Tamir Rice's Mother Speaks Out, Rand Paul Is the GOP Frontrunner, Budget Battle: P.M. Links

|

  • Rand Paul
    Facebook

    The mother of Tamir Rice, the Cleveland 12-year-old killed by police for having a toy gun, is "looking for a conviction."

  • Fraternity supporters are calling on UVA to rescind its moratorium on campus Greek life activities in the wake of new revelations about inaccuracies in the Rolling Stone story.
  • The Washington Post named Sen. Rand Paul the GOP frontrunner for 2016.
  • Meanwhile, the Republican Party establishment is in search of a candidate it likes.
  • "Efforts to protect women from a putative epidemic of violence have led to misguided policies that infringe on the civil rights of men," wrote Slate's Emily Yoffe.
  • Why don't we all come together to fight about funding the government again? Say it with me: Shutdown, shutdown, shutdown, shutdown…
  • There was a huge fire in downtown Los Angeles this morning.

Reason's annual Webathon is underway! Your (tax-deductible!) gift will help Reason magazine, Reason.com, and Reason TV bring the case for "Free Minds and Free Markets" to bigger and bigger audiences. For giving levels and associated swag, go here now. 

Advertisement

NEXT: After Years of Wrangling, Senate Torture Report Drops Tomorrow

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. There was a huge fire in downtown Los Angeles this morning.

    Burn it down?

    1. Los Doyers was there. It’s probably his fault. EVERYTHING is his fault.

      1. He’s too ineffectual. He couldn’t even get his ex knocked up.

        1. THEY WERE GOING TO LET SF GIANTS FANS RENT THOSE APARTMENTS. Couldn’t let that happen.

          1. Oddly enough I recently met a Giants fan at 7 Grand that I believe lives in one of those Palmer developments.

    2. That place was hated by all the right people.

    3. Hello.

      1. It’s almost 2 hours later. Hi.

    4. Maybe LA will be worth visiting after a few more.

  2. Why don’t we all come together to fight about funding the government again?

    What if they threw a shutdown and nobody wept?

    1. Don’t worry. Obama will stop white house tours and close key national parks to “send a message”.

      1. My favorite was putting up caution tape to block the roadside parking area where people view Mt. Rushmore. “Sorry, we don’t have the money to allow you to stop your car and look at this.”

        1. I’m just suprised they didn’t get a giant sheet and cover the mountain.

          1. That was proposed for the Stone Mountain carving of Lee, Jackson and Davis before the 1996 Olympics.

        2. Maybe this time, the Federal government will deploy the National Guard to shut down Federally funded roads…

        3. My favorite was when that fucktard Bo-Bo spent weeks defending the closing of open-air parks.

    2. The pubsec unions will hire weepers.

      1. Why? They got a vacation, retro pay, and a good excuse to miss deadlines for the next year.

  3. “There was a huge fire in downtown Los Angeles this morning.”

    Los Angeles has a downtown?

    1. There’s no there there.

      \Gertrude Stein

      1. Hipster craft cocktails, you fool.

    2. Where do you think Dragnet happened? Except we have tall buildings now!

    3. Yes. People don’t live there, except for weirdos like Sudden.

      1. In fact, there are so many weirdos out here that I look positively well-adjusted by comparison.

  4. The mother of Tamir Rice, the Cleveland 12-year-old killed by police for having a toy gun, is “looking for a conviction.”

    I feel really sad for her, but I doubt this will ever happen.

    1. Agreed. I’d like to say this one was so outrageous that there has to be something, but that could’ve easily been said about Eric Garner.

    2. Over the course of the last month, I believe my nutsack has developed an immunity the nut punches.

      It’s like reading the sports section now. Which is very sad.

      1. I’ll punch you in the nuts at the meetup. If you object, say so in the next 2 minutes.

        1. looks at watch

          Damn!

    3. We’ve come a long way sympathizing with Murtaugh in Lethal Weapon for killing a kid.

      1. Murtaugh felt bad about it.

  5. “Efforts to protect women from a putative epidemic of violence have led to misguided policies that infringe on the civil rights of men,” wrote Slate‘s Emily Yoffe.

    Jezebel fires back that Emily needs to get laid more or something.

    1. I bet she doesn’t even have a masters in Journalism from Columbia, which as we all know is the litmus test for whether you can be considered a serious reporter.

    2. And, it should be noted, all this crying of “Wolf!” about imaginary gang-rapes hurts real rape victims by increasing skepticism about true claims of rape.

      1. STOP MANSPLAINING!!!!!!

        In reality, you are true. The people most damaging real rape victims are the people peddling “1 in 5” and “BelieveHer” and that stupid NFL ad campaign.

        Nothing makes me more skeptical of a person’s claims than when their claims are in line with the victim status du jour.

  6. Meanwhile, the Republican Party establishment is in search of a candidate it likes.

    The nominee is: ANYONE BUT RAND PAUL!

    1. Yeah hopefully that search means it’s not Christie’s or Huckabee’s or Santorum’s turn.

      1. My secret source tells me it’s going to be Romney 2016!

      2. It’s always almost Santorum’s turn.

        1. I hear he is working himself up into a frothy mix this time around.

          1. I think he will succeed in seeping into every crevice of our political lives.

      3. Being from PA, I hope it’s Santorum so that we can watch the death knell of at least one of the major parties. Besides an Elizabeth “Redskin” Warren vs. Ricky “Anal Ooze” Santorum campaign season is definitely the kind of culture war crap fest both sides of the My Team Above All Else punditry are foaming at the mouth to see. Either way we’ll get the candidate that the electorate so richly deserves. My only concern is for the future of my children, despite how cliche and overused that may sound.

        1. I’m going to Costa Rica if that happens.

        2. As bad as two-party rule is, single-party rule brought you Obamacare.

        3. 1 candidate for 1 office is never going to kill a major party. Nor a minor party.

      4. Romney II: Electric Boogaloo, coming to theatres everywhere in 2016!

    2. I’d like to see them back Trey Greyson again. He did such a fine job of crumpling like a paper bag the last time he faced Rand in a primary…

      -jcr

  7. Progs are trying to hull Paul’s ship early so that the GOP will be more likely to nominate another milquetoast statist.

    1. And the WaPo already has a libertarians-are-crazy series in the can. Spinning Romney into anti-christ was much more difficult.

      1. Bezo changed WaPo I don’t think that will happen.

  8. Meanwhile, the Republican Party establishment is in search of a candidate it likes.

    What? Jeb and Christie aren’t slavishly devoted to growing the state enough?

