked a dog nearby on Monday
    Officers used a long-handled tong-like grabber to haul the snake from a pile of scrap lumber in a backyard and put it in a long wooden box
    A popular mock twitter account AlbinoMonocledCobra tweeted: ‘It’s over, folks. #SendBail$$$’ after the capture
    The cobra was taken to an animal shelter

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wir…..ornia.html
    My wife, who follows this stuff on Facederp, says the owner had posted pictures of himself and his pet on his Facederp account, so people know who he is. But he’s gone into hiding. Who posts pictures of illegal activity on Facederp? That’s just fucking moronic.

    1. Who posts pictures of illegal activity on Facederp?

      Apparently this is fairly common.

      Must be their little way of “sticking it to The Man”.

      1. Many, many people do that. And usually they’re dumb enough that everything on their account is set to public.

    2. ahem…

      Detective Superintendent Peter Schiller said it was unusual to see someone selling cannabis on Facebook.

      “I think there is a village out there missing its idiot,” he said.

    3. Yeah, Facebook should be for middle-aged yentas to talk about how they’re doing in Farmville and Candy Crush Saga.

      1. Like my mother.

        Only reason I use FB nowadays is for MyVegas, because I want to earn free stuff to go there.

    4. Who posts pictures of illegal activity on Facederp?

      The same kind of idiot who buys and cares for a deadly cobra in his home.

    5. Snakes do not run, loose or otherwise. No legs, y’know.

      1. You could dump a bucket of snakes down a slide. Does that count as Running Snakes?

  25. The suicide map of the world: Korea, Russia and India see the most citizens kill themselves – while America is ‘average’

    Poor and middle-income countries rank the worst in the study
    But some developed nations are worse than others–rates in Britain and Germany worse than much of Europe, US and Australia
    Guyana has the highest rate of suicide, at 44.2 out of every 100,000, with North and South Korea the second and third worst

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-year.html

    1. But GUNS!!11

      Derp.

    2. Surprisingly good comments.

    3. Makes me wonder if Germans are sick of floating a continent of permanent students, government employees, and perpetual vacationers.

    4. Guyana has the highest rate of suicide

      Jonestown?

  26. Get ready fur a fright! Dog dressed up as huge spider makes unsuspecting victims flee in hilarious video

    Video shows passersby coming face-to-face with Chica the DogSpider
    Fear not – it’s simply the work of Polish prankster Sylwester Wardega

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..prank.html
    Too funny.

  27. A very good explaination of why people become jihadists. The biggest blind spot Libertarians have is that they often fail to realize not everyone is homo economicus. For some people a quiet, responsible, comfortable, productive life just doesn’t do it. This is why some people can’t be reasoned with or negotiated with. They don’t want what you have to give. People join fascist movements because they want meaning and to feel a part of an inevitable world changing movement. The only way to get them to stop is to make it clear the movement is a loser and won’t change anything, in other words, defeat them.

    http://pjmedia.com/michaellede…..the-jihad/

    1. The biggest blind spot Libertarians have is that they often fail to realize not everyone is homo economicus

      I am continually amazed that non-Libertarians assume that Libertarians believe that everyone is a homo-economicus. Like the myth that jews use the blood of gentile babies for their passover feast, it has no basis in reality, yet it just won’t go away!

      1. Why does it have no basis in reality? Libertarians can’t account for people who don’t respond to market incentives. For example, the Libertarian response to discrimination is to let the market sort things out since eventually racists will get tired of losing out to the despised ethnic group’s business and won’t be able to compete with businesses that hire based on merit rather than tribe.

        That is true, provided the business owner cares that he is losing money. If he doesn’t, then he won’t respond to the market incentives. And if you have a society or a critical mass of people who don’t care, then the market incentive isn’t going to work.

        That is just one small example but there are many others. 90% of the time people respond to market incentives and things sort themselves out. But sometimes people don’t. Libertarians have a very hard time accounting for that.

        1. Libertarians aren’t anarchists.

          1. I never said they were. But they totally believe in the sanctity of the private transaction and contract. And there is a long history of Libertarians arguing that things like discrimination will sort themselves out in the market. See for example Sowell’s views on Jim Crow and the CRA. And for the most part Sowell is right. But he is not right about every situation. Sometimes people really do hate each other more than they like to do well.

