The Independents

On The Independents: Radley Balko on Cops, Lisa Daftari on Sydney's 'Known Wolf,' Plus Cromnibus Politics, Jeb & Warren, Cheney's Torture Apologetics, Sony Fallout, Uber's Surge Pricing, and Online-Only Aftershow

|

He's baaaaaaaack!!! |||

Tonight's live episode of The Independents (Fox Business Network, 9 p.m. ET, 6 p.m. PT, repeats three hours later) starts off with a Cromnibus of an A block, with Party Panelists Michael Malice (serial ghostwriter and prodigious reparteeist) and Thaddeus McCotter (laconic former GOP congressman and longshot presidential candidate, author of Liberty Risen: The Ultimate Triumph of Libertarian-Republicans) looking at who gained and lost the most with last week's awful bipartisan spending-fest on Capitol Hill. The discussion will include but not be limited to Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). The duo will later discuss the latest insane activity around the Sony hack/leaks.

Fox News Middle Eastern specialist Lisa Daftari will come on to talk about the Sydney hostage attack, ex-Reasoner and current Washington Post criminal justice writer Radley Balko will detail common myths about American policing, the co-hosts will assess Dick Cheney's approach to torture, and the beloved Kmele Foster returns to weight in on the contentious Uber surge pricing in Sydney debate.

Online-only aftershow begins at foxbusiness.com/independents just after 10. Follow The Independents on Facebook at facebook.com/IndependentsFBN, follow on Twitter @ independentsFBN, hashtag us at #TheIndependents, and click on this page for more video of past segments.

NEXT: No, Uber Didn't 'Turn On' Surge Pricing in Sydney Because of the Terrorist Attack

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. You know, I’m not even sure now that I want Foster back.

    1. Blasphemer!

      1. HE LEFT THE SHOW HIGH AND DRY UNDER MYSTERIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES. He was lying in a ditch somewhere for all we knew!

        1. Doesn’t that only raise your estimation of him?

  2. prodigious reparteeist

    So boring drone?

  3. While awaiting the show, read this useful demonstration of just how cartoonish the liberal view on the Koch Brothers is

    Here’s the thing about men like David Koch: Making money is basically just a video game to them. For the rest of us, making money is about being able to pay for things we need and want, such as rent and food and actual video games. But David Koch has made so much money that he literally cannot spend it all. There is nothing he would want to buy he cannot already afford. The only purpose at this point in making more money is for the pleasure of beating your high score. In other words, it really is just a very consuming video game.

    But unlike when you kill people in Call of Duty or crush candies in Candy Crush, the game David Koch is playing is very real. Millions of people will suffer and die because he wants to “win” his video game by manipulating the public to avoid taking action on global warming. That is evil and hateful and selfish on a level that puts the word “selfish” to shame.

    And no, being pro-choice and pro-gay doesn’t make up for it. That’s like having a hobby of strangling kittens and then saying it’s all good because you donate clothes to Goodwill once in awhile.

    The hilarious thing is that the Koch Brothers are more likely to save millions of lives thanks to their support for cancer research.

    1. Did you know that Uber is a Kochtopus plot to get the Republicans in control of cities?

      1. I heard Uber stages terrorist attacks just so they can raise their prices.

        1. Hehehe. That does sound like free market tactics!

    2. I’d like to have a threesome with Marcotte and Klein.

      Not.

      They’d bore me to fucking tears.

    3. On a somewhat unrelated note, I don’t really think the fusionism they have promoted is working out. Hard to tell whether GOP has actually gotten any better. That should give us a hint.

      1. The presence of Rand Paul Amash and Massie is a victory for us in the GOP. Not saying it’s enough or the strategy should be continued but that was a doozy.

    4. ” Millions of people will suffer and die because he wants to “win” his video game by manipulating the public to avoid taking action on global warming.”

      Drop in the bucket. Phhhhht.

      Over a billion will die from global warming by 2012.

    5. “Millions of people will suffer and die because he wants to “win” his video game by manipulating the public to avoid taking action on global warming”

      Or, you know, maybe the 10s of thousands of people he employs are providing valuable products and services to millions of customers and helping make the overall economy more productive, benefiting everyone…?