    1. What happened to Bolton? I thought Mr. Mustache was the establishment choice for ’16.

      1. Considering elections are in the month of Mo-vember, I would have to think that the mustache would tilt a close election in his favor.

        1. Meh. Hillary’s is better.

      2. What exactly are the criteria for being an establishment GOP candidate?

        1) Big spender
        2) War hawk
        3) Welfare Statist-lite
        4) SoCon-lite
        5) … big moustache?

        1. wealth
          family cx
          dog story

      3. No, presidents aren’t allowed to have facial hair. Who was the last president with face hair? Taft?

      4. His bastard hurts his image.

        1. Nothing? I oughta flay every single of you.

    2. Second Bush thinks Third Bush could beat Second Clinton, despite the fact that he and First Clinton are now BFFs.

  9. No matter what Jackie said, we should automatically believe rape claims.

    The title was changed from that to what’s there now and she cleaned up the dumbest paragraph.

    Now the narrative appears to be falling apart: Her rapist wasn’t in the frat that she says he was a member of; the house held no party on the night of the assault; and other details are wobbly. Many people (not least U-Va. administrators) will be tempted to see this as a reminder that officials, reporters and the general public should hear both sides of the story and collect all the evidence before coming to a conclusion in rape cases. This is what we mean in America when we say someone is “innocent until proven guilty.” After all, look what happened to the Duke lacrosse players.

    In important ways, this is wrong. We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says. Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist. Even if Jackie fabricated her account, U-Va. should have taken her word for it during the period while they endeavored to prove or disprove the accusation. This is not a legal argument about what standards we should use in the courts; it’s a moral one, about what happens outside the legal system.

    1. last part changed from:

      U-Va. should have taken her word for it until they could prove otherwise.

      But it’s still stupid, even with the change.

      1. What the hell does “take her word for it” even mean in this context. It seems incredibly vague, and to the extent it could be interpreted concretely I’m not sure it’s the best idea legally.

        1. It means that the presumption of innocence for the accused is nonexistent. That rape of a woman is a crime against Aqua Buddha and Gaia and that mere accusation of this penultimate crime is sufficient to establish one’s guilt.

        2. The only context where they should “take her word for it” is in her treatment and counseling for her trauma. In any punitive contexts, the presumption should be on the side of the accused (or whatever class is being punished for the supposed actions of the accused).

    2. Dude, you SF’d the link.

        1. Yes. Thanks.

        2. Ha, they left the old title in the URL. Dumbasses.

          1. Gotta save the click count.

        3. Did anyone else notice it’s a man holding up the ‘fight the patriarchy’ sign?

          I guess we know who wears the pants and applies the KY in the house he resides.

          1. One of my favourite ‘fight the patriarchy’ moments is of a protester holding a similar sign while a female cop pushes him away.

          2. I don’t really see any contradiction or irony there. White people can oppose white supremacy, for example. If we were actually in a culture that actually was male dominated and systematically treated women poorly, I’d applaud a man who says that.

            Whether “the patriarcy” is a thing, and a thing that needs to be fought is another matter altogether.

            1. PLAY ALONG ZEB.

              1. No, I will persist with my bad habit of taking the wrong things seriously and joking about serious things.

    3. After learning about her crazy ass pinterest account, my opinion went from “something must have happened to her” to “crazy bitch made the whole thing up”.

        1. I confess, if Playa links to it, I will click.

          1. I’m conflicted. It contains her real name.

            Instant poll:
            Ok or not OK to post the link?

            1. Eh, I just wanted to hear what sort of crazy things she’s saying since I’m not sure if her forced to do blowjobs story is total bull.

              1. Eh, I just wanted to hear what sort of crazy things she’s saying since I’m not sure if her forced to do blowjobs story is total bull.

                Standard feminist rape propaganda. But all posted after “the incident” so it means nothing either way.

            2. Eh, maybe we should just leave it be.

            3. Wasn’t her real name published in the WaPo already?

            4. Don’t post it.

            5. Probably not ok, did you come by it in a way that is easily googleable?

              1. If google hard enough you can find it…

              2. Probably not ok, did you come by it in a way that is easily googleable?

                Proggie sites are all linking to it with outrage. I like to think we’re a bit better.

              1. Yes, it is now easily Googleable using obvious search terms. However, I’m not sure how much it proves. From what I can tell, the posts are all post-incident, so she could have become obsessed with the topic after something bad happened to her. On the other hand, it’s a bit odd for her to post things saying that rape victims should report rape, not stay silent about rape or domestic violence, etc.

                1. Yeah, I don’t think it proves much of anything. I do think it’s interesting that all the feminists websites are plastering the outer’s name all over the place while talking about how awful he is for doing it.

                2. Yes, it is now easily Googleable using obvious search terms. However, I’m not sure how much it proves

                  It proves about as much as her story proved in the pursuit of putting a bunch of people in jail for the rest of their lives.

                3. One of the pics is SJW stuff from 2011. I don’t know when she pinned it, though.

                  I agree that it doesn’t prove or disprove anything. But, it makes it pretty clear that she’s part of a social group that elevates the status of rape victims. There are certainly some perverse incentives in play here.

            6. at want point does she become a “limited public figure”

            7. It will take all of 30 seconds of Googling if people are interested. Don’t post.

            8. You should tell us about it in person.

              1. I will.

                1. Bring an iPad or something so we can all gawk at the derp with glee.

                  Btw, I’ll be a little behind schedule, thinking I should make it there by 8:30. I just gotta feed and walk my dog after work before I make my way there.

                  1. That’s fine, but Los Doyers will have already done all the good drugs by then.

                  2. If I ever become the guy who brings my iPad out drinking with me, I’ll let you each punch me in the face.

                  3. Bros before doz…er, bro.

                  4. Bros before doz…er, bro.

                    1. Looks like the squirrels got to all the good drugs already.

            9. It’s on the internet: Ok.

            10. I guess it’s no then.

              I don’t want to besmirch HnR’s fine reputation during the webathon.

              1. The Millenial and I posted genital body modification pics a week or two ago, if anything we burned HnR’s reputation to the ground and pissed on the ashes. But still, I’d say leave it to be googled.

                1. Good times… good times.

            11. OK.

              1. Her name is Jackie Q. There, I said it.

                She has a YouTube video called “Supertight”. She’s obviously a disturbed person.