            1. Sure, noone not even Sowell would debate that. It’s just for the majority these solutions will work best. I don’t think anyone thinks there is a magical system that will erase and solve all the worlds problems and be perfect everytime. But it will be a hell of alot better than the outcomes we have now. I don’t think libertarians believe in a utopians all were saying is the solutions we have will produce a better outcome.

              1. And I generally agree with you that it is mostly better. The debate of course is when is it not. The moment you admit that sometimes it is not, you are admitting that Libertarianism does have its limits and cannot account for every situation. And that is my point.

                1. What are you even talking about? Libertarians believe in limited gov. and negative externalities. I am not an anarchist John and I don’t think the majority on this board are.

                  1. You can be a strict Libertarian without being an anarchist. And yes most people are not strict Libertarians. And the reason for that is that every set of beliefs has its limits.

                    1. As I understand it even being a strict libertarian means you believe that a gov. is needed because of externalities the market won’t solve. I am not a libertarian because I really don’t like speaking for any political viewpoint because I don’t want to be labelled or vilified and I like to pretend I have some what of an open mind, but I think you have gotten a false impression of many people’s view points because we’ve gotten so far removed from when gov. action is needed to now its interjected in every aspect of are lives so its incredibly easy to point out how terrible it is.

                    2. because I don’t want to be labelled or vilified
                      So a “squish” then. Got it.

                    3. “squish”? If that means I’m a people pleasing pussy than yes you nailed me.

                    4. A P.P.P.! I like it! Can I join?

                    5. Fuck labels I am now a societal loving sodomite. You have to keep up ppp was so 10:40.

            2. John, I think that most libertarians are quite aware that markets will not solve every problem. Not every problem can be solved in a way that doesn’t cause worse problems. If guns are allowed, some people will do bad things with them. And as long as people are some what free to speak and move, some people will become violent radicals.

        2. It’s also a moral issue. Yes a business owner is an asshole for refusing to serve someone, but is that worthy of government violence?

          Without exception, breaking any law can lead to death. Cops comes to take you to court, you refuse, he initiates violence, you escalate, he kills you.

          That’s the story for every single law. That’s why libertarians are hesitant to use government to solve problems. Because the problem better be worth killing people if government is going to get involved.

          1. It’s also a moral issue. Yes a business owner is an asshole for refusing to serve someone, but is that worthy of government violence?

            That is the question. Most of the time no. But what if you have a small despised minority that is just squashed by a hateful majority. Is the answer to do nothing and let it happen since the government violence is worse or is the answer to use government violence to step in and stop it? That is a tough question.

            1. And libertarians understand this. Please quit flogging the straw man that says markets solve everything. It’s just a straw man. A more accurate representation of the libertarian point of view is that markets solve most things, and when they don’t solve something one must ask if the problem is worthy of violence. Most of the time libertarians will say no. But that’s not the same as saying we believe markets solve everything.

            2. Really, what you need to do is to have a vote, and then when the hateful majority squashes the despised minority, it’s okey-dokey!

              1. That would be the Tony solution. I am not really fond of that solution though.

                1. I was thinking more Joe in re Venezuela,

                  1. That too. And I am pretty sure Tony is down with Venezuela as well.

            3. More likely the government will step in to send the hated minority to the ovens. In this case, the hated minority better get out of town or learn to fight back.

        3. That is true, provided the business owner cares that he is losing money. If he doesn’t, then he won’t respond to the market incentives.

          Until he goes out of business. Or maybe his clientele is large enough that he will stay in business. The libertarian position is you should not use force to make him cater to people he does not want to do business with.

          People respond to incentives, market based or not. People are getting something they value or they would not do it.

          1. What if he doesn’t go out of business and is just poorer? There are lots of his tribe he can sell to. And even if he does go out of business, who says he cares?

            You are doing exactly what I am talking about and assuming that “no one would want to go out of business”. No, some people would. People are happily willing to blow themselves up or fall on grenades if they think doing so furthers a greater cause. And yes, they will go out of business out of spite.

            1. So they go out of business. So fucking what? Are you saying it would have been better if the government threatened him with violence if he didn’t serve people he hates, keeping the asshole in business?

              1. The market will adjust with fewer businesses and everyone being poorer but the discrimination continuing. That is the so what.

