Americans Terrified of Walking Alone, Second White House Fence Jumper Thwarted, D.C. Allows Limited Concealed Carry: A.M. Links

|

Oksana Shalygina/Facebook
  • A new survey from Chapman University finds that the most common American fear is … walking alone at night, followed by becoming the victim of identity theft, safety on the Internet, being the victim of a mass shooting, and public speaking. I have never been so ashamed to be an American. 
  • A copycat White House fence jumper was taken down by Secret Service dogs last night. The 23-year-old Maryland native was unarmed and is said to suffer from mental illness.
  • In the past month, U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria have killed 521 Islamist militants and 32 civilians, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.
  • Russian artist Petr Pavlensky cut off his ear while sitting naked atop the wall of a Moscow psychiatry center to the government's "use of Psychiatry for political purposes".
  • District of Columbia residents can apply for a handgun concealed carry permit for the first time starting today—but they must provide a specific reason why they need one.
  • Matt Stolhandske, a gay man and board member of Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, is helping raise money for the Oregon bakers who refused to make a cake for a lesbian wedding, lost their shop, and face a hefty fine.
  • Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) says he plans to vote for a ballot measure that would legalize marijuana in Oregon, making him the first senator to come out in favor of legal recreational marijuana.
  • Vice profiles "the gay libertarian gun nuts", aka gay libertarians who support gun rights, a concept which writer Cecilia D'Anastasio inexplicably finds "perplexing."

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

NEXT: Airstrikes in Syria Have Killed 521 Militants, 32 Civilians

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 new survey from Chapman University finds that the most common American fear is … walking alone at night…

    Second biggest fear? Late government check.

    1. Hello.

      What, no selfie of you singing O Canada at the game last night?

        1. Dials Kris Letang up.

          1. There’s light at the end of the tunnel but Christie’s fat gut is blocking most of it.

  2. The organic genderless gingerbread debate

    Ethically aware, health-conscious liberals rejoice. The patriarchal stranglehold on baked treats has been broken at last. But not everyone is celebrating.

    This picture – of a row of emasculated gingerbread men – was shared on the web forum Reddit on Tuesday. As the sign makes clear, they’re organic, they’re gender-neutral and, of course, they’re vegan. The post, titled “So this is what the world is coming to…,” attracted more than 2,000 comments in just a few hours. The picture was also widely shared on Facebook, and the internet discussion prompted one British newspaper to declare, sarcastically, that “genderless gingerbread figures are a thing now”.

    1. I dislike how “man” used in contexts like “the dawn of man” and “mankind” is now considered symbolic of some past patriarchal evil.

      1. But I guess I’m late to the party, this has been going on since the Apollo missions.

        1. “That’s one small step for a MAN, one giant leap for MANkind.”

          1. Shitlord!

            1. That’s “Cis” Shitlord!

          2. Should have done a second take on that one.

          3. Technically, the Moon was claimed by men from the planet Earth. So women can only go there with male permission.

      2. I think it is a bit silly too. But I can’t get too bothered by it if it’s replaced by something neutral and sensible like “human kind”.

        It’s hard to deny that the past had a lot of patriarchal evil in it. But forcing changes to the language really isn’t going to fix that.

        1. Changing “Mankind” to “Humankind” ain’t gonna fix the problem.

      3. I dislike how “man” used in contexts like “the dawn of man” and “mankind” is now considered symbolic of some past patriarchal evil.

        Feminists are historical revisionists (the bad kind). I don’t expect people to know that “man” is an oldtimey proto-Germanic gender neutral word for ‘human’, present in every Germanic language. But when you proclaim that a historical injustice should be associated with a word’s etymology, at least spend 20 seconds researching the actual etymology.

        1. Wait, there’s a good kind of historical revisionist?

          1. A person who says something like “FDR and WWII did not save us from the Great Depression” is a revisionist because basically they are attempting to revise the mainstream “consensus” view touted by academia. But they’re not a bad revisionist because it’s a demonstrably false assertion to say that “FDR and WWII did save us from the Great Depression”.

    2. Emasculated gingerbread men?

      Since when did gingerbread men have anything to emasculate?

      Feminists make them with dicks so they can rip them off?

      1. I wouldn’t put that past them.

        1. The only reason a feminist would ever make a cookie.

          They will eat the cookies, mind you, but not make them.

          1. So, they will consume, but never produce. Sounds about right.

      2. That’s the first thing that occurred to me too. Especially now when women don’t always wear skirts, there really is nothing particularly masculine about a gingerbread man except the “man” part.

    3. What, gingerbread men previously had baked-on cock and balls? But now they’re ‘genderless’? There really is no such thing as Peak Retard.

    4. Next to go: Donut holes.

      1. Because they look like testicles?

        1. Maybe some feminist baker will make vagina donuts.

          1. Cream-filled.

        2. Because what Frat boys supposedly do with the actual holes?

  3. Russian artist Petr Pavlensky cut off his ear while sitting naked atop the wall of a Moscow psychiatry center…

    That’s still better than his previous stunt. [shudders]

    1. IF he was really ‘cutting edge’ he would have removed his balls.

      1. Nailing them to the street was more than enough.

    2. I don’t think he is helping his cause. Unless his cause is making people think that self mutilating is a good reason to lock people up.

    3. Similar act, coming soon to New York, courtesy of the “SAFE” act’s use of psychiatry as a ruse.

    4. And Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph’s brother cut off his hand as an act of protest, and accomplished about as much by doing so as this guy will.

  4. In the past month, U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria have killed 521 Islamist militants and 32 civilians

    Isn’t this way way better than normal civilian to target ratios? At least it’s more obvious where the enemy is now and we don’t have to play wedding crasher anymore.

    1. +1 rounding error

    2. Hey, you can’t make, on average, 16.3 terrorist omelets without breaking 1 innocent egg, or something.

      1. Although come to think of it, 16.3 actual bad guys for each innocent is probably a better ratio than U.S. cops have.

        1. If you discount all the arrests cops make for victimless crimes, then you’re right, it’s probably not even close.

        2. If they were close enough to terrorists to be killed by weapons targeting terrorists, how innocent could they be?

          #warbonerlogic

          1. Yeah, if they didn’t want to be randomly murdered from the sky, they should have associated with better people. Like that damn Awlaki kid, having a fucking radical imam for a father.

          2. Indeed. Many of the ‘innocent’ civilians killed by US forces are anything but. Don’t want to get hit in an airstrike? Stay away from our enemies.

      2. you know they are actually just classified as ‘suspected civilians’ at this point. Soon the evidence will show they were all related to militants by at least 5 degrees of separation.

    3. But without people on the ground how do you tell if you hit miltants or civilians?

  5. ‘Thank God’ for Kevin Vickers, Canada’s new national hero

    By all accounts, the white-haired grandfather, a decorated veteran of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, kept cool amid the chaos as dozens of bullets flew in the corridors, went to his office, retrieved his weapon and with a firm hand and a steely eye shot a killer before he could kill again. Vickers, who is 6 feet 4 inches tall, then walked away, gun-in hand, having “taken care of business,” as one news outlet put it.

    And then he called his mother to say he was safe.

    1. And thoughts for the soldier killed: Nathan Frank Cirillo.

    2. Vickers, who is 6 feet 4 inches tall, then walked away, gun-in hand, having “taken care of business,” as one news outlet put it.

      Please tell me there was a slo-mo fireball behind him as he strode away.

      1. Kevin took a drag of his ciggarette and said to his mother, “That’s why they call it… capitol punishment.”

      2. I assume he didn’t look back, so he looked like a total badass.

  6. Matt Stolhandske, a gay man and board member of Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, is helping raise money for the Oregon bakers who refused to make a cake for a lesbian wedding, lost their shop, and face a hefty fine.

    Diabolical. He knows they can’t accept that money.

    1. Why not?

      I wonder how badly Matt is going to get treated by the gay mafia?

    1. I blame pumpkin flavored beverages

    2. JD and Jesse headed off together at about 10pm while I headed to…Metro-North. I swear on my newly acquired series of Dune books that I had nothing to do with that sheep, but I can’t vouch for AAW.

      1. I heard something about burlesque. I don’t have the details yet.

        1. We headed off to continue the drinking at a tiny Lower East Side bar where some of my friends perform, yes.

          And we had nothing to do with the sheep! Not that I wouldn’t sic a sheep on Metro-North, but check the date on the article! That was Wednesday morning!

  7. A new survey from Chapman University finds that the most common American fear is … walking alone at night

    Mine is talking to a millennial without an opinion on something.

    1. Where you don’t have an opinion or where they don’t have an opinion?

      1. Eh, either one.

    2. I rarely walk without Sam Colt alongside. Normally silent, he can be a brilliant conversationalist, depending on the circumstances.

    3. How do you know you’re not talking to a millennial right now?

      1. Lets poll the commentariat

        1. That depends on what your definition of “Millenial” is.

        2. I’d love to chat, but I’m on my way to the new deep-dish-pizza parlor next to the abortion clinic. I hear that the black-bean hummus is to die for.

          1. That’s not hummus, you fool!

            1. As a millennial, I am amused by this exchange.

              1. As a millenial I’m offended by Reason’s ‘War on Millenials’.

  8. A copycat White House fence jumper was taken down by Secret Service dogs last night.

    Uniformed SS officers’ instincts kicked in and they joined him in assaulting the dogs.

    1. I only watched the video once, but it appear to me the dogs were taken down by the fence jumper..pretty handily.

      1. What kind of dogs are they using at the WH? Poodles?

        1. I’d guess they’re using Belgians like pretty much everybody, but it was dark on the vid and I saw one slight-framed, short-ish haired dog get kicked away initially. Then another got body slammed then punched repeatedly.

          1. Yeah, they like to use Belgian Malinois and Tervurens, I guess because they are faster because they are smaller, but they really need to use big German Shepherds and Rottweilers to make sure they can actually take the suspect down. It’s not like someone can outrun a German Shepherd, or even a Rottie.

            1. “It’s not like someone can outrun a German Shepherd, or even a Rottie.”

              I have. Repeatedly.

          2. Which really sucks for the dogs; to the dogs way of thinking, “this is just a game we play so I can have my rubber ball or get a treat”.

  9. The Top 10 U.S. States Where Chinese Are Investing in Real Estate

    “Chinese investors are distributing their investments across the whole country, not only focusing on selecting assets in prime locations?but also paying more attention to cities with lower prices and greater potential,” said James Shepherd, Cushman & Wakefield’s head of research for Greater China.

    The consultancy compiled a list of the top 10 U.S. states for Chinese investment. Though the top spots are no surprise?New York, which claims the top spot with more than $6.7 billion in investment, has a lead of more than $5 billion over runner-up California?others are less obvious. Texas, which comes in at No. 4, benefits from Houston, which has become more familiar to Chinese investors in recent years. The country’s state-owned behemoth China Petrochemical Corp., known as Sinopec, has operations there, and the city gained recognition with Chinese investors with the help of former Chinese basketball star Yao Ming, who played for the Houston Rockets.