        2. Maybe if you don’t want to dox her you could just give us a description of the high (or low) points.

          1. Lots of reblogged feminist/SJW memes.

            1. Lots.

    4. This is not a legal argument about what standards we should use in the courts; it’s a moral one, about what happens outside the legal system.

      But this from the side that wants colleges to have jurisdiction over rapes.

      Also, what does that even mean? Believe her and send her to the infirmary(*) for a swab? Immediately suspend the accused student?

      *UVA has an actual hospital, unlike most colleges.

      1. Well she immediately follows that with this:

        The accused would have a rough period. He might be suspended from his job; friends might defriend him on Facebook. In the case of Bill Cosby, we might have to stop watching his shows, consuming his books or buying tickets to his traveling stand-up routine. But false accusations are exceedingly rare, and errors can be undone by an investigation that clears the accused, especially if it is done quickly.

        So at the very least, she wants the accused to be instantly branded in public as a rapist. Though I think it’s possible that in her psychotic disregard for the fate of the accused she didn’t think this idea all the way through in the particulars.

        1. “But false accusations are exceedingly rare”

          As Instapundit asked the other day, Do we know this to be true?

          1. I read things ranging from 2 to 40 percent. I have no idea of the veracity of any of them. Irish was talking about the former one being nonsense but I don’t know about the latter.

            1. I feel like there’s enough wiggle room in how one defines “false” and “accusation” to make up plausible numbers that are as large or small as one likes.

            2. 2 percent is nonsense. But it is, at it’s face, an unknowable number. Plus, that’s a criminal #, and we’re talking about trial by media, not a police report.

            3. I would think it depends on the definition of “false accusation.” If false means none of the story was true, then 2% may be right. If false means that it doesn’t stand up to the rape standard at trial, then 40% may be right.

              1. The 40% # was taken from recantations after being offered a polygraph.

                A primer from our very own Cathy Young.

            4. I read something that said 1 in 5 women on college campuses falsely report rape.

          2. The “false rape accusations are rare” argument is as dismissive as it is self-serving. It dismisses an injustice, largely done to men, with the argument that because it does not happen with sufficient frequency to satisfy the feminist standard, it should be ignored.

            Meanwhile, feminists argue that rape accusers suffer an injustice because the crime allegedly committed against them is ignored by law enforcement.

            Yeah, it makes that much sense.

            1. And if they are extremely rare, then why all the outrage when people suggest that people who falsely accuse people of rape should be punished?

              1. From the article, I believe Baltimore, as part of its improved investigation process, would include mention of the penalties for filing a false police report, which may have helped drop the number down.

            2. You know, I think I have a solution.

              Accusations will be assumed true. However, if the accusation is later proven to be false, one feminist or Social Justice Warrior, picked at random will automatically be sentenced to “the boats”.

              This has a number of advantages. It will serve to allow the victim to report their experience without fear of reprisal. It will allow the falsely accused some measure of justice. And, since we all know that false accusations are vanishingly rare, it will impose virtually no costs to the feminists and SJWs.

              1. “The boats”? You don’t mean scaphing do you?

                1. That was the general idea.

                  Not that it would ever actually be used. The SJWs assure us that false rape accusations don’t really happen. So, scaphing would be just a theoretical construct of the law.

                2. I mean it’s just a modest proposal…

                  1. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

        2. Oh, she thought it through. She knows exactly what she is saying.

          The whole point of her taking that position and the whole point of having colleges set up kangaroo courts with different standards of evidence and the approach of guilty until proven innocent is to victimize men.

          In their fevered, hate filled minds, any and all men deserve to have their lives destroyed in retaliation for the rape culture that they perpetuate. They are guilty by virtue of being male.

      2. I’ve read that the UVA hospital is a short walk from the Phi Kappa Psi house.

        1. 5 minutes.

      3. This is not a legal argument about what standards we should use in the courts; it’s a moral one, about what happens outside the legal system.

        You know who else was keen on using standards of justice outside the legal system?

        1. Harry Callahan?

    5. Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist.

      Why is it always framed as a choice between taking an accuser at their word and ignoring them? Rhetorical question.

      1. Yeah, how about you don’t dismiss what the accuser claims, then investigate, then decide what to believe.

  10. Meanwhile, the Republican Party establishment is in search of a candidate it likes.

    They’re ready for Hillary.

    1. Damn you!

  11. The mother of Tamir Rice, the Cleveland 12-year-old killed by police for having a toy gun, is “looking for a conviction.”

    While she certainly has my sympathy, I don’t think that’s likely to happen. Unless she pushes too hard and gets convicted of negligent parenting, or endangering an officer.

    1. can’t she bring a civil suit? or are civil servants immune to civil suits?

      1. Qualified immunity.

  12. Fraternity supporters are calling on UVA to rescind its moratorium on campus Greek life activities in the wake of new revelations about inaccuracies in the Rolling Stone story.

    Every time there is a shooting spree rape on campus, they try to take away the gun from those who didn’t commit the crime punish everyone who didn’t commit the crime..

  13. Fraternity supporters are calling on UVA to rescind its moratorium on campus Greek life activities in the wake of new revelations about inaccuracies in the Rolling Stone story.

    Can we all just agree that all women are liars and all fratboys are rapists?

    1. Weren’t you in a frat?

      1. “It’s a Fraternity, not a frat. We live in a country, not a cunt” – A friend from college

        1. One thing cannot be another!

    2. Meanwhile at FSU: Pike House to be Renovated into New Women’s Student Union*

      *The Eggplant is the FSU version of The Onion

      1. It will be possible for Pike to earn back their house spring semester but this is under the condition that they must, as a fraternity, completely and objectively watch all three seasons of Girls without making a single negative comment about Lena Dunham’s body. The brothers must then analyze the series for its feminist themes and compare them in a postmodern light to the work of feminist writer Simone de Beauvoir in a 10-page research paper.

        Mark my words… this will be real in about 10 years.

        1. How about 1 year?

  14. Bioethicists debate should severely disabled infants be euthanised?

    http://www.nationalrighttolife…..IYWDjHF9K1

    1. Cytotoxic porn.

    2. My wife’s close friend was pregnant and discovered her child had Down Syndrome.

      It led to some quite tortuous soul searching on her part because she considered having an abortion. In the end she had a miscarriage so it spared her that decision but it also challenged what we would do if it happened to us.

    3. Bioethicists debate should severely disabled infants be euthanised?

      If they were debating in front of severely disabled men and women, they would be called sociopaths and not bioethicists.