      No, that couldn’t be it. No, planet rape it is then.

      1. Note that gasbag marcotte never ever bothers to note what specific “actions” people like the kochs prevent… because the progs don’t give a shit about global warming either – they just like whining and pointing fingers at people.

      2. Goddamn GILMORE, don’t you understand that the economy is a zero sum game? Everytime Koch makes a dollar and angel dies and some poor child goes hungry.

    6. Koch is in his business because he is passionate about it. Progs HATE people with incorrect passions. Ayn Rand harped on this.

      1. Yep. Stop doing what I don’t do, and stop liking what I don’t like.

    7. “That’s like having a hobby of strangling kittens and then saying it’s all good because you donate clothes to Goodwill once in awhile.”

      Yes, because making money, employing people, providing goods people desire is EXACTLY like strangling kittens!
      Why didn’t I see that?

      1. The progs have you libertarians read perfectly – those goods and services the Kochs provide are only bought because the people purchasing them are under a magical spell, or is it false consciousness? WHERE ARE MY TALKING POINTS?

    8. Within only a hundred years billions of people now living will have died!

    9. It also displays their short sighted and/or self-centered view of things.

      Notice they didn’t mention making money to save for a rainy day, invest in/start a business, help others, etc.

      Nope, bills, food, and video games. (Disclaimer, I’m a big fan of/whore for PSN and Steam sales. My JCB and Playstation cards can attest to this.)

      Having large amounts of cash on hand makes sense if you want to be ready for something big.

      If I were a billionaire, you can believe I would maintain a large savings/investment portfolio, with a significant amount capable of being rapidly liquidated if I felt like it. You never know when you’re going to come across something that can only be fixed and/or realized by throwing a large sum of money at it.

      Millionaires and billionaires do not become that way by spending or tying up nearly everything they have.

      So much of the anger towards the Koch brothers seems to come from envy and/or a sense of “stop doing things that I don’t do.” (Disclaimer, I contribute $100-200 a year to the Cato Institute.)

  4. Completely OT: I just had to make the call on one-eyed kitten that I adopted 2 months ago. It sucks, but at least we showed him a good time while we had him.

    1. Poor thing.

      1. Thanks dude

        1. Well, at least you can join the Kochs as a typical heartless libertarian Kitten Killer.

          *been there myself

        2. mr lizard|12.15.14 @ 8:30PM|#
          “Thanks dude”
          No one EVER makes that call and doesn’t have second thoughts.
          You did the absolute best you could, or you wouldn’t even talk about it. No one could make the call any better than you did.
          Buck up; you did great.

          1. Thank you as well. It wasn’t much of a “call” really. It was more like them informing me, with a strong recommendation which I agreed with.

            Everyone go hug your various creatures tonight.

            1. You’re more than welcome; someone has weigh those values and do their absolute best with that responsibility.

  5. From comments on a Mark Bittman article in NYT posted by someone in the PM links:

    “The progress of the last 40 years has been mostly cultural, culminating, the last couple of years, in the broad legalization of same-sex marriage. But by many other measures, especially economic, things have gotten worse, thanks to the establishment of neo-liberal principles ? anti-unionism, deregulation, market fundamentalism and intensified, unconscionable greed ? that began with Richard Nixon and picked up steam under Ronald Reagan. Too many are suffering now because too few were fighting then.”

    We’re losing.

    1. Sorry. That was Bittman himself.

      He closed with this gem:

      “True citizenship,” says Jayaraman of Berkeley ? echoing Jefferson ? “is people continually protesting.” Precisely.”

      1. I wonder if he’s related to Bobby Bittman. “Howwwwarre Ya?”

    2. “If only we had more unions and more regulations, and less human nature, things would be great!”

      1. PapayaSF|12.15.14 @ 8:36PM|#
        “If only we had more unions and more regulations, and less human nature, things would be great!”

        ‘Cause they’d be protesting more, right?

