Secret Service Dropping the Ball, Syrian Rebels Wonder Whose Side We're On, Lena Dunham Has Opinions: A.M. Links

|

  • Lena Dunham
    David Shankbone / Wikimedia Commons

    A White House security breach has left some wondering whether President Obama is safe in the hands of the Secret Service.

  • The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against early voting in Ohio, which has angered Rachel Maddow and all the other people who usually get upset about that kind of thing.
  • Lena Dunham has opted to pay the warm-up acts for her book tour after all. She was previously criticized for expecting these people to perform for free. She's still the worst, though, and National Review's Kevin Williamson explains why.
  • Should incumbent governors be worried about what's coming one month from now?
  • It was only a matter of time: non-ISIS Syrian rebels are growing more and more annoyed about U.S. airstrikes against ISIS, since the strikes will end up helping dictator Bashar al-Assad.
  • Jon Stewart is furious that Congress won't vote on Syrian airstrikes.
  • Poor Amanda Bynes.

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: Supreme Court Shoots Down Early Voting in Ohio

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. A White House security breach has left some wondering whether President Obama is safe in the hands of the Secret Service.

    Racists everywhere.

    1. Exactly. This “White” House crap has got to stop.

    2. Hello.

      Mulatto House?

      Fair is fair.

      1. Chocolate house.

      2. Heroic Mulatto House

    3. The story now is that the guy over powered a female secret service agent after he got into the White House. Unless she has a gun or a dog, a women is likely no physical match for a man of any size. We can’t admit that of course since the PC truth is that “girls can”.

      I did some work with the USSS a few years ago. The organization then was deeply broke, mostly due to affirmative action and the accompanying lowering of standards. Once you start lowering standards, people no longer take pride in being in the organization and things start to go to shit.

      I seriously worry about the President’s safety. The last thing the country needs is for a President to be assassinated. Biden jokes aside, what a mess that would be. It would, however, be more than a bit ironic to see our most liberal and PC President lose his life due to the deterioration in the Secret Service caused by that very same PC ideology.

      1. It would, however, be more than a bit ironic to see our most liberal and PC President lose his life due to the deterioration in the Secret Service caused by that very same PC ideology.

        Which would not be the item blamed if it did happen. We’d see another fifty years of “Raaaaaaacissssts!” from that incident alone

      2. Thought she had a gun.

        1. Forget it, he’s rolling.

      3. The story now is that the guy over powered a female secret service agent after he got into the White House. Unless she has a gun or a dog, a women is likely no physical match for a man of any size. We can’t admit that of course since the PC truth is that “girls can”.

        Per gender theorists, is it even safe to identify anyone as male or female?

        1. uh, i’m a pyrofox?

          h/t jesse

      4. “I did some work with the USSS a few years ago. The organization then was deeply broke, mostly due to” it being a government bureaucracy. Why would anyone think that the USSS has some magical properties to avoid the failures that come with government organizations?

        USSS doesn’t really have a good track record, unless they’re keeping all their big successes secret.

        1. Yeah, they’re known mostly for gross overreactions to casual “threats”, and not stopping real attacks until they are underway, if then.

      5. What about Brienne of Tarth?

  2. Bodyslamming for Jesus: Inside the bizarre world of Christian pro wrestling

    The Christian Wrestling Federation bodyslams for Jesus?literally. On the surface, the CWF looks like a normal WWE wrestling event, with costumed characters jumping from the ropes and wrestlers being hit in the back of the head with chairs. Sometimes there’s blood. Sometimes there’s an elbow to the thorax. Except, these violent wrestling moves are all done for the love of Jesus Christ and to save souls.

    Welcome to the world of the Christian Wrestling Federation.

    Like a “sleeper hold” from above, for the past 14 years, the Dallas-based religious grappling group has performed more than 600 events, in 34 states, and has seen over 25,000 people giving their lives to Christ, while simultaneously enjoying the benefits and thrills of professional wrestling.

    1. Homoeroticism For Christ.

      1. Well, he did hang out exclusively with 12 dudes…

        1. The Last Battle Royale.

        2. Not exclusively. 2 Marys (Besides his mom) and a Martha feature prominently.

          1. 2 Marys

            Well, that’s gay.

          2. Two Marys, one grail?

    2. I read that as BodyShaming for Jesus

  3. …non-ISIS Syrian rebels are growing more and more annoyed about U.S. airstrikes against ISIS, since the strikes will end up helping dictator Bashar al-Assad.

    You mean Al Qaeda?

    1. I think we mean some group none of us have ever heard of, who will be considered this global threat in about 4 years.

      1. That far into the future? More like 2 years, I should think.

        1. Probably 6 months ago.

          We won’t know about it for another 2+ years. Sometime after NOV 16.

  4. Michigan college launches beer-making program

    Central Michigan University in Mount Pleasant this week announced plans to launch the program in fall 2015, aimed particularly at supporting and boosting the state’s fast-growing craft brewing industry, now a $1 billion-plus annual business.

    “As of 2013, Michigan ranked fifth in the nation in number of breweries, behind only California, Colorado, Oregon and Washington,” said Ian Davison, dean of the College of Science and Technology at the Mount Pleasant school.

    Central Michigan bills its undergraduate program as the first in the state specifically aimed at providing a “hands-on education focused on craft beer.” Similar programs operate at the University of California’s Davis and San Diego campuses and at Oregon State and Central Washington universities.

    1. I got into brewing while taking a “nutrition and food science” course on it. Sadly the course did not include any hands on, and really was largely about the science (with a pinch of history). It was still pretty fun though, and super easy. This freebie was one of the benefits of the fact that while I only needed 1 semester’s worth of credits to graduate, the specific classes I still needed were offered in different semesters.

      1. This freebie was one of the benefits of the fact that while I only needed 1 semester’s worth of credits to graduate, the specific classes I still needed were offered in different semesters.

        Deliberately done by the college to try to get more revenue.

        1. Kind of silly since they were the ones paying for it.

          1. Did you not have any “fees” or such due?

            1. By that point I was off campus, so I just paid for health insurance and books. There were some fees while I lived on campus.

          2. An entry on the expense column counts for tax purposes as an expense, even though the actual cost of delivery is far less than what they credit as tuition in a full ride situation.

    2. Hah, Central Michigan! Suck on THIS!

      The University of New Mexico has launched its first-ever “Sex Week” observance this week with a controversial agenda that includes workshops such as “How to be a Gentleman and Still Get Laid,” “Negotiating Successful Threesomes,” “O-Face Oral” and “BJs and Beyond”

      1. “How to be a Gentleman and Still Get Laid,”

        You’ll get laid, but afterwards the woman will still claim it was rape.

        1. May as well save some time.

          “Ladies, point to a hole or I shall make one myself.”

          1. You forgot the word “please.” And you call yourself a gentleman.

          2. To whip your joyous flesh
            And bruise your pardoned breast,
            To make in your astonished flank
            A wide and gaping wound,

            And, intoxicating sweetness!
            Through those new lips,
            More bright, more beautiful,
            To infuse my venom, my sister!

      2. And, yes, the “O-face Oral” session has its own Facebook page.

        And, no, I will not post the link.

      3. This sounds sort of similar to something that one of my dorms put on in the mid 00s.

        Naturally I avoided participating in the events and just had sex with my girlfriend instead.

    3. Great…more shitty brewers opening more shitty craft breweries.

      1. And forcing you to drink at them?

        1. Yeah, I get it, free market and all that. But I’m still going to get asked how much I loved his beer by some wide-eyed homebrewer who gave up everything to “go pro.” And I’ll still have friends who rave about some new brewery simply because it’s a new craft brewery even though the product is complete shit.

          1. Yeah, Bells and Founders totally suck.

            1. Jesus Christ. The existence of good craft breweries does not justify the thousands of shitty breweries that have been opened in the last five or so years seeking to cash in on the trend.

              1. Darwinian competition will send many of those into extinction. Why do you care? It will also allow new beneficial varieties to blossom.

                1. Why do you care?

                  As I explained above, I’m gonna’ end up drinking this shit, and I’m going to have to lie about how great it is!

    4. Higher Ed sees a new business trend developing and rushes in to destroy it.

      1. Higher Ed sees a new business trend developing and rushes in to destroy it.

        They aren’t rushing in with the intention of destroying it, of course.

        My local Vo-Tech is getting a football team fer christsakes – within my lifetime it’s gone from offering trades instruction to part-time high schoolers (math and English classes at the high-school for half a day and job training at the Vo-Tech for half a day) to offering two-year programs post-high school (the same hands-on job training but you have take math and English classes at the school as well) to offering four-year programs (same few hands-on job training classes but now a whole range of “well-rounded education” classes in addition to the math and English).

        Naturally, costs went from a few-hundred-dollar fee paid by high-schoolers parents to a few-thousand-dollar tuition paid by part-time working students to just-as-damn-much-as-a-real-college charge paid for by the taxpayer via student loan programs.

        And now where, if I wanted to learn how to weld or work on car engines or something, I used to be able to pay a few hundred bucks to take an evening class or two that’s not an option because I have to enroll as a full-time student for the full two-year program that ain’t gonna learn me no better than the two hours twice a week for twelve weeks class I would have taken with some guy with a welder teaching me how to use a welder – and nothing else.

  5. She’s still the worst, though, and National Review‘s Kevin Williamson explains why.

    I think I can safely skip the explanation and go right to agreement.

    1. Oh, but it’s amusing to see the National Review moaning about the profit motive.
      Well, not so much moaning, as ad-hominem impugning those who benefit by those who make profits.
      With friends like these, who needs enemas?

      1. Zuh? Where did any NR writer moan about the “profit motive” anywhere?

        There’s plenty of awfulness surrounding Dunham and her fans without the need to mention whatever this whole book tour is.

    2. Yeah, getting caught being a hypocrite and then changing your ways when you get enough bad press doesn’t make you any less of a hypocrite.

    3. Unpossible. I have it on good authority that Nicole is the worst.

    4. Lena Dunham is the most repulsive woman on the planet.

      1. Not even close. She’s just the cad to a certain group to which we belong. She’s like the Iron Sheik of cable series.

  6. MY EYES!!!!

    MY EYES!!!

  7. And just to put you at ease: I won’t be asking for money. Finland does fine on its own.


    Finland’s Prime Minister looks like a stylist

    1. Alexander Stubb?

      This is a Finnish name:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reijo_Ruotsalainen

      1. Ruotsalainen is the Finnish word for a Swedish person.

        1. I thought that was homoseksuaali

        2. Reijo Theswede?

    2. He also ran the Berlin Marathon on Sunday.

      As I posted a couple of months ago, parts of the Finnish media hate the fact that he does marathons and triathlons and isn’t doing “serious” things like tweeting about geopolitical crises.

      1. Finland is not a major world player. Their continued existence depends on keeping the Russians terrified of another winter war.