      1. Only by twits.

    4. I’m really glad we’re starting to have this debate.

      I read about a woman who had a prematurely born baby. It had a brain bleed and got cerebral palsy. There is no way she should have to raise that broken unit. She should have been allowed to euthanize it.

      1. So would you say that this “broken unit” was a “life unworthy of life”?

        http://lifeunworthyoflife.com/

        1. It’s not a human being at birth.

        2. Worthiness has nothing to do with it.

          I have a hard time with this question. I think that some genetically human creatures are so severely disabled and “broken” that they really aren’t human. It is the mind that makes one human. But drawing the line so as not to put anyone on the wrong side is very hard if not impossible.

          Then I also wonder if it is not cruel to force someone with extreme disabilities to live. Would you see letting a baby die who could be saved with complicated medical interventions as the same as euthanizing it?

          1. There’s a massive difference between refusing medical intervention and actively killing a “defective.”

            It is rather uncontroversial to do the former. The latter was the basis of the eugenics movement, and has been fairly universally condemned (no matter the age) since the 1940s.

    5. Should parents be forced to care for such a child?

      1. Not necessarily, given the number of potential adoptive parents out there.

        And if nobody wants to adopt, then the kids would still be better off in an institution than killed off. Assuming the parents don’t want to take on the difficult challenges of a disabled child.

        1. I mean, orphanages used to be a thing. I am grateful that I wasn’t brought up in such an institution, but if it was a choice between being in an orphanage and being killed, yeah I’d choose the former.

  15. Beloit Police Ask Residents To Volunteer To Have Their Homes Searched For Guns

    “Gun violence is as serious as the Ebola virus is being represented in the media, and we should fight it using the tools that we’ve learned from our health providers,” he [Police Chief Norm Jacobs] said.

    1. we should fight it using the tools that we’ve learned from our health providers

      Did healthcare providers go door to door asking to test people for the Ebola virus?

      He nevertheless hopes the program will encourage people to think about gun violence as an infectious disease like Ebola, and a home inspection like a vaccine to help build up the city’s immune system.

      That just makes no sense at all.

      1. Real life imitates Judge Dredd, yet again.

      2. At least for once the comments on the article aren’t all positive for the cops. The readers seem to recognize the stupidity of the argument. Plus they are crapping all over the “I was a LEO and I feared for my life every day” comments. Different is good.

      3. I guess letting the government search your house is now just another part of the “social contract.”

      4. It’s the stupidest thing I have seen a cop say in a long time. And that is saying a lot.

    2. “Chief Of Police Says He Hopes Initiative Can Help Residents Begin Thinking Differently About Guns”

      So more of Holder’s brainwashing efforts.

    3. Who the fuck would ever take them up on the offer? How dumb are people? If you think that there might be guns you don’t know about in your house, you would probably do better than some cop at searching the place, no?

      But the “think about guns like ebola” thing really takes the cake.

    4. Beloit is a nice town. You’re finally out of Illinois when you get there.

    5. Rule one for dealing with cops:

      Respond to questions only with with “Yes” or “No”.

      Rule two for dealing with cops:

      Volunteer nothing.

    6. Posner says “What’s the problem?”

  16. The champions of freethought advocate banning fake-rape pornography.

    Ok nope. That’s where I part company with Merlan and perhaps with the majority of other feminists, I don’t know. I don’t think there’s a clear difference at all, and I think saying there is seems pretty clueless. I also don’t consider “rape scenarios” to be “edgy.” Either both are fucked up or neither is fucked up.

    The Border Patrol series feels more like Holocaust or “Stalag” pornography, the exploitation comics that cropped up in Israel after the Holocaust and which sexualized concentration camps and other types of Nazi exploitation. (Or, for a more modern example, “Taliban”-themed rape porn.) Conceptually, too, the “Border Patrol” series takes a lot from Max Hardcore’s style of extreme gonzo pornography that focused on inflicting pain and humiliation on the actresses in a style that’s intentionally meant to blur the lines between fantasy and reality.

    I don’t know what “extreme gonzo” is supposed to mean there. I don’t see why porn is supposed to include violence. I don’t see why erotica and violence need to be mashed together. I don’t see why anyone ? especially feminists ? wants to eroticize violence.

    Bet she doesn’t know that there’s a publisher of rape pornography in her blog network.

    1. Jezebel?

      1. FTB. Pezus & Sons.

    2. Fiction “that’s intentionally meant to blur the lines between fantasy and reality”? Oh noes! That’s never happened before!

    3. Death to Videodrome, long live the New Flesh!

    4. The funny thing is:

      I don’t know how it works for video porn, but for written erotica the consumers of rape fantasy porn are OVERWHELMINGLY female.

      1. Yep. Every Harlequin novel published from 1978-1994 or so had rape in it. Then they didn’t, so folks like Ellora’s Cave came out with harder versions, This cut into HQ’s sales, so rape came back.

        Book called “Beyond Heaving Bosoms” talks about the history of “Romance.” Ellora’s Cave called their genre “Romantica,” and made a fortune for a while alongside other “indie” romance publishers, but they all bet too heavily on Amazon as a reliable business partner, so are pretty much broke now.

        /I’m leaving out the vampire/werewolf thing.

  17. Meanwhile, the Republican Party establishment is in search of a candidate it likes.

    Hillary Clinton.

        1. Except that a large contingent of republicans would crawl over broken glass to vote against Hillary.

          1. No, no, no. See, conservatives, thanks to religion, love a good, contrite, redemption story. She will win them over with her conversion to great American and Christian ideas.

  18. Did anyone mention the attempt to gas the Furries in Chicago?

    Disrupted was an annual weekendlong convention called Midwest FurFest, which celebrates art, literature and performance based around anthropomorphic animals, draws thousands of people every year, according to the Midwest FurFest website.

    1. Hmm, you beat me to it. 19 made ill and furies forced to stand out in the cold for 3 hours.

      1. Okay, first, there are two ‘r’s in “furries”. Nobody makes the Furies stand in the cold. Second, at least they had their footie pjs on, right?

        1. Hmm fair point.

          Dear Furies, o goddesses of vengeance, please do not haunt me for confusing you with furries.

          *slaughters blemishless goat on ancient basalt altar*

        2. The Furies may be left out in the cold if they get beat up by the Warriors again.

          1. …Lets see… we have Allecto, Tisiphone, and Megaera..and Baseball.

            Yup.