                Without question, ending discrimination would make everyone richer. But some people don’t care. That is the point. So the market will never solve it.

                1. But some people don’t care. That is the point. So the market will never solve it.

                  And violence will?

                  1. And violence will?

                    Sometimes, yes. Generally violence is the only thing that ever solves fascism because it is the only thing fascists care about and thus the only incentive they will respond to.

                    1. But is saying “No, I will not serve you” a use of force deserving government violence?

            2. What if he doesn’t go out of business and is just poorer? There are lots of his tribe he can sell to. And even if he does go out of business, who says he cares?

              Covered that in my second sentence. People do not start a business to waste money, time and effort. They just do not do that and if you have a counter argument from the business world I would love to see it.

              People are happily willing to blow themselves up or fall on grenades if they think doing so furthers a greater cause.

              They most certainly will, and the incentive for them is that their action will further the cause. Benefit is greater than cost. You know, economics.

              1. People do not start a business to waste money, time and effort.

                Spending a great deal of time with entrepreneurs I have to say that this assertion is not factual.

                I meet a lot of guys chasing a dream. A significant number of them are trying to fill a psychic need and have no chance of ever making any money but …. just…. can’t…. stop.

                1. Taran,

                  There is a great section in Tony Bordaine’s book about various kinds of failed restaurants. One of his favorites is the “people chasing a dream”. The rich people who have always dreamed about having that supper club that only played Gershwin and such.

                  Yeah, this is what makes Virginia Postrel probably the smartest Libertarian thinker out there. She is the only one I know of who understands the importance of aesthetics. Many times people would rather look good and feel good than do good.

                2. Spending a great deal of time with entrepreneurs I have to say that this assertion is not factual.

                  Do they think they will make money from their dream? Most entrepreneurs I have ever met think that they will. I have never met one that just wanted to go out of business. I am sure they exist, but they are outliers.

                3. Spending a great deal of time with entrepreneurs I have to say that this assertion is not factual.

                  Yep, I’ve know a number of small business people over the years that refused to adjust a clearly failing business strategy.

                  Ultimately preferring to go out of business and usually bankrupt to adjusting their business to selling what people actually want to buy.

                  Which is John’s point.

                  The part that John misses is that those businesses do fail and are (eventually) replaced by ones that do provide what people want.

                  In the case of hard core discrimination, free market interaction would end it over time (in fact, Jim Crow laws were fundamentally anti-market) although that might take decades to fully play out.

                  1. VG,

                    I think you underestimate how great American society is. The market would have eventually ended Jim Crow. That I have no doubt. But that just says America is different than a lot of the world. It doesn’t say that the rest of the world would be the same. Most of the world thinks tribally and will happily live in shit in order to stick it to the other tribe.

              2. They most certainly will, and the incentive for them is that their action will further the cause.

                Yes. And that is why they don’t respond to market incentives. Their goal is not to get rich or better off. Their goal is to further the cause. And if discriminating against the nasty other is what furthers the cause, that is what they will do no matter how poor doing so will make them.

                1. And if discriminating against the nasty other is what furthers the cause, that is what they will do no matter how poor doing so will make them.

                  The funny thing about markets is that voids tend to be filled. That’s why Jim Crow had to be codified into law. If it wasn’t the law, then the people who voluntarily discriminated would create a void that would be filled by people wanting the business of those who were being discriminated against.

                  And it only takes one. Just one.

                  I don’t think what you are describing is realistic.

                  1. They did in that case sarcasmic. But they don’t always. India for example had the “untouchables” for centuries. The market never solved that because the society was just that committed. The market wouldn’t save a Jewish business if the society is really anti-Semitic and the Jews are anything but a really big minority.

                    1. What’s your better solution, then? Top men? Benevolent dictator? I’ll gladly volunteer for Benevolent Dictator.

                    2. India for example had the “untouchables” for centuries. The market never solved that because the society was just that committed.

                      So what’s the problem? If they didn’t think it was a problem, why should you?

                      The market wouldn’t save a Jewish business if the society is really anti-Semitic and the Jews are anything but a really big minority.

                      That’s a different issue. You were talking about businesses refusing to serve people. Now you’re talking about people refusing to go to a business. That happens every day.

