Obama to Seek ISIS War Approval, AC/DC Drummer Charged With Procuring Murder, Missouri Marriage Ban Struck Down: A.M. Links


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

NEXT: Doing your research

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 Missouri ban on same-sex marriage was ruled unconstitutional.

    And still unsexy. Have you seen Missourans?

    1. Hello.

      Apparently punctuality is not part of the libertarian moment.

      1. Someone called it on the earlier thread: it must be ENB’s turn.

        1. So A.M. links is a chore now for Reason staff?

          I see.

        2. Wait, why? I’m never late with links! This is the first time I’ve ever been late!

          1. We assumed because women are never on-time.

          2. I defended you, and blamed Root. Never again!

          3. Keep that information private for your significant other.

          4. Pay no attention to them ENB. No one else does. That’s why they’re jerks:)

      2. Coffee: Check.

        Morning Dump: Check.

        AM Links:

        Fuck it. My day is ruined.

        1. Lighten up, Playa. You think you have it bad, think about ENB’s boyfriend.

          He woke up to her rushing about the apartment screaming, “I’m late, I’m late, OMG I’M LATE”

  2. AC/DC drummer Phil Rudd has been charged with arranging for two murders.

    Dirty Deeds. Too easy.

    1. He’s on a Highway to…yeah too easy.

      1. Have a drink on…

        or is that not how we’re playing this game?

        1. I hear it pays well…

      2. He’s got the biggest balls of them all.

    2. Of course I’m too slow. Now the question is what price is exactly “dirt cheap”?

      1. a price that gets you caught, apparently.

        1. “a price that gets you caught, apparently.”

          Yep. I think it’s definitionaly true. If you don’t get caught, you spent the correct amount of money.

          1. I thought the line was “kindly deeds and they’re done for free.” Oh, wait, that was the Ned Flanders version.

      2. Buying hitmen and bombs should cost at least as much as the best defense lawyer in the country getting someone off mass murder charges. If it doesn’t, you are buying a fraudulent or inferior product.

        1. Also, an important safety tip. Never ask for a bribe larger than the cost of having you assassinated. You don’t want to be on the wrong side of that equation.

    3. ok, so that picture is NOT someone playing drums.

      1. Why bring Angus into this?

      2. UGH. This is not my morning. Fixed! Thanks

        1. A much better picture…I can almost smell Bon Scott

    4. Damn you, Elizabeth. I saw that story this morning and already had my AM Links response: Why HELLS BELLS!

      1. Ask and ye shall receive.

    5. He’s got big balls.

      1. Listen to the money talk.

  3. You could at least have put an apology in the alt-text.

  4. An International Criminal Court says potential Israeli war crimes aren’t serious enough to warrant prosecution.

    No one wants to be anti-Semetic here.

    1. Investigation of potential Palestinian war crimes still pending.

    2. I missed the part where they charged the aid boat crew with war crimes for supplying weapons to blow up Israeli schools.

      1. It was in the big announcement where they charged the leadership of Hamas with a long list of war crimes.


    3. Not to mention their complete lack of ability to do anything about it anyways.

  5. Mitch McConnell is suddenly interested in “ending gridlock.”

    And so the go along to get along begins.

    1. Proving right out of the gate they are indeed the Stupid Party. He has already indicated he is going to restore the senate rules to get rid of Harry Reid’s ‘nuclear option’ which Reid installed to block Republican filibusters and be able to pass everything with 51 votes. Of course the Republicans will now restore the filibuster to allow the Democrats to block them, because using the Democrat’s tactics against them would be unmutual, I guess. You can’t make this shit up.

      1. Because they don’t want to get anything done. That would require taking positions on things, which might cost them votes. This way they can just continue blaming Harry Reid and Obama for why everything hasn’t lived up to the voters delusional fantasies.

        1. So much this. Now he can take up every bill republicans want passed without a chance in hell of getting them through. I voted L in VA, and I know most voters probably couldn’t define filibuster, but this is going to really piss off the volunteers who are informed and actually worked to get this dumbass back into a position of power.

          1. Actually it kind of makes the Rs a little less scary than Ds — whatever their platform they are too scared to act on it. Works for me.

      2. Under Bush, I was so proud of myself for defending the filibuster, because if the rs abolished it the ds would invoke the precedent ehen they were in the majority. I was so nonpartisan and sophisticated!

        Then the ds used the nuclear option – they didn’t wait for the rs to set a precedent.

        So heck with it, keep the nuclear option and hoist the ds on their own retard.

        1. And this is why the D’s are willing to pull shit like this and set a precedent – they know the R’s are too stupid and cowardly to use it against them once the R’s get back in power. I think we need a stronger epithet than just “Stupid Party”.

          1. I propose: The Republican Party.

      3. As a tactical political move, restoring the filibuster is good thinking.

        It forces the Dems to take a meaningful vote on every bill. They can’t just vote against bills that they know are going to pass on a party-line vote, regardless, or vote for them because they were going to pass anyway.

        Nope. Now they have to cast deciding votes.

        Take the Keystone Pipeline. No filibuster, little exposure for Dems to oppose as it will pass regardless and they can keep their cred with their base without paying the cost of killing the bill.

        Now, they have to choose. Fluff the base and take the beatings from the general public, or do the right thing and piss off the base.

        1. The filibuster as enacted by Harry Reid was just for judicial nominees.

          “Democrats used a rare parliamentary move to change the rules so that federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments can advance to confirmation votes by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority that has been the standard for nearly four decades.”


      4. “Proving right out of the gate they are indeed the Stupid Party.”

        So many comments, so little deep thought. They might be the Stupid Party, but McConnell is a Genius in this case. None of you are actually thinking about the mechanics of this.

        What did the nuclear option do? It allowed the minority party to block Presidential judicial nominations. Are the Democrats going to block Obama’s judicial nominees? No, of course not.

        So restoring the filibuster doesn’t cost the Republicans any political power and gains them good press. So it’s a brilliant PR move.

        People (and this includes me) continuously underestimate turtle head’s intelligence.

    2. Why, pray tell, do you think you won, dumbass? Because the voters were endorsing Obama and Democratic policies?

      Ye gods.

    1. I liked the part where it squeaks every time the guy pokes it.

      1. Is it an Asian girl?

  6. AC/DC drummer Phil Rudd has been charged with arranging for two murders

    Dirty Deeds!

  7. New, non-white human emojis in the works

    Non-white? They’re yellow, you morons. And they are NOT real people.

    1. what was wrong with the name ’emoticon’? When and why did people start blathering ’emoji’?

      1. Sounds more Japanese.

      2. I too am interested in this answer.

      3. I believe emoji is a IM application that consists of nothing but emoticons.

        1. I think they’re not just traditional faces either.

          See the wikipedia article on emoji. I can get it being used in Japan, but why the rest of us should learn an ideoglyph-based language is beyond me.

          1. You’re not the target market. This is trying to capture the “sub-literate moron” demographic.

            1. But they have a dedicated “beer” icon. Oh wait, never mind.

            2. Stormy hits it out of the park!

              1. Yeah, that was about a 452 foot homer there.

        1. Wikipedia may have been your friend five minutes earlier, but not now.

          1. Wikipedia has always been a back-stabbing asshole.

            What else is new?

        2. Wikipedia is always my friend. Stay away from anything at all controversial and it’s pretty good. I find it particularly good on math and (non climate related) science.

        3. Wikipedia is your friend

          Not really.

          “Emoji” are the horizontal emoticons that are common in Japan, like ^-^ and friends.

          “Emoticons” are the vertical ones that are common in the US, like :-/ and relatives.

          The use of “emoji” to cover Unicode characters is just an annoying hipsterism.

          1. “Emoji” are the horizontal emoticons that are common in Japan, like ^-^ and friends.

            Those are kaomoji.

            1. Now you’re just making shit up _

              1. Fuck. That was supposed to be “angry face”.

                1. Epic kaomoji fail.

    2. It’s “beyond the scope of Unicode” to represent diversity in other ways, such as “hair styles and color, use of eyeglasses, various kinds of facial hair, different body shapes, different headwear, and so on.”

      It’s microagression all the way down.

    3. Thank God, I was concerned

    4. Activists have been calling for black and other non-white characters.

      Then let those activists develop them or STFU.

      1. “let those activists develop them”

        They’re not really all that active.