    2. Has it been established yet as a suspected intentional crime?

      1. Hmm, I see the answer is “yes.”

        “Powdered chlorine” got a Facebook from me.

        1. Gah. “Facepalm.”

      2. Yes. The updated story says it is being investigated as an intentional crime.

        Hazardous materials technicians found the source of the chlorine gas, what appeared to be powdered chlorine, in a stairwell at the ninth floor, according to a statement from police.

        I’m glad people are idiots and don’t know how to actually distribute chlorine gas.

        1. It’s not that hard, sadly.

          On a related not, many years ago I used to have to travel for extended periods so I started pouring bleach into my toilet bowl before leaving just to keep things fresh. I returned from a trip, went straight to the bathroom, and remembered immediately why you don’t ever mix bleach and ammonia solution.

        2. don’t know how to actually distribute chlorine gas.

          Does the Kaiser have to choke a bitch?

        3. Through a shower?

    3. So the dumbasses that maintain the pool stored the extra chlorine powder inside the hotel and water leaked on it.

      That is my guess. I see lawsuits in the hotel’s future.

  19. Greenwald Smash!!!

    Instapundit.com
    ?@instapundit
    So as I understand it, Atticus Finch is now the bad guy in “To Kill A Mockingbird,” because he doubted a story about rape.

    1. Wrong Glenn, I think you mean Reynolds.

      1. I did. My bad.

    2. That’s Reynolds, not Greenwald.

  20. Oil now down to $63.00 amid US 25-year production highs.

    And you Peanuts said Obama would not let us drill here in the USA!

    1. Shreek, you are a delusional, lying piece of shit.

      Obama Administration Imposes Five-Year Drilling Ban on Majority of Offshore Areas

      WASHINGTON, D.C., November 8, 2011 – After imposing a nearly three-year moratorium on new offshore drilling by discarding the 2010-2015 lease plan that allowed for new development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), the Obama Administration announced a draft plan today that closes the majority of the OCS to new energy production through 2017.

      1. It’s not delusional. It would have to be sentient to be capable of delusion.

        It’s merely sowing random strings into the comment box in hopes of harvesting a bountiful crop of responses.

        1. Well, it’s not because of Obama, but DESPITE Obama that oil prices are dropping. If Obama has his way remember, energy prices would ‘necessarily skyrocket’.

          shreek has failed the sentience test, and is a known sock puppet, just ignore it.

          1. No. Obama said that about coal-based electricity. Coal is filthy.

            1. “coal is filthy”

              As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.

          2. The falling prices has more to do with OPEC than Obama.

      2. Don’t believe the output numbers do you? They are real. The market is responding to supply conditions.

        Next you will say BUT HYPERINFLATION!

        1. Obama stopped drilling on land where he had the power to stop it.

          The fact that this failed to stop all economic activity on land Obama doesn’t personally control via the Department of the Interior is irrelevant to your claims.

          1. Once again, Fluffy!

            It is an ant, you are the aphid, and the comment it made was the ant massaging the aphid’s belly to get it to excrete the sugary waste the ant craves.

            You can’t rebut an argument that a creature is too stupid to make. All you are doing it is to encourage it to scuttle back again for more comments to harvest.

            1. Right, but I like punching it.

              It’s as if Ezra Klein came by my office once a day and let me crack a yard stick across the bridge of his nose.

              Sure, he’d never learn anything from that – but I’d still enjoy doing it. Even if you convinced me he was face-trolling me and secretly enjoyed the attention of getting hit in the face, I don’t think I’d be able to stop.

              1. You have taken to just posting Team Red talking points.

                I guess it feels good to you.

                1. 1) Get caught repeating Team Blue talking points.

                  2) Accuse others of repeating Team Red talking points.

                  We get it retard. Actually rebutting others’ points is beyond you. Please abort yourself.

              2. So Fluffy has an s&m relationship but I don’t think it is clear who is the “s” and who is the “m”.

          2. Over 4000 new leases approved on federal land annually since 2009 – which is well up over the 20 year moving average.

            http://www.blm.gov/style/media…..proved.pdf

            1. http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/…..index.html

              As of 2012, issue rates for new leases under Obama were down 42% from the rate under Bush. Permits were down 37%.

              And a lease doesn’t by itself open the property to production.

              1. But you said this:

                Obama stopped drilling on land where he had the power to stop it.

                Which you now know is a false wingnut talking point or there would be no “new leases” as you just admitted.

                Coincidentally, lease activity peaked in 2008 when oil peaked at $147/bbl.

                1. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/in….._2010.html

                  In May of 2010 Obama had BLM change the rules by which a lease could actually be brought into production.

                  The issuing of leases is meaningless if actual driling is tied up in endless environmental review.

                  Obama chose, as usual, the most cowardly, niggardly and deceptive way possible to achieve his policy aim.

            2. Re: Peter Caca,

              Over 4000 new leases approved on federal land annually since 2009 – which is well up over the 20 year moving average.

              I don’t know if you took a closer look at the numbers but the greatest numbers of permits actually happened during the last 4 years of Bush fis and that was when oil was peaking $100 per barrel.

              Instead, while oil was ALSO peeking $100, during Obama’s reign in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, the number of permits actually went DOWN up to 40% from the greatest number which was FY 2007.

              That tells me that the NORMAL rate during the first decade of this century (4,850) is actually much higher than the number of permits issued by the Obama r?gime, which tells me the r?gime is kind of a slouch.

              1. Peaking, not “peeking”. Sorry.

    2. Re: Peter Caca,

      Oil now down to $63.00 amid US 25-year production highs.

      And you Peanuts said Obama would not let us drill here in the USA!

      And he hasn’t. The price went down because OPEC wants the price down.

      At prices below $70.00 USD, current exploration is now much less profitable, to the point where it is not cost effective to do so. So what Obama wanted to do – cripple oil exploration in the US – the Saudis did it for him.

      Now you see why he bowed to the Saudi king?

      1. Yes, the Saudis are thought to be trying to slow down the shale oil boom in the US. The “unintended” consequences include screwing Russia, Iran, ISIS, and Venezuela.

        If anyone but the current imbecile were in the white house I might think our guys were in cahoots with the Saudis to discipline some of our common enemies.

        1. This price drop is very much a good thing. It will make the domestic drilling industry more disciplined.

        2. Yeah, but it’s not gonna work too well for the Saudis. There’ll be consolidation, with smaller players in the Bakken bought for a song, and new efficiencies introduced even as additional pipeline capacity comes on. Wouldn’t recommend any Bakken stocks for a while, but I sold a bunch of one of mine (formerly Kodiak Oil & Gas) after it got bought, so am incredibly smug on the subject.