                      We’re talking about businesses refusing customers. That creates a market, and unless there’s some law saying you can’t cater to that market, someone will. It only takes one. Just one. To say that no one person will attempt to tap into that market is unrealistic.

                2. heir goal is not to get rich or better off. Their goal is to further the cause. And if discriminating against the nasty other is what furthers the cause, that is what they will do no matter how poor doing so will make them.

                  John, it seems you are conflating a racist business owner with a jihadist. The business man will want to make money so he can continue furthering the cause, while the jihadist will gladly blow himself and others up if that works. Can they be the same person, yes, but for the most part you have on group of people finance the other.

                  1. Ptah,

                    For some people all of life is politics. So they may run a business but the purpose of that business is to further whatever cause they are following. Yes, they make money but that is a lower value than furthering the cause. If the business can’t be run in such a way that furthers the cause, they don’t run the business. For a benign example of this, see how modern progs spend their lives obsessing over the political actions of their own and other businesses.

                    1. Yes, they make money but that is a lower value than furthering the cause. If the business can’t be run in such a way that furthers the cause, they don’t run the business.

                      That is what I have been trying to tell you, it seems we are arguing past each other.

                3. And a damn good reason not to be involved in feuds between irrational people and tribes.

            3. What if he doesn’t go out of business and is just poorer? There are lots of his tribe he can sell to.

              Yes, but that other guy in his tribe that does care about making himself better off now has a systematic advantage. And every year he’ll be in an increasingly better position to compete against him.

              1. Yes, but that other guy in his tribe that does care about making himself better off now has a systematic advantage.

                Not if everyone in the big tribe refuses to do business with him because he won’t follow the tribal line he doesn’t. Bill you are assuming that all of the customers will go with best deal. That is not true.

                We see that today. Look at all of the nitwit Progs, who are nothing but fascists, who refuse do business with any firm whose politics they don’t like. The don’t care about the market. They care about the cause. Now imagine a society where the majority of the people were like that.

                1. If you have a truly racist society, though, where the vast majority of citizens are willing to stick it to the minority no matter the cost, how is politics going to fix the problem?

                  1. If you have a truly racist society, though, where the vast majority of citizens are willing to stick it to the minority no matter the cost

                    A vast majority means someone will buck the trend. What John is describing is when everyone refuses to serve those people they don’t like. No exceptions at all. And I don’t think that is realistic because it only takes one to ruin it. That’s why it has to be put into law and enforced with violence, like Jim Crow.

                  2. That is a fair point CN. And maybe it wouldn’t. I am inclined to agree with you that it wouldn’t. That, I think, points to the importance of culture. If you don’t have a culture that values freedom and throws off the yoke of tribalism, you are going to have a shitty country no matter what. So, you better worry a lot about what the culture of your country is.

                  3. I was just thinking that in an ironic way, allowing racist business owners to refuse service might actually be a good thing.

                    Think about it this way. You’ve got minorities who are refused service at many places, so you start a shop that caters specifically to them, like Asian markets. You win because you get their business, and they win because you cater to their specific needs.

                    1. And that is kind of what happened sarcasmic. There were a whole lot of very successful black owned businesses in the Jim Crow South. They had a captive market.

                2. Not if everyone in the big tribe refuses to do business with him because he won’t follow the tribal line he doesn’t.

                  If the shunned minority he’s catering to is big enough, then it won’t matter.

                  Bill you are assuming that all of the customers will go with best deal. That is not true.

                  Everyone goes with the best deal for their individual tastes and needs.

        4. I’m a long time libertarian with a near zero-interest in economics and markets.

        5. Libertarians can’t account for people who don’t respond to market incentives.

          Which is why libertarians are quiet about the right to self defense, oh wait, they say people have a right to defend themselves!

          For example, the Libertarian response to discrimination is to let the market sort things out since eventually racists will get tired of losing out to the despised ethnic group’s business and won’t be able to compete with businesses that hire based on merit rather than tribe.

          No. We think people should be free to associate with whomever they want to, and that it’s none of our business how they exercise that right. We do point out that people who make bad decisions, like refusing to hire someone who is a very capable doctor for a stupid reason (he isn’t Jewish!) pay a price – which is why they turn to the state to socialize the costs of their racism – hence Jim Crow laws. However, who you have sex with, who you eat with, who you live with, who you do business with is your own call.