        1. No, they’re very active. They’re just rarely productive.

          1. Henceforth, activists shall be called “b*tches”. It’s a better-suited term.

      2. Yeah, if you really think there is a market demand for them, go for it.

      3. It’s not fair that people who don’t know how to do anything can’t get what they want done!

        They should be able to FORCE the people who do know how to do stuff to do it FOR them!



        1. Well yeah, you’re not free unless you are free to have people provide you with shit that you want.

        2. I HAVE A PHD!



      4. Well my messaging screen is black so would spaces count as black emoji?

    5. A whut?

      1. I wonder if they make fuck emojis?

        1. Yes, they do.

    6. Well, the Simpsons are yellow and not real people, and they still manage to have Carl be black.

      1. Carl’s a Republican so he’s not really black.

        1. Dr. Hibbert is also a Republican. Hmmmm.

  8. Prepare yourselves…

    Warty Hugeman has successfully reproduced with a human woman.

    The age of man’s dominion over the Earth has ended. May your gods have various mercies on your souls.

    1. Was it human? The reproduction.

      1. Something more. Something wonderful. Something more terrible than you can imagine.

        1. “Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Warty R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn,”

        2. A monolith may have been involved.

            1. That’s the size of an alien ration bar in the book I’m writing now (in inches – they’re large aliens)

            2. When they first change her diapers, they’ll say, “My God, it’s full of stars.”

          1. 50 minutes of monolith METAL

            If you’re doing something else today, put it on in the background. It’s a great listen.

    2. Producing not so much a demigod but a ___________.

      1. A demiurge?

        Now lets see if I match Brett Somers or Charles Nelson Reilly.

        1. Are you crazy? Go with Dawson. He’s psychic.

        2. lets what see?

          1. Oh, fuck.

            And I can’t use lack of coffee as an excuse.

            1. I have been waiting for 2 years to nail you, and I hope that this utter humiliation will be the end of your odd obsession of correcting others’ misspellings where the use of the apostrophe is concerned.

              1. It really should be phrased as “obsession with.”

                1. It’s pedants all the way down.

                    1. /slow clap

                2. I considered dropping the apostrophe in others’ to see if I could elicit a similar response. I didn’t catch that one, so good for you.

                  1. We could run the OED from here, the pedantry being so thick.

      2. Demi Moore?

    3. The real one or the timebelt-wearing spacefucker?

      1. It’s cute that you think there is a difference.

    4. Did she survive?

      1. The woman is fine. She the mother of what will replace the puny race of man.

        1. Is this Eve, Mother of Monsters?

      1. Actually, he’s already talking about using the offspring to join the House of Warty with another house through marriage. It may be years before this plays out.

        1. I have a vast and increasing brood. I’m open to offers.

          1. A deal has already been made.

          2. My entire brood was born years apart, spawned by a single, non-coitial act – and are still preschoolers. As long as Warty-Gen2 is female we might have to consider plans.

      2. I assume the name is already picked out.


      3. *noisily prepares for End Times*

    5. So this ‘human’ woman…she was little more than a fermentation vessel?

      1. Baby Warty burst through it’s mother’s abdomen at 5:50 this morning.

      1. Warty is still looking for a camera strong enough to capture her terrible beauty.

        1. All shall love her and despair.

    6. Would Judge Napolitano consider it covered by the personhood amendment?

      1. Will it care what puny Napolitano thinks?

    7. So you’re saying I should get my next box of 7.62mm in silver?

      1. Depleted Uranium.

        1. Non-depleted uranium would seem necessary.

      2. Actually, Palladium is more effective in this case.

        1. The Doomcock will easily swat it all aside.

          1. Or eat it.

    8. I can hear the lamentations of the nurses all the way down in Florida.

      Congratulations to Warty, whose seed at last found a purchase. . .rather than killing the victim.

      1. All Hail The Power of Her Uterus!

    9. D’AWWW, when are we going to get pics? I can’t wait to see the adorableness.

      1. Hers is a beauty that will drive men mad and topple nations.

      2. No, no, she’s too adorable. It’s like that Star Trek episode with the ugly thing in the box that drove people crazy, only replacing ugly with adorable. You have to wear special glasses and everything.

    10. I bet it looks like a fluffy kitten. An evil fluffy kitten, but still.

    11. By “human woman”, you mean axlotl tank… right?

      Please tell me I’m right.

  9. President Obama said he will seek authorization from Congress for a military campaign against ISIS.

    The one that’s currently going on?

    1. Doesn’t that violate the ex-post facto rule then?

    2. A post-dated declaration of war.

    3. Of course! Then he can blame the inevitable clusterfuck on those dastardly Republicans!

      1. BINGO! We have a winner!

    4. TEAM Red/Stupid could try doing something not stupid, like flatly rejecting any authorization for this illegal war.

      I know, it’s funny because it’ll never happen.

      1. The war-boner faction of the R’s will ensure the authorization passes. And the R’s will then own the results.

    5. Yeah, exactly =

      obama didn’t want anyone in his own party to have to take credit for what will likely be a long, expensive, and fruitless campaign, but now that TEAM RED is running things? OH BOYS? WE NEED YOU TO APPROVE THIS THNXKBAI

    6. The absurd thing – you will struggle to find a single media outlet that notes the procedural oddity of the president suddenly deciding to backdate his urgent war and get Congressional Authorization. Maybe they will gloss past it, but no one will point out the glaring hypocrisy because, well, TEAM

  10. Snake tries to drag woman down toilet

    According to the UK’s Metro newspaper, Rampeung Onlamai was just getting out of her shower when the snake emerged from her toilet and sank its fangs into her right hand.

    She managed to fend it off with a broom, while screaming for her daughter to help.

    1. And by “toilet” they mean “hole in the ground”

    2. Headline seems sensationalist. The snake just bit her. I don’t see any evidence of it having tried to drag her back into the toilet.

      1. Maybe it’s metaphorical. She had turned her life around from her days as a prostitute to an entrepreneur rug weaver. Now with her hand badly damaged, her future earnings have been flushed down a shithole.

    3. True story. I once was sitting on a toilet in Costa Rica (actual flush toilet) and heard a sound below me. I got off and saw something emerge from the depths. It hopped on the edge of the seat and then started hopping around the bathroom out into my room.Yes, a shit frog. When I tried to chase it outdoors with a broom its skin bubbled with white ooze. To this day I often look down when taking a crap wondering if one will come back.

      1. Fu-u-u-uck. I would never be able to go again.

        Reason #1244 I stay up north.

    4. We know from the story that this didn’t happen in Florida because had that been he location she would have killed it with a 44 Mag and served it for dinner… and it would never have been considered news.

  11. Obviously, Bo and Shriek are over the shock of yesterday and are back in the game.

    1. Speaking of… read the comments on this article that are by DinoT and tell me it’s not the same algorithm script as shrike.

      DinoT 15 hours ago
      @ralph_w How about we just take the expanded Medicaid and any Obamacare benefits from the white trash who voted for republicans yesterday?
      The first should be those with sick kids.

      DinoT 15 hours ago
      I cannot WAIT for republicans to start instituting their greed-soaked, non-empathetic policies. The rural white trash will get slammed harder than ever and the blue collar trash will lose far more than health care.

      DinoT 14 hours ago
      @grifty @DinoT As long as the republicans keep heaping pain on the white trash who vote for them, I’m fine with it.

      1. It’s close, but I’m not seeing the blatant narcissism that shrike loves to put on display.

        1. When it posted as DeenoC, it would often make 15-20% of all the posts on a thread, responding to everyone. It think it is still finding its footing. I think it got banned, which is quite a trick when you are constantly giving Obama a rimjob.

      2. Since you love Marcotte:


        1. She won’t be satisfied until all opposition to The Obama is torn out by branch and root.

        2. “Amanda Marcotte – It’s sobering to realize Democrats haven’t had a clear shot to push their agenda federally in my entire lifetime.”

          Ouch my eyes! The stupid, it burns.

      3. I don’t see Shreeky there.

        1. “Greed” is a term I avoid in political discussions. Greed is good.

          1. Well, you’re welcome.

      4. As long as the republicans keep heaping pain on the white trash who vote for them, I’m fine with it.

        Prog disdain for people whom they disagree with will never cease to amaze me. Keep thinking everyone else is beneath you. That is probably good for your ideology’s public image.

        1. It is, because then any idiot can consider themselves superior merely by being a prog.

          1. I bite my thumb at them.

  12. Dutch to public: Don’t pee on the royal palace

    After a multimillion-euro renovation ended in late 2011, people began urinating against the palace’s sandstone facade. That prompted authorities to put up a fence.