          /TX will be fine, too. The larger players all have hedging.

      2. I hope there isn’t much demand-side cause to this decline. Last time oil dropped this fast, it was 2008. Any chance the Chinese economy is doing a lot worse than officials are admitting? A Chinese rescession or a major Chinese asset price correction would cause a glut in oil inventories, dropping prices. It would also make the rest of the world miserable.

    3. But Obama said that increased US production would not lower fuel prices.

    1. Oh Shit! Why didn’t he let go?!

      1. Maybe he was practicing his aikido. (You are supposed to hang on and fall smoothly through the throw.)

        1. I was under the impression you weren’t supposed to lead with your face.

        2. O-Sensei never would countenance face-planting as good Aiki.

    2. Looks like I’ll have to print out new vendor quotes as I’ve sprayed coffee all over mine.

      That was pretty freaking hilarious, though. Nicely done.

    3. Best comment: JimmyJames71 – “And he still got it wrong on the 2nd attempt with a slower approach!”

  21. December has been a great month for the fringiest of fringe pastors to go on record as wanting death for all homos. Let’s go to New Zealand where Pastor Logan Robertson of Westcity Bible Baptist Church*, a “family-oriented Bible-believing Baptist church located in west Auckland,” wants to make it clear:

    I believe every single one of them should be put to death. Obviously Christians shouldn’t be doing it. I’m not going to do it. It’s the Government’s job to be doing it.

    No, Pastor Robertson, if you want a job done right you shouldn’t trust the government to get it done.

    Other fun snippets:

    Romans 1 clearly says God has rejected homos and they are worthy of death. You cannot be saved.

    I pray that you will commit suicide, you filthy child molesting fag.

    Pastor Robertson would not look out of place at a bear bar, at all.

    *Not actually part of the Baptist Churches of New Zealand, runs church out of his home.

    1. Time for some folks buy property across from his house and fly the rainbow flag, just like they did at Westboro.

      1. You Know Who Else flew a flag of multiple colors?

        1. Joseph?

          1. Hmph.

        2. Napoleon Bonaparte?

          Wait, that was merely a Tricolore

          1. He was the man I was thinking of.

    2. He could just become a Muslim and then he’d have overwhelming support in his religious community for that view.

        1. You mean the one where neighborhoods in Europe have to deal with signs like this littering the walls and telephone poles?

          Or have to deal with radicalized gingers posting things like this?

          1. Los Doyers: please note that this is the bad kind of ginger.

            1. Gingers don’t have a soul, so all gingers are bad, mmkay?

          2. Now, you’re just being ‘unhelpful’. We must maintain a dialogue!

            1. I’m sorry. I think I’d be better able to have a dialogue if they had a hotter spokes-ginger. May I suggest this fellow?

              1. The Prophet dyed his hair red. And he was probably suffered from acromegaly.

                Does that count?

          3. That’s pretty much what I meant. No wonder the Germans are braving sub-zero temps to protest anymore Muslim immigration. They see the Limey’s as an example of where that leads to.

            1. Which is stupid because immigration never leads to this. Calgary has oodles of Muslims and no problems.

              1. Except in Europe.

                Of course, Mark Steyn stood trial in Canada for defaming Islam, so uh yeah, there’s that. So far haven’t seen any radical asshole anti-Christians brought before hate crime tribunals….

          4. Is that sign for real? It instantly struck me as something that someone would fake to troll for partisan outrage.

            Like those fake receipts with a note from the 1% asshole customer on it.

            1. I’ve seen a number of reports of such things, and no charges that they were hoaxes.

            2. Not entirely sure. There is an issue with Shariah Patrols in London and of course the counter-patrols being done by a Christian nationalist group. Vice News covered the “turf war” and points out that things have been particularly tense since the Woolwich killing (Lee Rigby, a British soldier was beheaded in the streets of London)

              Rigby was off duty and walking along Wellington Street when he was attacked. Two men ran him down with a car, then used knives and a cleaver to stab and hack him to death. The men dragged Rigby’s body into the road and remained at the scene until police arrived. They told passers-by that they had killed a soldier to avenge the killing of Muslims by the British armed forces.

              Whether or not those particular signs are real. Parts of London are deeply, deeply fucked by the conversion of disaffected immigrant populations to radical variants of Islam.

          5. It bears repeating: the ‘European Sharia Zones’ meme is a conservative fever dream unbacked by any evidence.

            1. Ahhh, good ol’ Canadian chickenhawk. Wants the US to murderdrone the fuck out of brown people everywhere, but should totally have completely open immigration to the very same people.

              BTW, you’re fucking wrong, as usual.

          6. “religion of peace”?

    3. “I believe every single one of them should be put to death. Obviously Christians shouldn’t be doing it. I’m not going to do it. It’s the Government’s job to be doing it.”

      Let the record show that the Pastor does not want Christians running the government.

    4. I believe every single one of them should be put to death. Obviously Christians shouldn’t be doing it. I’m not going to do it. It’s the Government’s job to be doing it.

      Come on, Jesse, he’s giving respect to the separation of Church and State.

      1. That’s way more charitable than my interpretation that he throws rocks like a girl and wanted someone else to do it to avoid embarrassment.

        1. Basically, like most collectivists, he wants the government to act has his bullyboy.

          Not surprising.

    5. What’s his position on sheep shagging? Jesus was a Shepherd of Men and he is a Kiwi after all…

      1. Is there really any question when it comes to Kiwis?

        1. What I want to know is whether he supports safe sex, i.e. spraying painting an ‘X’ on the sheep that kicks.

    6. Obviously Christians shouldn’t be doing it. I’m not going to do it. It’s the Government’s job to be doing it.

      A man does his own killing. If you truly believed the justness of your cause, then you would have no trouble bringing it about with your own hands, not calling for others to do it for you.

    7. And yet when I say I suspect many socons are in favor of executing gays and just don’t think they can get away with saying that out loud, everyone tells me I’m just paranoid.

      1. I’d probably argue that there are just some really awful and really loud ones out there. I don’t know that I would go so far as to say many.

        I will say those vocal activists seem to have an out-sized influence in Russia and its former satellites, and Africa. At the same time I think they’re so used to ratcheting up their rhetoric here that they were surprised how fertile the ground was in Nigeria, Uganda, etc.

      2. “many” – this guy is running the Kiwi Westboro Church…. more like “very few”.

