Shootings in Ottawa Kill Soldier, Michael Brown Autopsy Leaked, Blackwater Guards Convicted: P.M. Links

|

  • The scene in Ottawa
    The Canadian Press/Adrian Wyld

    Details are still vague about deadly shooting incidents in the downtown area of Ottawa today. Police say there were two shooting incidents at Parliament Hill and the National War Memorial. Reports of a third shooting incident proved to be untrue. A Canadian soldier was killed in one of the shootings, as was a male suspect.

  • According to the leaked official autopsy report, Michael Brown of Ferguson, Missouri, was shot at close range in the hand. Some experts who looked at the report say it reinforces the possibility that Brown was in a struggle with Officer Darren Wilson inside the police SUV. He also had marijuana in his system, which means nothing, of course.
  • A jury has convicted four former Blackwater guards hired to protect diplomats in Iraq in 2007 of dozens of charges related to the killing of 14 Iraqis and the injuring of 17 others. One was found guilty of first-degree murder.
  • Django Unchained actor Daniele Watts has been charged with lewd conduct for allegedly having sex with her boyfriend in a parked car in a case that drew wide national attention and accusations of racism against the Los Angeles Police Department. She has responded that the two of them were just making out.
  • Freed North Korean detainee Jeffrey Fowle has returned home to United States soil. Two other American citizens remain in detention.
  • A probe at the University of North Carolina shows that some college officials for decades directed thousands of students, many of them athletes, to fake classes to get their grades up.
  • The case about the Idaho wedding chapel fighting an alleged push by the city to make it marry gay couples may be complicated by some facts that don't quite add up.

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

NEXT: Insanity Defined: Feds Unveil Plan to Help High-Risk Homebuyers Take On Massive Debt. Again.

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. Reports of a third shooting incident proved to be untrue.

    Shouldn’t the Canadian press be speculating wildly about the politics of the gunman?

    1. Hello.

      They’re just dying to go with the ‘Harper did this because he abolished the long-form gun registry and committed troops to fight Isis’ meme.

      It’s coming.

    2. Read the CBC live feed comments. It’s full of people claiming this is Harper’s fault for going along with American policy in the Middle East. In Canada we don’t even blame the shooters, we just blame the party in power (ignoring that our involvement, in say, Afghanistan was a product of the liberals).

      1. We can be a disgusting bunch, eh?

        It’s not surprising for the partisan left-wings hacks. I’m just waiting on some in the media to impart words of wisdom.

        1. In one of the articles I read today the words “long gun” were used at least four times.

          1. It’s not about radicalized citizens.

            Nope.

            It’s about long-guns.

            Get rid of long-guns and vote NDP!

            Derp, derp, derp.

            1. We’ll lower corporate and middle class taxes, while increasing social services, giving ‘free’ daycare, and exploring ‘green’ energy technologies! All without raising the deficit or debt!

              /Actual NDP federal platform last election. Seriously, they are an utterly stupid/delusional political movement.

            2. Liverpool manhandled; Atletico goes nuts in the second half; Arsenal miracle.

              1. Effen Juve.

                I don’t get it. As strong a midfield in the world yet…useless.

                1. Match-fixing?

                  1. Match-fixing is not restricted to Serie A.

                    Just saying.

                    In this case, no. Just not good enough.

                    1. Raven, this may be of interest.

                      Gives some context as to the magnitude of match fixing. It’s a problem in every single country:

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

                    2. Astounding. And, recently:

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…..tch_fixing

          2. Oh, they’re going to pin this on the repeal of the long gun registry in 2012, aren’t they?

        2. To the partisan left in this country everything marginally bad has to somehow be traced back to Harper’s ‘soft dictatorship’, even problems that go back to the early 90s and late 80s when the modern Tories didn’t exist.

          Hell, I’m not even a fan of Tories but I wouldn’t be surprised if they started blaming them for Japanese internment.

          1. And Italian internment.

            I have no idea why they always get overlooked. 1000 were interned and thousands more were imposed a strict curfew as was the case in the U.S.

            And yes, in both cases liberal governments did it.

            1. Well, you can’t very well lock up all of the Germans. A huge chunk of us are of German descent. Italians? Not as much.

              1. I say this because I have a dream that we go to war with Italy and Episiarch gets locked up in a special internment camp with Chicago-style pizza.

              2. Actually, Germans and Ukranians were locked up too.

                1. Germans? Well, this means war.

              3. Not as much as German but big enough.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R…..ted_States

              4. Actually, in WWII thousands of Japanese, German and Italian nationals were interned by the governments of the USA, Canada, Britain and Australia. Most of these were entirely in accordance with the rules of war.

                The difference that people of Japanese extraction were subjected to in the USA and Canada was the fact that people who had been born in those countries and were thus citizens of those countries were also subjected to this treatment.

                1. Isaac, Canadian-Italian nationals born here were interned as well. Some lost their businesses for good.

                  1. In much smaller numbers of course.

                    1. Thanks, Rufus, I did not know that.

                      AFAIK, in the US this did not happen (but, I could be wrong).