        1. Just for grins, it would be awesome to give the Finns some mid-sized nukes on cruise missiles.

          The Russian pants-shitting would be epic.

        2. Even the Finns know they aren’t a world player.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR9N3NOutaQ

        3. Why? Those white uniforms and skis are so cool.

      2. Better a few marathons and triathalons than 200+ rounds of golf.

      3. Campaign ad: “When the Russians come back, I will be fit to kill many.”

        End of discussion.

      4. Oh god, he doesn’t narcissistically lecture the country on “health” issues I hope. I can easily imagine the population telling him to go pound sand before returning to their drink.

  8. Woman Busted for Possession of SpaghettiO’s Sauce May Sue

    Police say they arrested 23-year old Ashley Gabrielle Huff after they found a spoon covered with a suspicious residue inside the car she was riding in.

    From the beginning Huff insisted that she wasn’t using, selling, or making methamphetamines.

    The woman spent more than a month in jail while her attorney tried to arrange a plea bargain. That’s when the crime lab report came back confirming the spoon was encrusted with spaghetti sauce.

    1. I’m sure her employer didn’t fire her and the state reimbursed her for lost wages, right? RIGHT?
      /cries into coffee

    2. If you don’t want a cop to rape you, you shouldn’t eat Spaghetti-O’s in your car.

    3. Eating SpaghettiOs cold from the can in your car is hardcore, man.

    4. Police say they were acting in good faith.

      As is Huff as she brings this lawsuit, with all its saucy publicity.

      1. It’s really something the media can sink their teeth into.

  9. …which has angered Rachel Maddow and all the other people who usually get upset about that kind of thing.

    I guess that means I’m in favor of the ruling.

    1. I’m in favor of continuos voting. If you hit less than 50.1% at anytime, BAM!, you’re gone.

    2. I’m wondering WTF was wrong with “Election Day”. Sure, move it online or something but one goddamn day of voting is enough.

    3. Extended voting is an open door to fraud.

      That’s really all you need to know to evaluate the pros and cons.

      1. No, they think their supporters are too dumb to remember what day the election is on, so if they have weeks and weeks, their community organizers can go door to door and make sure all of them vote properly. Oh wait…

  10. Lindy West is now recycling Jezebel columns for The Guardian

    http://www.theguardian.com/com…..fat-people

    1. Soooo not clicking that.

    2. I read it. I feel dumber. I should have known better.

  11. ‘Poo’ dumped on Auckland house

    Karen Bass told the Herald on Sunday yesterday that her two-storey Flat Bush home and her silver car were covered in splotches of excrement dumped from a passing plane overnight.

    Her home is directly in the flight path for planes flying into Auckland International Airport.

    “The first thing when I walked out of my door this morning and I saw it, I thought an airplane s*** on us. You open the door and it smells like s***,” she said.

    “I’m absolutely disgusted at the moment. The amount of crap everywhere is horrendous.”

    1. It was just a really big bird.

  12. Historically, marriage has been, and should always remain, the union between one man and one volumetric flask

    New Zealand’s Civilian Party

    1. Alleviate poverty amongst children by giving every poverty-stricken child a llama as a means to a basic income.

      Sounds good to me.

      *** sniffs back tears ***

      /Proggie

    2. Establish a space program, and become the first nation in Australasia to send a man to the moon; not to explore it, just someone we don’t like.

      Reform the tax system so that it rewards success and punishes failure. Ensure that the bulk of taxes are aimed at the greatest source of poverty in New Zealand: the poor. (Read more)

      Remove the monarchy and become an independent banana republic. (Read more)

      Close the pay gap between men and women by working to reduce men’s wages.

      Alleviate poverty amongst children by giving every poverty-stricken child a llama as a means to a basic income.

      End discrimination against social majorities. No more special services just for Maori; no more car parks just for disabled people; no more hip operations just for people who need hip operations.

      Relegalise illegal legal highs. The recent government crackdown on these products was overzealous, and there is no reason that perfectly legal substances should be illegal. (Read more)

      Make Wellington airport safer by moving it to Christchurch.

      Defend the traditional institution of marriage as the union between one man and one volumetric flask.

      Reform the Justice system so that every citizen is required to prove why they shouldn’t be in prison.

      1. The way we’re headed, that last one’s going to be law in the US within the next decade.

        I like these guys.

      2. Pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship in order to reset the planetary thermostat to more closely resemble the good old days.

    3. Ah, the Australian version of the Standing at the Back Dressed Stupidly and Looking Stupid Party.

      1. *Kiwi

        1. NEVER MAKE THAT MISTAKE AGAIN!

          /outraged Kiwi

  13. It was only a matter of time: non-ISIS Syrian rebels are growing more and more annoyed about U.S. airstrikes against ISIS, since the strikes will end up helping dictator Bashar al-Assad.

    2016: US will bomb government targets in Syria to help rebels

    2018: US will bomb Syrian rebels

    2020: US will bomb government targets in Syria to help rebels

    This is gonna go on for a while I fear.

    1. More like:

      Jan 2016 US will bomb government targets in Syria to help Sunni rebels

      Mar 2016 US will bomb Sunni rebel targets to help Shi’ite rebels

      Jun 2016 US will bomb Shi’ite spinter group targets to help Sunni rebels

      Aug 2016 US will bomb Sunni splinter group targets and a second Shi’ite splinter group to help Syrian government and “moderate” Sunni rebels

      etc. etc.

  14. Should incumbent governors be worried about what’s coming one month from now?

    Lucrative, no-show jobs in the quasi-private sector?

  15. Special Report: Islamic State uses grain to tighten grip in Iraq

    The group now controls a large chunk of Iraq’s wheat supplies. The United Nations estimates land under IS control accounts for as much as 40 percent of Iraq’s annual production of wheat, one of the country’s most important food staples alongside barley and rice. The militants seem intent not just on grabbing more land but also on managing resources and governing in their self-proclaimed caliphate.

    Wheat is one tool at their disposal. The group has begun using the grain to fill its pockets, to deprive opponents ? especially members of the Christian and Yazidi minorities ? of vital food supplies, and to win over fellow Sunni Muslims as it tightens its grip on captured territory. In Iraq’s northern breadbasket, much as it did in neighboring Syria, IS has kept state employees and wheat silo operators in place to help run its empire.

    1. Well, then, the more the anti-ISIS groups will slip through their fingers!

      1. You have an exceptionally nerdy sense of self-denigration. Jerk.

        1. Well I’m glad that ?someone? got it!

  16. Jon Stewart is furious that Congress won’t vote on Syrian airstrikes.

    I’m going to guess it’s House Republicans mostly to blame.

    1. Stewart called the Republican posturing “pure political calculation” because they get to criticize President Obama no matter what he does, and concluded they’re just refusing to debate “for fear that we will hear them.”

      ding-ding-ding! We have a winner!

      1. Things would be so much better if the Democrats were in control of the senate.

      2. Well, why should they vote? The absence of a vote to authorize something is supposed to mean something in and of itself – that the thing is not authorized. If a vote to authorize the bombing campaign were to come up and fail, would that mean the entire thing had to stop? The bombing sure as hell started without Congressional authorization.

        It sounds to me like Stewart’s real complaint here is that the Congressional Republicans aren’t lining up to give the administration their blessing and cover for a war the administration didn’t feel the need to go to Congress to authorize.

      3. For fear that we’ll hear them… say the same things Obama has been saying?

    2. Just for grins, somebody should propose an Amendment deleting the declaration of war from Congress’s enumerated powers.

      Hell, its not like they’re using it, so why would anyone object?

  17. Ed Sullivan Statue Stolen From Hall Of Fame Plaza

    Tipsters can call … anonymously at (800) 222-TIPS (8477).

    Probably this guy.

    1. Did they replace the statue with a really big shoe?

    1. It’s all the War Party. Just depends who’s in charge.

      They try to cover their tracks by saying, “get out in a responsible way,” which means, “stay forever.”

      And now, of course, we have another open-ended war in Iraq (with extra bonus country Syria!) with no strategy and no idea what victory will look like.

  18. Should prisoners with no prospect of release be given option of euthanasia?

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/201…..ke/5775680

    1. Yep. I’d much rather die than spend the rest of my life in prison.

      1. I don’t believe this. Once you were in, and became fully institutionalized, you would probably not want this. Even prisoners are able to work, read, make friends, and experience enjoyment, which is why the bulk of them aren’t offing themselves.

        1. I don’t think you realize just how awful prison is between the gang members, sadistic guards, and crushing boredom. I haven’t been, but I’ve read firsthand accounts. Unless we are talking about the white collar types.

          1. Even if prison is so, so awful that one can’t even bear to live in it, the solution is not to offer suicide to the prisoners. The solution is to make the prisons safer and less awful.

            1. What about gladiator style games, on pay per view?

          2. Depends on the prison, security level, structure and the inmates around you, but overall most prisons are not “that” bad and people do find ways to cope and find some enjoyment and life behind bars. Some even function better and accomplish more inside than they do outside.

    2. Death panels… something about state doctors not being able to pull it off… the irony of reserving the right only for prisoners in a country like the USA… too many jokes to choose from.

    3. Why can’t the prison just give them shoelaces to hang themselves with or something?

    4. They should be allowed to volunteer for target practice for a range where the victims’ families and high paying people can have at them. Funds to victims families.

  19. The South’s victim complex: How right-wing paranoia is driving new wave of radicals

    The persecution narrative deployed by Broun, so woven into Southern culture and politics, has gained national currency. Contemporary conservatism is a Southern politics. Ironically, the Southern persecution narrative, born of defeat, has spread nationwide to form the basis of Republican victories since Reagan and the conservative hegemony that moderated President Clinton, establishing through President George W. Bush nearly 40 years of rightward movement at the national level. It is the South’s principal political export, now a necessary ideological substrate in Republican rhetoric. Lee Atwater, the Karl Rove of the Reagan era, explained the nationalization of Southern politics accomplished with the 1980 campaign and election of President Reagan: “The mainstream issues in [the Reagan] campaign had been, quote, ‘Southern’ issues since way back in the Sixties,” Atwater said in 1981. Likely the foremost representative of that Southern mood was Alabama’s George Wallace, who in his 1963 gubernatorial inaugural address, the infamous “Segregation Forever” speech, invoked Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis and raged that “government has become our god.

    1. The persecution narrative deployed by Broun, so woven into Southern culture and politics

      What a load of shit, that’s the DNC’s stock and trade.

      1. It’s amazing the number of academic books still coming out with the central thesis that Republicans win votes primarily by scaring their voters. I hold no brief for the R’s but as Scruffy notes, for the last, what, 25 years, that’s been the primary Democrat m.o.

      2. Not true. As a Southern white I see white “victims” cry every day.

        Taxed too high pay for food stamps (2%) of the budget that go to people of the wrong color, immigration, uppity Negros, affirmative action, Gawd taken out of the schools while they stack up in lines to get SSDI, SS, Medicare, and Medicaid.