      3. Here’s the way you can tell if so-cons secretely that killing gays are OK.

        Look at what happens to the writers who say we should to it. How big is their audience? Are their careers in an upward arc or a downward arc? Are people approvingly passing on their pieces that have nothing to do with homosexuality and pretending the anti-gay pieces don’t exist?

        If so, you could be right. If you have a bunch of so-con friends and you lubricate them with wine and have a forthright discussion you can tell too. If your sample size is sufficient you should get a couple of people to admit feeling this way before N is too much larger than 10.

        My guess is that while this might be true of of Socons in their 70’s and above, you will find the socons that are 40 or below really, really don’t give a shit about gays existing so long as they aren’t trying to ‘convert’ the socons’ kids.

        I know a handful of socons and none of them want to kill, imprison or exile any gays for being gay. They are more worried about things like divorce being too easy or keeping gays from ‘pretending’ they are married, which is a long way away from exile or killing.

      4. Agreed. If you pointed to the exact same new story you would make gross over generalizations and come across as a left wing dick.

        Please note how jesse did it.

      5. You really are a malignant little toad Stormy.

  22. 82-yr-old Astronaut Walt Cunningham takes a giant leap for climate realism.

    Walt came to the UN climate conference in Peru (COP 20) as part of the official CFACT delegation to issue a call for political leaders and the media to return to “scientific realism” on global warming. Cunningham was part of the three member Apollo VII crew which in 1968 became NASA’s first manned space mission after the loss of the three astronauts of Apollo I to a tragic fire on the ground.

    In Peru, Walt braved high altitudes and powerful winds to make his paragliding jump over the Andes mountains and CFACT’s team unfurled a banner in the sky which reads, “No new treaty!”

    “I can’t think of a more beautiful or dramatic backdrop before which to make this important point,” Cunningham said. “As a member of CFACT’s delegation to the UN climate talks I can tell you first hand that there is endless destructive nonsense being contemplated. A new global warming treaty would be a terrible mistake.”

  23. Last UVA link today, I promise:

    Feministing’s take

    And now all the journalists falling over themselves in their rush to condemn Rolling Stone will likely pick up on that thread and run with it, telling various versions of a story that pits some imagined “good feminist” position of “believing the survivor” against the “good journalist” position of questioning everything, of being skeptical, of verify-verify-verify. They will get on their high horses and conclude that Rolling Stone’s failure here is a good reminder of the risks of a writer “getting too close” to a source or only telling “one side of the story” or having “poisonous biases” (a bias against “elitist fraternity culture” in that particular example ? apparently that’s a thing). The media, by and large, will be content ? and some, of course, will be downright gleeful ? to conclude that it was an encroachment of feminist ethics ? a knee-jerk “Believe the Victims” mentality ? that poisoned the hallowed integrity of journalism in this disastrous case.

    If the shoe fits…

    1. I do have a general presumption to believe the victim. The problem is that I need some basis for believing that the person is, in fact, a victim.

    2. It fits.

      a knee-jerk “Believe the Victims” mentality

      That’s being way too kind. It’s more like looking for a story to support your insane beliefs and biases and when you can’t find it, just making shit up and hoping that everyone will believe you.

    3. Yeah, they just suffered a major setback in credibility and they know it.

    4. And now all the journalists falling over themselves in their rush to condemn Rolling Stone[…]

      The problem is condemning them, not what RS did, because after all their only sin was lying for the sake of a bigger truth.

      The media, by and large, will be content[…] to conclude that it was an encroachment of feminist ethics […] that poisoned the hallowed integrity of journalism in this disastrous case

      And the media would be wrong, that I grant you. It wasn’t feminist ethics that poisoned the hallowed journalistic integrity.

      It was Cultural Marxism that killed journalism.

    5. Remind me, that’s one of those odious Gawker sites, isn’t it?

      -jcr

  24. I read WAPOs article about Rand being the front runner for the GOP. I haven’t even considered anyone else as being the front runner for months now. I mean, really, who else?

    Bush? You’ve got to be fucking kidding. That name is still just as toxic as it was 8 years ago. The sure fire way to get lazy team blue voters off their asses to vote in 2016 is to nominate another Bush. Even team stupid is not this stupid.

    So who else? Christie? This is a guy who will always be a fat pig even if he gets down to 90 lbs. There are some things that cannot be erased by any means.

    Walker and Cruz? Meh, while not as bad as the above entries, well again, meh.

    So, do the GOP finally want to win another POTUS race? We’ll see. If they nominate anyone else besides Rand, then they don’t.

    And even though a year ago I would have said that no one will beat Hillary, the mood of the nation has clearly changed and I think Rand can win. Just look at the match up. Hillary is an old fucking bag with almost as much baggage and skeletons in the closet as cankles, who is a terrible speaker and has no charisma. Every new photo of her I see is less flattering than the one before. Rand has everything going for him. Really, it’s clear that Rand is the guy.

    1. Romney is often mentioned here by the Team Red partisans.

      1. Really? Who?

      2. Well, I think that Drudge is still attached to Romney’s nutsack, but besides that, it’s a joke.

      3. I’ve only heard his name whispered in fear, because he will inevitable be the guy. I would wager that roughly 100% of the posters would celebrate a Rand Paul republican nomination.

        1. Even the buttplug said he would vote for him and tony probably thinks he would be the easiest opponent for shrillary.

          1. All things equal RP would be better than HC.

            I worry about total GOP control and a repeat of 2001-07.

            Gridlock is my preference.

            1. It wasn’t your preference from 2009 to 2011 though, was it?

              You lying sack of shit.

    2. a year ago I would have said that no one will beat Hillary,

      Hillary’s only hope is to avoid all debates. She comes to pieces in any unscripted exchange where she can get called on her bullshit. Hell, even the teleprompter-in-chief shredded her.

      I’d love to see her get the Dem nomination just to watch Rand shred her in his perfectly polite manner.

      -jcr

      -jcr

      1. Rand has made clear his intention to come out swinging at Hillary.

    3. The establishment is really pushing Jeb Bush. They are that stupid.

    4. Anybody who can take on the public employee unions in a purple state, win, and survive a recall, a bullshit legal investigation, and get re-elected, rates a lot more than a “meh” in my book.

    5. Hillary isn’t even going to be nominated. The only reason she’s being talked about now is that she’s got name recognition 2 yrs. before the election. Means nothing. Her negatives are so high, a used Brillo could beat her for the nomination.