                      As for Australia, I do know that a family friend of ours was interned during WWII in spite of his well-documented anti-fascist activities. OTOH it is possible that the security forces were concerned that he was a communist.

            2. I think it’s largely due to the national mythos that the liberal party has constructed around them being the ‘ruling party’. Nothing bad could have ever happen in Canada while they were in power. Steyn wrote a pretty good piece awhile back detailing how the Liberals have really pushed the image of Canada only really existing as a modern nation since Trudeau took office.

              1. Well, the fact is that until the late 1950s and the rise of Lester Pearson to power the Liberal Party was the party, in general, of laissez-faire and personal liberty.

                It was Pearson and later Trudeau who moved the party to the left to preempt the rising NDP.

                1. People who are confused by an NDP/Liberal merge forget this little tidbit. Unintended consequences of hard political strategy, eh?

                  1. Rufus, as someone who lived under the CCF in at the end of their 20-year run as the only socialist* government in North America, I can tell you that the old socialists who voted CCF as well as the old Union guys who supported the CLC are spinning in their graves ate the thought of homos getting married and women taking jobs that should belong to men.

                    *these guys were hardass “nationalize the means of production” socialists guided by “The Regina Manifesto” not the lukewarm social democrats that came after the CCF merged with the CLC.

                    1. as someone who lived under the CCF in at the end of their 20-year run as the only socialist* government in North America…

                      I refer, of course, to the CCF government of Saskatchewan 1944-64.

      1. Nah, it’s a Muslim but it’s the Republican’s fault that he was radicalized for going to war against Islam and training people to kill and it’s the Republican’s fault that they pushed through the NRA agenda supplying guns to killers.

    3. More importantly, how hard is Cytotoxic’s WarBoner?

      1. Now, finally, it’s personal.

      2. Not hard at all.

    4. Nothing to speculate about at all: they’re radical Muslims.

    5. How is a shooting even possible in Canada? Aren’t guns banned there?

  2. …fake classes to get their grades up.

    Art Appreciation?

    1. I once took a class called organizational behavior, it was required for my accounting major and it was terrible.

    2. According to an earlier post, classes in Afro-American Studies.

    3. You haven’t lived until you’ve taken Organized Crime. Best. A. Ever.

      1. Was is about the proliferation of various government agencies in the us throughout it’s history?

      2. Did it have a laboratory component?

      3. It’s called the Kennedy School of Government.

      4. And that was before Fish Mooney.

  3. And the Greg Orman “independent” mask slips?

    G.O.P. Wins on Expected Battlefield, but Terrrain Has Changed

    “The Democrats are still in the game because they’ve brought Kansas and Georgia into play.”

    “It is not much of an exaggeration to say that Democratic chances depend on winning Kansas or Georgia?”

    “The problem for Democrats is that, barring other upsets, winning one red state ? Kansas, Georgia or South Dakota?”

    1. If the link doesn’t work, you must acquit!

      1. If the link is toast, you must repost!

  4. He also had marijuana in his system, which means nothing, of course.

    The strongarm robbery minutes before, on the other hand…

    1. But but… Wilson didn’t *know* about that when he murdered that poor black child. Patterns of behavior, cultural deficiences, etc don’t exist… because FYTW.

      1. They exist but they aren’t demonstrated to be relevant here.

    2. *He also had marijuana in his system, which means nothing, of course.*

      Such b.s. So Reason.com is saying that weed *doesn’t* affect your personality and/or behavior AT ALL? GTFO.

      1. *He also had marijuana in his system, which means nothing, of course.*

        Such b.s. So Reason.com is saying that weed *doesn’t* affect your personality and/or behavior AT ALL? GTFO.

        Or, just maybe, Shackford was alluding to the fact that THC can stay in a person’s system for weeks at a time after consumption and thus that fact gives no insight into Brown’s state of mind at the time of the shooting.

        1. THC is metabolized after a few hours. If THC (not metabolites) was in his blood, he smoked recently.

      2. To the extent that it does, it makes people less confrontational rather than more.

        1. It also makes people more paranoid, which seems to me highly relevant to this case.

  5. Django Unchained actor Daniele Watts has been charged with lewd conduct for allegedly having sex with her boyfriend in a parked car

    Lots of people have car sex. Anyone getting caught in public would be in trouble with the law.

    1. I guess 3 men do make a tiger.

    2. She has a new project coming up. This was a publicity stunt. She wanted to get caught and into a confrontation. No one has sex in the daytime in public with the door open. And that ubiquitous picture of her* — that is some real shitty acting.

      * http://www.thaelleword.com/wp-…..00×430.png

      1. I think the actual crime was not the ‘publicity stunt’ so much as her initial reaction to it, claims of racism, etc. I think its quite possible the shit-sandwich has just backfired on her at this point. Maybe I’m giving her too little credit though.