    1. California and NY, despite all the derp, still attract the dough.

        1. Which communists are those, now?

    2. Over the past two years, more have sought to invest in offices and hotels in inland cities such as Chicago and Houston in the U.S

      Since when is Houston an inland city?

      1. Didn’tja hear? They completed the land bridge between Floridia and the Yucatan via Cuba. Now they’re going to drain the gulf!

      2. Gulf of Mexico doesn’t count to Left and Right Coasters. Thank god.

  10. The freshman Marxists at Gawker no understand how economy of web work!

    They also lied as long as possible about Mercedes pulling ads.

    1. IT really is funny to watch a media company simultaneously piss off its readership that spends money and its advertisers at the same time.

      Failing to adequately cover this act of spinelessness was the first big fuck-up we at Gawker committed. Intel surrendered to the worst kind of dishonesty, and we allowed it to do so without ever calling it out. So let’s say it now: Intel is run by craven idiots. It employs pusillanimous morons. It lacks integrity. It folded to misogynists and bigots who objected to a woman who had done nothing more than write a piece claiming a place in the world of video games. And even when confronted with its own thoughtlessness and irresponsibility, it could not properly right its wrongs.

      Let’s see, Gawker vs Intel, who do I bet on?

      1. pusillanimous morons.

        Mirror, mirror…

      2. Is it even worth trying to get caught up on what exactly gamergate is?

        1. It’s basically videogame media self-destructing.

          1. And it won’t be missed.

        2. Not really. It’s a bit arcane and filled with hyperbole and hysteria on both sides.

          Just imagine someone kicking over a hornets nest and then screaming “Oh, no! Why are hornets stinging me? I was just trying to help them!” And then some of the hornets start calling everyone wearing shoes a cunt.

          1. Bravo!

        3. I would say no. I tried to figure out what the big deal is but it all just seemed boring and pointless. I seem to be one of the few males my age who is totally uninterested in video games, so I’m even less interested in invented outrage over the politics of video games.

          1. Zeb,

            I am not interested in them either. But it is a big deal to the people who are and therefore it is a big deal to the people who make video games and those who rely on those people’s advertising.

        4. Chick made social justice “game” called depression quest, screwed the game reviewers to get rave reviews, people found out and got pissed, feminists sided with Chick who made the “game”.

          I put game in quotes because it’s really a choose your own ending story in electronic form.

          There are other facets to the controversy, but that’s what started it all.

          1. Depression Quest. I would pull the plug and commit electronic suicide.

        5. Gamergate in a nutshell:

          (1) Game developer fucks her way to good reviews and press. Remains mysteriously unsuccessful.

          (2) Gamers say “Hey, that’s pretty damn unethical.”

          (3) Gaming media attacks gamers for having the temerity to say that fucking your way to good reviews and press is unethical. Does so using the SJW playbook of accusing their enemies of bigotry and hatred. Uses SJW social shunning/shaming techniquer.

          (4) Gamers return the favor, with the usual quotient of internet idiocy.

          Rinse and repeat (3) and (4).

        6. Yes. It’s a critical culture battle against Social Justice Jihadists. It is important for study and as an event in the evolution of the views of a large number of young people. Ignore the mouth breathers dismissing it.

      3. Remember, these people are morons. They don’t understand how the market works. They honestly think that Intel is paying them because they are so great not as a way to reach their readers. When you understand that, it is easy to see why they can’t understand how pissing off their readers would cause their advertisers to flee. Seriously, they are that dumb.

    2. The thing about Gamergate that I don’t understand is that people actually slept with the women involved, gag.

      1. I guess there truly is an ass for every seat.

        1. If the seat has a pussy there definitely is.

      2. Sarkessian would be fairly attractive if she didn’t get up every morning and smear a thick wad of bitch all over her face.

        1. Sarkessian isn’t the one who slept with anybody

          1. True. But her extreme levels of unwarranted self-satisfaction isn’t helping her case. It’s basically impossible to get a screen-cap of her that doesn’t look like everyone you ever hated in high school.

            And without the Balkanization around the Sarkessian situation, I don’t think Quinn would have blown up like it did. This doesn’t make it Sarkessian’s fault, but she knew what she was doing by making those videos.

            1. That is the great weakness of Prog journalists. They are all awful and unpleasant people. They only succeed because they are able to keep people form noticing.

          2. Sarkessian isn’t the one who slept with anybody

            Doesn’t seem to change his sentence at all.

          3. That makes it worse. Far worse.

    3. Re Mercedes ads: so did Mercedes pull its ads? I heard they reversed that move but that could just be The Guardian lying. Again.

    4. It’s too bad Max Read wasn’t bullycided as a teenager.

  11. District of Columbia residents can apply for a handgun concealed carry permit for the first time starting today?but they must provide a specific reason why they need one.

    And said reasons will be found insufficient by the authorities, so DC is left with a de facto carry ban, just like New Jersey.

    1. Asking me for a reason to carry IS my reason to carry.

      1. I’m guessing “to protect myself from government officials who want to infringe my right to defend myself” is not a good answer, although it suffices to issue a warrant for a no-knock raid by the goon squad.

    2. I’m betting “Because fuck you, that’s why” won’t work.

    3. they must provide a specific reason why they need one

      “Because, according to the Supreme Court, the police have no obligation whatsoever to defend me.”

    4. District of Columbia residents can apply for a handgun concealed carry permit for the first time starting today?but they must provide a specific reason why they need one.

      FYTW.

  12. Your pumpkin can double as a beer keg — here’s how

    Cut off the top and clean out the inside of the pumpkin just like you would before carving a jack-o’-lantern. Carve a small whole at the front of the pumpkin and pop in the spigot.

    Pour six to 12 bottles of beer into the pumpkin. Put the top back on to let the beer foam settle. Grab a glass, pour and enjoy.

    er… no thanks.

    1. Carve a small whole what?

      1. That’s twhat.

  13. “that the most common American fear is … walking alone at night,”

    I thought it was monsters under the bed, pay equity, minimum wage, CEO’s who doing nothing, gun control, foie gras, sugar, salt and free health care. Oh. And another Adam Sandler movie.

    1. You misspelled Ebola

  14. “use of Psychiatry for political purposes”.

    I’m concerned with politics for psychiatric purposes.

  15. In the past month, U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria have killed 521 Islamist militants and 32 civilians…

    To put it in terms Obama can find relatable, that’s one civilian for every stroke over par for the president in the same time period.

  16. How the fuck does Warty not make that list?

    1. Most people think he’s a cryptid.

    2. He does… Why else would you be afraid of walking alone at night?

  17. Humane milk grown in a lab

    Like the creators of in vitro burgers, the scientists behind yeast-culture dairy are concerned about animal welfare and agricultural sustainability?but also about creating a food that will find a mass market.

    Vegan and cruelty-free, yet GMO. Watch heads explode.

    1. Meh. Cows are cheaper – and provide beef when they’re done.

      1. BUT IT’S HUMANE!

        Unless you sympathize with the plight of the yeast.

        WE MUST SHOW SOLIDARITY WITH OUR FUNGAL BROTHERS AND SISTERS!

        1. yeast death is the worst

          /bad homebrew

      2. Cows are cheaper now. I have absolutely no objection to raising animals as food. But if tech like this can be made efficient and taste good, there will be a place for it some day, I think. If and when the rest of the world continues to become more prosperous there is going to be a lot more demand for meat and prices for the real thing will get very high.

        1. Stop being so sensible. This situation requires much more hyperbole.

      3. “Meh. Cows are cheaper – and provide beef when they’re done.”

        Also, cows will go extinct as soon as we no longer have a purpose for them.

        A dairy cow gets a long life and the meat goes into dog food. A beef steer, not so much.

        So I’m not sure that not milking cows meets the reduction in cruelty metric.

    2. Humane *breast* milk?

      1. but it is a budding enterprise.

    3. HOLY SHIT. They just discovered how to kill Canada’s Supply Management system. HELL YES

  18. 500 Pairs Of Women’s Underwear, Firearms Found In 18-Year-Old’s Room During Petaluma Burglary Investigation

    After officers obtained consent to search the Hawkin’s bedroom, police found women’s jewelry and about 500 pairs of women’s underwear.

    The underwear was most likely stolen “during lawful visits with his friends and residential burglaries,” police said.

    Hawkins was arrested on suspicion of burglary and possession of an unlawful shotgun. He was being held in lieu of a $40,000 bail at Sonoma County Jail.

    1. possession of an unlawful shotgun.

      Unlawful underwear…nice band name.

    2. That dude is intense.

      1. A repo man is always intense

    3. during lawful visits with his friends

      “Oh, sorry. Just looking for the bathroom.”

    4. When I became a teenager I was interested in what was in women’s underwear, not in the underware itself which just got in the way.

      1. I doubt they were clean underwear.

  19. District of Columbia residents can apply for a handgun concealed carry permit for the first time starting today?but they must provide a specific reason why they need one.

    ‘Shall not be infringed’ is such a tricky concept.

    1. I’m guessing we’ll se yet another round in the courts wherein the “Specific Reason” requirement gets challenged.

        1. The Supremes also let stand Drake v. Jerejian where the 3rd Circuit held that prohibiting the bearing of arms outside the home does not burden the right to bear arms.

          1. Yeah, that was pretty hideous yet unsurprising.

    2. I’m assuming that someone in the government also needs to accept that reason. Which is a load of crap. At the very least, every state and DC should have shall-issue permits.
      I live in a shall issue state and they still ask for your reason for wanting a permit, but you can put down “because it’s my right” or “I hate squirrels” or “because the gun club doesn’t want to do its own background checks” and they still have to give it to you.

      1. I live in a may issue state, where the reason has to be a ‘specific need’ like a specific, verifiable threat made on your life, or else fuck you, permit denied. Unless of course you are politically connected, then you can get a carry permit.

        1. Here there has to be a really good reason to deny a permit, and it’s actually enforced against chiefs of police who get too grabby. There was one incident where a guy had his permit pulled after he pulled out his pistol and put it on the table at some public meeting to make a point about something or other. He took it to court and they made them give his permit back.

  20. District of Columbia residents can apply for a handgun concealed carry permit for the first time starting today?but they must provide a specific reason why they need one.

    Because the 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court says I can have one.

    1. Because living in the same city as Marion Barry frightens me

    2. The Supreme court does not. They have let stand appeals court decisions upholding bans on concealed carry.

  21. Police: Woman said Jesus would pay her bill

    Oklahoma woman allegedly told restaurant workers her husband, Jesus Christ, would soon arrive to pay her tab, but the holy hubby was a no-show, police said.