        They loved Bush’s free stuff but don’t like Obama’s.

    2. They’re going to start beheading the Yankees?

      1. /runs barefoot to trailer to get replica saber

        1. Tallahassee was the only capital never to fall

          1. No one remembers it even exists.

            1. Yeah, Florida wasn’t exactly a military power house during the war. It mostly supplied beef, mostly.

            2. Actually, the FSU ROTC has a battle banner on their unit flag from the Battle of Natural Bridge. I don’t think Florida Women’s College provided soldiers in 1865, but some unit somehow managed to get the credit. One of two ROTC units to have one, I believe. (That said, it was a skirmishing Union force who basically met resistance and decided that they didn’t give a shit about Florida.

    3. I don’t think the definition of “hegemony” includes “something that moderates”.

      I certainly enjoy hearing how Southerners are both a tiny redneck minority and simultaneously pull all the strings in politics.

      If you hate us so much, why not just let us secede?

      1. Because the first act after secession would be a CSA invasion? I got nothing.

        1. I know! It’s like if the libertarians gained power and … left everyone alone!

      2. You’d steal all the Black People… then how would the Democratic Party win any elections?

    4. Likely the foremost representative of that Southern mood was Alabama’s George Wallace, Democrat, who in his 1963 gubernatorial inaugural address, the infamous “Segregation Forever” speech, invoked two other Democrats, Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis and raged that “government has become our god.

      FTFY.

      Because everyone knows that Republicans always quote and idolize Democrats.

  20. What’s this I hear about the power of Allah beating Tom Brady?

    1. Seeing know-it-all Belicheck have to talk to the media after getting boatraced like he did yesterday is one of the greatest things in sports.

      Great move getting rid of Logan Mankings, mister genius.

      1. Well, even with Mankins it’s hard to do much when all of your receivers are short white guys.

        1. Not like that’s stopped Brady before.

          He said before the season he’d retire when he sucked. So I’m expecting his retirement ceremony any day now. I expect it to be as gag-inducing as Jeter’s was.

          1. Well, it was easier to cover up when you had Gronkowski and Hernandez too. Welker too is much better than Edelman and Amendola.

          2. But it will only be once, instead of a whole 6 months of schlock, right?

      2. Seeing know-it-all Belichick have to talk to the media after getting boatraced like he did yesterday is one of the greatest things in sports.

        It actually gave me a schadenfreude boner.

        1. GO CHIEFS!

        2. Ages ago, there was an ad (can’t remember what for, Wendy’s?) where the guy striping the field misspelled Chiefs as Chefs.

          They’ve been the Chefs to me ever since.

          And Allah love them for spanking Brady and the Pats soooo hard.

          1. Snicker’s

            1. Great Googly-Moogley.
              One of the greatest commercials evah.

  21. Dude that makes no sense at all man. Wow.

    http://www.Ano-Web.tk

    1. THis account hasn’t been deleted yet? Dude that makes no sense at all man. Wow.

  22. Ted Cruz finds a core of support among social conservatives frustrated with GOP

    While there is not yet a front-runner in the early race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is quickly becoming the favored contender of social conservatives, riding a recent wave of fiery speeches and standing ovations at right-wing conferences.

    Cruz’s core supporters on the right are the activists and high-powered interest groups determined to keep faith-infused positions at the center of the Republican Party, regardless of a push by some in the GOP to seek distance from socially conservative stands on marriage and abortion.

    1. He was born in Canadia. How the heck can he even think of legally being elected?

      1. If you can’t trust a Canadian who can you trust?

        Besides, judging by the last two Presidents, sounds as though you can use some Canadianian flavor.

        1. I … I just can’t disagree with this.

          SOME CANADIAN FOR PRESIDENT!

        2. But I have it on good authority that Candians have flopping heads and beady little eyes.

        3. If you can’t trust a Canadian who can you trust?

          There’s an old axiom where I’m from – trust no one.

      2. His mother’s American.

        1. Yeah well. My wife’s great grandmother is from Rhode Island!

          VOTE FOR ME!

  23. Do Selfies Spread Lice?

    When you’re capturing a selfie, you might be capturing a little something extra. That’s according to one expert at a lice-treatment center in California who says that there has been a big increase in lice incidents in young people due in part to the rising popularity of the selfie. Lice is spread from head-to-head contact, they don’t just jump from one head to another. But put your heads together, and you’re bridging the divide for the little critters. Of the teens treated for lice, all admitted they were taking selfies every day. So when there’s more than one person in a selfie, is it still technically considered a selfie?

    1. And what about the teens who weren’t treated for lice?

    2. If you’re only taking selfies of yourself, that’s not a problem, is it?

      1. That’s a sin before God.

        Wait, that’s masturbation.

        1. Selfie love?

    3. Since pubic lice are dying off because of the deforestation of their natural habitat, it seems only fair to give head lice a bit of help

  24. OK, so what’s the argument against early voting? It seems to me that early voting would help reduce fraud not increase the risk (my thinking is that it could give the state more time to see if the vote caster was indeed properly registered and then to remove their names from the not-voted list) but I might be missing something.

    1. You’re missing the part where none of that second step happens.

      1. Then that seems to not be a problem with early voting but with the officials not taking advantage of its potential to actually reduce fraud. Why not fix that part?

        1. Start by requiring a way of proving you’re a voter, say, some form of identification, and you’d have a way to tell who has passed through the voting booth already.

          Besides, officials have no incentive to reduce fraud. They’re usually the one perpetuating it.

          1. But early voting would address this.

            In elections where photo ID is not required you go in and identify yourself and show a voter card (non-photo), and the official looks up your name in the list and marks you off. Anyone else coming in trying to vote under that name is not allowed and in theory could get into trouble.

            The potential advantage of early voting seems to me that for votes already turned in, you could check and make sure that person was properly registered and such, didn’t appear to vote in more polling place than one, etc.

            1. So, you would rather have a system where the fraudsters can vote as everyone on day one of early voting with no verification, and the actual voters get shut out when they turn up during the window than just require real identification to check that the voter is who they say they are?

              Someone with a stack of non-photo voter cards or duplicates thereof can go from station to station impersonating a string of real voters with the same ease as a no-id required fraudster.

              Before you start on inserting anti-forgery measures into the cards, why not put a photo in there too? What is it that makes you so afraid of proper identity verification at the polls?

              1. Vote Early! Vote Often!

              2. The actual voter wouldn’t be shut out, that would lead to further procedures to verify who the person is. They’d be authenticated and their vote would count. Whoever voted in their name would be the one that should not count (they should keep an electronic record of each vote cast [don’t they do this anyway?], and if someone has voted in someone else [who has been authenticated] name, they should go back and delete that vote).

                1. The actual voter wouldn’t be shut out, that would lead to further procedures to verify who the person is. They’d be authenticated and their vote would count.

                  So, like requiring proper ID?

                  Whoever voted in their name would be the one that should not count (they should keep an electronic record of each vote cast [don’t they do this anyway?]

                  It’s called a secret ballot. If you keep a record of who the voter voted for, it’s not a secret anymore. (You can agure for or against that all you want)

                  and if someone has voted in someone else [who has been authenticated] name, they should go back and delete that vote).

                  With proper ID laws you don’t have to do this retroactively while retaining the secret ballot.

          2. Or, I don’t know – dye on a finger of people who cast a vote.

            There’s ways of working this without taking another step towards mandatory ID.

    2. Vote early and vote often.

      1. D’oh!

    3. More importantly, what is the argument against all mail-in voting? I’m going to have to drag my ass to a polling station for the first time in my life if I end up voting this year. I had taken for granted WA state’s all mail-in system.

      1. Absentee ballots and mail-in votes are the worst in terms of verifiability of eligability. Among the most common tactic is to steal the ballot from the mailboxes of apathetic voters and fill them in for them. The apathetic voter doesn’t realize they never got it, and the fraudulent vote goes through. Some organizations have gone so far as to file for absentee status on behalf of unsuspecting people to get the ballots mailed out.

        how do you have any faith in any of those elections?

        1. How do you successfully predict who is an ‘apathetic voter?’ If you guess wrong and the voter eventually votes, won’t this be detected?

          1. They’re actually very good at predicting who will stay home on election day.

            As for being detected… No, not really, because there are no checks being done. And if by some stretch the absentee vote is challenged, the blame will fall on the voter who will be accused of trying to vote twice.

          2. Bo, the Democratic party has been reaching out to my mom, a Republican every election on election day to ask her when she is planning on going to the polls. Officially, it’s been to offer her a ride, but according to my mom what they really were curious about was when she was planning on going to the polls.

            This started when Obama came into office. Obama’s elections have been the product of his campaigns very systematic, data-drive and focused efforts to manage getting supporters into the voting booth. They realized that if they could get the 65% of supporters who vote to become 95%, that it would more than make up for a candidate who appealed to his base plus centrists with conventional numbers.

            My guess is that his campaigns success has been noted by other Democrats and that they’ve been trying to replicate it for themselves.

            Certainly early voting does make getting the percentages up easier (you get people to impulsively fill out ballots at a rally and mail them in). IT also is a short hop to engaging in fraud where you vote on people’s behalf. Because there is a large cohort of people who are unlikely to vote, and the data collection methods that identify quiet supporters will also inherently identify anyone who is quiet.

            1. tarran, it seems like trying to vote in your mom’s name would be a terrible plan for the Democrats. She’s registered for the other party. On her word to them they are going to try to vote in her name, and then when she maybe goes to vote contrary to what she told them, their scheme is made transparent.

              1. It’s not because they want to vote in her name, Bo!

                It’s a data collection scheme! To develop a model that will help them maximize the number of votes for Democrats!!!!!

                It can be used legitimately (we have this voter who would vote for us if we made the path smoother and straighter) or illegitimately (this voter never votes, we shall cast a vote on her behalf).

                Either way, the democratic innovation, that of reducing the percentage of friendly non-voters by improved data-driven models is still percolating through the electoral system, and there is a great deal of data collection going on to build those models.

                1. Ah, I somehow deleted a paragraph.

                  I think MA is one place where a lot of models and get out the vote ideas get tested by the Democratic party because if they fuck up it won’t generally cost them an election (and they can undo the damage the next election), yet there is substantial enough Republican opposition to make the data gathered by such efforts meaningful and useful.

            2. The organization behind the progressives’ targeting of your mom is Catalist.

              It is way more advanced in putting together targeted databases than its competitors.

              There’s a great article on this organization at http://www.powerlineblog.com/a…..erhaps.php

        2. Eh, I would guess most apathetic voters don’t register so they never get a ballot mailed to them in the first place. In WA you also have to sign your ballot, your “secrecy envelope”, and the mailing envelope, which I assume they check against your signature on file at the election office or DMV (your drivers license is used for registration if you do so online, which I did).