          But sometimes people don’t. Libertarians have a very hard time accounting for that.

          Because we aren’t trying to engineer society, John. We aren’t fans of the fuhrer-princip. Your complaint makes about as much sense as bitching that Libertarianism doesn’t have a solution to the problems caused by religious heresies such as Arianism.

          1. First, Taran, last I looked Sowell was a Libertarian thinker. And his argument against the CRA is exactly what I am making. Unless you want to repudiate Sowell, don’t tell me that is not what Libertarians believe.

            Because we aren’t trying to engineer society,

            Exactly. But the assumption behind that is that society will eventually engineer itself to the best state. And that is mostly true but not always true. That is my entire point. You are not trying to engineer society. In fact you are saying you should never engineer society. And that is a great answer right up until you have to deal with fascists. Fascists don’t want a richer or freer society. They want personal meaning. They want war and transformation. And standing aside and doing nothing will not produce a better or anything but a nightmare when your society has a decent mass of fascists.

            1. Libertarians are cool with government violence in response to the initiation of violence.

              Saying “No, I will not serve you” is not an act of violence.

              Killing someone is.

              Do you see the difference?

            2. First, Taran, last I looked Sowell was a Libertarian thinker. And his argument against the CRA is exactly what I am making. Unless you want to repudiate Sowell, don’t tell me that is not what Libertarians believe.

              No, I am making a different point. I am pointing that we aren’t trying to solve racism. Observing that racism comes at a cost and that most people will abandon it is a descriptive statement, and one I happen to share.

              Sticking beans up your nose is painful and a bad idea. Libertarian philosophies all are silent on the question of whether one should stick beans up their nose. This isn’t a blind spot. It’s because actions that harm oneself and no one else are not considered withing the scope of political problems.

              But the assumption behind that is that society will eventually engineer itself to the best state.

              Anybody who assumes that does not understand politics. We are arguing that there is no objectively determinable ‘best’ state. Every person will have their own notion as to what is the ‘best’ state, and if we allow them to run their affairs, what we get, on the whole won’t be too bad.

              1. It’s because actions that harm oneself and no one else are not considered withing the scope of political problems.

                Well said.

                Every person will have their own notion as to what is the ‘best’ state, and if we allow them to run their affairs, what we get, on the whole won’t be too bad.

                Emergent/Spontaneous order.

              2. Observing that racism comes at a cost and that most people will abandon it is a descriptive statement, and one I happen to share.

                Most people in America will abandon. That is because we have a really special society that is one of the few that really did throw off the yoke of collectivism and tribalism in ways few others have. But that is my whole point, Libertarians have a bad habit of thinking every other society is like America. And that is why they really can’t account for something like a Jihadist. If Jim Crow had been administered by radical Muslims rather than idiot Southerners, it would have never ended on its own.

                It’s because actions that harm oneself and no one else are not considered withing the scope of political problems.

                And that is a profoundly unrealistic assumption. Societies and nations and groups quite often act collectively to harm themselves. Good lord, it is pretty much taken as a given that people will mindlessly vote socialism to get free shit even if it is blindly obvious that doing so is harmful. You think that is bad, go someplace will people start really voting and acting on a particularly violent sect of religion. Yes, people will happily burn down their own country in the name of progress. Self harm can most certainly be a political problem.

              3. And that is a great answer right up until you have to deal with fascists. Fascists don’t want a richer or freer society. They want personal meaning. They want war and transformation. And standing aside and doing nothing will not produce a better or anything but a nightmare when your society has a decent mass of fascists.

                This is a great point, and one I agree with. A free society requires the culture to have certain properties. And if enough people want a robust state, or a fascist society or a commie society, then the incentives that promote freedom can be disrupted to the point where the society will evolve in a more totalitarian direction.

                Some libertarians philosophers claim that this is why a monarchy is superior to a democracy – because monarchies are more resistant to this sort of madness.

                I submit to you that *all* political systems suffer from this flaw. The U.S. went fascist in the 30’s under Roosevelt. It went fascist in England under the rule of the House of Windsor.

                The superiority of libertarian political orders is that many of the people who embrace fascism do so because the society they live in denies their lives meaning, and the less free a society is, the larger the pool of people who are feeling so disaffected.