    Lawton police said Kristi Rhines ordered food and several alcoholic drinks Friday at El Chico and later told workers she didn’t have any money, but her husband would soon arrive to pay her tab.

    Rhines soon clarified her husband was Jesus Christ, but she admitted the union was not solidified with a marriage license.

    1. “An undocumented migrant named Jesus Christo arrived after police hauled Rhines away…”

      /end bad joke.

      1. Don’t f*** with the Jesus, man.

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IONyLZn0pLI

    2. A former coworker from Florida told me about a woman who was letting her kids swim in the alligator-filled canal behind the house and when someone pointed out this might not be a good idea she supposedly responded, “Jesus is watchin’ ’em.”

      1. Jesus was watching, and thinking to himself, this idiot does not realize that I also created Darwin.

    3. …the union was not solidified with a marriage license.

      When Catholic girls get confirmed isn’t that like they are marrying JC?

      1. You are thinking of nuns. Some of them even wear wedding rings.

        1. I always found that concept odd. I mean, marriage is about a sexual union.

          1. I think it has to do with the chattel status of women through out most of history. They had to belong to someone: their father, their husband, occasionally a brother’s household. Since women weren’t given the agency to choose to dedicate themselves to a life of service to God, the relationship had to be formalized in a culturally acceptable way.

            1. Yeah. Priests are not married to “God”. The reason nuns were is exactly what you say. Women in that society had to be associated with some family member or husband. So Nuns couldn’t just be servants of the church the way priests were.

              1. That’s because God is against gay marriage.

          2. I see you’ve never been married…

        2. It just means JC is the most prolific bigamist EVAR!

          1. Jesus really is a Mormon.

  22. District of Columbia residents can apply for a handgun concealed carry permit for the first time starting today?but they must provide a specific reason why they need one.

    So, not a “shall issue” kind of 2nd Amendment in effect there in DC yet, huh?

  23. the most common American fear is … walking alone at night

    IOW, teenage gangs or the police, depending on one’s ethnicity.

    1. Bingo. And not really an irrational fear, at that.

  24. “A new survey from Chapman University finds that the most common American fear is … walking alone at night, followed by becoming the victim of identity theft, safety on the Internet, being the victim of a mass shooting, and public speaking”

    I find that encouraging.

    Where’s ISIS on the list?

    Aren’t you afraid that ISIS is gonna getcha?

    Don’t you know ISIS is gonna come here, start jumpin’ our White House fences, and make every American hot chick wear a burka?!

    Booga, booga, booga!

    1. What exactly is “safety on the internet”, anyway?

      Its pixels on a screen. It can’t hurt you.

  25. Vice profiles “the gay libertarian gun nuts”, aka gay libertarians who support gun rights, a concept which writer Cecilia D’Anastasio inexplicably finds “perplexing.”

    Whaaaaaaaaaaa?

    1. Yeah, I don’t understand why anyone would be a libertarian by choice.

    2. Like most libertarians, gay and lesbian members of the movement don’t fuck around with gun rights.

      Seems odd that only most libertarian don’t fuck with gun rights.

      1. It is not like gays have ever been victimized so why would they need to protect themselves with gunz.

    3. So many people believe sexuality is political. I can assure you it is not.

      1. whaa!? But what about all those tidy little boxes and the neat little check marks they contain??!!

    4. Gay gun nuts. Is it wrong to call them muzzle loaders?

      1. Or breech loaders. Either one should work.

  26. “Vice profiles “the gay libertarian gun nuts”, aka gay libertarians who support gun rights, a concept which writer Cecilia D’Anastasio inexplicably finds “perplexing.””

    They can hold two thoughts in their minds simultaneously:

    1) Gays are under threat from homophobes

    AND

    2) There’s no rational reason for gays to want guns and gun rights

    Any suggestion that there is, uh, some tension between these two views will be met by blank, uncomprehending stares.

    1. Yes on 1. I think 2 is more like: “Gun rights are the province of those icky right-wing socons who hate the gays.” Which although broadly true isn’t a rational reason for gays, particularly libertarian ones, to hate RKBA.

    2. On #1, Tom Palmer from the Cato Institute who was one of the plaintiffs in Heller vs DC, once fended off a bunch of homophobic guys by simply producing a handgun, and says having a handgun on him saved his life.

  27. Some U.S. hospitals weigh withholding care to Ebola patients

    U.S. hospitals have over the years come under criticism for undertaking measures that prolong dying rather than improve patients’ quality of life.

    But the care of the first Ebola patient diagnosed in the United States, who received dialysis and intubation and infected two nurses caring for him, is spurring hospitals and medical associations to develop the first guidelines for what can reasonably be done and what should be withheld.

    Officials from at least three hospital systems interviewed by Reuters said they were considering whether to withhold individual procedures or leave it up to individual doctors to determine whether an intervention would be performed.

    1. Isn’t that illegal?

    2. Officials from at least three hospital systems interviewed by Reuters said they were considering whether to withhold individual procedures or leave it up to individual doctors to determine whether an intervention would be performed.

      Does the patient get a vote in this decision? Or is this some sort of Definitely-Not-A-Death-Panel panel?

      1. Sure does. And he can do the procedure on himself if he votes yes. Doctors and nurses are treating patients with a disease that carries a very high mortality rate and invasive procedures are when it is most likely to be transmitted, because there is a lot of bodily fluid, the carrier of the virus, flying around.

        With any medical procedure, a physician should weigh the foreseeable risks of the procedure versus the likely benefits. In this case, there are the normal risks of any invasive procedure, but also risk to the physician and the rest of the hospital staff. There are many other patients that need care too, and if the doctors and nurses become ill as a result of heroic measures to save one person, everyone else goes without care.

        Look, we talk all the time here about free association and the right people have to not do business with other people, even if it’s for stupid reasons. In this case, avoiding a potentially fatal disease seems like a pretty good reason”. As a physician, I’m still doing business with a patient, even if I’m being paid by the patient’s surrogate (the insurance company or government). It’s absolutely hypocritical to get all pissed off over penalizing someone for not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding, but then getting all amazed when health care providers exercise their rights to free association.

      2. Does the patient get a vote in this decision?

        Patients can’t force doctors and nurses to provide services or procedures that the doctors and nurses don’t want to provide.

        Basically, under informed consent, nothing gets done unless and until both the patient and the care provider agree on it.

        Now, does withholding this care amount to negligence and thus malpractice? That is an interesting question.

        1. Now, does withholding this care amount to negligence and thus malpractice? That is an interesting question.

          Forget that. I don’t see how withholding care does not violate the patient dumping act or whatever its called from 1986. It is against the law for hospitals to refuse to treat someone who walks through the door needing care.

          1. In this case, because its hospital policy, it definitely raises that issue.

            OTOH, it would be easy enough for a hospital to say that it doesn’t have the capacity/capability to care for an Ebola patient, and to transfer the patient to a hospital that does.

            At the level of the individual doctor or nurse, EMTALA just doesn’t apply, though.

            1. This is true. But what if there is no hospital to take them? I would think EMTALA would apply then. If someone comes into a small hospital with a serious gunshot wound, no question the hospital is not in violation of the EMTALA to transfer them to a larger hospital equipped to treat them. If however, no such hospital is available, I don’t see how the hospital could turn them away consistent with the EMTALA.

            2. This is your area of law but if I am a small hospital I am very worried about this. Suppose we get an Ebola outbreak and the hospitals than can give effective treatment quickly fill up and wont’ take any more patients. What do I do if I am running a hospital and Ebola patients show up at my door and I have nowhere to send them? Can I consistent with the EMTALA just turn them away? I don’t know. And I bet the law isn’t clear and would vary from judge to judge. Of course if I treat the Ebola patients and one of my existing patients gets it, I am on the hook for that.

              What a mess.

  28. Raucous protesters choke entrance at George Will’s Miami University speech

    Hoisting signs such as “Quit giving misogyny a voice Miami” and “Where is my special privilege Mr. Will?” roughly 75 students choked the business school gates where conservative columnist George Will gave a guest lecture Wednesday night at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio.

    As guests headed into the campus area to hear the talk, part of the Anderson Distinguished Lecture Series, protesters handed out rape and sexual assault information sheets to passersbys while repeatedly chanting slogans such as “No means no, whatever we wear, wherever we go, yes means yes” and “nothing less than yes.”

    1. The Miami Redskins Redhawks have gates in front of the business school?

    2. Does Miami University have a “free speech” zone? Do they harass non-PC students handing out literature? I wouldn’t be surprised.

    3. It’s pathetic how easily these authoritarian memes consume the feeble minded.

  29. I see CNN doesn’t miss a chance to bring up ‘gun policy’ while up here in Ottawa.

    Shit disturbers.

  30. That useless cunt Elizabeth Warren is claiming that women are treated differently on Capital Hill. She won’t say how or by whom because that would place the focus on the alleged offender(s) instead of addressing “the larger problem”. Sounds a lot like Harry Reid’s claim two years ago that he had heard from a “reliable source” that Mitt Romney pays no taxes. What garbage human beings.

    1. Different than what? Better, worse? What bullshit.

      1. People open doors for them and call them “ma’am”

        1. Men want to stick their penises in the attractive ones and roll their eyes when stupid ones like Warren speak.

    2. Senator Joseph McCarthy (Republican-Wisconsin) Elizabeth Warren (Democrat-Massachusetts) claims that (s)he has a list with the names of over 200 members of the communist party right wing misogynist patriarchy on Capitol Hill…

  31. Glenn Greenwald: Canada, At War For 13 Years, Shocked That ‘A Terrorist’ Attacked Its Soldiers

    In sum, the national mood and discourse in Canada is virtually identical to what prevails in every Western country whenever an incident like this happens: shock and bewilderment that someone would want to bring violence to such a good and innocent country (“a peaceable Canadian community like Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu”), followed by claims that the incident shows how primitive and savage is the “terrorist ideology” of extremist Muslims, followed by rage and demand for still more actions of militarism and freedom-deprivation. There are two points worth making about this:

    First, Canada has spent the last 13 years proclaiming itself a nation at war.

    … snip…

    Second, in what conceivable sense can this incident be called a “terrorist” attack?

    1. Yeah, Glenn walking in dressed a civilian and shooting some poor bastard who happens to be a war memorial is totally a legitimate and expected act of war.

      Greenwald is an absolute amoral piece of shit. Its nice he printed the NSA revelations and all but even Hilter had a girlfriend. You guys can be fan boys of that loathsome socialist piece of shit all you want but I pass.

      1. I applaud Greenwald for not being a hack when it comes to a number of things but he’s willing to bend over backwards when it comes to apologizing for Islam. The recent brouhaha with Sam Harris also brought this to light.

        1. Greenwald is the picture of the self hating Western Leftist. He is also Jewish and leftist in Europe. European leftists are anti-Semites, so Greenwald will always be suspect. He tries to fit in by being gay and being as big of a self hating Jew as humanly possible.