          Besides, if they want to fuck with an election they will do regardless. See Washington State’s gubernatorial race in 2004, which was decided by around 300 votes after 3 recounts in which several boxes of “lost” ballots were discovered.

          I don’t have any more or less faith in the results there than I will here in Nevada where it’s all electronic voting. And it’s mostly a farce anyway. I don’t even know why I still bother. But if I’m going to participate in the ritual and have little faith in the outcome I at least want my inconvenience minimized.

          1. I get to leave early from work on Election Day…and they give me a little sticker “I Voted!” and I get to vote against incumbents.

            I don’t expect much out of the act of voting, however.

      2. More importantly, what is the argument against all mail-in voting?

        It makes maintaining security much harder, and committing fraud much easier.

      3. Can’t we just ban voting, and send all the politicians home? I know they’re protesting for democracy in Hong Kong, but isn’t it easier to ignore the edicts of rulers who weren’t elected?

    4. OK, so what’s the argument against early voting?

      It makes maintaining security much harder and makes committing fraud much easier.

  25. Fat cops forced to pay for gym equipment

    “They are mostly all pathetically fat,” a source said. “They get heavy on the job . . . There’s a lot of sitting around and eating Twinkies at your desk.”

    To fight the fat, Inspector Ellen Chang ? a triathlete ? ordered her chunky charges to pony up $30 each to outfit their East 12th Street headquarters with a stationary bike, a treadmill, a StairMaster and 350 pounds of free weights, the sources said.
    Some officers are dreading the thought of exercise and have described Chang’s plan as “bulls?t.” But the inspector is not backing down, regularly telling the obese officers, “You guys could stand to work out more” and, “You should really hit a gym,” the sources said.

    1. Union grievances to be filed shortly.

      1. Union grievances to be filed shortly.

        The scheming bitch moved the union office upstairs.

    2. Bunch of trigger happy Spanky’s.

      1. Bunch of trigger happy Spanky’s what?

        1. What is the plural of Spanky anyway?

          1. Spankii

    3. Chang should take photos of the obese cops and shame them publicly.

      1. You MONSTER!

      2. Hahahaha. You are joking, right? About cops feeling shame?

    4. I kinda prefer my Statists on the bigger side. The roided out super takticool ninjas are the real threats to freedom

      1. This. The cops I see out on the street and try to avoid are not the lazy fat ones with ketchup on the front of their uniform, but the super tense looking guys with combat boots and WAY too much shit on their belt.

    5. 1. Forcing them to pay for the equipment is bullshit.

      2. Tell these people that they’re adults, a 13+ minute mile and a half is totally unacceptable, and that they had better take responsibility to fix their shit because there’s 20 applicants ready to fill every one of their positions if they don’t.

      3. *Then* give them space to put in gym equipment if they choose to but otherwise let them find their own solutions.

      1. Your plan would work, Aga, if there was any possibility whatsoever that they could be fired for being lardasses incapable of doing their jobs.

    6. I prefer my cops fat and lazy…

    7. 350 pounds of free weights? Them is some weak cops. I guess they need the cardio more though.

    8. Exercise is nice, but they should put the weight of effort, so to speak, towards diet and take a tip from Reno PD

      http://www.policechiefmagazine….._id=122012

  26. Hong Kong protesters stockpile supplies, fear fresh police advance

    Tens of thousands of pro-democracy protesters extended a blockade of Hong Kong streets on Tuesday, stockpiling supplies and erecting makeshift barricades ahead of what some fear may be a push by police to clear the roads before Chinese National Day.

    Riot police shot pepper spray and tear gas at protesters at the weekend, but by Tuesday evening they had almost completely withdrawn from the downtown Admiralty district except for an area around the government headquarters.

    1. Chinese Beijing could just block the land border, turn off the water, and close down the port.

      1. There’s still commerce going on, even if diminished, and that’s revenue to the communists. Besides, seiging the island would be an admission that they lost the battle. They have to subdue the uprising and not the loyalists.

      2. Chinese Beijing could just block the land border, turn off the water, and close down the port.

        And that’s how Malaysia “created” the Republic of Singapore.

    2. Beijing has its ass in a crack, here. Hong Kong is hugely important to the regime as a financial center because its quasi-autonomous.

      Destroy that, and they destroy their primary financial center, and people might start missing meals.

  27. Interesting global warming shenanigans:

    In AR5 the sensitivity was estimated to lie between 1.5?C and 4.5?C; it is generally agreed that if it is less than 2?C we are pretty much OK and if it is more than 3?C there will be serious trouble.

    Curiously, AR5 declined to give a best estimate between these two numbers, despite previous IPCC reports having done so. The SFP however latched onto the fact that the range was closer to catastrophe than safety and advised accordingly.

    There the story would normally rest, but in the last few days Nic Lewis (an independent researcher) and Professor Judith Curry (a climatologist) have published a paper that puts the IPCC in one hell of a judo hold. They have taken the IPCC’s own data and methods and calculated what that crucial ‘best estimate’ should have been. To cut to the chase, it comes in at 1.33?C, with a 95% chance it is less than 2.5?C.

    Oops. It appears that those of us who think that man-made CO2 will cause some warming, but almost certainly not anything remotely dangerous, were probably right all along.

    1. From the same link:

      That there is movement afoot in the scientific community has recently been shown by an opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal entitled ‘Climate Science is not Settled.’ It is written by Steven Koonin, a theoretical physicist who is chairing the American Physical Society’s review of their public policy statement on global warming. Given that the previous APS statement on the topic claimed that “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring,” the mere title of the new article shows just how much the ground is shifting.

    2. That is the kind of dishonest omission that should get someone fired.

      1. It’s deliberate. They know the media will report the worst-case scenario as the likeliest. It’s government-funded science designed to call for more government power.

        1. That’s why I called it dishonest.

    3. Can you give us a little warning before you ignite the Tony beacon?

  28. The Gelded Age
    The inequality bed-wetters are misleading you.

    The inequality police are worried that we are living in a new Gilded Age. We should be so lucky: Between 1880 and 1890, the number of employed Americans increased by more than 13 percent, and wages increased by almost 50 percent. I am going to go out on a limb and predict that the Barack Obama years will not match that record; the number of employed Americans is lower today than it was when he took office, and household income is down. Grover Cleveland is looking like a genius in comparison.

    The inequality-based critique of the American economy is a fundamentally dishonest one, for a half a dozen or so reasons at least. Claims that the (wicked, wicked) “1 percent” saw their incomes go up by such and such an amount over the past decade or two ignore the fact that different people compose the 1 percent every year, and that 75 percent of the super-rich households in 1995 were in a lower income group by 2005. “The 3 million highest-paying jobs in America paid a lot more in 2005 than did the 3 million highest-paying jobs in 1995” is a very different and considerably less dramatic claim than “The top 1 percent of earners in 1995 saw their household incomes go up radically by 2005.” But the former claim is true and the latter is not.

    1. Once again I read that as The Gelded age

      1. That’s because Lord Castrato wrote “The Gelded Age” in his link.

  29. http://www.politico.com/blogs/…..96288.html

    Nate Silver is proving a disaster at ESPN. I finally put my finger on why I find Silver so annoying. There are two things. First, he is a con artist. His claims are not falsifiable. You can’t put a meaningful percentage on future human events. Events involving people are unique. We can’t run them over and over again the way we can natural phenomena. So, we can never know the real probability of the results, so effectively no such number exists. I could say that the Patriots had a 90% chance of winning last night. Well, they got killed but no problem because I can just say that the result is just an outlier. Just because the one in a thousand chance game up doesn’t mean I was wrong. The problem is that since the game only happens once and can’t be replayed, there is no way to know what chance the Patriots had to win, we only know what happened. So Silver’s predictions are just bullshit. At best all he can say is “one team is favored”. BFD, anyone can say that. More importantly, if Silver actually could predict sporting events with any degree of precision, he would have used that knowledge to bankrupt a few Vegas sports books and would be living the good life somewhere right now instead of whoring himself out to ESPN.

    1. This brings me to the second and larger point of why Silver is so annoying. He represents the progressive and leftist conceit that human events can be predicted and by implication controlled with some kind of scientific precision. His whole act is based on the assumption that if smart people think hard enough they can understand and predict human events. And any classical liberal should know that is not just bullshit but dangerous bullshit that is used to justify all kinds of evil.

      1. I’m not sure that’s so much a progressive conceit as one of science. Scientists aim to predict, and most scientists would not exclude human beings and their behavior from the realm of potential scientific knowledge (though I think most would admit its difficult). Of course progressives have always had a (superficial) attraction to science and desire to use it to control men’s behavior, but the conceit itself seems to be a normal and healthy scientific one.

        1. Scientists aim to predict, and most scientists would not exclude human beings and their behavior from the realm of potential scientific knowledge…

          Bullshit.

          You’ve fallen for scientism hook, line and sinker; which is why you are a progressive.

          1. I’m not an Austrian, if that’s what you are getting at.

            Science makes predictions about the world. People are part of the world.

        2. Bo, for a good view of the progressive takeover and application of this, I recommend That Hideous Strength by CS Lewis. Yes, it is a fictionalized and overwrought version, but it is written at a time when the New Soviet Man and Progressivism were invading the British university system. Very cogent points. For the anti-version, I recommend reading “Cargo Cult Science” by Dr. Robert Feynman (1971), which gives a clear account of how the tools of physical science are misapplied to human “sciences”. The certainty of a small human group behaving as a statistical sample of a large group is not predictable. In general, markets work. In specific, a person can agree to pay too much or sell for too little every day.

          1. I’d add behavioral economist Dan Ariely’s work on homo economicus being “predictably irrational”

        3. They’re not having much luck predicting the climate.

      2. John, you hate Nate Silver because he is right and you are always wrong..

        1. Shut up the adults and the sane people are talking.

          1. Silver is a highly regarded expert on political odds and sports.

            You just wish you were.

            1. Being highly paid to pontificate doesn’t make you an expert.

    2. I think predicting elections and sporting events would be two different things. To the extent polls are correctly done, they capture how potential voters feel and what they plan on doing. Sporting events by contrast are not determined by what the participants plan to do so much. Streaks appear, people reverse performances, etc., such that past performance doesn’t predict future success or failure as strongly.

    3. His Monte Carlo simulations were pretty effective when he had unrestricted inside access to all of Team Obama’s internal polling data. But yeah, without that kind of proprietary data, he’s nothing special at all.

    4. First, he is a con artist. His claims are not falsifiable. […] I could say that the Patriots had a 90% chance of winning last night. Well, they got killed but no problem because I can just say that the result is just an outlier.

      That’s pretty much what he did when his World Cup Germany vs Brazil prediction failed spectacularly.

      1. Short tournaments are too volatile to predict.

        I can write a book about soccer.