    3. They are losing. Eight years after The One came to power with his supermajority and they are losing.

      1. Well, 6; he’s got two more years.

      2. They have just had huge setbacks recently. The midterms and the total own-goal of the UVa rape story, especially. That was going to be the blockbuster that proved “rape culture” and “war on women.” Instead, it blew up in their faces. When Hanna Rosin thinks you’ve gone too far, you’re in trouble. It was a Waterloo for radical feminists.

        And 2016 will be tough for them. Blacks are disappointed and won’t turn out for some white person. Nobody wants to run on Obama’s “third term.” Run to his left like Warren wants to, and they lose the moderates. Run to his right like Hillary wants to, and they lose much of the base.

        Plus, Hillary has health problems and a brittle and unpleasant personality. Her attacks on Bill’s victims and that “let’s attack the girl to get the rapist off” courtroom experience undercut her feminist appeal. Warren’s lefty schoolmarm persona may enliven the left base, but turns off everyone else. Plus she’s a fraud with a lot of deception and hypocrisy in her past.

        1. Running to Obama’s right could work, but Hillary is so not the one to do that. She is the anti-Obama. Obama was a cool black blank slate. Hillary is a failure and everyone is sick of her. Warren is ‘new’ but not remotely ‘cool’. Being a women does not have the same benefits as ‘black’.

          The midterms at the Congressional level are a small loss compared to what happened at the state level. The GOP is just taking over everywhere. Maryland and Illinois. I read that Rauner has asked departments to draft plans for a 20% funding cut, and he will make the ‘temporary’ Illinois income tax cut actually temporary.

          Beyond politics, the left is losing Big Education. Charters are taking that away, and non teacher union progs they’re barely fighting it. Big E is their foundation stone. If they lose it, they lose all.

          1. “he will make the ‘temporary’ Illinois income tax cut actually temporary.”

            INCREASE. Income tax INCREASE not cut.

      3. Of course they are losing. Their worldview is based on fairytales and so their policies don’t work. Getting in power and implementing those policies is how they fail every time.

        1. We’ve been moving in the direction they want us to go, with little reprieve, for over a century.

          If that’s failing maybe libertarians could try failing like that and actually get something done.

          1. Most of their successes were near the beginning. They are getting diminishing returns and major setbacks. They lost the main bulk of The Warming Wars.

  6. “Hoover Administration, we have a President who’s more conservative than Nixon was, and we have a federal government (and most state governments) that have been dragged far to the right. But most Americans don’t care. Only 36% of the voting-eligible population actually voted last month, the worst participation rate since World War II, and that’s exactly what lobbyists and most politicians want.”

    This was from the comments.

    1. Glorious.

    2. His discussions with another NR columnist, Kevin Williamson, parlayed via their podcast Mad Dogs and Englishmen, is worth a listen.

  7. “Excellent column. I have been telling hundreds of university students the same thing for years now. America just needs to wake up, acknowledge this is a class war and that the middle class is losing to the super wealthy.

    The question also is whether any change can occur with such a bought and paid for dysfunctional Congress and President. The special interests own our government. The new budget bill just proves again that Wall Street banking has more power than hundreds of millions of people.

    America needs a new Teddy Roosevelt, yet none is in the wings. My students more and more talk of the history of armed revolution being necessary when things are this bad.

    The next two years are critical. Does America rise up and fix things with or without more violence. The so called race riots of the 1960’s, and today are more about income and opportunity inequality than race.

    Taking away just 10 percent of the defense department budget could provide free university to all USA students, yet we do not do this. Many believe it is because by denying middle income students good education the super wealthy give a competitive edge to their perhaps lesser qualified children.

    Is this class war now that mean spirited?

    It would be nice to have elected officials rise to the occasion and this could happen if the far left sees their common interests with the far right tea party.”

    He’s a teacher?

    We’re losing.

    This odd couple combination could save America for the majority.”

    1. Messed that up but you get the gist.

    2. And the odd thing is that it’s the Dems who’ve been crafting a super-rich/union/welfare coalition.

    3. “Taking away just 10 percent of the defense department budget could provide free university to all USA students, yet we do not do this.”

      There are 13M college students in the US. The one-year average tuition is $33K. The US defense budget is $1.2Tn; 10% of that isn’t even going to cover one year of current enrollment and you can imagine what the enrollment would be if it were ‘free’.