          Greenwald is a character right out of Darkness at Noon. If the day comes when the cause sends him to the gallows for being gay and Jewish, he will go thinking it is right and just and his contribution to the cause.

          1. He tries to fit in by being gay

            Um… wut? That is flippant even for you John.

            1. He uses the fact that he is a gay as a way to fit in and get over the mistrust of him because he is Jewish.

              Sorry for the sloppy language. I didn’t mean to imply he is gay as a way to fit in, though Greenwald is such a fanatic that wouldn’t surprise me.

  32. ” Vice profiles “the gay libertarian gun nuts”, aka gay libertarians who support gun rights, a concept which writer Cecilia D’Anastasio inexplicably finds “perplexing.”

    Why oh why would a group that was once the target of violent discrimination feel the need to be armed? Don’t they know the police will be there as soon as they feel like it.l?

    1. And the police are always so helpful to crime victims, especially victims of anti-gay crimes.

    2. Are they actual libertarians or gays who happen to be sentient enough to realize owning a gun is a good idea?

    1. Can we really believe in a paper penned by two guys named Fabian and Dirk?

    2. So we should also reset the levels of federal spending and regulation to what they were under Ike, right? Or is that somehow completely different?

      1. In absolute dollars, preferrably.

    3. “…according to a new working paper by Fabian Kindermann from the University of Bonn…”

      I’m happy Germans are so interested in making all Americans better off.

    4. Ah, the era that gave us crap like employer-paid healthcare and other non-taxable benefits – because raises ceased to matter to the most talented.

      1. And a million tax exemptions. You could exempt all of the interest you paid and a lot of other things. No one actually paid 91% marginal taxes. All having the top rate that high was create opportunities for graft through the tax system.

    5. How about a flat tax on everything above X? With a constitutional amendment setting the rate and making it illegal to add further exemptions?

      1. If we need another constitutional amendment, let it be one repealing the 16th amendment.

        1. Of course, I’d be fine with getting rid of the income tax altogether, but they’d just steal our money in some other way. We need an amendment that curtails that across the board and, incidentally, strictly limits deficit spending.

      2. How about a flat tax on everything? Why shouldn’t everyone pay the same percentage?

        1. Because the word fair must be tempered by the healing napalm of social justice.

    6. My favorite comment:

      Reagan-ese highest marginal rates have, in effect, been designed to promote egregious welfare for the wealthy, such a right-wing-thingy to do, all at the expense of society, i.e., explicitly to the detriment of the general welfare which gives a big middle finger to the Preamble to the Constitution. But that’s always been what right wingers do foremost.

      1. Gosh, it’s my money. The government isn’t giving me my income, I’m earning it, and they’re helping themselves to a huge chunk of it.

        Fuck you very much.

      2. Fucking morons. The “wealthy” pay 97% of all federal income taxes. How the fuck is that “welfare for the wealthy”?

        1. How we know the rich aren’t paying enough in taxes? Because they’re still rich.

      3. gives a big middle finger to the Preamble to the Constitution

        The preamble does not grant powers. It only states a purpose. That is all.

        1. Also, “promote the general welfare” means “allow people to better themselves without interference” not “turn the government into an instrument of class warfare”.

    7. I keep hearing people talk about this lately. I just don’t get how people think that the tax rates had anything to do with the economic gains of the time. And how they ignore the fact that top rates stayed high through the 70s when the economy wasn’t so hot.
      All of the other industrial powers of the world having recently been blown to shit just might have had something to do with 50s prosperity.

      1. It’s because they don’t understand concepts like supply and demand. Economics 101 and basic finance classes should be mandatory, it would go along way for some people.

        1. Either that or they just don’t think. Why would anyone work if 90% of their income is going to be taken? Do people really imagine that anyone was handing over 90% of their income?

          1. You hit the nail on the head. They don’t think, they feel. And yes, that is what they imagine, and wouldn’t dream of actually considering anything that would challenge their fantasies.

  33. The goodthinkful are already vilifying Stolhandske.

    Trigger warning: FluffPo and therefore derp-laden

    Why would a gay man be looking to bail out two bigots who wouldn’t sell him a cake if he were getting married? It boggles my mind too….

    Individual liberty, how does it work?

    1. Individual liberty, how does it work?

      Usually, it works like this: “Liberty for me, but not for thee.”

      And when someone says “Liberty for me and thee”, it becomes a mind-boggling thing.

    2. I take my statement above back. I hadn’t seen that. Good for that guy. And the leftists who are cheering this shit on don’t give a fuck about gays. I can’t see how gay rights being associated with oppression is going to end well for gays.

      1. It’s about oppressor and oppressed switching roles. You know, “social justice” instead of the real kind of justice.

        1. Because the SOCONs would never take a que from Muslims and just start cutting people’s heads off. You can go to any chapel you like but if you go to the wrong one you will end up dead.

          Won’t that be a great America to live in?

  34. GOP’s maniacal new vote scheme: What wingnuts are hatching to keep the “riff-raff” away

    It begins with the story of a GOP “poll watcher” named A.J. LaFaro, chairman of the Maricopa Country Republican Committee, who was just doing his duty and observing the early vote counting process at the county elections office when he caught a vote fraudster stealing the election right before his eyes. He said, “a person wearing a Citizens for a Better Arizona t-shirt dropped a large box of hundreds of early ballots on the table and started stuffing the ballot box as I watched in amazement.” The man apparently told this poll watcher to stop watching him and rudely said, “Go f? yourself, Gringo.” LaFaro said he was afraid for his life and characterized the man as a “vulgar, disrespectful, violent thug who has no respect for our laws ? America used to be a nation of laws where one person had one vote. I’m sad to say not anymore.”

    The man from Citizens for a Better Arizona may have been vulgar and disrespectful but surely right-wingers, of all people, are aware that there’s no law against that. A videotape of the incident shows there was no violence. And actually it was LaFaro who has no respect for our laws. This was not ballot box stuffing. It was perfectly legal.

    1. The man apparently told this poll watcher to stop watching him and rudely said, “Go f? yourself, Gringo.”

      I’m sure there would be no uproar had a random Republican campaign worker told the local Democratic committee chair “Go home, wetback.” None at all.

    2. And actually it was LaFaro who has no respect for our laws. This was not ballot box stuffing. It was perfectly legal.

      Arizona law allows the voter or the voter’s agent to deposit the ballot.

      http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDoc…..ocType=ARS

      Allowing an agent to handle a ballot is a massive security hole, but its one Arizona was apparently stupid enough to build into its laws.

      It does, however, beg the question of how you know anybody who has other people’s ballots in their possession is, in fact, their agent. The statutes appear to be silent on this issue.

      Good going, Arizona legislative morons.

  35. My strip club bullying nightmare

    At first I was coddled by the other dancers and treated as the new girl. There were encouraging smiles and notes on where to shop, help with names. When the new-girl period expired, though, it became clear that I wasn’t just sailing on beginner’s luck. All too quickly I’d built up a roster of regulars, a game plan and a catchy hook. I knew when to ask for the money.

    For the next six months I was bullied. My clothes were stolen, my drinks were spit in, my car was keyed. I was laughed at by a troop of fishnet-clad prom queens from the back of the room every time I stepped onstage. They made sure their comments were loud enough to hear across that distance and above the roar of the DJ. I made sure that they saw me counting the tallies on the dance sheet. I made sure they saw me smile when I was done. Their hate fueled me.

    1. Something about Kayden Kross is deeply unsexy. I don’t understand it, because she looks really good.

      1. You’re probably gay.

        1. I’ve always thought of Warty of being an equal opportunity sort of “fellow”

      2. I feel the same way about Angelina Jolie.

          1. Thanks for clarifying that for me, it has always been a subject that I found confusing.

          2. No you’re not IH! Jolie always looks like she is in need of a shower. Dirty and not in the hot way.

            1. Oh god I’m confused again.

            2. That and obviously plastic (and way too old for me… I didn’t even like her in tomb raider, and I was a pubescent boy when that came out)

        1. I feel the same way about Angelina Jolie.

          It’s because she’s nothing more than a head on a stick.

      3. She is a porn actor so I can’t do a search for her. I will have to look later.

        Her aside, it does seem like the quality of women doing porn has increased dramatically in the last ten years. Until recently the women who did porn generally looked like less attractive post surgery Pamela Andersons. The younger crop seems to often look like actual attractive women.

        1. She’s in line with my tastes, and I agree the girls look closer to normal. Unfortunately the sex scenes remain absurd in the mainstream titles.

        2. Is this a result of more money being involved or it being cheaper and easier to produce a porn than ever before?

          1. For the actors at least, the money is less. The emergence of free amateur porn on the internet has made being in porn much less lucrative.

            1. I believe in most cases, the real money for female PS is in performing at the high end strip clubs, where they earn 4 figures a night.

              Sort of like old music acts. The record label made money off the records, and the performer earned by touring.

              1. I have heard that. I have never understood why someone would go into porn rather than just be an escort. The money in being an escort is more reliable and being an escort can be done privately such that you can later stop doing it and no one will know you ever did.

                1. @John: Some people just like the attention.

          2. Neither. It’s the lessening stigma around being in porn.

            1. Not only is there hardly any stigma, but for someone turning 18 today who’s been sexting and taking video of herself fucking for potentially 3 or 4 years, doing porn is not all that huge of a step. If you’re a bit of an exhibitionist, why not make some money from it?

              1. Are you about to confess something?

                1. 62GB of dick selfies inbound.

        3. I think the interwebs have mainstreamed it in a big way.

          Being a porn star used to be thought of on the social totem pole as somewhere below “heroin addict”. People used to think you should stay away from heroin because it might be a gateway to doing porn.

          Now that porn’s so mainstream, I’m sure there are more women interested in doing it than there used to be. Back in the day, producers were probably pretty happy with whomever they could get.

          1. I think that has a lot to do with it Ken. A lot of women who wouldn’t have done it 20 years ago are doing it now.

    2. I’m rather surprised that there are no extremely negative comments about how she’s an Objectivist on a Salon article, because comments on, uh, another article of hers elsewhere where I first learned that fact ran along the lines of how much they’d like to hatefuck her because of her beliefs.

    3. I’ve known several strippers and a lot of people who work/worked in the strip club industry. Strippers are notorious for this kind of behavior.

  36. That useless cunt Elizabeth Warren is claiming that women are treated differently on Capital Hill.

    She probably read a review of Senator Gillibrand Sorority Girl’s book.

    1. How does she know it’s not because she’s a Native American?

    2. Wasn’t it fellow Democrats who made fun of the one woman Dem Senator for being fat? And last I looked the Democrats have controlled the Senate for the last 8 years. If women are treated badly, isn’t it their fault?