        1. Speaking of soccer, fuck Fox Sports for only caring about six teams. Unless you’ve got the premious channels, their CL coverage is the same as it was for Matchday 1: the four EPL temas, Real Madrid, and Bar?a. And the Europa League coverage is the two EPL teams, Celtic, and one other matcjh, same as Matchday 1. They’ve even shunted the early match in Russia to the premium-tier Fox Soccer Plus.

          1. I guess it’s all based on popularity.

            In the 1990s when Serie A ruled and dominated, you could barely get Inter, Parma, Juve, Sampdoria and Milan on TV. And they were literally playing the greatest soccer up to that point.

            I agree you get very little Serie A and Bundesliga action. That’s why I watch Hallo Bundesliga and Serie A roundup because ESPN just doesn’t cover it enough.

            1. I get the premium channels because you have to in order to watch anything from Germany or Italy and of course those are skewed towards the big teams too. And the vast disparities in each league are unlike anything in the US – the top couple teams are more or less permanent in each league now.

          2. You can watch every match on the internet. Google search: wiziwig.

            The best, most consistent feeds on wiziwig are the wiznet links.

            Thank me later.

        2. True. But he had Brazil as having a better chance of winning than the next five teams combined. Silver put Brazil as the overwhelming favorite. Again, since we can’t go back in time and replay the tournament, there is no way to tell if he was completely wrong or right and the Brazil Germany game was a real one in ten thousand outlier. So his predictions are effectively meaningless.

          1. Which is retarded to REAL soccer fans because Brazil was pedestrian. They were not real favorites in my view.

            Anyway. More often than not, ‘clear’ favorites rarely win. None of Germany’s titles came with them expecting to win except arguably for 2014. Ditto Italy – against except maybe for 1934 or 1938.

            Holland makes it a habit of being favorites and losing.

            As for Brazil, they have five – one ahead of the aforementioned Krauts and Wops. They were overwhelming favorites in 1950 but lost. 1958 was their first title after 28 years of trying. 1962 they were somewhat favorites and won. 1970 outright favorites and won. 1982 favorites but lost. 1994 and 2002 they were favorites and won.

            See my point? Too many factors come into play.

            1. Well, there’s a difference between being a favorite and being more likely to win than the next 5 teams combined.

              Personally I would say the Seahawks are the favorite in the NFL, but that only means I think they have a 15-20% chance of repeating. Didn’t Silver say Brazil was almost 50/50 to win it all?

            2. I totally see your point and agree. The problem with statistical analysis of sporting events is that the statistics are only as valid as the weight you give them.

              A good example of this fallacy is how guys who sell betting advice are always selling betting advice based on various past trends. Those trends are great right up until they are not. For example, Bill Barnwell who picks games from Grantland picked the Patriots last night partially because Andy Reed is 0-4 lifetime against Belicheck. That is a good statistic as far as it goes, except that since those prior four games didn’t not involve the same teams, it is fucking retarded to think it meant anything about last night’s game. You can talk yourself into any statistic being significant if you try hard enough. And if you knew which ones were, you would already have the answer.

              1. It’s the coin flip fallacy. Historically, the records on any two NFL teams approach 50/50 (maybe 70/30, but they would have to be better than 80/20 to bet on a fifth consecutive win). Just because you’ve thrown heads four times in a row, doesn’t mean statistics stopped working and its a lock to bet heads for throw five.

    5. You could get an idea how he usually does by looking at his predictions for a large number of games, though that wouldn’t really say anything about his prediction for any single game.

    6. I disagree. Regression analysis, Black-Scholes modeling, etc. are pretty good and useful for predicting “human controlled” events. But as Auric notes at 9:23, you have to see how Silver performs over a large sample of games. You can’t judge him on single event specific predictions.

      I will concede that it is annoying that the Left has latched onto this TOP MAN.

      1. If he could do that with any certainty, he would be bankrupting Vegas. And at least with regards to sports, there is nothing particularly special about regression analysis. Plenty of people who couldn’t do a long division problem but know something about football and pay attention can predict games just as well or better than Silver.

        1. I’m not saying that Silver is any good, but you can test to see how close someone (usually) is if he says someone has a 90% chance of winning. You just have to find a large number of games where he gave that same estimate.

          If he said the Patriots had a 90% chance of winning last night, them getting their asses kicked in that one game doesn’t really disprove that prediction. But if he is wrong half the times when he predicts 90%…

          1. Right, he should be right 90% of the times he says 90%…but if he was that good wouldn’t he be working for one of the major gaming companies?

            1. No, he would have so much money, he would live in a volcanic fortress and battle James Bond for world domination.

              A highly successful predictor would be right 60% of the times he says 90% certainty. Vegas is only right about 55% of the time.

              1. Ok…but that includes the spread, right? For example, I believe that home teams in the NFL win about 60% of the time. Right there I can be right 60% of the time. If it’s just winning or losing I would expect a good predictor to be right much more than 60% of the time.

              2. Vegas can predict the winner far more often than that. They get the spread right about that often.

                1. Yes. Vegas is very good at setting the moneyline. I was referring to the spread. Thanks for clarifying.

        2. If he could do it with any certainty, he’d be setting the line for Vegas and raking off the vig.

      1. Seriously they say he’s exceeding his New York Times traffic, but still sucking according to the article. It begs the question of how much he was making at the times and how much he is making for espn.

    7. I like how ESPN is trying to pin the whole thing on Bill Simmons.

    8. The problem is that since the game only happens once and can’t be replayed, there is no way to know what chance the Patriots had to win, we only know what happened

      Nonsense. The game can be played ad infinitum by modeling it in TECMO Bowl.

    9. His claims are not falsifiable

      John, the fact that he attaches a confidence value to his predictions means that they ARE falsifiable. You just have to get a few hundred of his predictions together and see if he is right as often as he thinks he should be. Obviously he’s not because, as you said, he would be filthy stinking rich if he were.

  30. BYU Students Protest Beard Ban

    “About 50 Brigham Young University students on bikes, unicycles and roller blades circled a campus statue of the clean-shaven Mormon leader for whom their school is named Friday evening.

    ‘Bike for beards!’ they chanted, some wearing cardboard versions fastened with elastic, others sporting real tufts. The group of mostly men unraveled a petition asking the school to rethink its no-fuzz policy…

    Dozens of images of LDS leaders from the 19th and 20th centuries depict them with long beards, which they urged members to grow as a sign of virility and power. Until 1951, each church prophet sported a beard, save for founder Joseph Smith.

    That changed in the 1960s, when beards came to symbolize sexual and political revolution…At the time, beards and long hair on men were elements of ‘slovenly appearance’ linked to ‘protest, revolution and rebellion against authority. They are also symbols of hippie and drug culture,’ or indifference at best, Oaks said.”

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/n…..n.html.csp

    1. If Romney had a bushy prophetic beard, maybe he would be president.

    2. Tough shit. If they don’t like it, go to another university. BYU is a private university. No one makes them go there.

      1. Or…try to get the University they’re at to change the rule. They aren’t asking for government to interfere.

        Companies that I’ve worked for have asked vendors to change certain policies, and have also been asked by customers to change specific policies…that’s essentially what’s happening here…and it’s ok.

        1. Then ask. Why do you have to “protest”? Why is “protest” the response to every action someone doesn’t like.

          1. Because they’re in their early 20’s and protesting is fun?

            Anyways…I’ve heard the term “protest” used in business settings many times.

            These are conservative BYU students, not occupy Wall Street members. I wouldn’t worry too much about this if I were you.

          2. Protesting is a way of asking. Like ‘petitioning.’

    3. They knew when they accepted the offer to go to BYU that beards were banned.

      1. Because no customer anywhere can ask the company they are dealing with to change a policy.

    4. Mormons Gone Wild

  31. A little while ago, Bloomberg had some Democratic Congressman on, whining about traitorous kkkorporations and their evil tax exile schemes.

    WE CANNOT ALLOW THESE COMPANIES TO ESCAPE INTO THE FREE INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SPHERE.

    He sounded a lot like Walter Ulbricht.

    1. I can’t believe it is worse than this

    1. A 31-year-old convicted felon ….

      *** snort ***

      And you call yourself a ‘convicted felon’!

  32. for the horse race junkies:

    Anyway, on to the indisputable good news for Republicans: In just about every Senate race that matters, last week brought at least one highly-regarded poll showing exactly what a Republican wants to see.

    In Alaska, Dan Sullivan has led the past four polls.

    In Arkansas, Tom Cotton has led 11 of the past 13 polls.

    In Colorado, Quinnipiac put Cory Gardner ahead, 48 percent to 40 percent.

    In Iowa, the Des Moines Register poll put Joni Ernst ahead, 44 percent to 38 percent. NBC News Andrea Mitchell is openly calling Democrat Bruce Braley.

    In Louisiana, a runoff between Democrat incumbent Mary Landrieu and Republican Bill Cassidy is virtually assured. Cassidy led the last four polls of the runoff.

    Those five, just right there, along with the expected GOP wins in Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia, would give the GOP a eight-seat pickup. Republicans could lose in Kansas and still keep the Senate.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..m-geraghty

    1. Oh, the next two years are going to be a blast. Nothing but partisan bickering with nothing getting done in DC. And given what’s usually done in DC, that’s the best a libertarian can hope for.

      Though I could do without the multitude of news articles complaining about racist obstructionist teathuglicans not letting anything get done.

      1. Here’s what I think is the best case scenario: a neutered and hassled Obama moves to salvage some of his legacy by, in a last minute before leaving office action that actually relies on clearly designated executive powers, he grants some kind of mass clemency/pardon to non-violent drug offenders. He can chalk it up racial disparity if that is the only way he can muster up the courage. But then I could say ‘huh, the fellow actually did eventually do one good thing.’

        I won’t be holding my breath of course.

        1. Sure, that could happen. I could also find out I won Powerball while having a threesome with my wife and Jennifer Lawrence.

          I think my scenario is at least as likely to happen as yours.

        2. That would be great. It won’t however happen. Obama wants to have Obama for America when he leaves office. The presidential pardon stand will be open for business. You won’t see any common people getting pardons. You will see a rush of connected felons getting pardons with Eric Holder and a few other ex administration officials acting as bag men. It will be Marc Rich all around.

    2. I’m a registered Republican, and I got a cold-call from Bruce Braley’s campaign. That would indicate that Bruce is fucked.

    3. Last I looked Real Clear Politics had moved Michigan from leaning Dem to tossup. If there is a turnout wave, there will be one or two states like Michigan and North Carolina where the Republican will pull the upset.

      I think they likely will get 51 votes and might get up to 55 if everything breaks for them, which they sometimes do.

    4. NBC News Andrea Mitchell is openly calling Democrat Bruce Braley.

      For a date?

      To drop out of the race?

      To win it all, depose King Obama, and rule as God-Emperor?