  8. “True citizenship,” says Jayaraman of Berkeley ? echoing Jefferson ? “is people continually protesting.” Precisely.”

    Until they start protesting the Top Men that are supposed to take control and reshape the nation into a social justice paradise.

    Those Kulaks will have to be, shall we say, dealt with.

    1. I don’t know for sure, but I’d bet this guy hates the tea party people. In his mind they don’t represent a legitimate example of people protest power.

  9. SURVEY SAYS = AUDIENCE DEMANDS MORE BALKO IN 2015

    The Weekly Nutpunch should be a featurette

  10. It’s Monday, so Ayn Rand has gone from being a comically irrelevant hack writer to single greatest force of evil the US has ever known

    Only rarely in U.S. history do writers transform us to become a more caring or less caring nation. In the 1850s, Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811-1896) was a strong force in making the United States a more humane nation, one that would abolish slavery of African Americans. A century later, Ayn Rand (1905-1982) helped make the United States into one of the most uncaring nations in the industrialized world, a neo-Dickensian society where healthcare is only for those who can afford it, and where young people are coerced into huge student-loan debt that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.

    Funny how the world Ayn Rand created is much wealthier, less violent and civilized than the world Harriet Beecher Stowe created.

    Not only did Rand make it “moral” for the wealthy not to pay their fair share of taxes, she “liberated” millions of other Americans from caring about the suffering of others, even the suffering of their own children.

    The good news is that I’ve seen ex-Rand fans grasp the damage that Rand’s philosophy has done to their lives and to then exorcize it from their psyche. Can the United States as a nation do the same thing?

    I figure only 3 out of 10 Americans know who Rand is.

    1. The good news is that I’ve seen ex-Rand fans grasp the damage that Rand’s philosophy has done to their lives and to then exorcize it from their psyche. Can the United States as a nation do the same thing?

      Ah! He’s oh so close to admitting progressivism is just a religion!

      Come on buddy! You can do it! Admit you’re just a mindless religious adherent who believes what you believe out of faith rather than logic! You have nothing to lose but your chains!

    2. United States into one of the most uncaring nations in the industrialized world

      Is that the same uncaring nation that donates more to charity than anyone? That supports the UN? That takes refugees?

      young people are coerced into huge student-loan debt

      You see that happen at gunpoint, all the time.

      1. It’s actually idiots like the people at Salon that tell young people college is worth going into debt over.

        1. Absolutely. And then they get a degree in Race and Gender Studies and can’t find a job in the field.

          1. And end up “underemployed” at Starbucks!

  11. Religious fanatics stymie the teaching of important information because it conflicts with the tenets of their faith.

    About a dozen new teachers of criminal law at multiple institutions have told me that they are not including rape law in their courses, arguing that it’s not worth the risk of complaints of discomfort by students. Even seasoned teachers of criminal law, at law schools across the country, have confided that they are seriously considering dropping rape law and other topics related to sex and gender violence. Both men and women teachers seem frightened of discussion, because they are afraid of injuring others or being injured themselves. What has made everyone so newly nervous about discussing sexual-assault law in the classroom?

    Remember, we must have a ‘national conversation’ on gender violence, we’re just apparently not allowed to have it in law schools.

    1. Wow. Well, I guess there is a downside to “advocacy” and “defending women” and “raising awareness” after all, eh?

      1. Wow, check out the ‘money shot’ of the article:

        “This is, to say the least, a perverse and unintended side effect of the intense public attention given to sexual violence in recent years. If the topic of sexual assault were to leave the law-school classroom, it would be a tremendous loss?above all to victims of sexual assault.”

        1. Except it’s not really an unintended side-effect. One of the goals of the left is to make any dissent from prescribed orthodoxy a sin. As such, making it impossible to teach things which might offend the sensibilities of a progressive is actually their goal, not a side-effect.

          They really are social conservatives and the similarities can’t be harped on enough. Earlier today you posted an article about those girls who were kicked off a team in Arizona because they upset their Mormon coach. One of the things they did was play rap during pre-game warm-ups, and some of the Mormons on the team found the playing of rap ‘offensive to their religious sensibilities.’