      1. No, it is of course the fault of the rethuglican wreckers and obstructionists.

  37. District of Columbia residents can apply for a handgun concealed carry permit for the first time starting today?but they must provide a specific reason why they need one.

    “Fuck you, that’s why.”

    Patton mentioned that a member of her own chapter in Philadelphia was followed by a group of people armed with pipes after leaving a gay club. When the Pink Pistols member displayed his gun, the attackers dropped their pipe and ran for it.

    Shelby Chestnut, a media spokesperson at the Anti-Violence Project, which targets LGBT community members, argues that guns are tools of hate crimes, not a way to prevent them…

    “We need to look at the systemic inequalities that are causing people to be victims of violence,” she said. “The solution to that is definitely not creating violence to end violence.”

    Pitiful.

    1. A specific reason? Is because the court ruled its my constitutional right not good enough?

    2. When the gay-rights movement must choose between actual rights for gay people and bigger government as its own reward, guess which one it chooses. The choice just gets prettied up in pomo/intersectionalist/SJW gibberish.

      1. Show me one prominent gay journalist or celebrity who is standing up saying gays using gay marriage to sue bakeries and wedding chapels out of business is a bad thing. I haven’t seen one if such a person exists.

        I think that gives you the answer of which choice gays are going to make; big government. I wish them luck with that.

        1. Andrew Sullivan appears to be sympathetic to that viewpoint.

          1. Really? Actually saying it is wrong or doing the Reason song and dance about ‘this is not good but gay marriage is just so important”?

            1. I haven’t followed his full opinions on the subject which is why I just said sympathetic but someone linked this yesterday.

              He links to a lot of good opinions and finishes with his own:

              But in cases like these, I still favor maximal religious liberty ? even for a public accommodation like this one because requiring individuals to perform a marriage ceremony against their beliefs is just something we don’t do in a liberal society. And look at the context: Idaho now has marriage equality. That’s huge ? and our core goal must be to reassure those who disagree with us, that we’re seeking merely civil equality, and nothing else.

            2. Also your characterization of Reason’s writing on the subject is bullshit.

              1. Reason knew judicially mandated gay marriage would result in this and didn’t care. I give Sullivan more of pass because he doesn’t claim to be Libertarian. Reason does. Sorry but after the fact “this is terrible” shocked looks doesn’t cut it for Reason.

                1. Government recognition of gay marriages and anti-discrimination/public accommodation laws are completely separate issues no matter how many times you conflate the two.

                  1. No they are not. They would have been separate had gay marriage been done state by state via legislation, but once it was done through the courts they became linked because one was certain follow the other.

                    Reason knew that and instead of saying “gay marriage without oppression and only through legislation” they were and are all for doing it through the courts, even though some states had recognized it on their own.

                    Ultimately, Reason cared and cares more about universal gay marriage right now than they do about religious freedom or t he first amendment. When it comes down to it, gays are popular in the circles reason runs in and Socons are not. And Reason completely lacks the moral courage to stand up for someone as unpopular as the SOCON.

                    It is really that simple. Reason owns that legacy and I am never going to let them forget it.

                  2. Apatheist, if government recognition of gay marriage came about through the legislature, you would be correct.

                    When, however, it is order by the courts under the Equal Protection Clause, it means that the anti-freedom of association baggage of our EP jurisprudence gets tacked on.

                    In spite of this, many libertarians cheered on the use of the EP Clause to mandate state licensing of gay marriage. They were warned that it would also trigger forced association, but did not change their position.

                    They signed on for a package deal, so they can’t complain now that they got a package deal.

                    1. It is the dishonesty that bugs me RC. The Reason staff knew that and I guarantee you if you gave them a truth syrum every one of them would tell you they think the bakery getting sued out of business if fucking great and the result they had hoped for. I could almost respect that answer if they would give it instead of insulting my intelligence by pretending they are surprised by the result and don’t like it. Bullshit.

      2. When the gay-rights movement must choose between actual rights for gay people and bigger government…

        Most people (gay, straight, or anything else) go for big government, even if their rhetoric is different.

        1. Yeah, that’s the thing. It’s not as if stopping gay marriage would have done anything about big government. Most people, even those who oppose gay marriage, want big government. It is a false choice.

          1. It is a false choice.

            This. And the constant harping on it from certain folks is getting pretty goddamn tiresome. Gays should not demand marriage recognition because one or more of them might do something unpleasant with it. Gays should sacriface themselves on the altar of perfect orthodoxy. Yeah, no thanks.

            1. Gays should not demand marriage recognition because one or more of them might do something unpleasant with it.

              Gays are free to demand whatever they want. But they and their supporters own whatever results from them getting it. If they didn’t want gay marriage to mean the end of freedom of religion, they should have fucking done something to keep that from happening. Now that it has, they own the result. Fuck them if they don’t like it. Gay rights now means oppression, plain and simple. It is a shame they allowed it to mean that. But it is what it is and they can live with the coming backlash.

              1. Gays are just in a protected class similar to other ‘minorities’. That distinction is the injustice. If there was a religious reason to oppose baking a cake for a black person you would have perceived this ‘attack’ on your freedom of religion back in 1964 when the first baker was held to be legally obliged to do so.

                This is an issue of infringement of one’s freedom of association and the religious implications merely flow from that.

                1. Gays are just in a protected class similar to other ‘minorities’.

                  Yes that is what they have become and they chose to become that. And they wanted to become that so they could use the force of government to force other people to accept them, even if doing so was against their relgion. Gay marriage was never about freedom it was always about coercion and gays using the government to punish anyone who didn’t accept them.

                  The gays own the results of that and so do the Libertarians who cheered them on. The libertarians ultimately don’t give a fuck about anyone but the gays. Gay marriage now is the most important libertarian right that must be achieved even if it is at the expense of freedom of religion and expression.

                  And last I looked Libertarians argued against the CRA at the time and told blacks to wait and let society figure out. Now fifty years later when the gays wanted the same thing, Libertarians rolled over and said “give them everything they want by force if necessary”. Why exactly blacks who were living under Jim Crow should have waited but gays had to have it now even though civil unions were available remains a mystery other than the obvious fact that for 21st Century Libertarians the right to government sanctioned gay marriage is the most important right in the universe.

                  1. And they wanted to become that so they could use the force of government to force other people to accept them, even if doing so was against their relgion

                    That’s an infringement of free association.

                    Gay marriage was never about freedom it was always about coercion and gays using the government to punish anyone who didn’t accept them.

                    Marriage licensing was never about freedom. Nor the idea that the Judeo-Christian version of the marriage should be able to monopolize a thoroughly contractual concept.

                    even though civil unions were available remains a mystery other than the obvious fact that for 21st Century Libertarians the right to government sanctioned gay marriage is the most important right in the universe.

                    If you have no problem with ‘civil unions’ then what’s the problem? You don’t want them to use the word ‘marriage’?

                    1. If you have no problem with ‘civil unions’ then what’s the problem? You don’t want them to use the word ‘marriage’?

                      I don’t have a problem and wouldn’t have a bitch if this had been done via legislation state by state. My problem is that it was done via the equal protection clause and has made gays a protected class such that it is now effectively illegal to voice any objection to them. That is the problem. Worse still, people offered civil unions as a compromise and the gays and Reason wouldn’t take it even though it would have given the gays everything they wanted, except the ability to coerce people into accepting them. Since that is what they wanted, they turned down the compromise and went to court and got what they wanted. And fucking Reason thinks it is great. Fuck them.

                    2. I don’t have a problem and wouldn’t have a bitch if this had been done via legislation state by state.

                      I certainly agree with the federalism aspect. And certainly any “defense of marriage” agitation at the federal level is deserving of exactly the same amount of scorn.

                      Worse still, people offered civil unions as a compromise and the gays and Reason wouldn’t take it even though it would have given the gays everything they wanted, except the ability to coerce people into accepting them.

                      Is there a substantive difference between ‘civil union’ and ‘marriage’ besides the gender of the contracting parties?

                    3. Is there a substantive difference between ‘civil union’ and ‘marriage’ besides the gender of the contracting parties?

                      All civil unions were was a way for gays to get the benefits associated with marriage such as they are while also allowing people who objected to gay marriage to opt out of recognizing them. That was it. It would have allowed survivor rights for gay partners and all of the rest. It just would have allowed businesses that objected to gay marriages to object. And since forcing people to accept gays was the point, civil unions were rejected. It was at that point that gay marriage became an instrument of oppression and when Libertarians should have dropped out of the cause. Sadly they didn’t do that.

                    4. All civil unions were was a way for gays to get the benefits associated with marriage such as they are

                      So it’s marriage in all but name?

                      while also allowing people who objected to gay marriage to opt out of recognizing them.

                      Who is forcing whom? Are they forced to accept the ‘civil union’ in the same way? Is that less objectionable?

                      It just would have allowed businesses that objected to gay marriages to object.

                      You mean like allow business to refuse service? That’s an issue of free association. I suspect that the baker’s would have similarly rejected service to the gay couple if they’d ordered a ‘civil union ceremony cake’, which would’ve been well within their rights regardless of whether or not they have supernatural beliefs.

            2. The gay rights movement has made a number of tactical choices that resulted in the coming/new restrictions on freedom of association.

              My criticism is of their tactical choices. First, to refuse any kind of legally equivalent “domestic partnership” (I have some sympathy for the separate but equal objection here). Second, to go to the federal courts and use the EP Clause, rather than winning in the state legislatures.

              That second tactical choice is triggering anti-freedom of association results. You can argue that its worth it. What you can’t deny is that the foreseeable result of this tactical choice is restrictions on freedom of association.

              Because that result was foreseeable (and predicted), the people who support using the EP Clause to mandate state licensing of gay marriage don’t get to say “But I didn’t want that!”.

              1. That second tactical choice is triggering anti-freedom of association results.

                If you’re arguing that the gay rights movement started us down the slippery slope of restricting free association I think you may be off a bit. Pandora’s Box was opened by the activists, politicians and judges of the 60’s “civil rights” era.

                1. Free Society,

                  If they would have agreed to civil unions, none of the downsides would have happened. Very few businesses were not going to recognize gay partners. And most of the benefits to marriage come from the government anyway. But they wouldn’t accept that because the point wasn’t to be married.

                  1. So it’s an objection to the word “marriage”?

                    1. No Free society. It is an objection to the requirement that businesses recognize the unions whether you call it marriage or not.

                    2. How are businesses being forced to “recognize the unions”? They’re being forced to serve customers they don’t want to serve from what I can tell. This seemingly stands in contrast to your earlier statement that

                      All civil unions were was a way for gays to get the benefits associated with marriage such as they are while also allowing people who objected to gay marriage to opt out of recognizing them.

                      So allowing “civil unions” isn’t force, but allowing “marriage” is force, even though they are the same in all but in name?