    1. Is he fucking retarded? A consumption tax is the least progressive tax you can have.

      1. There’s a long explanation there about how they’d make it progressive, but it’s too long and stupid for me to copy & paste.

        1. Because the wealthy would never use their political influence to ensure that the exceptions benefited them or anything. Nope, they would agree to the perfect scheme to tax them more.

        2. Come on, post it!

          Consider a family that spends $10 million a year and is deciding whether to add a $2 million wing to its mansion. If the top marginal tax rate on consumption were 100 percent, the project would cost $4 million. The additional tax payment would reduce the federal deficit by $2 million. Alternatively, the family could scale back, building only a $1 million addition. Then it would pay $1 million in additional tax and could deposit $2 million in savings. The federal deficit would fall by $1 million, and the additional savings would stimulate investment, promoting growth. Either way, the nation would come out ahead with no real sacrifice required of the wealthy family, because when all build larger houses, the result is merely to redefine what constitutes acceptable housing. With a consumption tax in place, most neighbors would also scale back the new wings on their mansions.”

          1. So now Home Depot will need to see your bank statements to determine how much to charge you for building supplies….

            I’m also really enjoying the idea that “the additional tax payment would reduce the federal deficit.” Surely no politician would just spend that extra million bucks and leave the deficit right where it is. Surely!

            1. Really, The federal government would plan for the $2M expansion to continue as if there were no tax. They’d spend the $2M before got it (TY Treasury/China), then spend the $1 they actually received on figuring out why they didn’t get $2M. The building company loses out on $1M in revenue and salaries, that also don’t go into the tax coffer, thus further increasing the deficit.

              The only thing promoting growth here is the bucket of shit that this plan consists of.

          2. “The additional tax payment would reduce the federal deficit by $2 million.”

            I stopped reading right there.

            You aren’t fooling me Bill. Every spineless chickenshit ‘rich’ person who starts blathering about how taxes on the rich should be higher have zero fucking intention of paying more. This is simply their way of saying ‘hey don’t look at me, I am one of the good guys. Look at those guys over there…..”

            Crock. Of. Shit.

          3. What?

            Is this a serious person writing or a blathering buffoon?

          4. Sweet baby Baphomet, that’s something I’d expect to see in the comments of a Salon article.

          5. …”The additional tax payment would reduce the federal deficit by $2 million.”…

            Comedy gold, right there!

          6. That’s a strange example. The closest we have to a consumption tax now is a sales tax, and sales tax generally doesn’t apply to construction. It may apply to the materials, but it doesn’t apply to the labor, which is often most of the job.

          7. Either way, the nation would come out ahead with no real sacrifice required of the wealthy family, because when all build larger houses, the result is merely to redefine what constitutes acceptable housing. With a consumption tax in place, most neighbors would also scale back the new wings on their mansions.

            And the working-class contractor who would have been able to make a down payment on his own house with the money he would have made from building the new wing on that mansion? Well, fuck that guy.

            1. Trickle down economics have been totally discredited in the 1980s… or so I’ve been told.

              1. Yes, and government spending multiplies!

          8. Wait, what?

            Consider a family that spends $10 million a year and is deciding whether to add a $2 million wing to its mansion. … Alternatively, the family could scale back, building only a $1 million addition. Then it would pay $1 million in additional tax and could deposit $2 million in savings.

            Where the hell does the magical $2 million in savings come from? They were planning to build a $2 million addition, but if we impose a tax, suddenly they’ll have $4 million?

            1. OK, I read the original article and it makes a little more sense, but it’s still kind of dumb and badly needs an editor, because there’s a ton of unexplained stuff there.

              If the family spends $10 million, that’s their taxable consumption, so apparently the additional wing of the mansion is supposed to be on top of that $10 million. So if they spend another $2 million at the margin, they’ll get taxed another $2 million. If they spend $1 million, they would get taxed another $1 million, which they can offset by putting an additional $2 million in savings. But doesn’t that mean the government won’t be collecting taxes on that $2 million instead?

              Gates somehow fails to notice that in the first case, the family spent an additional $2 million, and got an additional $2 million in house. In the second case, they have to spend $2 million, NOT spend another $2 million, and get only $1 million worth of additional house. And yet somehow this is supposed to be a great plan?

          9. Holy shit, he’s turned into a self-parody.

    2. Gates’ solution? Shift the American tax code from one that taxes labor to one that taxes consumption. Now, this sounds like standard, right-wing economic theory. Consumption taxes are usually favored by the wealthy and by conservative economists because they tend to be regressive in nature.

      FFS.

      1. “Consumption taxes are usually favored by the wealthy and by conservative economists because they tend to be regressive in nature.”

        Ah, no.

        Do progs ever accurately represent non-prog views? I’ve yet to see it.

        Nevermind. Retardation: A Celebration continues:

        “As you can see, one of the strategies behind this tax regime is to reduce the incentive to consume. With less conspicuous consumption, the poor would suffer from the negative effects of having less than those around them. As many behavioral studies have shown, relative wealth has more of an impact on personal happiness than absolute wealth.”