    But the Interior Ministry on Wednesday called the fence “unworthy” of the historic location. It is now installing lights and movement sensors to deter people from relieving themselves. The government also warned that peeing in public is punishable by a 140-euro ($175) fine.

    If those measures don’t work, authorities are considering installing a urinal near the palace that rises out of the ground at night and sinks back below the sidewalk during the day.

    1. +1 Piss on the wall

    2. a urinal near the palace that rises out of the ground at night and sinks back below the sidewalk during the day.

      They have those!?

      1. It’s sarcasm, waffles — Dutch for “summary execution”.

    3. In Antwerp, Belgium, there is an actual public urinal on the side of the massive cathedral in the center of the city. I thought that was pretty awesome.

    4. It is now installing lights and movement sensors to deter people from relieving themselves.

      Replace the lights with flamethrowers, and they’ll have something.

      1. Just put some electrified mesh all over the ground and I guarantee the pissing will stop post haste.

  13. Science?

    Spice Girls’ ‘Wannabe’ Named Catchiest Song Ever By New Study

    So what makes a song catchy? It’s not simply your ability to know it and recognize it. It’s how the song stays in your head even when it stops playing — the so-called earworm effect.

    To measure this, the researchers developed a game. Because they’re measuring “catchiness,” it’s not your typical name-that-tune type of arrangement. Instead, you hit the stop button the moment you recognize a tune, and then the game tests the ability of the song to keep playing inside your head.

    It’s called Hooked on Music, which you can actually play for yourself right here. Warning: Your productivity for the day will plummet the moment you click on that link. Then again, how often do you get to participate in real science?

    1. #20 Catchiest- Elton John, “Candle in the Wind”

      Yeah, ok.

    2. Earworms are crimes against humanity.

      1. It mostly happens to me with songs I like.

      2. The worst is when a song you hate pops into your head during a hangover. NO NO NO

    3. catchy like herpes

    4. The researchers … hope to use the results to further research into dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.


      1. Please Rich, won’t you fund them?

        1. *** starts humming “Money, it’s a hit ?.” ***

    5. I remember hearing or reading someplace that ABBA, when writing songs, would not write anything down the same day. They’d see if they remembered it the following day, and then if they did then they figured it was catchy enough to write down.

      1. They should have waited longer, like a few decades.

        Seriously though, I’ve heard that Ronnie Van Zant from skynyrd never wrote down any of his lyrics on the theory that if you couldn’t remember it, it wasn’t worth singing.

  14. Penn practices its gaydar in reading student applicationse

    As a private school, Penn’s internal admissions notes probably aren’t accessible under state or federal open-records law, but it’s still worth The Daily asking for records showing what exactly admissions officers consider “gay” and how that affects applicants’ chances. (Statements like “I won a decorating award” or “At this flannel party I hosted”? Maybe “I fooled around with my bro and it wasn’t as weird as I thought it would be”?)

    As long as names, grades and other identifying details are redacted, there shouldn’t be any privacy issue with revealing what admissions officers are marking on applications. It’s certainly not covered by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, though I’m sure Penn would raise that baseless defense.

    1. Private schools are private. Who knew?

    2. As a private school, Penn’s internal admissions notes probably aren’t accessible under state or federal open-records law,

      With all the federal money they take, they have signed onto the full boat of “non-discrimination” laws. I wonder if that isn’t an avenue to forcing disclosures.

    3. I am so using this. In 12 years I am going to help my son write the gayest college admissions essay ever written. If he turns out to be gay, then it will be even more convincing.

    4. Another reason why I should have taken up figure skating as a child. Not only would I have been the only straight guy in a social group full of gorgeous and fit girls apparently I also would have been the recipient of affirmative action from private schools looking to admit more gays. What the hell was I thinking not doing that?

  15. How Republicans Can Get Things Done
    What the GOP can learn from Democrats about how to govern.

    The beauty of the way Democrats approach politics is that their willingness to accept half a loaf means that they can keep making incremental gains even when they appear to be “losing.” Lane Kenworthy, a sociologist at the University of California?San Diego and the author of Social Democratic America, puts it beautifully: “Small steps and the occasional big leap, coupled with limited backsliding, will have the cumulative effect of significantly increasing the breadth and generosity of government social programs.” That is, conservatives can try to nibble at the edges of new social programs, but they’ll rarely succeed in rolling them back completely.

    1. The Evaporating Democratic Majority

      In this particular case, what was overestimated and misjudged was the permanent effectiveness of the Democratic blueprint from 2012, whose mix of social-issue appeals and tech-savvy voter targeting was supposed to work in tandem with demographic trends to cement a new socially-liberal, multicultural coalition, and render the G.O.P.’s position entirely untenable absent a major ideological reboot. That blueprint really was effective in ’12, and the underlying demographic trends are real, and one bad midterm election does not prove that the coalition cannot hold together, as Republicans may learn to their cost two years from now. But from a lot of the commentary after Obama’s re-election, you would have thought that the combination of ethnic-interest appeals on immigration policy, “war on women” rhetoric on social issues, and brilliant get-out-the-vote operations run by tech-savvy Millennials (who, we were told, were too liberal to ever build a website for a Republican) posed a kind of immediate and existential challenge to the G.O.P., requiring immediate capitulation on a range of fronts, with no time for finesse or calculation and no room for resistance.

      1. whoops – replied to my own post

    2. EVIL.

      But something the Reason community knew all along.

      The question is: How do we stop this?

      1. Short of a bloody revolution, we don’t. And the bloody revolution just ain’t happening, ever.

        1. “Ever” is a long time.

          If current trends continue, I think we will get to a point where there will be armed resistance.

          1. I guess by “ever” I really mean “not in our lifetimes”.

    3. generosity of government social programs

      All that money that funds said “generosity” does not come from anywhere important…

    4. So, is a “big leap” anything like a Great Leap Forward?

  16. Ok. I’m pissed that I missed yesterday’s bourbon thread. But I’m psyched by tonight’s Battle of Ohio. And that’s the latest from CN. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

    1. Go Bengals

      1. From your mouth to Howard Cosell’s ears.

      2. Go Browngels.

        Who dat lettin us down one last time!

  17. Ha! It was ENB’s turn!

  18. Indiana candidate hits political rival with car, steals campaign signs on eve of election

    Yencer wrote an editorial in the Muncie Free Press just three days earlier claiming Messer “will win in a landslide” despite deriding the congressman for dodging candidate forums in the lead-up to Election Day.

    The duo challenged Yencer outside a church late Monday and discovered more campaign signs in his trunk, including Ratchford’s, according to The Star Press.

    That’s when Yencer opted to drive off. But Lee blocked Yencer’s exit and, police allege, was struck in the knee when Yencer’s 1994 Nissan backed into the politician.

    Yencer, a Democratic candidate, was a reporter at The Star Press for four decades until 2010. Ratchford and Lee are Republicans.

  19. Diner outraged after he had to buy $3,750 bottle of wine when he asked waiter to recommend one (but he did get a $1,200 discount)

    Joe Lentini asked the waitress at Bobby Flay Steak in Atlantic City for a wine recommendation for a business dinner
    He and other diners thought the waitress said the bottle was ‘thirty-seven fifty’ and assumed that meant $37.50
    When they received the bill, they found out that the wine was actually a $3,750 bottle
    The restaurant dropped the price after the party complained – to $2,200


    1. No rotted grape juice is worth more than $50.

      1. I won’t pay more than $20 for a bottle of wine.

        1. That’s my top limit too. Mostly I stick to things around 9.99 a bottle for every day drinking. But after $20.00 I am not sure I can tell a difference.

          1. Honestly, I like Chablis from a box. Chill the shit out of that shit and drop in a few ice cubes.
            For a dinner wine I usually buy a Beaujolais nouveau.

          2. Most “experts” can’t tell the difference either. Hell, a lot of them can’t distinguish red wine from white wine with food coloring.

            1. Hell, a lot of them can’t distinguish red wine from white wine with food coloring.

              Most white wine is made from red grapes. They remove the skin which has all the color. So I could see how coloring a white wine made from a red grape could fool someone into thinking it is a red wine.

            2. With non-experts, in blind taste tests, there is an inverse correlation between price and preference.

              With experts, there is a slight positive correlation — but not statistically significant.

              The inverse correlation with non-experts is statistically significant.