                1. Yes, Taran, you have to have a society that values freedom. The problem is that the very people who often are the least likely to value freedom are the ones who have the most of it.

                  A large number of the worst Jihadists are from rich or upper middle class families. You I am sure are well aware of the propensity of trust fund babies to become the worst sorts of totalitarian leftist.

                  The reason why it is so hard to keep a society free is that to be free you have to value freedom but the more freedom you have the less people are going to value it and the more tempted they will find fascism. It is a terrible catch 22.

                  This is why I think Libertarians are foolish not to be more tolerant of post enlightenment Western Christianity. Love it or hate it, it gives people who want more meaning in their lives an alternative to fascism.

            3. So you’re arguing that politics or top men sometimes can be better at “social engineering” than markets? I’d dispute that point.

        6. If he doesn’t [care about losing money], then he won’t respond to the market incentives. And if you have a society or a critical mass of people who don’t care, then the market incentive isn’t going to work.”

          Actually, you’re wrong on that one. What you’d need is a universiality of people who don’t care that they are losing money, a much stricter standard. If you get one non-cooperator, one person who cares that he’s losing money, then he gains a systematic advantage over his competitors and, other things being equal (granted they’re not), he’ll become increasingly dominant in the system.

          1. It doesn’t take a majority Bill. It just takes a committed minority willing to do violence. The rest will fall in line out of fear even if they would prefer not to follow.

            Most people in Nazi Germany were not Anti-Semitic or they were, were very mildly so. But that didn’t matter, because there was a fanatical minority that was and was willing to do violence to see that they got what they want. The rest of them fell in out of fear.

            1. John, you’re conflating two different things. Libertarianism isn’t silent on the issue of people using violence to further racism. It is perfectly fine, indeed I would argue mandatory, for a libertarian government to respond to violence committed in the name of racism. Some jerk putting a sign up saying “Niggers not allowed” isn’t violence. As long as nobody is using violence, even threats, I would say libertarianism says the law should leave him alone. Voluntary boycotts, pickets, public condemnation are fine, even laudable. Sending the po-po to shut him down or change his policy is not.

    2. I think most libertarians understand this.

      Butting into their affairs, occupying their land, and dropping Hellfire missiles onto wedding parties doesn’t make things any better. That’s the part you cannot comprehend.

    3. So your saying they thought it was good sport? Because some Muslims aren’t looking for anything logical, like money. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some Muslims just want to watch the world burn.

      1. It is not Muslims, it is people. Why do people join cults or the French Foreign Legion or volunteer for multiple tours in Afghanistan when they don’t have to and they have nothing more to prove? Because the quiet life isn’t good enough for some people. Some people want meaning and excitement and to feel important.

        One of the biggest lies we tell ourselves is that people always go to war unwillingly and always view it as a horrible experience. That old statement by McArthur that the soldier most of all fears war because he knows its effects, is bullshit. And the guy who made it knew it. He was a guy who went over the top in the trenches of World War one wearing a West Point Sweeter and carrying a baton. Yeah, some people really do go to war because they like it.

        1. I don’t think anyone doubts that Man is inherently a violent animal, if he wasn’t we wouldn’t be shitting out animals and picking are teeth with their bones. I think we have always needed people who excel at violence we are pack animals, primal instincts don’t go away overnight not after several hundred thousand years of evolution has refined those traits.

          1. Yep, and that’s the flaw in libertarianism, failing to realize that humans are violent pack animals akin to a nasty troop of baboons.

          2. In some ways I get the jihadists. I don’t lie to myself, I am a restless person who doesn’t find a lot of meaning in the material world. I have always had a bit too much fondness for violence. I liked getting in fist fights as a kid. And I don’t view any of that as a positive. I deal with my restlessness with my imagination and by riding a motorcycle or driving a fast car. I loath and despise the jihadists. But I understand how someone could fall under the spell of that kind of nihilism.

    4. Actually, I think these people are homo economicus. They weight the (subjective) cost and benefits and take the action if BC.

      1. So John believes economics is only about money? Ok.

        1. If it is not about money, what is it about? The laws of the “market” assume that people respond to incentives and that those incentives are driven by money and material well being. Yeah, you can apply the laws of the market to values other than money but they don’t work as well since those things are hard to quantify the way money is.