        So I guess all that aggregate demand stuff goes out the window now?

        “But for a progressive consumption tax to be truly progressive, there would need to be a hefty estate tax to prevent the rich from simply letting their wealth grow over generations through interest income. ”

        Oh no! We can’t let that happen.

        Incidentally, this will be my last post for at least a few days. I will be hitting the road to the Big Easy soon.

        1. “With less conspicuous consumption, the poor would suffer from the negative effects of having less than those around them.”

          Name those negative effects. Emotional responses and low self esteem do not count.

          At least they’re openly admitting that their worldview is based off of envy rather than any kind of actual realistic analysis of power structures.

          1. Actually, with less conspicuous consumption the poor lose the jobs they could have had providing the goods to be consumed.

        2. “….relative wealth has more of an impact on personal happiness than absolute wealth.”

          Admission that envy is a primary motive, or progressive projection?

        3. Have fun in N.O., the time you’re away should give me time to wash away the memory of the prog stuff you linked to.

        4. Wealth doesn’t grow through interest income, that can only preserve it at best.

          Wealth grows through investment.

          1. And if it does grow because of interest, it’s because the steward of that money is prudently investing in interest bearing assets. Nothing wrong with that.

          2. “But for a progressive consumption tax to be truly progressive, there would need to be a hefty estate tax to prevent the rich from simply letting their wealth grow over generations through interest income. “

            Who does it harm when a persons financial wealth grows through interest? The people to whom that money is being lent in exchange for principal and interest?

        5. I’m pretty sure inflation has assured that no family has ever become or stayed wealthy over time merely through interest.

          1. Why am I still here? Time to burn rubber.

            Later!

        6. Eat at the Pelican Club if you get the chance. The Chipino is great.

          LOUISIANA CIOPPINO-IN ITS OWN POT
          Gulf Fish and Shrimp, Scallops and Mussels With a Side of Linguini in a Tomato Basil Sauce — 51

          http://www.pelicanclub.com/

        7. As many behavioral studies have shown, relative wealth has more of an impact on personal happiness than absolute wealth.”

          So when we all have just one bucket to shit in, we’ll all be equally happy?

        8. To proglodytes, the Huckster is a conservative, and he was for the national sales (“Fair”) tax. So a sales tax is conservative.

    3. Jesus it’s not complicated, just do away with the entire tax code and take 10% from everyones income. Please.

    4. “Imagine three types of wealthy people. One guy is putting his capital into building his business. Then there’s a woman who’s giving most of her wealth to charity. A third person is mostly consuming, spending a lot of money on things like a yacht and plane. While it’s true that the wealth of all three people is contributing to inequality, I would argue that the first two are delivering more value to society than the third.”

      Well, your argument would be stupid, unless the yachts and planes are assembling themselves.

      1. I saw that Transformers movie!

      2. I don’t see how all three are “contributing to inequality.” For one thing, all three are exchanging their wealth to others. Only the first could be construed as contributing to inequality, if we assume the business will be profitable.

        Still, if something must be taxed and therefore relatively discouraged, it ought to be consumption. But this will likely increase inequality in the sense of enriching the prudent. It will still likely create a more prosperous society for everyone, which should be the point.

      3. If they delivered more “value” than they would have more money. Who will be the value Czar without prices?

      4. Inequality is a feature, not a bug. The chance of gaining an unequal level of wealth is what drives creative entrepreneurs to make life better for everyone else. Bill Gates should know this.

        Oh, wait….

    5. Getting a tad tired of listening to people who made a fortune wax poetic stupid ideas in areas outside their field of expertise.

      Krugman, Soros, Gates.

      Fuck off already.

    6. I thought it was him taking the standard deduction on his 1040.

    7. A consumption tax is actually a good idea. Thank God Canada enacted the GST.

  6. American news is reporting that the shooter’s name was Michael Zehaf Bibeau, not confirmed yet though.

    1. Clearly a 10th generation Acadian.

  7. Freed North Korean detainee Jeffrey Fowle has returned home to United States soil. Two other American citizens remain in detention.

    According to Michael Malice guesting on < i The Independents (a show which refuses to invite Shackford on, I might add) this is the one least deserving of release.

  8. “Same sex couples that seek to destroy our way of life and the institution of marriage are NOT cute and cuddly but rather (for those of you that are old enough to remember the movie), Gremlins that will only destroy our way of life.”? Anthony Culler, South Carolina Congressional Candidate

    The stupid party, ladies and gentlemen.

    Though it’s nice to know that gay people are only dangerous if you get them wet or feed them after midnight.

    1. That sounds like a reference to yet another movie I should watch.

      1. I weep for you if you haven’t seen Gremlins.

        1. You don’t know the half of it. It’s probably better that way.

          1. You didn’t see gremlins two? You are a monster.

            1. The dude just celebrated his 13th birthday! Give him a break. He couldn’t see half of these movies until now!

        2. One word – Phoebe Cates.

    2. My image of the Republican party is a bunch of people on horses yelling “To vicotry!” as they ride off a cliff.

      1. the White cliffs of Dover?