  25. The mother of Tamir Rice, the Cleveland 12-year-old killed by police for having a toy gun, is “looking for a conviction.”

    I hope she gets her wish, but I am skeptical that there will be a conviction after the way the State obfuscated this issue through irrelevant actions, such as proposing legislation that would make toy gun manufacturers make their products with bright colors so that stupid and incompetent police officers are able to distinguish the obvious.

  26. “The Washington Post named Sen. Rand Paul the GOP frontrunner for 2016.”

    Based on the percentage of Rand Paul hit-pieces (of the total number of GOP “OMG THEY ARE SUCH MONSTERS”-stories) @ Salon, the Left thinks he’s the Republican frontrunner as well

    1. ^This. The extent to which they go apoplectic is the degree to which they fear him.

      1. Rand Payl might get actual libertarianish reforms passed so he the sort of Republicans the Left hates the most.

        1. He is the sort that the progressives hate the most, and the establishment of both parties are progressives. Rand will have to overcome the Republican establishment before he can overcome the Democratic candidate.

          All of the craven cocksuckers that are currently deriding Paul will be swearing in ten years that they were a Paul supporters all along.

          Slimy bastards.

  27. G.O.P. Donors Seek to Narrow Field of Presidential Candidates to One

    Dozens of the Republican Party’s leading presidential donors and fund-raisers have begun privately discussing how to clear the field for a single establishment candidate to carry the party’s banner in 2016, fearing that a prolonged primary would bolster Hillary Rodham Clinton, the likely Democratic candidate.

    The conversations, described in interviews with a variety of the Republican Party’s most sought-after donors, are centered on the three potential candidates who have the largest existing base of major contributors and overlapping ties to the top tier of those who are uncommitted: Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida and Mitt Romney.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12……html?_r=2

    1. Do you even read the links Reason staff post? Because it’s right there, 4th from the top.

      1. Not enticing enough to click.

      2. Just like Anon-bot, it can only scan threads to give vaguely on-topic responses. That type of scanning is a relatively imperfect process, as proven here.

        1. Makes sense to me man…

    2. G.O.P. Donors Seek to Narrow Field of Presidential Candidates to One

      “The Dems did that already, so why not us?”

  28. Say it with me: Shutdown, shutdown, shutdown, shutdown

    Suderman and Welch have a sad.

    1. You have to say it five times….in front of a mirror.

  29. Peak Krugman

    One of America’s greatest editorial writers, Jack Fuller, when he was editing the Tribune, used to advise writers to try to attack so deftly that their target doesn’t know he’s been decapitated until he tries to walk away. He was speaking figuratively, which we note because of the rough-and-tumble nature of Chicago newspapering. It’s going to be something, in any event, to see Paul Krugman try to walk away from the latest sally by the Wall Street Journal. He may stagger around for a while, but eventually he’ll topple.

    […]

    It turns out, the Journal noted, that in December 2010 Mr. Krugman had announced that “peak oil has arrived.” It quoted Mr. Krugman as saying: “What the commodity markets are telling us is that we’re living in a finite world, in which the rapid growth of emerging economies is placing pressure on limited supplies of raw materials, pushing up their prices. And America is, for the most part, just a bystander in this story.”

    Of course, the answer to the question will Paul Krugman say “I made a mistake” is that he will not and accuse anybody that suggests so of being a crazy conspiracy theory nutjub that hates bearded little people.

    1. Krugman will admit that peak oil didn’t arrive in 2010 as part of the same column where he admits that the experience of Japan over the last 30 years comprehensively debunks Keynesianism.

      1. No peak oil, no peak derp.

      2. It must not have been true Keynesianism.

    2. By the way, there is NO such thing as “peak” anything. The amount of resources is potentially limitless; what IS limited is our time and labor, which is why we go for the choicest resource sites that are the easiest to exploit first, while technology and productivity catch up. This is why with current tech humans can extract oil from sites that seemed to be depleted, and in the future humans will be able to get at oil that right now seems to be unreachable.

      Krugman and the other charlatans think that the economy is a static model where there is no human ingenuity and entrepreneurship. If there IS one thing that the Neo-classical economists and the Keynesians share (along with the Marxians) is their complete disdain for the role of the entrepreneur in economic progress.

      1. By the way, there is NO such thing as “peak” anything. The amount of resources is potentially limitless;

        As far as technology is concerned, as far as we know, resources are limitless. They’re just not all on this planet and we live in a political climate where we haven’t been able to get out of low earth orbit for 50 years. If there is one thing that is most likely to doom humankind, it’s not climate change, it’s governments.

        1. How fucking hard can it be to figure out a cheap way to getting into orbit? Ye gods.

          1. Are you trying to escape from paying your fair share, Prol?

            1. Well, he can go to his Oort Cloud base and the IRS cannot follow…the rest of us are not so lucky.

              1. That’s brilliant!

                Hey IRS, there is uncollected tax money in the outer solar system. You’re not gonna let that happen, are you?

                I give it six months before the space ladder and orbital starship yard is ready.

                1. It’s all in the incentives. Just wait until space porn gets going.

                  1. Emmanuel Queen of the Galaxy has already done space pr0n

                    1. I meant porn actually shot in space.

            2. I paid my dues back when the matter that makes up my physical body was formed in a supernova.

          2. Rocket science, you know…. like, it’s not exactly brain surgery.

      2. In theory it would be possible to exhaust the Earth’s supply of oil. It is also in theory possible that all the oxygen in this room will concentrate in one corner and I would axphyxiaergrm vuftluf

        1. ARE YOU OK?

        2. Are you turning blue… ohhh….

          THUMP!

      1. BAM. Right in the chest.

      2. Under President Bachmann, you will see gasoline come down below $2 a gallon again

        Are you saying Michelle is secretly president??!?

    3. Strange that Krugman hasn’t heard of the wager that Julian Simon made with Paul Ehrlich in 1980.

  30. Is fascr not working for anyone else?

    1. You are not the only one. I am looking into it.

  31. putative – does that word mean fake, now?

  32. Swastika at bottom of Brazilian swimming pool:

    “Authorities did Nazi this coming.” (HuffPo)

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/….._hp_ref=tw

    1. Since the pool is on private land, no charges will be filed, according to NBC.

      Well, ok then.

      1. Eminent domain? Hello? And THEN the charges can be filed!

  33. TSX fell by over 300 points today. What a bloodbath.

    1. Canada has a stock exchange?! That’s adorable!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.