      What?

    1. inb4 they’re linked to autism

    2. Junk Science!

      Nothing at all in the article about why some kids take more atnitbiotics than others and wether that could have an impact.

      Also talks about those beneficial ‘gut flora’, just like the article on how artificial sweetners make you fat, and makes a leap hypothesis that has no clear link.

  33. Should prisoners with no prospect of release be given option of euthanasia?

    I smell must-see teevee.

    1. *** looks around nervously ***

      Does it smell like *almonds*?!

  34. Michael Mann failed to find even one person to speak on his behalf in his lawsuit against Mark Steyn:

    A few weeks ago, you’ll recall, the ACLU, The Washington Post, NBC News, The Los Angeles Times and various other notorious right-wing deniers all filed amici briefs opposed to Michael Mann and his assault on free speech. They did this not because they have any great love for me, but because their antipathy to wackjob foreign blowhards is outweighed by their appreciation of the First Amendment – and an understanding of the damage a Mann victory would inflict on it.

    […]

    Well, yesterday was the deadline, and not a single amicus brief was filed on behalf of Mann. Not one. So Michael Mann is taking a stand for science. But evidently science is disinclined to take a stand for Michael Mann. The self-appointed captain of the hockey team is playing solo.

    1. I wouldn’t read too much into this Amicus Curiae business.

      The matter before the appeals court really has nothing to do with whether Mann is right or not. It has everything to do with a dumb omission of whoever drafted the anti-SLAPP statute for Washington DC; the law doesn’t state whether a denial of a SLAPP dismissal is immediately appealable, or must wait till the end of trial to be appealed (as appeals are normally handled).

      The trial court fucked up and fucked up badly. They said that Mann had a high likelihood of prevailing because he had been ‘exonerated’ by all the climategate inquiries as well as by Penn State. Thus, the judge opined, the SLAPP statute didn’t apply. The problem was that Mann’s libel claim is hopelessly defective, and the reports he cited as exonerating him didn’t examine his work at all (and in most cases had nothing to do with him, although one inquiry did blame *Mann* in order to shift the blame away from the British scientists they sought to clear).

      Now, an appeal of the denial of a SLAPP only makes sense before the trial, but since the law is silent on the matter, the appeal court has to decide whether or not to create a doctrine on this matter.

      The reason why there are no Amici briefs is that there really isn’t anybody who benefits from neutering the SLAPP law by denying immediate appealability.

      1. As to why Steyn is making such a big deal…

        He is mindfucking Mann. Right now, it is in Mann’s best interest that the lawsuit be dismissed before it goes to trial. Basically, everything that the defendants said about him is true, and he knows it.

        If it were dismissed, then he could say “Kochhitler Fossil-Fuel Tobbaco-Interests silenced me, the great scientist who is saving the world!!!!!!”

        He might even get a big book tour out of it.

        In my opinion, Mann is a narcissist – a particularly nasty one of the grandiose subtype. I suspect Steyn has also come to a similar conclusion. By goading Mann, by subjecting him to public ridicule, Steyn is agitating Mann. Mann cannot handle this sort of ridicule. He must humiliate the people doing it to him, and so he will continue to fight in court, which is exactly what Steyn wants. Steyn has publicly announced that he wants to go to trial and destroy Mann. My guess is that is exactly what will happen.

        1. Did Steyn ever get some legal rep. or is he still doing it himself?

          1. He did. He got a very good law firm with expertise in first amendment cases. Nor is he appealing the SLAPP dismissal.

            He also has his countersuit going, which will maybe net him $1. It will however prevent Mann from walking away. I am starting to think Mann is going to have to pay a good portion of Steyn’s court costs when this is all over.

        2. It is pretty clear Mann is a major narcissist who has let his ego get the better of his judgement. Suing was completely idiotic. Nothing Steyn and company said would have ever affected Mann’s status in the AGW cult or hurt his career prospects in any way. There was no reason to sue other than to assuage Mann’s ego.

          1. The sad thing is that at the heart of the matter, Mann fucked up badly in his seminal work that made him famous. Had he talked to a statistician in the early days when people started poking holes in his methodology, and redone his paper, he would have been fine! Yes, he wouldnt’ have been so famous, but his scientific reputation would have been fine.

            In fact, he could have advanced the important field of paleoclimate by bringing improved rigor into how proxies (pollen counts, isotope ratios etc) of past climate are interperted.

            Instead, he destroyed the field rather than look foolish in the near term. Not singelahndedly, mind you, the IPCC, the Green movement, the academics running major climate study centres all assisted him in this, all due to their own perverse incentives. Nonetheless, Mann was the keystone in that arch of suck, and his lack of integrity made the disaster possible.

            1. Mann was the keystone in that arch of suck

              I rather like that turn of a phrase!

            2. Had he talked to a statistician in the early days when people started poking holes in his methodology, and redone his paper, he would have been fine!

              I don’t think so. A valid paper would not have been red meat to his fans and sycophants, and wouldn’t have vaulted him to celebrity.

        3. Personally, I’m interested in this case from a First Amendment perspective. If Mann wins, will that discourage public debate on the science behind global warming?

          1. will that discourage public debate on the science behind global warming?

            Yes.

            Because Mann’s case is that government officials have said his work is correct, therefore anyone who is critical of it is committing libel.

            This would make U.S. science like science in the Soviet Union during the era of Lysenko.

            Consider the evolving understanding of ulcers. Throughout the 50’s and 60’s, people thought stomach ulcers were caused by stress. Some researchers thought that theory was bunk. Eventually, they propunded a theory that bacteria were responsible for must ulcers, and eventually it was confirmed that bacteria did play an important role in ulcer development. The stress theory was eventually falsified (although traces of it remain in popular culture).

            Now, imagine those guys under a Mannian regime. They say we have these cases that aren’t explained by stress. Or they point out flaws in the studies that proved that stress rather than bacteria causes stomach ulcers. And they get sued for libel because the FDA blessed the original studies.

            Mann’s victory, unless made moot by explicit changes to the libel statute to exclude scientific controversies, would be like hitting science in the US with a stunbolt gun. It would kill it dead.

            1. Thanks tarran.

              Mann’s victory, unless made moot by explicit changes to the libel statute to exclude scientific controversies, would be like hitting science in the US with a stunbolt gun. It would kill it dead.

              That, right there, is why the people that shout down dissent with loud cries of ‘consensus’ enrage me to no end. They would end the advancement of knowledge to humor their fad of the moment. They are the real wreckers.

  35. A White House security breach has left some wondering whether President Obama is safe in the hands of the Secret Service.

    Time for the president to bring out those dogs he’s been raising in a secret part of the barn.

    1. “Or what? You’ll release the dogs, or the bees? Or the dogs with bees in their mouths and when they bark, they shoot bees at you? Well, go ahead! Do your worst!”

      1. No, we’ll unleash the mutant Japanese wasps!

      2. Smithers, release the robotic Richard Simmons.

  36. Samll town police departments can’t return military gear.

    But some agencies have found the process of getting rid of unwanted military gear next to impossible. Agencies can’t return or trade equipment without Defense Department approval, and because the Pentagon technically still owns the equipment, they can’t sell it.

    1. You should hear the sad song I’m playing on this tiny violin.

    2. Needz moar “lost in action” then a quick auction.

    3. “Well, lets see here. We could demil these for you”

      *slides quote across table*

      /DoD

  37. Ferguson police still refusing to wear ID as city leaders charge hundreds for documents about Michael Brown shooting (even though they could be released for free)

    Ferguson police have been covering ID with black tape or not wearing it
    Department of Justice slammed practise which is against Ferguson rules
    Media outlets have also accused council leaders of cover-ups after they were charged up to $2,000 to see documents which could be free of charge

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-free.html
    Higher standard, my ass.

    1. Where is dumfy to defend these heroes in blue?

      1. By defend you mean call me a bigot, right?

        1. I’ve lurked here for months and started to post mainly to just insult his statist ass. 🙂

          1. I don’t recall this issue coming up before but of course they are acting like dicks in this regard

            Just like the morons who don’t understand my posts, there are morons who will make dumb predictions about them is in this incident

            Calling me statist is absurd and unlike the overwhelming majority of people here if not everybody I actually have done things to improve police accountability and I have been involved in victorious civil action in case of police misconduct.

            I criticise police when they apparently commit misconduct I praise them when they don’t and unlike people here I make the analysis based on caselaw and facts not emotion and ignorance

            Fortunately courts and binding arbitrators tend to do the exact same thing which is why I almost always agree with them in regards to police misconduct because they tend to draw on fax and the wall as opposed to what people here make their decisions on

            I have long supported citizen review boards to hold police accountable mandatory body cameras told police accountable and would never support a police officer for covering name tag since that’s blatant misconduct

            Now I will return it to letting the ignorant bigots carry on with their ignorant bigotry

    2. Let them have their blacked out names and Darren Wilson armbands. I like it when the worst of the worst self-identify.

  38. ‘It was chewing on his arm’: Hunter kills 525lb black bear with his bare hands after it lashed out when he shot it with a bow and arrow

    Man shot black bear with bow and arrow during hunting trip near Duxbury
    Fearing animal’s meat would spoil in heat, he waited four hours to track it
    But after finding it lying injured on ground, bear suddenly charged at him
    Hunter suffered two broken arms and facial wounds before stabbing bear
    He is in a stable condition at Robbinsdale’s North Memorial Medical Center
    Bear, which died from stab wounds, dragged out of wood by 10 hunters

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

    1. I don’t call a bow and knife “bare hands”.

    2. I wouldn’t really say a knife qualifies as bare hands…

  39. Lana Del Rey radiates as she dons a vivid orange maxi dress for a stroll in Soho with her Italian-born beau

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..-beau.html
    There’s a fatty in her just waiting to be set free.

    1. She’s as shapely as a jellyfish and her nose looks like she’s done a few rounds with Ricky Hatton.

    2. No there is not. It is just that dress she is wearing is hideous and would make any woman with any kind of a body look fat. Look at the pics of her in the shorts and jeans. She doesn’t look fat at all. She looks great.

      1. I didn’t say she looks fat. I said she looks like there’s an inner fatty waiting to be set free. Give her a few years.

        1. I don’t think so. She is pretty small. Inner fatty is someone like a young Jessica Simpson. Compare her to Simpson when she was young. Simpson was an amazon by comparison.

          1. I’m with Sarc on this one.

            She’s gonna get big.

  40. Did NFL Unfairly Penalize Muslim Player Celebration?

    “When Kansas City Chiefs safety Husain Abdullah intercepted a Tom Brady pass and returned it for a touchdown Monday night, he did what so many other NFL players do to celebrate a big play: He paused to make a religious gesture of thanks.