              1. People who aren’t into wine tend to judge it on one criteria: sweetness. Since better wines tend to be drier, people who don’t drink a lot of wine don’t like good wine.

                1. Oh I don’t know about that. Many people, like myself for example, aren’t into sweet stuff. Even before I got into wine (and by “got into” I mean spending a couple years buying a bottle or two a week of something under twenty bucks) I preferred dryer wines.

          3. Here’s another dirty little secret: I love bourbon, and love to display “show” bottles. But there’s almost no difference between a $30 bourbon and a $100 bourbon.

            1. The biggest difference in liquor isn’t between a $15 or $100 750 ml bottle. It’s between a $7 and $12 bottle.

              1. Big difference in going from 4yr olds to 12 yr olds. Anything older costs a lot more and has very little difference in taste.

                Hmm, without context, that first sentence sounds a little creepy.

                I’m talking about bourbons, you sick fucks!

            2. Thanks, I’d actually considered trying expensive whisky just to see if it would make a difference since I can’t stand any straight liquor. I just don’t get it. What’s the appeal of drinking something that causes a gag/cough reflex. I’m in my 40s and every few years I try a stiff drink thinking maybe by now my taste for it has arrived thus ushering in manhood or something, but nope. Same for cigars. Guess I’ll never be one of the cool kids..

              1. Yeah. I once went to one of those hoity-toity scotch bars here in Tokyo with an extremely well-traveled, experienced, investment banker buddy. We sampled a few of the better known brands to find my groove. I walked away knowing pretty much what I already knew – a $30 bottle of Glenlivet is about my speed.

              2. It’s like spicy food. If you eat it a lot, you build up a tolerance.

            3. I find that once you get past maybe $50 bottles, more expensive doesn’t really mean better, but often the more expensive bottles will be something that you can’t get for less.
              I’m more of a Scotch guy and I’m not sure how much this applies to bourbon, but I imagine it does. I’ve had some super old and expensive single malts and while they are not necessarily better than more affordable things, they are distinct and interesting.

              1. I still want to try Pappy Van Winkle to see if it’s as good as everyone makes it sound.

          4. I’m with you,. Elspeth. Above about $20/bottle, the marginal return just isn’t there for me.

            Too much chili, whiskey and cigars, I guess. Not much left of my tastebuds at this point.

        2. Yeah, there is loads of good wine under $20. I’ll go a bit higher for a bottle of decent Champagne on occasion.

      2. Apparently you’ve never had a fine bottle of Far Niente Chardonnay, Opus One, or Mondavi Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon, while having orphans polish your monocle collection.

        1. I don’t react well to tannins. All I smell in every bottle of wine is rot and decay – and I taste it in any distilled spirit aged in wood.

          1. Aren’t you the one who doesn’t like beer either? Weirdo.

      3. Oh, it probably is, but not to my beer-swillers taste.

    2. So how was the wine? Self-declared wine amateur Lentini says, ‘It was okay. It was good. It wasn’t great. It wasn’t terrible. It was fine.’

      I went to a wine tasting thing last week and this is just about my response to every offering. Now beer, I can appreciate beer.

    3. $10 for fries? Bobby is flaying everyone.

      1. I’m going to guess that they were mango-chipotlie fries with a side of poblano corn relish.

        1. That sounds awful.

          You’d have to provide them for free if you expected me to try them.

          That reminds me, I should check if the purple potatos being sold in my local supermarket are actually the kind that are purple inside and not just outside.

          1. The good ones will be. You get into that organic shit, and colors are subject to change.

          2. Hah! This evening I just happened to fry up a diced potato in pork fat which I had skimmed off the top of a pot of Carne Adovado. Jeez, I’m not sure how I didn’t nibble most of that away before I served the actual meal.

        2. Check the menu. It says black pepper french fries. That being said, I’ve had some truffle fries that were worth $10.

          1. Er, I checked.

    4. It sucks to be him, but at the same time I don’t blame the waitress for suggesting a more expensive bottle, although she should have said it differently. Most people don’t spend less on a bottle of wine at a restaurant than they do on their steak (the one on the receipt was 90). Wine is notoriously marked up in restaurants because people who want it when they go out will pay more.

      1. True to some point. But the guy probably wouldn’t have raised a ruckus if the wine had been $375, even if he had mistaken the price. But very few people are expecting $3,750. The waitress should definitely thrown an “Are you sure?” in there.

  20. Making a splash: Controversial Baywash car wash proves a hit with bikini-clad women employees – and cops had to be banned from getting free washes

    Baywash Bikini Car Wash in based in the town of Winter Park, Florida
    Employs six young women to wash vehicles wearing only swimwear
    Owner Steve McMahon started business to raise money for local school
    But it has proven so successful he wants to open branches across U.S.
    However local police officers have been banned from visiting the car wash


    1. Doesn’t that guy know that they have machines that was cars now?

      1. Do the machines have perky titties?

        1. They will in the future.

    2. “Our bodies, our choice”.

  21. Turkey: Hair removal advert ‘uses al-Qaeda photo’

    The infamous photo of the alleged 9/11 mastermind, with chest and back hair spilling out of his white T-shirt, was taken after he was captured in Pakistan in 2003. The cosmetics company used it alongside the caption: “That hair will not shed itself,” The Daily Sabah website reports. But the company which created the advert is keen to point out he was chosen for his profuse body hair, not his terrorist activities. “We didn’t know that he was a terrorist,” company representative Mehmet Can Yildiz tells the Hurriyet Daily News. “The guy is quite hairy, so we thought his body was a good fit for our ad.” He says the picture was taken from a social networking site, where it had been used several times alongside amusing captions.

    1. Given the hirsuite nature of Turks in general, they didn’t have anyone on staff furry enough for the role?

    2. You could call decapitations ‘haircuts’, I guess.

      1. They’re just taking a little off the top.

  22. You know how it ends… right? Bella Thorne reads her first novel Autumn Falls while relaxing at cafe

    Probably reading it for the first time.

    1. Probably reading it for the first time.


      By the time a book hits print, I don’t want to see it again for some time because I’d have read it a dozen or more times during composition and editing. There’s no way for the trad publisher to change the content now, so if she’d actually written that, there’s no way she’d be willingly reading it.

      There’s also the chance it was a deliberate publicity event, knowing the paparazzi and the daily fail would be watching.

      1. There’s also the chance it was a deliberate publicity event, knowing the paparazzi and the daily fail would be watching.

        I figure that’s a given.

  23. European Stocks Fall as Investors Seek Stimulus Clarity

    European stocks fell for the third time in four days, as the European Central Bank held interest rates at record lows, and investors awaited a press conference for any signals on further stimulus from President Mario Draghi.

    Lenders were among the worst performers, with Societe Generale SA and Credit Agricole SA falling after reporting declines in consumer-banking profits. Legrand SA lost 4.5 percent after saying 2014 sales and operating margin will be at the low end of its targets.

    1. investors awaited a press conference for any signals on further stimulus from President Mario Draghi.

      I don’t understand this stuff. It seems these signals are generally “could go up, could go down, could remain steady”. I suppose, though, in bankese that’s probably code for something slightly more meaningful.

      1. I dont understand either. Why would stocks fall for businesses that instead of making money need to have outside cash poured endlessly into them?

        I don’t get it.

    2. The market is addicted to stimulus.


      Not good.

  24. A proposal for reform of the Senate.

    As it stands now, states like NY, MA, IL, CA, PA, etc. that have mega-urban populations basically have two senators that represent the vast majority of the population ? that happens to be concentrated in urban centers. By way of example, NY has two liberal senators that represent the urban center of the state ? and no senator that represents the rural portion of the state. The interest of these urban centers is not always (or more likely, never) aligned with the interest of the rural portions of the state. This creates a more ‘democratic’ ? and a less ‘republican’ ? government than the Founders intended. It is also creating, slowly but inexorably, a wider urban/rural divide in the country that in the long term will /could be the source of greater friction in the country as a whole. Now, I am sort of ok with that friction as I think the rural portion of the country is better able to fend for itself than the urban centers are, but in the interest of avoiding a revolution in the traditional sense of that word (i.e.- a crap ton of bloodshed and years of discord and misery) I think that states dominated by large urban centers should have one senator elected from the urban center, and one elected form the rural diaspora.

    Would this would create more gridlock as it would act as a check on the growing power of urban interests? Yes, yes it would, and that’s the point.