        2. I would agree that most people are gay for big government.

    3. The only way to get SYSTEMIC EQUALITY is WITH a gun, Shelby you fucking moron.

      Like Stalin.

      1. Well said. Nothing speaks equality like equal gun ownership.

        1. “God made man but Samuel Colt made them equal.”

          1. +1 caliber of your choice

  38. God I want one: How to raise a pig that tastes like whiskey.

    Popular Mechanics continues to be good.

    1. A fifth of Jack, some 151 and a flaming rag in the squad car’s gas tank. According to Martha Stewart.

    2. Me too. I was already planning to finish some of my pigs on a diet of nut mast. (After I escape the drudgery of a suburban white-collar career)

    3. Why? That would ruin the flavor of the Pork.

      1. Enhance the flavor of the pork. Bourbon and pork go together very well.

      2. do any of you cretins read the articles?

        1. Nope, we rely on the summations provided by the commenters unless it’s really interesting.

    4. What’s wrong with raising pigs that taste like pork?

  39. “In the past month, U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria have killed 521 Islamist militants and 32 civilians, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.”

    Do we know how many dogs were harmed?

    I thought Reason liked to keep track of that kind of thing.

  40. whenever an incident like this happens: shock and bewilderment that someone would want to bring violence to such a good and innocent country (“a peaceable Canadian community like Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu”), followed by claims that the incident shows how primitive and savage is the “terrorist ideology” of extremist Muslims, followed by rage and demand for still more actions of militarism and freedom-deprivation.

    Huh. Greenwald must read HnR.

  41. Feminists Can Twerk Too

    Lennox isn’t the first to criticize a pop star for shaking her ass ? it’s practically as much of a trend as twerking itself. Lily Allen got into it with her song “Hard Out Here,” which boasts, in what has largely been interpreted as a dig at Miley Cyrus, “Don’t need to shake my ass for you ’cause I’ve got a brain” (apparently not enough of a brain to foresee the problem with surrounding her fully clothed self with bikinied, butt-bouncing women of color in the song’s music video). Last year, there was Sinead O’Connor’s multi-part rant against Cyrus acting like a “prostitute.” The thing is, all of these women are right on some level ? or they are at least getting at something that is right. The music industry is a patriarchal, capitalistic enterprise. The world is a patriarchal, capitalistic enterprise.

    So, let me get this straight, Annie Lennox criticizes Beyonce for acting like a whore in front of 7 year olds, but in reality it’s all men’s fault.

    1. apparently not enough of a brain to foresee the problem with surrounding her fully clothed self with bikinied, butt-bouncing women of color in the song’s music video

      When, exactly, did the Left become 100% joyless? Was it sudden or did it take place gradually over a period of years?

      1. Whenever they took up the political correctness mantle. Pc takes the humor out of everything.

      2. I think it has something to do with the inability to form a coherent argument, particularly one that doesn’t involve blaming the patriarchy.

      3. They have always been joyless. They just hid it better. Just pretended to care about having fun when doing so was a way to break down the old system. Once doing that no longer furthered their politics, they went back to being their selves.

        One of the old communists who later turned conservative, I forget who, talks about growing up in 1950s on the beach in Southern California. One of his neighbors were the asshole German Maxists who formed the infamous Frankfurt School. These guys escaped the Nazis and moved to early post war California. They literally were saved from hell and sent to paradise. The fuckers hated the place. They walked around in suits everywhere sneering at how decadent everyone was. They were like modern hipsters only more evil. The entire new left is like that. Nasty, broken angry people pissed off that other people might be enjoying themselves.

        1. Dana Rohrabacher?

      4. It was somewhere around the Lewinsky scandal. They couldn’t blame Clinton, and they envied Lewinsky, so they had to fund some way to blame men without pointing the finger at Bill. Thus the popularization of Patriarchy, systemic misogyny, and other concepts that blame all men for the ills of the world.

      5. I think it’s really a pretty small Marxist/feminist segment that is really that joyless. Even people who will sort of nod in agreement with these awful people because they think that is what they are supposed to do don’t really seem to give a shit.

      6. When, exactly, did the Left become 100% joyless? Was it sudden or did it take place gradually over a period of years?

        They were always joyless, they were just more on the margins. The joyless left is now mainstream Democrat. That’s what changed. The mainstream left just became more left.

  42. So the nut who shot up the Canadian Parliament was the son of a Jihadist and the head of something called the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board. So he seems to be the product of a crazy Muslim and the crazy uber leftist Canadian who married him. Poor bastard never had a chance.

    Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau was born in 1982 and was the son of Bulgasem Zehaf, a Quebec businessman who appears to have fought in 2011 in Libya, and Susan Bibeau, the deputy chairperson of a division of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com…..e21252419/

    1. Born under a bad sign

    2. “He said the devil is after him,” Mr. Bathurst said in an interview. He said his friend frequently talked about the presence of Shaytan in the world ? an Arabic term for devils and demons. “I think he must have been mentally ill.”

      Way to piss away any Bible Belt sympathy, Bathurst.

    3. So he seems to be the product of a crazy Muslim and the crazy ?ber leftist Canadian who married him.

      That scene… Sounds vaguely familiar…

      Lolo… Lolo something…

  43. What does safety on the internet mean?

    I can sort of understand walking alone at night, in the sense that I know people are bad at quantifying risk. The abduction/murder of the UVA student here makes my a wife a little bit freaked out. My biggest fear is waking up to find aliens standing around my bed. Fear isn’t usually rational.

    1. Depending on where you live and who you are, being fearful of walking alone at night is hardly irrational. If you are a woman or an old person walking alone at night in even the best neighborhoods in most cities is probably not a great idea.

      Yes the odds that you will be mugged or assaulted on a given night are low but the consequences pretty large. The odds of me getting into a wreck if I text and drive are not very high either. But no one says that is a good idea. Why is a woman walking alone at night any different?

      1. When I lived in North Druid Hills I walked after midnight all the time.

        1. I used to live on St. Charles Street. You were safe. At least when I lived there the Atlanta cops were brutal about anyone who looked like a criminal or a bum going north of Ponce de Leon or east of the park. It always amazed me how you could go two blocks west on Ponce and it was the fucking projects but none of those people ever dared come up in the Virginia Highlands or North Druid Hills.

    2. I’ve never had a problem walking at night – though I may have second thoughts in the very worst parts of the city. It’s just a matter of street smarts, knowing where to go, and more importantly, how to act. If you look and act like a victim, then you will become one.

      1. I am only afraid of walking alone at night if I’m in a Victim Disarmament Zone . Every where else I always have my friends Smith and Wesson.

        1. Right, but a lot of the big cities are victim disarmament zones, so that population probably skews the results of the survey.

      2. I like walking alone at night. Of course where I live the worst thing I am likely to run into is some coyotes or maybe a black bear. But I’ve always enjoyed it in cities as well. It’s sort of a rule I have for myself that if I don’t feel comfortable alone at night in a place, then it’s not a place where I want to be.

        1. ^THIS^

        2. My rule of thumb is never to venture to a place in the city at night that you feel uneasy about during the day. I’ve frequently broken it though.

    3. My old man is scared to death of getting ripped off.

      He’s clicked on a couple of links that people email him and gotten burned that way. Can’t convince him that just because his bank sends him an email asking for him to verify his account information, that doesn’t mean it’s from them.

      He won’t even sign up for internet banking to keep track of his account. Thinks that if he does, somehow, his account will be accessible to people on the intertubes. Won’t link PayPal to his accounts either–’cause he doesn’t want people cleaning him out just because they know his email address.

      You gotta remember, the reason we still get junk mail from Nigerian princes and penis enlargement is because there are a fair number of people out there who still respond to that shit. I knew an old lady whose computer was so choked up with spambots, it could barely function. I started uninstalling that crap, and she got really defensive.

      If you get rid of that, I won’t get any of the offers! I’m like, “What offers?” She was basically going around on the internet purposely downloading spambots because she likes getting spam. Behind email, that’s like her most favorite thing to do on the interwebs. She was mad her computer wasn’t working properly–because it made it hard for her to read her spam every morning.

      1. People watch the news too much and lose perspective of things. I have an older brother who is six three and about 240 and basically walks through life looking like and mostly being a pissed off cowboy. And his temper and actual disposition fit his looks perfectly. He is the last person someone would pick out to be a victim. But he is loath to go into big cities for fear of crime. He lives in a small town and only pays attention to the rest of the world through watching the news occasionally.

        1. Heh – my Canadian sister-in-law was freaking out when my brother and I went to a downtown Lansing bar to check out a band we wanted to see. She though for sure that we were going to get shot.

          Another story. My old neighborhood was populated with old and retired people. It made for a quiet neighborhood, but when the recession hit, they started asking my wife and I if we still had jobs. They looked surprised that we still were employed.

          1. You should see the concerned looks my well meaning but cocooned liberal neighbors give me when they realize I am a veteran. They just know I must have massive case of PTSD, because every veteran does.

            1. I would use that to my advantage. *crazy eye stare*

              1. LOL. They are nice and well meaning. I just politely tell them I am doing fine.

                1. “I’m feeling a bit anxious lately, and sometimes I lose memory of 15 or 20 minutes at a time and wake up with my fatigues on”

                  1. “Could you please bring me another drink”

          2. Seriously? Jesus, who knew that Lansing was such a hotbed of crime! I can’t imagine what she’d say if you went down to Detroit of all places, lol.

    4. “My biggest fear is waking up to find aliens standing around my bed.”

      Stop hiring undocumented workers to clean your house.

  44. A while ago, the Bloombergers were yapping about “transformative” businesses like Uber and AirBnB. The verdict was, for the most part, favorable.
    Fortunately, the Voice of Sanity was represented: “But they’re getting around the regulations. They’re trampling the rules! WE NEED RULES!”

  45. 2 wild and crazy priests

    http://www.cruxnow.com/life/20…..sensation/

    1. ? They can dance,
      They can jive,
      Having the time of their life!
      See those priests!
      Watch that scene,
      Dig in the dancing priests! ?

  46. Woman passed out for 10 days in hospital but could hear everything around her, including staff saying she was in a persistent vegetative state and maybe they should pull the plug.

    She got better.

    http://www.mix1023.com.au/news…..fe-support

    1. Somebody dropped the ball. An ECG should have shown brain activity if her auditory sense was intact. I did hear about a case where a kid was huffing freon and put himself in a coma that showed no EEG activety. My theory is that it was the same as a deep anesthesia that caused the suppression. Modern inhalation anesthetic are flourinated hydrocarbons. Freon is a CFC. Anyways the family refused to pull the plug and they guy woke up two weeks later after the freon left his system. The family did not trust the docs after this.