          Can economics describe and predict the behavior of people who don’t care about their own material well being? Sure. But that doesn’t disprove my point. My point is that some people can’t be negotiated with or bought off because they are not interested in being bought off. They are interested in meaning.

          1. I think you risk making the mistake of those who deify or demonize money as money. Money is just a tool. (A really, really cool tool.)

          2. John|9.5.14 @ 10:13AM|#
            “If it is not about money, what is it about?”

            Well, “My point is that some people can’t be negotiated with or bought off because they are not interested in being bought off. They are interested in meaning.”
            And your point is wrong; they can be ‘bought’ if you have the proper currency.

            1. And your point is wrong; they can be ‘bought’ if you have the proper currency.

              Sure. But the currency is your total submission to their cause. Yes, you can always surrender.

      2. They are rational, in the sense that they are acting based on what they value. But they don’t value money and the things that the market assumes they will.

        1. They are rational, in the sense that they are acting based on what they value.

          Exactly John, and value is subjective. I think some economist stated such in the 1800’s.

          1. Yes, you can change what the x and y axis on the supply and demand curve mean and explain about any rational behavior.

            1. Yes, you can change what the x and y axis on the supply and demand curve mean and explain about any rational behavior.

              Not sure what you mean by that. What I am saying is two people can look at the same object and have different values for that object. This is where Marx went wrong, thinking that value was intrinsic rather than extrinsic.

              Take your Porsche, you value it higher than I do as I am not a fan of Porsches, so you would be more willing to pay more for it than I would. You place a higher subjective value on it than I do. It really has nothing to do with x or y axis.

    5. Fight Club.

      Explains why middle class people become jihadis.

  28. Top of the crops! Joanna Krupa shows off her model figure in soaking wet see-through jersey and bikini bottoms

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..ttoms.html

    1. She is very hot and I have seen her before. But I still can’t figure out what she does. Is she an actress? Fashion model? I have never seen her anywhere but the Daily Fail and they always assume everyone knows who she is.

      1. Real Housewives or something. I think she’s famous for being famous. Saw her on Ridiculousness one time and she’s got the most annoying voice. Not that I’d be interested in conversation.

    2. I have to say as a Redskins fan, I think the Jets are their AFC mirror team.

  29. The biggest blind spot Libertarians have is that they often fail to realize not everyone is homo economicus.

    I thought it was that we’re not a bunch of bloodthirsty tribalist morons.

    Huh. My mistake.

  30. OT: Has anyone seen this?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-29068391

    I haven’t seen any US media coverage of this. Even though the story seems legit, the silence is kinda weird…

    1. Got a reasonable bit of coverage in Australia. Probably not interesting enough for the US – you have so many entertaining crimes

      1. It’s strange because I get more in depth coverage about happenings in the US from UK and Australian media (e.g. The West) than I do from domestic sources.

        1. Officers found her collapsed in the back garden and she was pronounced dead at the scene.

          Sorta goes without sayin’, don’t it?

        2. Lots of ahmeds and Muhammeds in that neighborhood, but

          “Whilst it is too early to speculate on what the motive behind this attack was I am confident, based on the information currently available to me, that it is not terrorist related.”

    2. I’m 3/4 of the way through Cormac McCarthy’s “Blood Meridian”. When it comes to death, I’d rather be beheaded than slow roasted upside-down on an Apache campfire.

      1. He likes to roast a lot of characters in his books.

    3. I wonder if the attacker was ‘Asian’?

      But don’t worry–the police say this had nothing to do with terrorism.

  31. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is determined to enroll the city’s young children in preschool programs, but the initiative is facing criticism.

    That east asians are naturally better at math than whites, blacks, and mexicans and that no amount of ejucatin’ will narrow the gap by much. I’m sorry, that’s not the criticism, the real problem is that NYC government is corrupt. Both are true.

  32. Ridley in WSJ on the pause.

    http://online.wsj.com/articles…..1409872855

    Describes himself as a “lukewarmer” which sounds like Ron Bailey.

    At the end is mention of a paper from a couple chinamen showing an ocean current responsible for half the warming in the 60s-90s.

    1. Also, dude, “Chinaman” is not the preferred nomenclature.

    2. Re: Raston Bot,

      Describes himself as a “lukewarmer” which sounds like Ron Bailey.