    1. I’d settle for repealing the 17A.

      1. That might be easier.

    2. The only issue is that Senators represent people, not land area. So if you have enough rural people to equal the urban people in a state, then I don’t see the problem. BUt if the counties around Chicago have 65% of Illinois’ population, for instance, then I don;t see how a ‘rural’ senator doesn’t end up with a disproportionate share of power.

      1. Wrong, Senators represent state – ie land area.

        House members represent people and are therefore apportioned by population.

        1. Yep. The senators from Wyoming have just as much political power as the senators from California, just like it was intended.

          1. Except that the senators were supposed to be chosen by the state governments, not the people, giving the states a check on federal power.
            As it is, states governments have no representation at all within the federal government.
            The idea being that the people through the House can propose spending, but the state governments through the Senate could say no.
            This way the state governments could block unfunded mandates, expansion of social programs and such.

            1. And that’s why popular election of Senators was the first step toward a centralized, and thus Total, State.

        2. I understand that. But if the original idea was to apportion Senators by population locus within a state, then my point is that you are apportioning senators by population (where number of urban v rural voters is the population)…thus giving the smaller number of rural voters’ votes a disproportionate representation.

          1. Right now they have no representation in the senate. It’s disproportionate either way.

            1. This is true in the sense that when the person you vote for loses, you have no representation…whether you are rural or urban.

          2. If that was the intent, there would be 2 senatorial districts in each state, each representing half of the population.

            1. At the time of the Founding, there was much less power concentrated in urban centers. I think that needs to be addressed.

              1. I believe the original intent of the bicameral legislature with 2 senators per state was to prevent the population apportioned House from overrunning the less populous southern states.

                1. I believe the original intent of the bicameral legislature with 2 senators per state was to prevent the population apportioned House from overrunning the less populous southern states.

                  The Senate was supposed to represent state governments and give them a veto power on federal legislation.
                  For example I doubt that a Senate that represented state governments would pass unfunded mandates or bills that require states to raise their drinking age as a condition of receiving highway funds. The 17A removed a powerful check against federal power, as well as taking the country away from being a republic and more towards being a democracy.

                2. And the less populous Northern ones. The original appeal for equal representation came from NJ, which was bordered by high pop NY and PA.

                3. I believe the original intent of the bicameral legislature with 2 senators per state was to prevent the population apportioned House from overrunning the less populous southern states.

                  Sure, but at that time the population as a whole was much more dispersed within individual states, not concentrated in urban centers.

                  Part of the point of having two senators from each state was to act as a check on the power of the HoR. Now, you have more urban representation in the senate then you had in the past owing to the shift of populations off the farm and into urban centers.

                  Urban centers as concentrations of power is a growing problem.

      2. That’s a good point. It’s an idea that occurred to me as a means of addressing the rural/urban divide – not saying it’s perfect.

      3. Again, this why the 17th should be repealed. Currently, Senators represent the people of a state rather than the state itself. The system is designed for the opposite.

        The Senate and House should be antagonistic. They represent different interests, after all.

        1. How did it work before the 17A – did the entire legislature select the senators, or was it one of the houses of the legislature that selected them?

          1. I believe it was up to the state governments to decide. Some already did a popular vote. Others had the legislature decide. Some were appointed by governors. Thing is, there was so much corruption going on that many states didn’t have representation in the Senate because the state governments couldn’t agree on who to put in there. The 17A was supposed to fix that, but instead it removed one of the most effective checks against federal power. Look at how the federal government exploded once the states lost their veto power against federal legislation.

          2. I honestly don’t know. The article imply states “by the legislature,” so my guess is both houses would have to ratify the appointment.

            1. Can’t remember where I read it, but I believe that most states would have the governor choose from among the state congress and then the congress would ratify.

          3. Here’s a good article. Sarcasmic (above @10:26) has the gist of it. I suspect if 17A was repealed, most (if not all) states would just maintain direct elections. However, I think that the state legislatures might want to at least maintain removal power for themselves.

      4. Senators represent people, not land area.

        They are supposed to represent States, as the federal senate is supposed to be the house of the States. This is why, initially, senators were chosen by State legislators.

    3. Yeah, it’s totally weird how the areas of the country where 81% of the population lives are getting more political power.

      1. Thus defeating the purpose of a limited federal republic.

        The urban centers are not supposed to dominate national politics. Their political power should be exercised at the local level.

        The idea that a major urban center should be calling all the shots not only for itself but also for the vast rural areas surrounding it is absurd.

        Of course, the converse also applies, but since as you note the urban centers have greater population, it is impossible for the rural areas to dominate them politically in a democracy.

        The national government stands for two purposes: to defend from external threats and to oppose the tendency of localities to use political power to oppress each other.

        When you combine democracy with arbitrary boundaries, you get injustice of the majority over the minority. It is impossible to flee an authority that claims everywhere as its dominion.

        1. I get that, but as a practical matter, any society where 81% really wants something and is thwarted by the remaining 19% is not going to remain long term stable.

          1. How do you identify a particular polity as constituting a single society?

            I bet you can find an issue that 81% of the world’s population agrees on, yet is not a cause of any instability.

    4. Not a bad idea, I would rather the large urban areas become their own separate state though.

      1. I have thought about the city-state idea – I suppose that might work too, where let’s say NYC would have there own two senators and the rest of NY would also have two.

        1. Meh. I would rather just focus on lessening the power they have over us.

          1. As do I, but even that won’t address the urban/rural divide.

            1. I don’t think city-states will either. Look at the constant messing around with governmental units in places like Canada and England. Has it helped?

  25. I was once a climate change denier
    I’m a scientist now, but the embarrassment lingers. Here’s why I let myself be duped — and how I came to my senses

    I, a scientist with a PhD in microbiology and immunology, was a climate change denier. Wait, let me add, I was an effective climate change denier: I would throw on a cloak of anecdotal evidence, biased one-sided skepticism and declare myself a skeptic. Good scientists are skeptics, right? I sallied forth and denied every piece of evidence that was presented to me for a relatively long time.

    It feels strange when I look back ? I inadvertently fell into almost every pitfall of pseudoscience, shutting my eyes and repeating a series of mantras, such as “I don’t believe it!” “Why does it even matter?” and “I don’t care!”

    Thankfully, those days are over, but the memories linger. Although the evolution of my thought ? from ignorance, to denial, to skepticism and finally to acceptance ? was a continuum. In retrospect, I can distinguish certain phases that are worth listing and discussing. I hope my experience encourages others to loosen up some strongly held beliefs and listen to the din of evidence.

    1. ‘I, a scientist with a PhD in microbiology and immunology’

      Sorta like Krugman – an economist – passing off as a political expert?

    2. a scientist with a PhD in microbiology and immunology

      Which has what exactly to do with climate science?

      1. Which has what exactly to do with climate science?

        Some microbes produce methane….maybe?

      2. Well, it indicates he is familiar with the scientific method, and that science is done by experiment and observation, not consensus, and that the failure of the climate models has falsified the AGW-CO2 hypothesis. But evidently, he prefers to go ahead and argue the equivalent of creationism. I guess he figured out which side the grant money and career-advancement are on.

        1. I guess he figured out which side the grant money and career-advancement are on.


          1. As a returning student, I see climate change has infected just about every corner of academia as the cause of all the troubles in the world. Shocking but not surprising.

    3. I, a scientist with a PhD in microbiology and immunology, was a climate change denier.

      “But then parasites infected my brain.”

    4. You know, you never hear about this in the real world. I mean, the one that isn’t fictionized bullshit crafted for political reasons. It always seems to go the other direction now.

    5. What do you know? Never worked a day in his life. Surprise surprise.

      Masters’ in Public Health expected 2016
      Surprise surprise.

      1. Most PhDs have been so damaged by academia that they can’t survive in the wild.

    6. “I, a scientist with a PhD in microbiology and immunology,” ….know jack-shit about climate science, earth science, the sun, the atmosphere, or historical geology.

      He attempts to make a case without any evidence at all, just psychological blather.

      I am guessing he is expecting to come into some sweet research funds now that he is part of the consensus.

      1. I, a Doctor of Laws, have no credentials whatsoever in climatology.

        1. Nor do I, but I am not trumpeting my credentials as a ‘scientist’.

          The case for AGW does not stand on its on. Thus the ‘ I am not a climate scientist, but I play one on TV’ meme, and the consensus, neither of which is sound logic or proper science.