          How is that any different than how progressives are behaving in this article? In fact, this article is much worse because they’re going to school to learn something and aren’t being taught an important facet of the law due to their own squeamishness and inability to control their emotions.

          1. Very true. It’s like Soviet propaganda: not intended to enlighten or convince, but simply to beat people into submission. If it’s self-contradictory, as much of feminist agitprop is, so much the better! It keeps your enemies off-balance if they never know exactly what you are demanding of them.

            1. It works too well, but all it takes to stop it is an unafraid competent and firm stand.

          2. Sure, but I doubt they intended to make it harder to learn about, say, prosecuting rapes. They should have seen that, of course, but I doubt they did and intended that.

            1. Please. Like progressives actually care about stopping rapes. They’re using rape victims as human shields to advance political positions completely unrelated to sexual assault.

              If they wanted to stop rapes, they would a) tell girls that there are specific things they can do to keep themselves safe, such as avoiding dangerous situations and staying sober enough to keep their wits about them and b) would calmly argue in favor of more women going to the police with accusations in order to stop rapists from re-offending.

              They don’t do either of these things because they don’t care about stopping sexual assaults, they care about using sexual assaults as a wedge issue and a base mobilizer. If they actually cared about rapes, they’d worry about places where rapes are relatively common (such as on Indian reservations) rather than freaking out about college rape, which is provably incredibly rare.

              1. You don’t think uber-feminists want to stop rapes? They might be very misguided about how to do it, but I don’t doubt they really don’t care much for rape and would like to see them stop.

                1. You don’t think uber-feminists want to stop rapes? They might be very misguided about how to do it, but I don’t doubt they really don’t care much for rape and would like to see them stop.

                  No, I don’t think they care. What they care about is getting their two minute hate on for the enemy.

                  This is all about emotional release, catharsis, and narcissism. They want to rage about something, and rape is just something to rage against. That’s why they never advance any practical arguments for how to prevent sexual assault, preferring instead to worry about things that they can’t even prove exist, like rape culture and patriarchy. By railing against unfalsifiable abstractions rather than putting forward actual ideas to prevent assaults, they can rage and bellow from now til Judgment Day without having to deal with bourgeoisie niceties like ‘coming up with an actual plan of action.’

                  It’s all about emotion. They just come up with various excuses to behave emotionally. The excuses vary depending on the season, but the common denominator is mindless emotionalism, outrage, and pouting.

                  Rape is just the current drug they’re using to get their outrage kick. It could be a million other things, and two months from now it will be something else.

              2. No, the ;iberal president of traditionally black Lincoln Univ. said just that. And was forced to resign because “blaming the victim.”

              3. If they really cared about rapes, they wouldn’t ignore the ones done by non-whites. There have even been at least three campus gang-rapes in the last few years, but because the perps were largely non-white, they didn’t get much coverage. Conflicting prog meme error… does not compute!

                (I know a woman who was at a Berkeley anti-rape meeting years ago, and the group was told that street rape by black men was a “myth.” She didn’t raise her hand and say “It happened to me,” but now she wishes she had.)

                1. In fact, to expand on that point, progressives explicitly target groups that they deem to be ‘privileged’ while ignoring sexual assaults by those they deem to be ‘oppressed.’ This is why the U-VA story was so huge in the first place – because it involved upper-middle class southern whites in a privileged fraternity at a university started by Thomas Jefferson.

                  It basically had villains who were everything progressives hate, which is why they pushed that story, despite its obvious inconsistencies, in the first place.

                  If they cared about rape in and of itself, they would target the places where rape is common. They don’t. Instead, they target places where rape is uncommon, and use rape as a means of attacking people that progressives don’t like.

                  Huh. Were I a cynic, it would almost appear that progressives don’t give a shit about rape and are using it for the purposes of anti-conservative and anti-libertarian propaganda, a bludgeon to punish political opponents.

                  That can’t be possible, though! When have leftists ever engaged in disingenuous propaganda disguised as a serious moral argument?