      Well, a “lukewarmer” is still a heretic! Either he submits and repents, or he will be chastised! The Science is Settled ?!

  33. SF pushes the envelop on destroying jobs; writer finds business owner more than happy to keep competitors out:

    “‘Retail Workers Bill of Rights’ gains traction in S.F.”
    […]
    “Jen Piallat, owner of the successful Cole Valley restaurant Zazie, offers her employees full benefits, a matching 401(k) retirement account, and maternity and paternity leave.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/…..734849.php

    1. The had some protests in the Chicago area about the 15 dollar an hour wages and for the most part had a low turn out. If you talk to anyone in the fast food industry, while they would like to be paid more, most will privately admit that even their jobs don’t justify 15 dollars an hour.

    2. In an industry with high turnover, she hasn’t had to hire a kitchen worker in more than three years – four have been there for well over a decade – and more than half of her wait staff have been there for more than seven years. That experience makes her workers more efficient, she said, lowering her costs and increasing her revenue – and their tips.

      Either she’s lying or she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. She didn’t hire engineers or accountants, or even plumbers. She hired waitresses and kitchen helpers. Anybody can wait a table with a little training. How does she know that she has the best people working for her? Who wants to be a kitchen helper all of his life? She’s paying WAY TOO MUCH for that staff. I don’t believe her when it says it helps her bottom line.

      1. Thus proving John’s point about economics?

        1. Re: Citizen Nothing,

          Thus proving John’s point about economics?

          John forgets that economics is not about money but about increasing one’s lot. All of our decisions are economic – meaning, when we act, we decide how to allocate our limited time. People do not think of their well-being as material well-being only. There are those that will trade their time for thrills or an experience, otherwise there would be no Schlitterbahm parks. It’s the same with Jihadists and other fools. They want to experience the thrill of fighting for some cause, and are willing to trade their time and body for that. That’s an economic decision, whether people want to believe it or not.

          1. Re: Citizen Nothing,

            With regards to the restaurant owner in the article, I think the woman is just lazy. She doesn’t want to go through the experience of breaking a new employee every year or so and thus pays a premium to avoid it. That can’t help her bottom line, that’s a lie, but it does help her well-being as she can go on being a lazy businesswoman. It is a perfectly rational decision, just not one I agree with. That doesn’t mean that raising the cost of hiring across the board by fiat is a good idea, since it deprives the industry of new workers.

      2. I absolutely hate the mind frame, “I pay my workers a high wage so everyone else should and damn it if they don’t then we need the government to step in.” It’s great that you pay your workers well. It’s your money but don’t force others to have to pay what you think is a “livable” wage for their workers.

        1. She probably doesn’t have a fucking Dollar Menu either. God damn these people are stupid.

  34. For the first time ever, Cosmopolitan’s editors will endorse candidates in the midterm elections. I can’t think of anything less sexy than that.

    I can – those same candidates posing provocatively for the cover of Cosmopolitan.

  35. Another perspective on Ukraine vs Russia

    Yes, there clearly are Russian soldiers operating in eastern Ukraine (reports estimate 1,000). And, yes, the pro-Russian separatists in places like Donetsk will have had support from Russia. But none of this is the result of Putin’s ‘dream of imperial restoration’, or his ‘hypernationalist, conspiratorial madness’. Russia is not realising any sort of pre-meditated plan at all. In fact, it is not determining events; it is responding to them. It saw anti-Russian protesters in Kiev violently replace Ukraine’s democratically elected leader, Yanukovych, with a pro-Western government complete with a faction of bona fide neo-fascists in February. And it watched on as Western leaders serenaded Ukraine’s new government with songs of approval. And seeing what happened, seeing Ukraine transformed into a strategic threat right on its own borders, Russia responded by swiftly taking back Crimea, and then attempted to shore up other parts of eastern Ukraine. Russia’s intervention in Ukraine isn’t madness; it’s a rational, realist response to what it correctly perceives as a geopolitical threat right there in its own backyard.

    http://www.spiked-online.com/n…..AnjSNm9Kc0

    1. I can see why Russia would feel threatened with neighbors living under the yoke of capitalism and free speech.

      1. How do you think we would respond if the elected Pres of our neighbor were removed in a pro-Russian coup? I think McCain et al would be ‘going nucular.’

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.