          1. We need a science certification company, like UL for electrical stuff. “NOT SCIENCE. CONSUME AT YOUR OWN RISK.

            1. How long before they are captured by social activists masquerading as science certifiers?


              1. It’s not a government organization, so if it fails to provide the service that it’s paid to deliver. . .then it dies, like all failed companies do.

            2. Isn’t that the type of thinking that the Climate Cult wants? An imprimatur is an attempt to shortcut the analysis an individual should to do when encountering arguments.

              1. Dear Science Lords:

                I was reading something about AGW being so bad that the Earth will ignite in twenty years. Is this science?

      2. Yes. It would be nice if this person would cite the exact papers which changed their mind. I mean, I’d think someone with a PhD would do academic research and point to something other than UN white papers.

      3. Its interesting but the 4 engineering societies whose membership I have reviewed all state in their membership ethics that using your credential as an engineer to assert credibility in a field you don’t work in is highly frowned upon.

        1. Using your credentials as an anything to assert credibility in a field you don’t work on is highly frowned upon pretty much everywhere.

          Still, I wonder if engineering groups take such a strong stance due to fallout from the hijinks of Fred Leuchter.

          1. Or Herbert Hoover.

        2. As it should be. It’s become a problem with scientists in general, who think being smart enough to get a PhD and a job in a science means that you know more about everything else than most everyone else. See the same in other fields, too, but the deeper steeping in the academic tea corrupts them more, I think.

          1. I’m of the opinion that anyone so specialized as to get a PhD is too focused to speak on anything not covered by their narrow slice of expertise.

            1. How dare you deprive Noam Chomsky of 99.9999999% of his life?!?!?

              1. Would you believe I had never heard of his “other life” before my linguistics degree? I can’t imagine going thru college today without having him shoved down your throat every other day.

    7. The conversion of the sinner is a common religious trope.

      I, a deacon and long-standing member of this church, was a sinner. Wait, let me add, I was a prolific sinner: I would drink and gamble, take the Lord’s name in vain, I ran around with loose women and even watched pornogrpahy. You can be a part-time Christian, right? I sallied forth and sinned at every chance that was presented to me for a relatively long time.

      It feels strange when I look back ? I fell into almost every pitfall of Satan, shutting my eyes and repeating a series of mantras, such as “I don’t believe in God!” “Why does it even matter?” and “I don’t care!”

      Thankfully, those days are over, but the memories linger. Although the evolution of my thought ? from ignorance, to denial, to skepticism and finally to acceptance of the truth of Jesus Christ ? was a continuum. In retrospect, I can distinguish certain phases that are worth listing and discussing. I hope my experience encourages others to loosen up some strongly held beliefs and listen to the din of evidence for God’s love.

      1. That’s pretty damn good.

      2. Pretty much. It is not that this guy changed his mind. Everyone is entitled to do that and indeed people probably don’t do that enough. It is the reasoning he gives for changing his mind. And the reasons read very much like a faith based conversion or some kind of internal revelation of the truth.

        Whatever you think of the validity of such conversions or revelations, I am pretty sure we all agree they are not the way to settle a factual or scientific dispute.

        1. And there is also a touch of the aloholic’s “rock bottom” story if you read the entire article.

          The “faith” presentation of science and the “addict” presentation of ideas is deeply creepy.

          He’s witnessing, to use the Protestant terminology, and it’s very unsettling because he’s asserting that the only way to disagree with him is to be blind (or blinded) to the truth.

          I never really understood it in the “libertarian” conversion articles, but this makes it very clear what they are doing.

            1. “You ever sucked dick for a climate model?”

              \Billy Bong Thorton

      3. I too thought I was reading a form letter that S***n hands out to its supplicants.

    8. I see Salon finally ran out of “I used to be libertarian” articles and decided to come at it from another angle.

      1. That’s another one I haven’t really observed in reality: Someone moving away from libertarianism to statism. More the other direction, I’d say. Certainly, few become less skeptical about human behavior as they age.

        1. The ones who ‘used to be libertarian” initially only knew about the drugs legalization aspect, then change their mind the second they find out about the other stuff, like not thinking the Koch brothers are evil, and/or that Jon Stewart doesn’t think libertarians are cool.

      2. “I used to be a Mexican ass worshiping pot-smoker and then I woke up.”

        1. And now it’s nothing but Latvians, titties and cocaine.

  26. Russian actor and Putin critic found dead in Moscow

    Police said the scene was being investigated and there was no immediate confirmation of whether he had been murdered, or the potential motives of a killer.
    However, Mr Devotchenko’s outspoken criticism of the rule of Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, is likely to provoke intense scrutiny over how and why he died.

    In 2011, the actor said he was renouncing two state acting prizes “received from Putin’s hands”, saying he was “ashamed”. “I’ve had enough of all this tsar-state stuff,” he wrote in a blog post. “With its lies, its cover-ups, its legalised theft, its bribe-taking and its other triumphs.”

    A year earlier he had urged fellow actors, artists and musicians to boycott “ultra-patriotic, propagandistic, chauvinistic, anti-Semitic, or pro-Stalinist feature films and television projects” and “agitprop documentaries”.

    He also called on them not to talk to “lying and tendentious state media” or to take part in Kremlin-linked banquets.

    Money earned from such appearances, “smells of dank prison cells, of neglected hospitals and homeless shelters, of the acrid smoke of burnt-out architectural monuments and historical buildings and night clubs and homes for the elderly,” he said.
    “It smells of the boots of the OMON riot police.”

    1. That is straight out of the KGB playbook. After Stalin left and the Soviets could no longer just shoot people at will, the method for dealing with publicly known dissidents or those in the government who had fallen out of favor with the party was to murder them and then arrange a car accident to cover up the dead publicly. The vehicle accident death rate among Soviet Party members in the 1970s was higher than that of formula one drivers at the time.

      1. +1 poison-tipped umbrella with a shot of Po-210-laced tea.

  27. wait… wut?

    New Zealand model re-creates viral catcalling video, does not get catcalled at all
    The issue isn’t “boys being boys.” It’s deep culturally embedded sexism

    In an interesting test of the “boys will be boys” hypothesis, the New Zealand Herald decided to re-create the Hollaback video on the streets of Auckland, recruiting a model named Nicola Simpson to star. As in the New York video, Simpson walked around the city for 10 hours behind a hidden camera chronicling her trip. And guess what happened? She received zero catcalls. None. Not one.

    Simpson was stopped twice, both times by men; one asked if she was Italian, and the other asked for directions. If this is catcalling, it’s markedly different from the U.S. variety. The experiment does suffer from its lack of a controlled variable, and it’s impossible to overlook the fact that Simpson is not Shoshana Roberts, the actress in the original video; the two also look virtually nothing alike. But you know who also doesn’t look like Shoshana Roberts? Amanda Seales, the comedian who recently went on CNN to say that she regularly experiences verbal harassment similar to that shown in the Hollaback video.

    1. She was in Auckland, not Harlem. There is a vast difference.

      1. That’s my new favorite way to troll the SJWs. Ask them why minority men are on the wrong side of the war on women.

      2. It’s deep culturally embedded sexism

        Complimenting a girls features is sexist.

    2. In an interesting test of the “boys will be boys” hypothesis, the New Zealand Herald decided to re-create the Hollaback video on the streets of Auckland, recruiting a model named Nicola Simpson to star.

      Well there’s the problem. If you want catcalls in Aukland, you have to use a sheep.

      1. How could that hve been so mis-stated?

        “If ewe want catcalls…”

    3. She was wearing sunglasses. Totally different.

      1. That and the fact that she had no ass.

        1. Her shirt appears to be long enough to cover her flat ass too.

    4. She looks like a skinny, stuck up model. The girl in Brooklyn had an everygirl quality plus she was stacked like a front loader. Day laborers are not going to catcall that which does not attract.

    5. “it’s markedly different from the U.S. variety.”

      I am guessing the writer is a typical New Yorker who gets their city confused with the country at large.

      1. If you could induce the SJWs to leave their cozy BosWash environs and head into the rest of the country, it would be interesting to duplicate the experiment in various cities.

        Seriously, it would.

  28. A Pilbara resident has spoken of his surprise at seeing a plane parked outside his local pub after its owner apparently taxied it down the main street so he could get a drink.


    1. Wow, the Australian authorities really know how to shit their pants over nothing, huh?

  29. Take a look inside home of ‘devil worshiper’ accused of murder, sacrificing animals

    Last month a front-end loader scooped up tires, lawn mowers and other debris from outside the home. Burch’s friend spoke about conditions inside the house that were so bad she thought she might vomit.