    3. What idiot staffer lets him post to his facebook himself? Not that I have a problem with that, better to see the crazy out in the open.

      1. Someone post this to his Facebook page.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTN6Du3MCgI

    4. From SC, naturally.

      1. After googling him I discovered he’s a white guy running for Clyburn’s seat, so it’s not like he had a chance anyway.

        1. During that same search I discovered No Underwear Yoga Pants.

    5. Gays don’t reproduce nearly as effectively as Gremlins. Bad comparison, Mr. Culler or may I call you…. Tony?

    6. Obviously he hasn’t gotten John’s memo that America doesn’t care about gays.

      1. I don’t care. One down!

      2. John has moved on to ‘Gays are less free with gay marriage and just want to oppress people’. He’s a fucking loony-tune.

    7. “Gays only get married to coerce people!” -shit John actually says

      Conservatives have a SEVERE persecution complex. That’s why they’re so whiny.

    8. Same sex couples that seek to destroy our way of life…will only destroy our way of life.

      Is that a redundancy or a tautology? Or just stupidity?

  9. Details are still vague about deadly shooting incidents in the downtown area of Ottawa today. Police say there were two shooting incidents at Parliament Hill and the National War Memorial.

    This sadly reminds me of Mumbai’s 2008 attacks.

  10. A jury has convicted four former Blackwater guards hired to protect diplomats in Iraq in 2007 of dozens of charges related to the killing of 14 Iraqis and the injuring of 17 others.

    Can’t we deem them rebels and call it good?

    1. Supply them with weapons and training!

    2. Why not outsource police to Blackwater (or its successor)? At least their employees are held legally and personally accountable for their actions.

      1. +1 No-knock raid

  11. 2Cellos covers Iron Maiden’s The Trooper

    1. the bow tie is awesome

    2. It would be awesome if Tucille was part of this band.

      That is all.

    3. Well done. Also, these ladies aren’t bad either:

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

  12. The case about the Idaho wedding chapel fighting an alleged push by the city to make it marry gay couples may be complicated by some facts that don’t quite add up.

    What’s not to understand? Religious freedom ends where progressive doctrines begin.

    1. Religious freedom ends where progressive doctrinesfeelings begin.

      1. Touche.

  13. He also had marijuana in his system

    Case closed, ladies and gentlemen.

  14. Once in a while the New York Times has to remind the world that no matter how stupid the new kids on the block like Salon and Vox are, they were idiotic before those kids were born. Get this little gem

    Few voters know that the 2009 stimulus bill contributed heavily to the nation’s economic recovery, saving and creating 2.5 million jobs. Not a word of it is spoken on the campaign trail, where little credit is also given to the White House for months of promising economic news.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10…..obama.html

    1. The NYT isn’t being stupid so much as they are just acting as the mouthpiece for the DNC. It’s pathetic, really.

      1. This. They know exactly what they’re doing.

    2. Labor force participation rate, anyone?

      I read that article. It is so biased, it’s unbelievable. And liberals think that outlets like NYT and NPR have no bias, and it is Faux News that is stirring up chaos in the country with its bias.

      1. They’re all biased. It’s just that some have biased beliefs that happen to be demonstrably correct.

      2. I’m convinced one of the main differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals just are better at self-deception.

      3. Last night NPR had some Edward Norton interview on that was talking about Death to Smoochy so I decided to listen to that instead of switching on music, because that movie is fantastic and the interview was generally entertaining.

        Between segments they had some woman whose voice was so emotionally charged that I was taken aback by it, talking about how great NPR is and how we should donate because of their “unbiased” coverage. Come on. At least circlejerk about how “reality has a left-wing bias” or something of that nature. Calling NPR unbiased coupled with her tone just made me laugh.

        1. NPR has been trotting out the “we get complaints from the left and the right, so we must be unbiased” line of reasoning for at least 25 years. Pretty much every fundraiser has included this meme at some point.

          My favorite example of totally un-self-aware NPR bias was the reporting on the positions of the candidates on abortion in the 2000 election. NPR actually had a news reporter tell us that Bush changing his stance on abortion (from pro choice to pro life) was an example of how the extremists in his party pressured him to fall in line. The very next paragraph extolled the virtues of Al Gore for changing his stance on abortion from pro-life to pro-choice. This was said to demonstrate that he was a principled man who was willing to listen to well-reasoned arguments and change his position when he realized he had been wrong.

          This occurred during the fundraising season, so they went from that story directly to the fundraiser crew who went into their “we are the unbiased, objective news source that only your donation can provide” spiel. There may have only been one person listening who spotted the irony in claiming to be unbiased immediately after airing what could well be the most blatantly biased reporting on a political race that has ever occurred, but at least the irony wasn’t completely lost.