                2. Women, especially white women, are lower on the hierarchy of progressive victimhood than black men.

                  A few years ago in Oakland, I was on jury duty for an assualt/attempted rape case in which the accused was a black man and the victim a white woman. The victim fought back against her attacker and wound up chasing him out of the room where the attack took place. At that point, the chase was picked up by a surveillance camera. Others took over the chase and caught him. There were about 3 seconds between leaving the room where the assault occurred and the camera picking up. The jury hung because half the jurors thought that the victim was in shock and mistook a different black man in the crowd for her attacker. They didn’t think she was lying, but without that 3 seconds showing him leaving the first location, they thought they had reasonable doubts.

                  1. In addition, the defense attorney asked the victim if she had ever been in a sexual relationship with her fiance’s brother, who shared an apartment with them. He also questioned the defendant and his girlfriend about whether they had a satisfactory sex life. This in the EAST BAY with Berkeley grads on the jury, and they thought I was was being ridiculous when I pointed out he was trying to suggest that the victim was sexually suspect, and that having a satisfactory sex life with his girlfriend doesn’t mean a man won’t rape. The jury foreman seemed downright disturbed that she was being asked to make a decision about an African-American man. White guilt trumped violence against women for three of the jury members. The three others who decided in favor of the defendant, I cannot explain.

            2. Well, yeah, duh.

              They don’t want to prosecute rape. They just want to punnish the rapist. And since anybody with a penis is a rapist it doesn’t really matter if the guy getting punnished happened to commit the rape in question or not.

    2. That national conversation isn’t what you think it is. It amounts to them making wild claims and having everyone beleive them without question and then having white men lay their necks on the chopping block without resistance.

      Would it trigger anyone if I suggested that they go fuck themselves with a chainsaw?

      1. National conversations are almost always really meant by those proposing them to be national one-sided lectures.

        1. “We need a National Scolding!”

      2. ‘They’ being the progressive feminists.

      3. Exactly like the national conversation they want to have about guns.

    3. Keep teaching rape law, and give the precious snowflakes who can’t handle it a fucking F. They have demonstrated that they do not have the chops to be lawyers.

  12. Racial Wealth Gap 69:1?

    “Last week, the Pew Research Center reported that the median white household was worth $141,900, 12.9 times more than the typical black household, which was worth just $11,000. In 2007, the ratio was 10 to one…Depressing as those numbers sound, they may actually be a bit too upbeat. Pew is arguably overstating black wealth.

    This part gets the tiniest bit technical, but here’s the overarching question to consider: Do you consider your car an asset? Or is it a consumer good? Because if you don’t count it as an asset, the median black household has virtually no “wealth”…

    What happens when you remove vehicles and other durables from the picture? For minority families, it gets much, much bleaker. According to New York University economist Edward Wolff (whom I cited in a recent post) the median black family, minus cars and the like, is worth just $1,700 (40 percent have zero or negative wealth). The median white family is worth, roughly, 69 times more.”

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/mon…..think.html

    1. How much of this is the result of “acting white” being considered a bad thing? If studying and marriage are uncool, and being tough and having kids out of wedlock is cool, then guess what effect that has on your finances for years to come?

      1. I’ve read that’s overblown

        http://www.slate.com/articles/…..ement.html

        1. Yeah, well, that guy manages to defend Ebonics and also says: “Again, none of this is to deny the reality of racialized ridiculing. It happens?I’ve experienced it?and it’s painful. But it isn’t a feature of black culture. Rather, it arises from a mix of factors, from social status to the composition of the school itself.”

          Oookaaay, but whether it’s black culture or an alien virus, it seems undeniable that there’s a heck of a lot of it among urban blacks, and that it holds them back, financially and socially.

        2. Also, Bo: read the called-out “Top Comment” for that article, by “GhanaEd.”

          1. Nah, I prefer the sidebar: “Cameron Diaz comes out as pro-pubes.” and “Gwyneth: I shaved myself for the side-but dress.”

        3. Wow. That is completely believable for people who have spent time in academic settings. Yeah, the whole ‘acting white’ meme is a myth. I believe Slate and not my lying eyes.