    When the friend first arrived to visit Burch in 2009, Algarad was completely naked and never put on any clothes during the visit. The excrement on the floor might have been both animal and human, the friend said.

    “He was on all kinds of drugs and would drink when I got there,” she said. “I’m pretty sure I witnessed him peeing in the corner.”

    The friend said Algarad’s behavior was “very sexual, very provocative.”

  30. Thankfully, those days are over, but the memories linger. Although the evolution of my thought ? from ignorance, to denial, to skepticism and finally to acceptance ? was a continuum. In retrospect, I can distinguish certain phases that are worth listing and discussing. I hope my experience encourages others to loosen up some strongly held beliefs and listen to the din of evidence.

    Salon’s “I once was lost, buy now am found” meme branches out from libertarianism to climate denial.

    What will be next?

    1. Prolly a reformed gun owner who saw the evil of his ways and had everything melted down into modern art.

  31. I haven’t been able to stomach Facebook since election night. I peeked in this morning and the baffled butthurt was still going strong among the bubble-dwellers. I ducked out again. I’d rather go through the two weeks of “First Day of School” pics than this shit.

    1. Mine was only one guy. He’s on mute now.

      1. I’d say about 8-10% of my Facebook friends are conservatives and/or libertarian. It can be difficult during election season. It’s either smug satisfaction or extreme butthurt with a side of elitism.

        I think I’ll go see if there are any donuts left in the cafeteria.

    2. My best friend – who lives down in Austin – is a big-time liberal… so I end up blocking his FB posts to control my blood pressure. Of course I miss the fun, non-political stuff.

      1. /snort. Do we share the same friend who was boasting about his Wendy Davis vote on Tuesday?

        I find the unfollow button works great for not completing blocking people, but avoiding their status updates so I don’t have to see the political crap.

    3. You’re not going to engage and rub their noses in it? You win some sort of award for self-restraint.

      1. Tell them: “If you like your Obamacare, you can keep it!”

        1. That’s what Mitch said!

      2. “Elections have consequences”

      3. There’s not much rubbing to do, in that I didn’t vote, and even if I did, it certainly wouldn’t have been for anyone who actually won. The schadenfreude is kind of nice, especially in that they all seem so surprised. But really, it’s a hollow “victory”.

  32. y t

    1. You don’t say.

  33. the baffled butthurt was still going strong among the bubble-dwellers

    I did a Morning Joke drive-by; Mika Fluffzinski’s reaction seemed to boil down to, “The Democratic Party is unworthy of Him.”

    1. Pathetic. Obama is an abysmal failure even from the Democratic point of view.

      This kind of dehumanizing of a public official is not only sick, it’s dangerous.

    2. How small and lost do you have to be to join a cult of personality?

      This, I really do not get.

      1. I sell the things you need to be
        I’m the smiling face on your TV
        I’m the cult of personality
        I exploit you, still you love me
        I tell you one and one makes three

        1. It’s impossible to hear that song and not think of the empty idiot the left decided to make into a cult figurehead.

      2. This is what I don’t get – treating a politician like a teen idol. A fucking politician. It’s like idolizing a TV disability lawyer. Yet people always think “this guy/gal is different!”.

  34. Hitler Sightings In Berlin?

    Constantin Film is going undercover for Look Who’s Back, its big-screen adaptation of Timur Vermes’ bestselling novel that imagines the return of Adolf Hitler to modern-day Germany. The powerhouse German company is replicating the Borat model, thrusting its notorious central character played by unknown German actor Oliver Masucci into unsuspecting real-life situations in Germany.

    Actual principal photography begins Saturday, but reaction to the “pre-shoots” with Masucci as Der Fuhrer has spread virally across the country, where the dark days of Nazi rule remain a blot on the German psyche. The shoot will take place all over Germany with a particular emphasis in Berlin.

    1. can I have your autograph Mr. Bronski?

  35. http://www.politico.com/story/…..12619.html

    The deep abyss of House Democrats. The article mentions several Democratic incumbents from the South and West Texas who were thought to be untouchable but lost Tuesday. Maybe having a national party message of “we are the party of minorities, feminists and urban whites and voting for us is a way to show how much you hate everyone else” makes it hard to win the votes of the everyone else.

    1. That MD’s governor is GOP was the biggest shocker for me. They really motivated the opposition these past couple years.

      1. Me too. I think a little bit of that is the wages of the media being so protective of Prog politicians. O’Malley was horrible. But no one outside of Maryland knew it because the media showers love on any far left governor not under indictment.

        I think the coverage of O’Malley allowed the Maryland Democrats to live in denial of what a fuck up he was. So they didn’t understand that running Brown amounted to a giant “go fuck yourself Maryland you will vote for anyone we put up no matter how awful”.

        1. But it will be shown that Brown lost because Maryland is full of Obama-hating racists just like Virginia.

          1. Progs are addicted to the race card like an addict is addicted to drugs. You would think an ass kicking this bad would cause them to seek some help. But it won’t. They will just retreat deeper into denial. Tuesday wasn’t an election so much as a national intervention aimed at the Democratic Party.

            1. One they are rejecting out of hand. It’s amazing that the reason for it – that their policies don’t work, or have major negative side-effects – is the one they’re rejecting completely.

              1. The other thing they can’t come to terms with is the idea that basing so much of their national message on marginalizing rural whites, non feminist men, and conservative Christians has made it impossible for any Democrat to win in any district where such people are the majority.

                They actually have the nerve to act shocked that they can’t win in Georgia or Arkansas anymore. How dare those people not vote for us just because our entire party is built around hating them. They actually think that.

  36. This kind of dehumanizing of a public official is not only sick, it’s dangerous.

    Better a petulant, feckless god than no god at all, I guess.

    The very last thing people seem to want to hear is, “Good luck. You’re on your own.”

    1. The very last thing people seem to want to hear is, “Good luck. You’re on your own.”

      Except for the weirdoes, ~7% of people, that would sigh in relief.

  37. But Obama is no kind and loving god! He’s one of the old gods! He demands sacrifice!

    1. Has anyone seen Debbie Wasserman Schultz?!?!?

      1. As annoying as she is, it is not her fault this happened. What was she supposed to do different? Whatever you think about her, she is a loyal soldier and put out the party message.

        1. Things went so bad for the Dems in Ohio that the state party chairman lost his own “safe” state representative seat.
          That’s some sweet schadenfreude right there.

        2. She’s a symptom, true, but she’s bad even for a modern Democrat. Their leadership has been truly awful. Not just in political activities but as examples of Homo sapiens sapiens.

          1. She is terrible. But mostly she is a mouth piece. Had the Democratic message been better she wouldn’t have been so awful. Replacing her won’t do any good if you stick the next person with the same awful message.

        3. As annoying as she is, it is not her fault this happened.

          When bad things happen, the boss is always responsible.

          She’s the boss of the DNC. Not Obama.

          She’s responsible. She should have seen this coming and done something about it. They managed to keep a muzzle on Obama and Michelle, after all, which couldn’t have been easy given the way those two narcissists love a devoted crowd. So they can buck the White House.

          You’re in the big chair, you take the big jump.

          1. Except that she is not the boss. The boss is in the White House and leading the Democratic Caucuses in the Congress. Those three are the ones responsible here.

            1. Where does the buck stop? With the Republicans?

      2. I went to my mom’s house last weekend. She lives in DWS’s district, and of course, she had a DWS sign in her yard.

        I’m not sure how I survived my upbringing.

        1. Who the fuck likes that woman? Holy cow.

      3. If I ever saw Debbie Wasserman Schultz and she was crying, I would go up to her and ask if it was because of her terrible hair.

      4. Has anyone really wanted to?

    2. Outstanding reference. Truly outstanding.

      1. I do own the complete collection, so I am influenced.

        1. Awesome collection. The biggest challenge is keeping the grubby paws of the 9-year-old twins off it. I’ve had to buy them multiple copies of the various soft-cover collections to satisfy their C&H lust.

          1. My rule is that only humans who have passed the gom jabbar can read it.

            1. Humans and tigers, that is.

            2. My rule is that only humans who have passed the gom jabbar can read it.

              Don’t mix the narrative streams!!!

              1. My people have many myths, legends, and other forms of indigenous entertaniment.

          2. My 7 year old son reads everything. He noticed my collection and asked to read it. Got through all three volumes in under a week.