    3. Little credit is given to Obama for saving and creating thousands of maternity ward vacancies every time he jacked off rather than putting it in someone.- New York Times

      1. People are created even from him masturbating, you know.

    4. months of promising economic news

      is a pretty telling phrase. They couldn’t write months of economic growth or months of job creation, etc. Nope, just the “promise” of good things to come.

      1. Yeah. what exactly is “promising” other than “shitty news that we think portends of something better”?

        1. It’s the “hope” component that counts.

    5. Few voters know that the 2009 stimulus bill contributed heavily to the nation’s economic recovery, saving and creating 2.5 million jobs.

      It is possible that the reason few voters know about this is because it is utter bullshit.

      where little credit is also given to the White House for months of promising economic news.

      I give the White House full credit for pushing promising economic news… that are meaningless.

  15. Before we goet too far into nut punches and derp, here’s Clickhole to bring you a little bit of happiness.

    /”Gordon the Roach”….just sayin’, there’s a handle if anyone is in the market.

    1. My favourite episode was when they found out about James’ car crash fetish.

    1. I read it as goeth.

      1. Oddly enough, so did I. 🙂

  16. Thank goodness we have experts working things out for us. Some of them just discovered that competition keeps health care costs low.

    1. Not possible, that would mean two or more companies with similar services or products. That’s wildly inefficient, and each company wastes money in profits.

      We need to have a government official determine who makes the best product, then assign all to make it the same way under the guidance of a proper authority.

    2. Yeah, but only for lasik and teeth whitening..

  17. May the slavemaking fucks forcing establishments to marry people they don’t want to marry eat shit and die in a fire.

    1. But without the state who would force association and preserve vestiges of slavery?

    2. But the only alternative is to have the slavemakers drag peaceful, civil-society-loving gays out of those establishments in handcuffs.

      /Hey Tones, did I nutshell correctly?

    3. I actually used to be quite active with some LBGT advocacy groups a while back but over time I realized that many of the people involved did not want equal rights, but merely a reversal of roles for oppressor and oppressed. This is a trait that’s far from unique to them, of course.

      I guess I should throw in a standard disclaimer about how as long as people aren’t picking my pocket or breaking my leg I don’t give a damn about the sex lives of consenting adults, and that marriage should be a freedom of contract issue, etc.

  18. something very akin to hiding the ball, including (as cited by Sullivan) the quiet legal revamping of the business onto a religious basis in recent weeks and the silent removal of extensive language on its website that

    Oh right, because you only get freedom of association on religious grounds. I keep forgetting the non-religious don’t enjoy that right.
    reply to this

  19. Still watching “Inside Job.” I think the prof has run out of things he wants to teach us before the exam. Unfortunately, he takes attendance. Time for more Soros.

    1. Now making attacks on bankers’ desire to own multiple houses and hire prostitutes, because personal attacks are meaningful economic analysis. Maybe the misappropriation of computer repair funds caused the Great Recession!

      1. I blame the whores. The carbon footprint of their red lights alone is enough to make Gaia rain down a recession in vengeance.

  20. A probe at the University of North Carolina shows that some college officials for decades directed thousands of students, many of them athletes, to fake classes to get their grades up

    I paid NC taxes for about 20 years plus UNC tuition, and I never got to take any fake courses! I demand loan forgiveness.

    1. Sorry, but no refunds. The last day for applying for refunds on the grounds of unfair treatment was… uh, let’s see… yesterday.

      1. Nooooooo

    2. This required a probe? It’s right there in the NCAA SOP.

  21. I fail to see why the wedding chapel “revamping its business” whatever that means is a big deal. Are you only entitled to your beliefs if you always have held them?

    1. I would presume that this letter two days ago from the City Attorney would put the government’s case in the best light – so judge for yourself –

      http://www.adfmedia.org/files/…..Letter.pdf

      It doesn’t say anything about them changing their beliefs, simply that they’re reorganized.

      The letter makes clear that only *nonprofit* religious corporations have an exemption – if religious people operate a business for (ick!) profits they will have to knuckle under the the ordinance.

      The Overlawyered link said the owners used to (gasp!) allow civil marriages. That would be quite a gotcha – if they were Catholics. But they’re Foursquare Gospel, and generally Protestants are cool with civil marriages. Maybe there’s some Foursquare Gospel doctrine which rejects civil marriage? I doubt it.

      1. Oh, and in many cases the Catholic Church recognizes civil marriages among non-Catholics:

        http://catholic.net/index.php?…..ca&id=1150

      2. The letter makes clear that only *nonprofit* religious corporations have an exemption

        But what about all the fundamentalist Mammon worshippers?

    2. Are you only entitled to your beliefs if you always have held them?

      When it comes to how the government determines “conscientious objectors”, yeah.

      1. *If* they sincerely changed their minds, they would have as much religious freedom as if they’d been born that way. Soldiers have been discharged as COs after developing scruples post-enlistment.

        But I don’t see these guys changing their beliefs, simply reorganizing on the advice of their attorneys to avoid the sting of a law which threatens them with prison.