    But Abdullah, a devout Muslim, found that his religious display was met with less latitude than, say, Tim Tebow when he brought Tebowing into the NFL. Abdullah was penalized 15 yards for unsportsmanlike conduct because he slid to the ground, then knelt in in the end zone.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..n/?hpid=z6

    1. I am pretty sure they cracked down on all such things. You can’t Tebow anymore as well. So, no they didn’t.

    2. Radical Muslims are committing mass slaughter around the globe, and the REAL problem is a ref ticketing a Muslim during a game.

      Jeebus. I mean, Allahu Akbar.

  41. How many times a day are YOUR breasts stared at? Hidden ‘bra cam’ demonstrates just how often men – and women – steal sneaky glances

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…..ances.html

    1. Breasts are always staring at my eyes.

        1. Aw c’mon! NOT COOL

          1. [maniacal laugh]

    2. When you open your shirt down that far, you should expect glances. Redo the test with someone who’s actually dressed.

      1. RAEP KKKULTURE!!!!

    3. I’m guessing zero, though I haven’t done any camera work to check.

    4. The nice thing about breasts is, they do not talk back.

        1. I get really annoyed when you have talk to a woman’s chest and her face interrupts.

          So rude.

    5. For some reason I usually don’t find blatant staring as creepy as the guys who try to hide their leering with sunglasses.

      1. guys who try to hide their leering with sunglasses

        Cops?

        1. That is probably one of the main reasons they wear them, yes. In addition to not wanting to show how happy they are while handing out tickets.

          1. They wear them for the same reason they’ll order you to remove them.

    6. Women check out other women far more than men do. My wife has no filter and neither do her friends. If guys said what they say about each other we would be locked in reeducation camps.

      1. When I was working for a temp agency I got stuck on this project where I was the only male, and they talked like I was invisible. Wow. Like you said, no filter.

  42. Do you want a firearm with that? Louisiana restaurant encourages customers to bring in their guns by offering them a 10% discount

    Bergeron’s Restaurant in Port Allen, Louisiana is offering cut-price deal
    Owner Kevin Cox said policy was intended for duty police officers
    But regulars began asking for money off – so he extended the discount
    One customer said he will now ‘think twice’ about trying to rob the venue

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..count.html
    Lots of derp in the comments.

    1. So this particular customer was going to try and rob it before?

  43. Kim Jong-Un ‘in hospital with two fractured ankles’ after ballooning to around 20 stone and going on numerous ‘meet the people’ walkabout PR stunts

    The dictator’s love for fine food and drink has taken its toll on his health
    A South Korean insider says the 31-year-old is in hospital
    Kim’s weight and frequent public walkabouts have led to ankle fractures

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

    1. So that’s where all the food aid is going

    2. Hmm, I wonder what the odds are on him suffering a ‘fatal heart attack’ in the near future and being replaced by a military leader?

  44. That’s one way to cut down on showers! Horrifying moment a SNAKE bursts out of a bathroom light fitting

    A Queensland homeowner captured the moment a snake entered the bathroom through the light fixture
    Snake catching company from Brisbane posted the series of photos on its Facebook page
    Hundreds of people reacted and shared their fears on finding a similar scenario in their home

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..tings.html
    Looks like a carpet python. My wife is in the market for one right now.

    1. Well, if I am going to shit myself, I would prefer to do it in the bathroom.

    2. I know the women are often hot and have very sexy accents, but fuck it. I am never moving to Australia.

      1. You’re afraid of snakes?

        1. It is my one phobia. I am a bit afraid of heights but can manage it if I need to. Spiders, bugs and things don’t bother me at all. Hell even the giant spiders in Iraq didn’t scare me. But snakes have always freaked me out. Fucking hate them.

          1. You don’t ever want to come to my house then. My wife has got a dozen or so snakes. She keeps saying she wants to breed and sell them, but she can never decide what kind. Last year it was king snakes. The year before that blood pythons. Last month it was blood pythons again. This month it’s carpet pythons. It’s just an expensive hobby. Damn things aren’t cheap, and they cost a lot to feed as well. But she’s happy and that’s what matters.

            1. I couldn’t do it. Good for you for marrying her. Hope you are happy. But I couldn’t have married a woman who owned snakes. If Eva Green showed up at my doorstep begging me to run away with her, I couldn’t do it if she had a house full of snakes.

              1. She didn’t have them when we met. She couldn’t afford to. That’s what I’m for. Seriously though, it doesn’t bother me a bit. As long as she’s the one feeding them and cleaning up their shit, I don’t really care. I’ll handle them when she gets them out, but I don’t on my own. They’re pretty boring. I do like the leopard gecko though. That thing is fun.

                1. Honestly, it shouldn’t bother you. I freely admit that my phobia of snakes is completely irrational. As long as the snakes are not poisonous or very large constrictors that legitimately pose a threat to your life, there is no reason to fear them. I just do. Can’t help it.

          2. SSSSSSSSSSssssssssssssss!!!!!

          3. But snakes have always freaked me out.

            I live next to the national park in Tucson. A sizable rattler was crossing the road in front of my house pretty regularly last week. He was probably a solid 4 footer, and stout.

            Bastard was never there when I was strapped, though. I keep a jar with rattles in it in my garage. If you’re a rattlesnake on my property, you aren’t making it off if I can help it. I am looking forward to the cool season, when they aren’t out and about.

    3. Heh, I like the last picture.

      “Um, excuse me, a little privacy please?”

  45. The high school yearbook pic to beat all others: Student gets his wish to pose with principal, their pets and lasers

    Draven Rodriquez wanted a photo his classmate’s would say ‘only he’ would think to do
    Pic of Rodriguez and cat Mr. Bigglesworth was rejected from senior portrait section
    Principal Diane Wilkinson shared her page with him as long as she could bring her mixed chihuahua

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..photo.html
    It’s a bird! It’s a plane! No, it’s SuperDork!

    1. Its so unashamedly dorky, it works. That picture is living proof that it doesn’t matter what your style is, you just have to own. Dork or no, that guys owns it. He is like the nerd version of the fat guy in the speedo in that Southern Comfort commercial. I gotta be me!!

    2. Cats are cool. Cats with lasers are really fucking cool.

    3. Draven Rodriquez wanted a photo his classmate’s would say ‘only he’ would think to do

      Rodriguez wants a photo only his classmate’s what would say “only he” would think to do?

      1. “Most Likely To End Up A Serial Killer”

  46. Police Departments Apparently Don’t Want All Those MRAPs

    What’s the old acquisitions rule of thumb? 80% of your lifecycle costs come from sustainment? Everybody’s down to get free shit from Uncle Sam until they find out how much the MX costs.

    Trigger Warning: Mother Jones

    1. You’re thinking of Rule of Acquisition #218: Sometimes what you get free costs entirely too much.

    2. Lol. Since I work next to a guy who does MRAP sustainment for the AF, this has been my go to comment everytime this comes up. They have NO IDEA what this ‘free’ equipment costs.

  47. Could we wish to see Lena Dunham doing a video about regretting to do her first time with Barrack Obama and she said she should had done her first time with Gary Johnson instead? 😉

    1. Yeah, that will happen real soon. Actually it might around 2016 but it won’t be Gary Johnson with will be Elizabeth Warren.

    2. Something something Johnson giggle giggle.

    3. I would rather she just go away. She has little talent and has used up her 15 minutes

      1. Yeah, I think Steven Crowder and Julie Borowski who did the parodies of “her first time” was better. 😉
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSxDE1QCHA4
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAkdHzpXXo0

        1. I say this with a staunch, unblemished record of heterosexuality:
          I would fuck Steven Crowder before I would fuck Lena Dunham.

  48. Watched Monday Night Football last night. The KC audience, mostly dressed in red did an indian war chant accompanied with a tomahawk chop. Where’s the fucking outrage, Harry Reid?

    1. The Chiefs, FSU, and Braves have been doing it for decades. I think FSU started it God knows how long ago. The Braves picked it up when they got good in the 1990s and the Chiefs followed shortly thereafter.

      I think it is all outrage manufactured by the professional butt hurt. That said, however, the faux war chant seems to be a hell of a lot closer to being offensive than the name Redskins.

      1. I know the Chiefs have been doing it since 1991, when I started following them (stationed at Riley; Bears fired Ditka).

        Chiefs fans would be dressed “mostly… in red” since that is the team color.

        Usually the butt-hurt I hear the most about is on the last verse of the national Anthem. …and the home of the CHIEFS!

        Whenever the Chiefs play the Rams in STL, you hear that over the home crowd.

  49. Stunning Drone Footage Shows Just How Enormous The Hong Kong Protests Really Are

    FireChat Prepares Encryption Feature As It Drives Hong Kong Protests

    A popular app for people who went to last month’s Burning Man festival, it’s best known for working off-the-grid. That means users don’t need WiFi or a carrier connection to chat to one another on the app. They only need another person with the same app within a 70-meter radius.

    1. China is going to come apart sooner rather than later. I have never believed the whole “some day we all be speaking Chinese” bullshit.

      1. Perhaps it’s a race to see who collapses first.

      2. Isn’t it funny how every decade some centrally planned economy is going to take over and destroy the U.S. and it just never seems to happen?

        1. I’ve noticed that too. what’s with the media doing that?

        2. Funny that isn’t it. First it was the USSR, then it was Japan, now it is China. We may destroy ourselves. But no centrally planned hell hole is going to over take the US, unless the US just decides to make itself that much worse.

  50. “A bakery owner in Oregon broke down in tears while discussing the fallout of her and her husband’s decision not to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple on the basis of their Christian beliefs….

    “They now face a fine in excess of $150,000.

    “In an exclusive interview with The Daily Signal on Friday at the 2014 Values Voter Summit, Aaron said the fee would “definitely” be enough to bankrupt the couple and their five children.”

    http://dailysignal.com/2014/09…..1ozrgOWxU=

    1. But this would never happen. Reason assured me of that.

      Gay marriage was never about marriage or civil rights. It was always about Progs using the power of the gun to stick it to their enemies. Why Libertarians refused to see that is beyond me.

      1. John, that’s unfair….

        Libertarians have consistently opposed the sort of anti-discrimination regime that is destroying these people. We take a lot of shit from people over it too.

        1. Indeed, but sometimes the message seems to have some trouble getting out – how many people outside the libertarian movement are aware of their support for freedom of association, as opposed to knowing that they’re “cultural liberals who support same-sex marriage”?

          1. Indeed, but sometimes the message seems to have some trouble getting out

            WTF!?!?!

            We have Rachel Maddow screaming from the rooftops about how racist we are!!!!! Oh wait, point taken.

        2. They have constantly paid lip service to it. If they really opposed it and appreciated the damage it would do, they would have insisted on laws to prevent this kind of thing from happening as a condition of gay marriage. But they never did that. They support gay marriage unconditionally even though it was obvious to anyone that this was going to be the result.