            1. Related, I just got my 9 year old daughter started on the Dragonlance Chronicles (The Wiess-Hickman orginial series, not the fifty cajillion spin-offs) she loves them.

              I am a proud papa.

              1. I sheepishly admit that I am unfamiliar with Dragonlace, but I will check it out. The boy and girl are both into the Warriors (cat) series, which I do not read. And we all are finding the “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” series, our current bed-time out-loud read, to be quite funny.

                1. They are quite good, although they do read like a transcribed table top D & D campaign, which they are. I still re-read them every few years.

                  They are pretty kid-friendly too, provided your kids are okay with the normal wizards and warriors stuff. Some of the other series from the same authors in the same universe that are pretty good, once you start straying too far from those the writing tends to be rather hit or miss.

  38. This is Ralph Reed talking. So who knows how true this is. Even if it is half true, it is a pretty striking statistic and puts lie to the idea that Republicans can win by throwing the SOCONS out of the party.

    On Election Day, self-identified conservative Christians made up 32 percent of the electorate and voted 86 percent Republican and only 12 percent Democrat. These voters contributed an astonishing 52.4 percent of all the votes received by Republican candidates…

    The Catholic vote, the swing vote in American politics for a half century, was also critical. Republicans won the Roman Catholic vote (23 percent of the electorate) by a twelve-point margin, 56 to 44 percent. Even more dramatically, faithful Catholics who attend Mass once a week or more often and comprise one out of every ten voters, cast 70 percent of their votes for Republican candidates and only 30 percent for Democratic candidates.


    I think the birth control mandate really hurt the Democrats. Catholics have generally voted Democrat. Kind of hard to do that now. Even though Catholics don’t follow the church, they generally feel an obligation to defend it.

    1. Algore tells us that there is a scientific consensus on AGW.

    2. tl;dr: You libertarians can vote for big government with a side of SJW or big government with a side of SoCon, but you will vote for big government whether you like it or not.

  39. http://www.washingtontimes.com…..as-leader/

    You would think Pelosi would want to quit out of loyalty to the party. Even Newt Gingrich, who is an epic egomaniac, stepped down when he realized he was nothing but a drag on the party and there was no way to fix it. At this point, I don’t think it is fair to call Pelosi a partisan. Partisans at least care about the cause. Pelosi is just a sociopath who doesn’t give a shit about anyone but herself.

    1. I saw an interview once with a married couple that ran a business, some kind of home repair contractors. They did tens of thousands of dollars of work for the Pelosis and after praising the work Nancy refused to pay them.

      She told them to go fuck themselves, sue if they wanted.

      I have no idea how true that is or if there is more to the story, but given the personality she puts forth publicly, it was sure believable.

      1. It doesn’t surprise me. Pelosi came to speak at a girls high school my wife was working at a few years ago. She showed up two minutes before her speech, didn’t talk to anyone on the staff and then proceeded to go up and do nothing but hawk her book. She gave the standard book hawking speech. Didn’t take any questions, didn’t have anything encouraging to say to the students. Nothing except buy my book.

        She is one of those people about whom I have never heard a positive word said other than “I love her politics”. There isn’t a single story out there about her helping someone or acting graciously in any way. It is all about how fabulous her politics are or stories like yours and mine.

        1. Now that you say that….yeah. Not a single story.

          I disliked Mitt Romney as a candidate. I disagree with his politics and felt certain he would be a loser. I wouldn’t vote for him as dog catcher.

          As a person? I have heard lots of stories about him in his private life being a stellar human being.

          Pelosi? I got nothin’. Come to think of it, I got nothing on Obama either.

          Does anyone have any anecdotal evidence that Obama is anything but a narcissistic personality disorder?

          1. Or even on the other side Howard Dean. Dean is a doctor who from what I have heard has done a lot of very nice things for people who couldn’t afford his services and was by all accounts a good doctor who cared about his patients.

            Pelosi and Reid both are just monsters. The Democrats are going to rue the day that they allowed such people to run their party. The problem with such people is that since they are sociopaths they will happily destroy your organization if they think doing so is in their interests.

  40. Thank (Or Blame) The Supreme Court For Credential Inflation

    Our mania for college credentials works strongly against upward mobility for individuals who, for whatever reason, don’t have a college degree. They are confined to the shrinking and mostly low-pay segment of the labor market where educational credentials still don’t matter.

    But how did this regrettable situation come about? Why don’t employers directly evaluate applicants’ capabilities rather than insisting that they first put in the huge amount of time and money it takes to obtain a degree?

    A 1971 Supreme Court decision, Griggs v. Duke Power, had a lot to do with it, by giving employers a strong incentive to use educational credentials as a proxy for aptitude testing.

    Chief Justice Burger’s opinion deferred to the EEOC’s vast reinterpretation of the law and held that Duke Power was in violation because its educational and testing requirements had a disparate impact on minority workers. The law, he wrote, required “the removal of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment where the barriers operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of racial or other impermissible classification.”

    1. That argument has been around for a long time and I think it is largely true. Thanks to Duke Power businesses just can’t give objective skills tests to applicants. So they can only judge on credentials.

      The effects of this are only going to get worse in the future. Thanks to the internet people can teach themselves skills more than ever. If not for Duke Power, companies would be free to hire people who had self acquired skills and the higher education monopoly would end even quicker.

      1. Skills test are ok, as long as they’re related to the actual job duties of the position. Duke‘s problem, if I recall correctly, was they were using an iq test.

        1. What about police departments that use iq tests?

          Oh yeah, when they do it they disqualify people for being too intelligent, which isn’t discrimination.

        2. Yes. But the case struck those down because they had a disparate impact on minorities. So the rule in the case was not “no IQ tests”. The rule was “no objective tests that have a disparate impact on minorities”. For example, police and fire departments were sued all over the country for discrimination even though their skills tests to get hired were totally relevant to the job. Even though something like the ability to pick up and carry a normal sized adult 20 yards is definitely relevant to being a fireman, the departments still got sued and lost because it had a disparate impact on women or minorities.

        3. Skills test are ok, as long as they’re related to the actual job duties of the position.

          If those tests give “disparate impact” results, you are fucked in the ass by the DOJ and the OCR.

          Even if you win, its an assfucking.

          So it sounds good, but in the real world its risky.

          1. What Clown Hunter said. It is even worse than that. The presumption is that anyone with the credentials is qualified. So no matter how good your test is, if minorities or women with the right credentials can’t pass it, you are screwed.

      2. The disparate impact analysis has always struck me as peculiarly opposed to the common law idea of mens rea, in that you can be found guilty of discriminaton even if you as an employer never intended to discriminate against anyone, but your workforce numbers came up “wrong.”

        1. That is all it is. People objected to forced percentages of minorities. So the SCOTUS put them in through the back door via the disparate impact test. The only way you can prove your hiring standards don’t have a disparate impact is by hiring a percentage of minorities and women equal to the percentage of qualified and interested minorities and women in your area.

          1. But if they failed the objective aptitude test, they aren’t qualfied.

            1. No. It means your test is racist. Remember, the whole system is based on credentials. So if they have the credentials, they by definition must be qualified and the only reason they don’t pass your test is because its racist.

              The disparate impact test is really that insane. It is one of the worse doctrines in law.

  41. Chief Justice Burger’s opinion deferred to the EEOC’s vast reinterpretation of the law and held that Duke Power was in violation because its educational and testing requirements had a disparate impact on minority workers. The law, he wrote, required “the removal of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment where the barriers operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of racial or other impermissible classification.”

    I missed the Constitutional requirement that Supreme Court justices be (barely) functionally retarded.

    Demonstrable aptitude is an “artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barrier to employment”?

    1. Well, yeah! I mean, people deserve to have jobs! Requiring that they prove they can actually do the work before hiring them is unfair!

    2. “When people see their beautiful world of equality and social justice, they won’t like it very much.”

      -Soviet political officer

  42. It appears that a lot of us have proggie parents. Maybe a baby-boomer thing?

    Not my parents, but most of the aunts and uncles. Also, my brother and sister.

    Once more I say-

    Being a libertarian means never saying EVERYBODY AGREES WITH ME.”

    1. *unless you’re Bo

  43. Does anyone have any anecdotal evidence that Obama is anything but a narcissistic personality disorder?

    Dude, he hugged that ebola nurse, on teevee!

    1. After she was no longer contagious.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.