        If changing their operations is such a horrible thing, we know what to blame: The ordinance.

        1. Is the criteria for a co military discharge the same as for a RFRA exemption?

          1. Wow, that’s totally relevant to the original question, which, you remember, was:

            “Are you only entitled to your beliefs if you always have held them?”

            Of course it’s very tough to win a CO case in the military, since they want *lots* of evidence of sincerity, but I don’t see how that actually affects my point, but I’m sure you’ll make 100 posts on this topic anyway.

            1. Silly me, I thought we were talking about a legal case!

              1. You were suggesting that I was in some way conflating RFRA with the military’s CO regulations, and I’d rather not spend 100 posts with you as you beat that straw man.

                1. Sure Eddie, you were just using an example of government granted exemption in a debate about a different set of exemptions to argue a philosophical abstract point!

                  1. “Sure Eddie, you were just using an example”

                    No actually, HM was.

                    Heroic Mulatto|10.22.14 @ 5:13PM|#

                    Are you only entitled to your beliefs if you always have held them?
                    When it comes to how the government determines “conscientious objectors”, yeah.

                    Go be tediously wrong somewhere else.

    3. As far as I can see, this is a new left-wing talking point that these people aren’t *really* religious, but instead are profit-makers – icky! So they should be forced to knuckle under.

      I suppose the Overlawyered guy, an avowed libertarian, went along with this because he wants to avoid any implication that he actually *likes* these people whose rights he’s defending, so he borrows prog talking points and tacks on a to-be-sure that he’ll defend the rights of these right-wing hypocritical icky people!

      1. He says explicitly that they will and should win an exemption, just they should be upfront about their recent changes. It’s called having principles other than just the immediate cause Eddie.

        1. I specifically *said* he supported their rights – can you read?

        2. “Now, the Knapps are free (or should be, in my view) to change their establishment’s business plan overnight to one that welcomes only ceremonies consistent with Foursquare Evangelical beliefs. But shouldn’t their lawyers be upfront that this is what’s going on? …

          Even absent any obligation to officiate, it seems to me that a family business in this situation has at least as sympathetic a case as the cake bakers, wedding photographers, invitation engravers, and hall providers who sought exemptions in previous episodes. But really, isn’t our libertarian case strong enough that it can stand on an accurate description of what’s actually going on?”

          1. Again, I *said* he was defending their rights, but that he made clear he thought they were doing something not nice.

            Can you fucking read?

            1. Watch the potty mouth there, think of your Bishop!

              Stop being dishonest, you were trying to impugn the bloggers libertarian boba fides.

              1. Just look at your second paragraph- avowed…borrowed prog talking points…tacks on a to be sure, etc.

                You’re comfortable with dishonesty in service of the Cause, he’s not, that doesn’t give you the right to impugn his libertarian chops.

              2. Either you know the truth and deny it, in which case you are a liar

                OR

                You are unaware of the truth and spout off anyway, in which case you are an imbecile.

                But I don’t think it’s either/or, I am open to the possibility that you are a liar *and* an imbecile, tabasco-sauce man.

                1. Ahem, what – pray tell – is wrong with tobasco sauce?

                  1. Long story.

    4. “revamping its business” is suspect because it’s a direct challenge to stasis.

      And progs love stasis.

  22. I posted this in the independents thread last night, but I ran across antifederalist #1 while in con law, and was surprised how little things have changed in the last 250 years.

    Primary complaints of the antifederalists:
    Biased press
    Trying to ram through the Constitution without enough time to read and debate it
    Using the Constitution as a means to the big government end
    Federalists Calling opponents anarchists
    Federalists Calling opponents special interest shills
    All or nothing on the Constitution, no room for compromise
    Establishing an aristocracy

    1. George Clinton on the proposed federal city. It would become an

      asylum of the base, idle, avaricious, and ambitious

      1. I thought he said it would be a chocolate city (or was that a different Clinton)

        1. Can you imagine? An ENTIRE city as a confectionery?!?

      2. To say nothing of the Funkadelic.

        1. +1 Bootsie

  23. The case about the Idaho wedding chapel fighting an alleged push by the city to make it marry gay couples may be complicated by some facts that don’t quite add up.

    “We wanted them to be pure and perfect!”

  24. Popehat weighs in on gamergate:

    The blue team has made amazing progress over the last three hundred years. Occasionally by force of arms, but usually by a much more clever strategy: entryism.

    Entryism, for those not hip to the lingo, is “a political strategy in which an organization or state encourages its members or supporters to join another, usually larger organization in an attempt to expand influence and expand their ideas and program. In situations where the organization being ‘entered’ is hostile to entryism, the entryists may engage in a degree of subterfuge to hide the fact that they are an organization in their own right.”

    Over the last few years blue team has been rolling up red team’s flank in a new battle: the tech world (or, pace Scott Alexander, they’re actually trying to roll up the flank of a minor Red faction / ally that should perhaps be called “Gray”: techno-libertarians).