      1. Huffing freon is an indication that maybe they should have pulled the plug, when they had the chance.

  47. It begins with the story of a GOP “poll watcher” named A.J. LaFaro, chairman of the Maricopa Country Republican Committee, who was just doing his duty and observing the early vote counting process at the county elections office when he caught a vote fraudster stealing the election right before his eyes. He said, “a person wearing a Citizens for a Better Arizona t-shirt dropped a large box of hundreds of early ballots on the table and started stuffing the ballot box as I watched in amazement.”

    This makes no fucking sense at all. If those were “early ballots” why would they not already have been put into some sort of (virtual) ballot box? Even if they are not counted until the polls have been closed, why would there be any reason to do anything with them?

    1. Because they were paper ballots, essentially absentee ballots. The guy apparently was stuffing the box with fake ones. They have to collect the absentee ballots somewhere and this guy was going to put fake ones into that stash. It makes perfect sense.

      1. As an Arizona resident I can assure you that this produced hysterical paroxysms about how 100% of election fraud is Republican in origin from the usual suspects.

        It’s not actually illegal to have ballots delivered by proxy here. On the other hand, when I no longer have to produce an ID to buy a gun, I’ll have fewer concerns about the motives of those who claim that having to produce an ID to vote is racist/a poll tax/etc.

        1. Its all about fraud.

        2. It’s not actually illegal to have ballots delivered by proxy here.

          If there’s an easier way to stuff a ballot box, I can’t imagine what it would be.

          What kind of idiot designs what is supposed to be a secure system, and then lets anybody access it, with zero verification of identity and authority.

  48. When, exactly, did the Left become 100% joyless?

    The nagging fear that someone, somewhere, is having a good time.

  49. The music industry is a patriarchal, capitalistic enterprise. The world is a patriarchal, capitalistic enterprise.

    Yes. Yes, it is.

    AND THERE”S NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO STOP IT.

    *twirls moustache, throws another orphan into fireplace*

  50. It’s over time to start stockpiling the food and water.
    Bringing parents to the workplace

    For years, after all, companies have worried about the growing threat of an invasive species known as the helicopter parent. The hyper-involved moms and dads of the millennial generation were said to be showing up at job interviews, calling hiring managers on behalf of their kids and even complaining to employers about their children’s salaries. Older managers often saw this dynamic as dysfunctional and a workplace burden, says Neil Howe, author of Millennials in the Workplace. So much so, in fact, that when he began predicting a decade ago that companies would one day have events like this, “everyone thought it was funny. It was utter disbelief.” A typical response? “Over my dead body.” Yet now that the oldest millennials have been in the workplace for a number of years, several companies are starting to embrace employees’ parents as an asset rather than a hindrance. “The fact of the matter is it hasn’t been a problem,” says Rich Stoddart, CEO of Leo Burnett North America. “Look, if our employees’ parents appreciate the culture of the company and the kinds of things their children do, those employees are going to be happier and more connected and more loyal to our company.”

    1. Get off my lawn. I am old. blah blah blah. I get it. But what the fuck is wrong with young people? Clearly, their parents have failed miserably. But at some point you can no longer blame your parents. Just because your parents don’t want you to grow up doesn’t alleviate you of the responsibility to do so at some point.

      Fine, my generation went full retard and have managed to perhaps do an even worse job of parenting than the WWII generation did with the boomers. That said, how in the hell can these kids take it like this? What a horrible existence to live under the shadow and control of your parents into and apparently passed your 20s. Are they just so far gone they can’t understand the joys of independence and self reliance and freedom? I spent college eating cheap, pizza, raman noodles, drinking cheap beer and living in crap hole apartments when I could have lived in luxury at home. And I wouldn’t have lived at home for love nor money. I need to build a compound in the mountains somewhere because I am just not made for these times I guess.

      1. Are they just so far gone they can’t understand the joys of independence and self reliance and freedom? I spent college eating cheap, pizza, raman noodles, drinking cheap beer and living in crap hole apartments when I could have lived in luxury at home

        I graduated college in 2004 and am usually lumped in with the millenials (though if you really get into asinine generational collectivism I fit much better into the “late gen-x” box) and my wife graduated in 2008 and is definitely a millenial; just about all of our friends and same-generation family fit one of these categories. Your experience matches all of ours.

        I have no idea where they find these people.

        1. I have no idea where they find these people.

          Me either. Which is why we should keep in mind that this is the Washington Post.

          1. The Post and the New York Times appeal to a certain breed of neurotic upper class idiots.

    2. Wow, I’m 26 (a muhlennyule) and have had a few people working under me at times. If their parents had ever gotten in contact with me about their child’s workload or compensation, I would’ve gotten that person fired within the day.

      I have to wonder where this shit goes on. Is this NY? Silicon Valley? Chicago? Where in this country do parents think it’s OK to go to bat for their kids against their employer?

      1. I’m 23 I can’t even imagine this scenario playing out.

      2. My wife works at a medical school. The woman whose office used to be across the hall from her was the head of student affairs. At least 50% of her job consisted of dealing with angry parents, AT A MEDICAL SCHOOL. Every student there had at least a BS and their parents still called to complain for them. Pathetic.

        1. At what point do you tell your parents to back the fuck off? These people have 0 balls.

          1. Their parents probably bitched the kid’s way through school. You want them to get to where they want to go through hard work and perseverance? That stuff’s for suckers.

            Actually, I knew a lot of kids like that in school, in combination with browbeaten instructors.

            1. Actually, I knew a lot of kids like that in school, in combination with browbeaten instructors.

              Just what we need; doctors who got through med school because their parents browbeat their instructors.

        2. That’s flipping ridiculous. I haven’t encountered any of that in law school, but I’m in the night program, and most of us are at least married.

          I can’t imagine what would possess a parent to make that phone call, whether it be in 5th grade or 5 years into a career. One of the best life lessons my parents taught me was that I have to fight my own battles. Unless it was something way beyond my pay grade to fix, like systemic issues, I was on my own to affect change.

          I couldn’t be a school administrator. I would be fired within hours, because I call out bullshit. The people who have patience enough to smile at that bitching parent have my admiration.

      3. Nowadays people have more time and money to spoil their kids than they used to. It’s a minority of people that actually value autonomy and independence for it’s own sake, but in the past they had less of a choice.

      4. The article referred to Leo Burnett.

        My experience with them (an Ad agency) is that they hire lots of really young people, burn them out, and replace them. As an ad agency, I’m sure they’re trying to stay hip/relevant, so I could see this being a more significant problem for them.

    3. My old man has never been to any of the companies I’ve worked for. If he did stop by, I would give him a quick plant tour and then we would go out for lunch. The end.

      1. My old man rarely went to the schools I attended. He was pretty close to how Bill Cosby describes his father, only he worked for the phone company rather than the city dump.

        1. Same here – my dad worked 70 hours a week. When he came home, he just wanted to have a drink and relax, not deal with the kids.

          And my wife wonders why I’m not an uber-“hands on” parent.

          1. My father wasn’t much of a father. Not wanting to be anything like him, I try to spend as much time with the kid as I can.

            1. I suppose I was being a bit unfair to my father – he tried to be a good dad but just didn’t have the time to do it. I mean we did the whole family vacation bit, and he was always bringing home toys for me (part of his job in the retail trade was to go to the Toy Fairs)… but he worked pretty much 6AM to 6PM everyday except Sunday.

              We’re closer since he’s retired.

              1. My dad is a jerk. That’s all there is to it. He’s a leftist who truly believes ad hominems to be persuasive arguments. It’s all about people. Ideas are to be judged by the source, not merit. He and Tony would be best friends. I’ll talk with him about woodworking and cooking, but if politics or economics come up, I quickly change the subject. Otherwise he won’t answer the phone for a year. Being that he’s in his 70s, I don’t want him to die on me while he’s giving me the silent treatment.

                1. Sorry to hear that sarcasmic. Yes, there is another ditch of neglect opposite from helicopter obsessive.

                  1. I became a parent relatively late in life, in my mid 30s, mainly because I was afraid I’d be like him. Never wanted children. But he did me a service. He showed me how not to treat my kid.

                    1. I became a parent relatively late in life, in my mid 30s, mainly because I was afraid I’d be like him. Never wanted children. But he did me a service. He showed me how not to treat my kid.

                      I too was scared to be a parent because I didn’t want to be like my dad. I also didn’t want to swing to far the other way either. I love being a dad even though it is the hardest thing I’ve ever done.

                2. My dad is pretty much a Type A manager personality – things must always be done his way if they are to be done the “right way”.

                  Of course he’s a big ol’ sentimental slob under that tough, no bullshit exterior.

                  He’s quite conservative, unlike my mom who is a raving liberal. Talking politics with them gets nasty real quick.

          2. And that was for the best for me and I bet for you. It makes you figure things out on your own a lot.

            I had dinner with some friends of ours this week. They are an older couple but had a late in life daughter who is now 11. They were talking about how the other parents they know got to enormous efforts to try and control how their kids think. No shit. Both of them were dumbfounded. You try and control how your kid behaves. They can think anything they want. At some point they have to figure things out for themselves. The other parents apparently think and have told my friends would be better parents if they would try to control how their daughter thinks not just how she behaves. No shit. People are nuts.

            1. You try and control how your kid behaves. They can think anything they want. At some point they have to figure things out for themselves.

              Well said.

            2. I try to be a guide to my kid and stepkid. I know I can’t control what they think, but I can give them suggestions and try to help them figure things out. I can’t do it for them. But as a guide I can help by pointing them in what I believe is the right direction.

              For example the stepkid has trust problems at his dad’s house. He’s lied so much that no one believes him, even when he is telling the truth.

              I told him “The truth usually comes out. So you can get in trouble for what you did and for lying about it, or you can tell the truth and only get in trouble for what you did.”

              He said “I never thought of it like that.”

              Hopefully that helped. Better than trying to control him, and better than being hands-off.

              There is a middle ground.

              1. I think that is the way to be sarcasmic. There is a difference between doing what you are told and learning something yourself. At some level where it involves safety and basic manners and such, kids just have to do what they are told. Some things just can’t be negotiated. But other things kids are better off making mistakes and learning from them than their parents just enforcing the right answer. You learn more from making a mistake yourself than you do from someone who knows better stepping in and saving you.

                Sadly a lot of people seem to have lost sight of that. They have both created a zero defect environment for childhood where no kid is every allowed to fuck up and overcome it and every parent is expected to step in and make sure their kid never suffers or makes a mistake. That I think is very sad and not good for the kids or the parents.

                1. You learn more from making a mistake yourself than you do from someone who knows better stepping in and saving you.

                  Yep. My wife, being a typical woman and mother, would rather save the kid. I let them fuck up, and hope they learn something.

              2. “Or I can become a better liar and not get caught”

                he didn’t add (out loud).

                1. “Or I can become a better liar and not get caught”

                  he didn’t add (out loud).