          1. I wouldn’t believe Slate, but I might give more credence to the studies than personal anecdote.

            1. What “studies”?

              1. The ones mentioned in the article I linked to.

            2. When what the studies measure are anecdotes, why the hell would you give more credence to them than the anecdotes themselves?

    2. OMG ARE YOU SAYING IF WE JIGGLE NUMBERS AROUND WE CAN CREATE VAST DISPARITY?!?

      sigh. The time Ed claimed that black people were “21 times as likely to get shot by police” was quickly debunked as complete numeric gibberish

      In this case, the way to accurately compare any *racial* disparity would be to isolate that characteristic.

      That would mean comparing lifetime earnings potential (the way an actuary would do a wrongful death payout) based on equivalent educational and employment profiles

      i.e. poor, HS educated black vs poor HS educated white ; same for middle class college grads; same for ‘rich’, post graduate, etc.

      1. It’s as if someone said ‘NFC South Teams have so many less yards and first downs than AFC North teams’ and you said ‘hey, it’s only meaningful to control for the team records, or by starting quarterback rating!’

        1. No, because football is a fucking game you moron.

          To compare ‘wealth’ you’d have to put the different economic cohorts into something LIKE a game (similar basic patterns) to make it worth comparing for ‘racial’ variation.

          Failing to isolate the actual demographic aspect being ‘compared’ is failing to say anything about it at all.

          Calling something a wealth-gap, then engineering the definition of ‘wealth’ to increase the perceived disparity is the apex of numerical bullshit.

          You are possibly smart enough to understand this, but too much of an intellectually dishonest cunt to try.

          1. Wow, you really don’t understand. Let’s try it again.

            If I said the NFC Southern was incredibly behind the AFC Northern in, say, points scored-minus points allowed, it would be downright silly for you to ‘counter’ that disparity by saying ‘well, we should control for the team’s QB ratings and turnover ratios etc.’ Of course there are a lot of REASONS the NFC Southern is performing much, much worse than the AFC Northern, that doesn’t take away the size and scope of the DISPARITY in performance.

            Likewise, I’m sure there are many reasons blacks on average have so much less wealth than whites. They probably have college degrees a lot less, or have more children out of wedlock, of more likely have criminal records, or are less likely to own a house, etc. That of course in no way undermines the finding that, on average, they have a lot less wealth!

            1. you’re a statistical genius.

              Why did you ever choose law? What a loss for society.

              1. You made a mistake and now try to deflect it with an insult rather than a response, just own it Gilmore.

                1. “Bo Cara Esq.|12.15.14 @ 11:32PM|#

                  You made a mistake “

                  No – you didn’t understand the point.

                  The way they worked the #s was to maximise the differences.

                  If you do it properly, yes, differences exist (and no one said they didn’t) but the factor is not nearly the gasp-inducer that is desired.

                  There is no 69x wealth disparity factor. Its a bullshit dishonest claim.

                  which is your M.O. in the first place.

                  Stick to poor-man rhetorical tactics bo; #s aren’t your game.

            2. Bo, you’re completely off base. The point is that progressives are claiming black people are poorer than whites because of present racism, and that, as a result, if we dealt with present racism this disparity would dissipate.

              The problem is that black people in 2014 are not poor because of racism in 2014. They’re poor because of a host of things, most of which happened decades ago. Racism in the past, slavery, and Jim Crow played a part, as did flawed left-wing social programs, particularly many of the aspects of the Great Society. As a result, there certainly are reasons black people are poor which are not really their fault, but those problems are in the past. Claiming that black people today are poor because of modern racism simply isn’t true. If it were, then why do so many non-black minorities, some of which have dealt with just as much recent racism as blacks, often outperform African Americans? Hell, why do black immigrants generally outperform African Americans?

              The point is that they are specifically arguing that modern racism is at fault, but modern racism is at the absolute most an incredibly minor variable which is swamped by a million other things. If all racism were expunged from the universe tomorrow, black incomes would not budge because modern racism simply is not the reason for modern black poverty.

              That’s the point. They don’t account for other variables and declare that all problems are the fault of modern racism.