    The entryism is of the usual type: people with blue/pink ideals join red / gray groups and try to achieve social status with in those groups, then use that social status to push for the admission of ? and promotion of ? more blue/pink members. Once the blue/pink members achieve a majority they then change the rules of admission to create a lock on their new conquest.

    1. The status shaming is also of the usual type: high status blue / pinks follow Alinksy’s battle plan.

      First, they pick a low-status target (rule 12). This target is usually a pale, bespectacled Aspergers-ish nerd) for a transgression against the norms they wish to universalize. The high social status pinks paint themselves as victims of a power imbalance, then they use their superior popularity to out-speak the target and push their version of the narrative. Pink allies in the media join in to keep the pressure on (rule 8). This is easy to do, because the act of social shaming is not only fun, but it’s click-bait, so everyone involved not only has lolz, they has cheeseburger (rule 6). The toxic nature of the allegations is usually sufficient to make sure that the target of the attack does not get much, if any, sympathetic press (rule 12, again: “Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions”.)

      1. GamerGate is, however, a small battle in a thousand year war. The Blue team is neither entirely sympathetic nor entirely unsympathetic. The Red team is neither entirely sympathetic nor entirely unsympathetic.

        However, the Blue team is ascendant, and it’s a valid question as to whether it wants a peaceful rise. It’s not crazy to note that Blue Team has used policies that arrest, deport, and kill “thought leaders” from Red Team on occasion (in Ireland, in France, in Mexico, in Germany, in Russia, and so forth) and to note that the ascendant Bright majority today is happy to talk about imprisoning or killing people who disagree with their conclusions on, say, global warming. Sure, the slickly produced videos of AGW deniers being exploded for their thought-crimes are meant as a light hearted joke, but many a truth is spoken in jest.

        All things being equal, I’d prefer to live in one of Conquest’s “civic” cultures, and not one of his “despotic” cultures. But if I’m forced to live in one of the latter, then it behooves me to play a game of realpolitik and back the weaker side.

        I don’t play video games, and I don’t care about video game
        journalism. But I know a culture war when I see one, and I’ve chosen
        my side. It might be the losing side, but I’m still not convinced it’s the wrong one.

          1. I disagree, Clark seems to have fallen down this weird “The Secret Masters are still trying to revenge their defeat in the English Civil War” conspiracy rabbit hole lately.

            1. Ken, if I recall correctly, is the one who does/did play video games, so I’m surprised he didn’t write something about it

              But yeah…I’ve always both liked and been bothered by Clark’s writing for the same reason: that curious sense of grandiosity he injects into just about everything. Sometimes it seems warranted and sometimes it’s a bit headscratching.

              I saw that English Civil War piece, though. I was tilting my head at it so much that by the time I finished it I developed a nasty crick.

              1. Again, I have to point toward Focault’s Pendulum and the discussion of the “history by analogy” reasoning that leads to this: person notices and analogy between A and B, and falsely assumes this means A must be the secret cause of B.

                Pointing out the similarities between the societal divisions in the Interegenum and modern US would be interesting. The problem is when you start imagining this means there’s some organized “thousand year war” connecting the two.

                1. Can you link to Clark’s posts about conspiracies and an organized thousand year war?

                    1. If you think that post is about conspiracies and organized wars, you’ve entirely missed the point.

                2. I just read his piece, and while it seems like he references European history excessively because, well, maybe thats just *his bag*….

                  it seems the point he was making was a more-general one about ‘culture war’, which was cogent enough. I didn’t read him suggesting that gamer gate was a natural evolution of the Reformation/30 years war, or anything.

        1. Question for people who read Popehat =

          Must I register? and is it a waste of time commenting there? it seems like a crowded group of usual suspects and there’s no threading…. or am i missing something.

          Good stuff though. Added it to my RSS

          1. The comments are mostly worthless.

            If you find posts like that interesting I can point you to dark corners of the intertubes that specialize in that sort of thing. If mushy libertarianism and lawsplainin’ is your thing, then you’ll love all the other Popehat authors.

    1. Cant tell if satire or lack of self-awareness. The twitter handle ‘misterbrilliant’ gives a clue though.

    2. A red gi. I can hear my old Sensei shaking his head.

    3. MisterBrilliant

      vs

      Pajama Boy

      WHO YA GOT?

      1. Can Pajama Boy use his cup of hot chocolate?

  25. Of course Brown struggled with Wilson, after Wilson grabbed him by the neck.

    1. Yes, a little guy grabbed a 6’5″ 300 lb guy

  26. Some experts who looked at the report say it reinforces the possibility that Brown was in a struggle with Officer Darren Wilson inside the police SUV.

    I’m sure this “leaked” information is at least as reliable as the “leaked” report that Wilson had a broken cheekbone from being punched by Brown.

    1. Seems a lot closer to the truth than all the reports that Darren Wilson shot him down while he was running away like out of the scene from the original Django

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.