                  I did say that I have gotten away with some unsavory things in my life, but only because nobody knows about them. I didn’t elaborate. What I did say is that three people can keep a secret, providing that two of them are dead.

            3. Ha! According to my 11 year old, I’m an authoritarian bastard. I always agree with him. As my father put it, “I don’t negotiate with children.”

              1. As my father put it, “I don’t negotiate with children.”

                Or the always classic “If you want to make the decisions, pay the bills”.

                1. “People who want to be involved in the decision making process under this roof need to be up to date on their rent payments.”

      2. My dad worked for the same company as me for a few years (or, rather, vice versa… He was there first) . Besides carpooling and getting lunch together once a week, we never interacted professionally. He knew my boss, my boss’ boss, and every person I worked with, yet he wasn’t a meddlesome prick like these helicopter parents.

        1. Imagine if he had been. It would have quickly torpedoed your career there and made you unpopular with just about everyone.

          1. Exactly. I was working with a group that had been together (besides me) since the 70s. You can’t just shoehorn somebody into a group like that. They have to earn their way in. It makes me happy to hear from my dad that Mr. So-and-so asked about me the other day, because it shows that I actually got in with that group.

            I worked my ass off to show that I wasn’t some nepotism hire (I wasn’t, they didn’t know about my dad being there until after they offered me a job), and did a ton to try to earn the respect of the guys there. That would’ve been all for naught if my dad had stepped in and started meddling in my affairs.

            1. Yeah. I worked as a metal fabricator at a shop where my brother was a welder one summer. It was a very tough place to work. I fit in and did okay. But if I had ever run to my older brother for help, those guys would have hated me.

      3. My dad came to one meeting with me when I was coaching football. It was me the AD, and this real asshole know-it-all parent. My dad needed to talk to the AD anyway(both of my brothers went to the school, and he was very involved in the sports program). So I told him to come along with me, talk to the AD, and if need be pull me off that son of a bitch parent before I killed him.

        1. Here is the thing about coaches, they are nothing but bosses. There are good ones and bad ones and finding a way to not let the bad ones totally fuck you is a necessary skill in life. Youth sports are a good way to learn that skill in a pretty low stakes environment. Too bad idiot parents fuck that up and make whether their kid gets to play fullback or is moved to the offensive line a life changing event. Assholes.

      4. Jeebus. If Pa Monocle showed up at my workplace, I’d probably be fired before the end of the day.

    4. As an employer, my response is NO

      I didn’t hire your parents, your kids, your uncles, your mistress, your dog, or your blow-up doll. Dealing with just a single employee is difficult enough, it’s not worth the hassle of dealing with their extended family and their baggage too.

      I view this as a result of too much HR.

  51. A copycat White House fence jumper was taken down by Secret Service dogs last night. The 23-year-old Maryland native was unarmed and is said to suffer from mental illness.

    That is what happens when you allow legs be in the bodies of mental illness sufferers. People with mental illness should not be allowed to have legs for jumping fences.

    Vice profiles “the gay libertarian gun nuts”, aka gay libertarians who support gun rights, a concept which writer Cecilia D’Anastasio inexplicably finds “perplexing.”

    Why inexplicably? Cecilia like most of her fellow travelers continue to hold these images of what a True Proggie should look like and gay gun-toting libertarians is not one of those True Proggie images.

    So it is perfectly explainable: she’s an idiot, just like her fellow travelers.

  52. Vice profiles “the gay libertarian gun nuts”, aka gay libertarians who support gun rights, a concept which writer Cecilia D’Anastasio inexplicably finds “perplexing.”

    “Hey, they’ve escaped their prefabricated box!”

  53. I’m hitting Grand Rapids with the wife this weekend and leaving the kids at home. I haven’t been downtown since college and we’re looking for some fun things to do. I already plan on hitting Stella’s and Founders. Any other suggestions? Do I bother taking her to Yesterdog these days?

    1. I’ll be around – oh boy!

      Last time I ate at Yesterdog, I enjoyed it. Still tastes the same as it did the first time I ate there – 25 years ago *kaff*

    2. If you like pinball games there is always the Pyramid Scheme.

      If you like antiques, there are a number of them cloistered together on Century Ave, near the highway/Wealthy Street.
      http://www.centuryantiquesgr.com/

  54. Geniuses

    The Fed is not supposed to be swayed by elected officials or special interests. But bond holders ? a powerful political constituency that includes financial firms, investment funds and wealthy individuals ? generally want the Fed to raise rates sooner rather than later, and they have ample opportunity to dominate public discourse. Their aim is to pre-emptively attack inflation, which diminishes the value of their bonds.

    It has been a long time since I took Money and Banking, but I’m pretty sure those bond holdings are going to suffer a real and immediate capital loss if rates rise, which makes this assertion nonsensical at best. In fact, I see that as part of the corner the Fed has painted itself into; their balance sheet is going to take massive hit when rates rise.

    The government, on the other hand, desperately needs rates to stay low forever, because debt service will consume the entire budget if they don’t.

    Are the members of the NYT editorial board just stupid, or are they lying their asses off on behalf of their heroes in Washington?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    1. Are the members of the NYT editorial board just stupid, or are they lying their asses off on behalf of their heroes in Washington?

      I reject that false choice.

      1. They are certainly stupid. In this case, they know very well that the federal government cannot remain the size it is without artificially low interest rates. The day rates return to normal or worse yet spike above normal, the federal government will have to actually start making choices. And no one at the Times wants that.

        1. The NYT editorial board is also subtly couching that argument in class warfare language.

          It is correct – when interest rates go up bond prices will fall and that will be bad news for the holders of bonds as the price at which they can sell will fall, and if they elect to hold those bands they will be getting an inferior return relative to newer issue bonds. In other words, current holders are fooked and many will scramble to sell as soon as rates begin ticking back up.

          The editorial board slyly implies that those wealthy constituencies simply want to clip coupons, and only the super rich, etc. can sit back and do that.

          The people that are really getting killed with the zero interest rate environment are the people that the progtards claim to be the champions of, the elderly and the poor.

          1. Yes. The entire “recovery” has been one giant money printing exercise to benefit the rich investor class at the expense of the poor and saver classes.

    2. You are absolutely correct, Mr. Brooks.

  55. Dutch guys troll foodies with McDonald’s food disguised as organic gourmet

    One “expert” remarked: “Rolls around the tongue nicely. If it were wine, I would say, it’s fine.”

    Hahahahaha!

    1. If you ever look, organic food is often loaded with salt. The reason of course is that salt is a preservative. You have to preserve the food someway and if you can’t use any evil chemicals salt is your only option.

      I think the dangers of salt have been wildly overrated. The people who buy organic, however, tend not to. Yet, they never bother to notice the salt content. They are just too in love with the feeling buying organic gives them I guess.

      1. You have to preserve the food someway and if you can’t use any evil chemicals, salt

        1. Yes, salt like everything else non living is a chemical compound. Organic food buyers don’t generally see it that way, however.

      2. Just to troll the foody authoritarians there oughta be a law forcing “organic” food producers to label their products with; “WARNING: Contents may be organic.” to level the playing field for producers of more traditional non-organic silicate based food.

  56. And then, this:

    But it is not the Fed’s job to protect investors’ bond portfolios. Its job is to foster both stable inflation and full employment. With the American economy still operating below par, low interest rates would pose an inflation threat only after they had succeeded in spurring credit, strong growth and robust employment. Since those results have not yet been achieved there is no inflationary pressure and no reason to raise rates in the near term.

    Now, I’m not part of the Intellectual Elite, so my petty doubts may easily be swept aside, but maybe those guys should seriously ask themselves whether the Fed is in reality able to “fix” the economy in any meaningful way. I would even urge them to contemplate, from their luxurious high rise Tree of Woe, the notion that the Fed has been doing more harm than good.

    1. It will never be enough.

    2. What’s absurd is this idea that the government controls, leads, or even really understands the economy. It has parasitical effects on the economy and can play short-term tricks with the money supply, certainly, but that’s really it.

      1. The root of a lot of our problems is not just the fed but the mandate the law gives the fed. The fed is supposed to at once preserve the value of the dollar and stabilize the economy. Those two things cannot both be done because to stabilize the economy requires printing money sometimes which destroys the value of the dollar. The law tells the fed to act to stop the business cycle.

        The critics of the Fed always point out how the value of the dollar has cratered since the Fed was created even though its job was supposed to be to maintain the dollar. That is true as far as it goes. It ignores the fact that thanks to the law, the fed has never actually tried to stabilize the dollar and instead has tried to accomplish the hopeless task of stopping the business cycle.

        Instead of getting rid of the Fed, something that is politically probably impossible, people should try to change the Fed charter to mandate that its only mission is to protect the value of the dollar, not stop the business cycle.

    3. Depends on what you mean by “fix”. If you’re using the same definition as in the sentence “The mobsters fix boxing matches and basketball games.” Then yes, I think they can do that.

      1. How about “I sent my dog to the vet to be fixed”?

        1. Or “I’m fixin’ to whip yah, boy!”

  57. Does the Syrian Obervatory of Human Rights have a telescope?

    1. Oiuja Board.

    2. Good story here from FP on the SOHR

      The short of it is that they are the only even semi-accurate source of information at the current time, and therefore everyone hates them

  58. A new survey from Chapman University finds that the most common American fear is … walking alone at night, followed by becoming the victim of identity theft, safety on the Internet, being the victim of a mass shooting, and public speaking. I have never been so ashamed to be an American.

    I don’t understand the issue here. This all seems pretty reasonable.

    If I read random tidbits from the police blotter just for my neighborhood and the places I frequent, attacks of various types are relatively common. Not serious, you’re-dead-or-in-the-emergency-room attacks, but a group of youths decide to push you down and yank your purse off your shoulder type of attacks.

    As far as Identity theft goes, depending on what you call “identity theft” (credit card number stolen and $4000 worth of clothes purchased on the internet) is also extremely common. Shit, it’s happened to me twice in my adult life.

    I admit I have no idea what ‘safety on the internet’ means, but they might be seeing that as an extension of identity theft.

    The fact that the ‘mass shooting’ ranks almost last suggests (without knowing the details of this survey) it’s down on the list about where it should be in relation to the other things. Ie, safety on the internet should rank as a more likely danger than being in a mass shooting.

  59. but they must provide a specific reason why they need one.

    In other words, they are still not honoring the second amendment.

  60. District of Columbia residents can apply for a handgun concealed carry permit for the first time starting today?but they must provide a specific reason why they need one.

    Is “constitutional right” specific enough?

    1. “Um, I want to buy one to, um, own?”

    2. In case a knife wielding serial killer gets on the subway with me so I don’t have to be stabbed in the face and head multiple times before finally disarming the attacker while the cops watch and then be ignored by those same cops while bleeding out from my multiple stab wounds. (I know New York not DC but still a good reason.)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.