          Ultimately, the libertarians who did that just don’t give a fuck about people like this. They don’t like them and don’t really care if the government puts them out of business or if they do they care more about gay marriage. That is the truth. Freedom is great, as long as the right people have it I guess.

          1. I wouldn’t go that far – I would say that many libertarians willfully blinded themselves to the link between govt-recognized SSM and restrictions on free association – and on the philosophical level it’s possible to separate the two.

            The problem is that, on the *political* level, the issues are pretty much inseparable.

            1. I wouldn’t go that far – I would say that many libertarians willfully blinded themselves to the link between govt-recognized SSM and restrictions on free association – and on the philosophical level it’s possible to separate the two.

              Sure they did. But why did they willfully blind themselves? Because they don’t like the people that were going to be harmed by this and really don’t have a problem with them being harmed. Their willful blindness is just their way of rationalizing their behavior. That is it.

              Ultimately, a good number of Libertarians cannot be counted on to defend freedom if doing so requires defending people of a culture they don’t like or really the rest of the culture doesn’t like. The choice was give the gays the rights to marriage or keep the government from forcing people to act against their religion. The libertarians chose the gays and rationalized it by pretending there wasn’t a choice.

              1. I wouldn’t call BHLs a good number. From my ultimately and admittedly anecdotal perspective, I’d call them “fringe”.

          2. First, John, I should point out that libertarians have repeatedly gone on record opposing anti-discrimination laws. And the allegation that libertarian-leaning politicians are friendly to racism been a particularly well positioned machine gun nest used by proggies to kill the politicians who articulate that position.

            Libertarians have been heroically charging across that field and getting mowed down by that gun, and now you are criticizing them for not charging harder?

            You give me crap for criticizing the role the U.S. played in the rise of Tojo’s japan and then you write shit like this?

            I could argue that gay marriage opponents are far more to blame for this! After all, if they had not sought to maintain their discrimination through legislation, gays wouldn’t be a protected class!

            Or maybe we could blame Immanuel Kant for telling people not to lie (we have so many orders we can’t get you your cupcakes on time, I suggest you call our competitor down the road).

            OR maybe we could blame, I don’t know, the actual proggies who are doing this stupid shit!

            1. Show me one place where Libertarians said “no gay marriage without protection of religious rights”. I can’t think of a single instance of that. What happened instead was Libertarians argued and cheered on gay marriage while adding the caveat that “we don’t think this should mean you should force people to accept gay marriages” even though everyone knew it would in practice mean that.

              And no, this is not the fault of the social conservatives. They object to gay marriage and have every right to. Just because they didn’t surrender immediately to get the best terms from their oppressors doesn’t make them responsible for the oppression. The people responsible for this are the nasty leftists who are doing it.

              Libertarians cheered on and helped enable the leftists to do this. While they are not directly responsible for this, their failure to stand up and their unconditional support of a law that they should have known would result in this represents a serious moral failure on Libertarians part. I am sorry that is the truth. The sad reality is that if the popular culture turns on a group of people, Libertarians can no longer be counted on to stand up and defend them. Maybe they can be. Time will tell. But the example of gay marriage and the resulting oppression like this shows that it is not a 100% certainty.

              1. What happened instead was Libertarians argued and cheered on gay marriage while adding the caveat that “we don’t think this should mean you should force people to accept gay marriages” even though everyone knew it would in practice mean that.

                I’m not getting sucked into an MNG/John argument. I have work to do.

                Here’s the deal:
                1) Libertarians are proponents of freedom of association.
                2) That means we are opposed to the state decreeing what forms of marriage are legitimate and which aren’t.
                3) We are also opposed to the antidiscrimiantion laws that force people to associate
                4) We express statements 2 or 3 volubly and are condemned by people for our putting principle over practicality for it
                5) Because libertarians are rarely going to get their way on anything, we are in the habit of cheering any increase in freedom, even if it has perverse consequences due to the fact that other interventions are kept in place.

                At the start of this conversation, you said we libertarians argued that gay marriage legalization would have no consequences. You now acknowledge that is bullshit.

                1. What happened instead was Libertarians argued and cheered on gay marriage while adding the caveat that “we don’t think this should mean you should force people to accept gay marriages” even though everyone knew it would in practice mean that.

                  That is exactly what happened. And you know what, sunshine? Cry me a fucking river!!!!!!! It’s not our fault that freedom haters write freedom hating laws! It’s not our fault that guys like Buckley argued for totalitarianism at home to fight the commie menace!

                  You want someone to get angry at, get angry at the progs! We predicted this shit would happen, warned against it! We also recognized that not every fucking gay couple would go out looking for a baker to fucking sue.

                  I’m done with this stupid argument. I’ve got work to do.

                  1. That is exactly what happened. And you know what, sunshine? Cry me a fucking river!!!!!!! It’s not our fault that freedom haters write freedom hating laws! It’s not our fault that guys like Buckley argued for totalitarianism at home to fight the commie menace!

                    So if the Nazis supported drug legalization but had figured out a way to use it to stick people in camps, you would be okay with supporting them as long as you said “but hey we don’t like the camps part”?

                    You can’t act in fantasy land. You act in reality where your actions have consequences that you are morally responsible for if you know they are going to result when you do them.

                    Rationalize it all you want Tarran. The bottom line is that when it mattered and when there was a group of people who were unpopular that the government was going to totally fucked, the Libertarians failed and helped make it happen. It is easy to talk shit and support “freedom” when doing so either doesn’t effect anything in the real world or requires standing up and making choices and defending the unpopular. What matters is doing it when its hard. And when it got hard and defending freedom required standing up for the unpopular, the Libertarians largely failed. They failed because they didn’t have any balls and really are not the kind of contrarinians they like to think of themselves as being.

                    1. The bottom line is that when it mattered and when there was a group of people who were unpopular that the government was going to totally fucked, the Libertarians failed and helped make it happen.

                      You mean gays? The people libertarians were defending when gay bashing was treated as not a crime? Those people that the government was fucking over?

                      Oh wait, you mean a group that was using the law to codify their beliefs that seeing their political power slowly wane! That oppressed minority!!!

                      You seem to be assuming that the legalization of gay marriage was a step back for freedom. That assumption is utterly retarded. Maybe you think every gay couple is looking for a baker to fuck over or something. Or maybe you are having a childish tantrum….

                      But it is the truth none the less and the Libertarians who went all in for gay marriage at the expense of everything else own it.

                      My goodness! Perhaps you can show me some of those quislings so I can boo and hiss at them too! I can’t think of a single libertarian writer who held that position, but at least one must exist to enrage you so!

                  2. You don’t like hearing that and you probably shouldn’t. It is a very uncomfortable truth. But it is the truth none the less and the Libertarians who went all in for gay marriage at the expense of everything else own it. They are cowards and they can’t in the future be counted on to stand up for freedom if doing so involves going against the popular culture.

                    And you should be done with this argument. It is partially your failure. I doubt it is very fun to live with or think about.

                    1. John, I wish you wouldn’t ruin a good culture-war slapfest with personal attacks.

                      My basic point is that, on one track, many libertarians support free association, and on another track, they support SSM and don’t think these things are linked. And on the philosophical level, you can say they aren’t. Also, many on H&R say that, lacking political power, they’re not responsible for any linkage done by those who *do* have political power. Just lay down the philosophical principles and let the politicians muck it up. I understand and appreciate that viewpoint.

                      Yet I can’t help but notice a difference in emphasis between the free-association cause and, say, the legal MJ cause, as far as willingness to cheer political victories and deplore political setbacks.

                    2. I doubt it is very fun to live with or think about.

                      I sleep just fine sunshine. The failures of your nation state are not on my conscience.

                  3. And I am angry at the Progs. They are responsible. But that doesn’t make the moral failure of the Libertarians any less disappointing.

            2. “I could argue that gay marriage opponents are far more to blame for this! After all, if they had not sought to maintain their discrimination through legislation, gays wouldn’t be a protected class!”

              I’m afraid that sounds like “I wouldn’t have raped you so hard if you hadn’t resisted!”

              Most gay marriage opponents spent much of their time standing like deer in the headlights, overwhelmed by the speed and success of their opponents. Some of them actually advocate surrender, seeing the SSM victory as inevitable. As to the politically-organized opponents – some of them offered religious-freedom amendments to SSM bills, but those got voted down. A bit of libertarian support would have been welcome at that time, but IIRC, only the Volokh crowd offered any (limited) libertarian support for such amendments.

              “Or maybe we could blame Immanuel Kant for telling people not to lie (we have so many orders we can’t get you your cupcakes on time, I suggest you call our competitor down the road).”

              Yeah, that would end well. The plaintiff would use liberal discovery to find out that they actually didn’t have so many orders, and when the court/administrative body finds out the defendant is lying, then the fine will be all the higher.

        3. Libertarians have consistently opposed the sort of anti-discrimination regime that is destroying these people.

          Ahem:

          Foreseeable results are not unintended.

          This was 100% foreseeable, predicted with regularity, and so libertarians pushing for court-mandated gay marriage don’t get to say “Oh, we didn’t mean for that to happen.”

    2. I can’t think of any justification for such a devestating fine other than wanting to exact revenge on people with the wrong beliefs.

    3. A measly $150K and they can’t find ‘Values Votors’ to bail them out as their poster children?!? That’s a sunday offering at a megachurch

      1. I hope you never get fined 150k for trying to exercise your right to freely associate with whom you want.

        1. Where in my comment did I say I supported the fine, assclown?

          -1 for reading comprehension. I was making a snarky half-joke about how I’m surprised they haven’t been used by larger forces in the KULTURE WAR

          1. You didn’t object to the fine.

            You objected to the Values Voters not paying the fine.

            1. Being ‘surprised that’ and ‘objecting to’ are two different things to me. Another failed comprehension test

  51. “Atheist church spreads to Paris

    “First Sunday Assembly in French capital gathers 130 people for singalongs, party games and to ‘celebrate life’…

    “Since the first Sunday Assembly in Islington, north London, in January last year attracted 200 people, the “atheist church” has mushroomed across the world, with a mission to live better, help often, wonder more. On Sunday, 35 assemblies were held across Europe and 16 in the US.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/wor…..mbly-paris

    1. Stop ruining atheism.

      1. Seriously. All of these 1st gen atheists intent on turning it into a new religion are irritating.

        1. It’s not exactly the first atheist religion. There are probably about as many irreligious atheists as there irreligious theists.

    2. God, how stupid. I’m an atheist for the Sunday sleep-in

      1. ^^This! (Although I consider myself agnostic; any supreme creator should not care what I do with my Sunday mornings)

    3. The Jacobins turned the Notre Dame into a “Temple of Reason”. This is nothing new.

  52. Stop ruining atheism.

  53. I know that this may sound like hyperbole, but Lena Dunham may perhaps be the most repugnant human on the planet. What a hideously ugly, sanctimonious, vapid scrunt.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.