              1. Well said, Irish.

        2. If you’re ignorant of biology, this might make sense.

          Maybe.

          derpderpbiology101derppppppp

          1. “If you’re ignorant of biology, this might make sense.”

            Wait, what? Is this some Stormfront rant about to happen? Because the irony from you would be like the pot calling the kettle…well, you know.

  13. On Friday, Russia raised its interest rate from 9.5 to 10.5%. Today, the Ruble fell by 13% against the USD. A few hours ago, Russia raised its interest rate again to 17%. SEVENTEEN PERCENT.

    1. Wow, that’s getting into Jimmy Carter territory.

  14. Prediction: Black (that refuses to self-identify as black)

  15. Fox News Middle Eastern specialist Lisa Daftari will come on to talk about the Sydney hostage attack

    I know geographic literacy is abysmal but this is terrible.

    1. The Middle East is everywhere these days, unfortunately.

    2. The shooter was from Iran, right?

      1. You know who else was from Austria?

  16. I don’t care for a TV personality who refuses to tell his fans everything about his life.

  17. What the shit is McCotter wearing?

    1. His t-shirt message is obscured by his jacket.

  18. Loving the Sequester is basically the same as supporting genocide.

  19. Republicans? Wouldn’t it be Playgirl?

  20. Random thought: if Yellen actually raises rates substantially, she will be one of the greatest Fed chairs ever.

    1. Ending QE was equivalent to raising rates; it’s another way to tighten. QE and zero bound are the Hotel California. You can check in, but you can never leave.

      1. By the way, raising rates significantly would send us into permanent deflation worse than Japan. This isn’t 1979.

        1. Nothing wrong with deflation.

          1. Hmmm, yes and no.

            Nothing wrong with deflation if you have cash or assets that aren’t deflating, or if prices are deflating faster than your assets.

            If you own deflating assets and have a loan, well, you’ve got a problem, and the financial sector is completely dependent on asset price inflation for margin. It’s all about margin.

            I’ll remind you that all pension plans absolutely depend on asset inflation.

            1. That dependence on inflation is why our system is so sick. It must be purged, and deflation is the cure.

              America in the latter half of the 19th Century had persistent deflation and it was a very prosperous place.

      2. But we DID leave QE-at least temporarily.

        1. Right, we did. Notice anything unusual since the end of QE in October? Like the incredible market volatility, the nose dive in commodities, the absolute destruction of crude, and fx instability – see the ruble?

          Tiny bubbles are popping. US growth is slowing in the face of Japanese and European recessions and a significant volatility and slower growth in China.

          The Fed will not be raising rates in 2015. Treasurys are clearly telling us this as yields drop.

          The question will be if the Fed as the credibility to re-start QE. It doesn’t, by the way.

          1. We’ll seen. I get the impression Yellen and others are actually getting nervous about the money supply. America’s growth is not suffering like the rest of the world’s-the world economies are diverging.

            Let The Purge continue.

    2. And what would that do to the interest payments on the national debt?

    1. Could be worse.

        1. Santorum/Romney or vice versa

          1. Well, any ticket with Jeb on it, won’t be receiving my vote.

  21. I’ll see Balko when I believe him.

  22. Don’t you love it how people granted ‘political asylum’ use Freedom of Speech in the West to scream and rant for its demise? Its so cute.

  23. She’s skating very close to being racist against Mooslims!

  24. Goddammit, she was about to give us the solution.

  25. The Independents Attire Review, 15 December 2014

    Could Be Worse-Edition

    – Kennedy: Rolex-Green…thing, with a sorta V-neck… with collar-lapel things…Thing. I will call it “THE THING“. The collar and fabric make it feel sort of like a field hockey jersey. Give her a headband, a curved stick and a Welsh accent and we’re into sexy role-playing territory.

    – Matt: PowerMatt – John-Bolton-Red Edition. Excellent Monday offering. We’ve always supported going with “Strong and Boring” early in the week, and getting more ‘fancy pants’ and stylish by Friday. People underestimate how these sorts of underlying visual patterns are picked up on by a viewing audience. How do i know this? I’m entirely speculating. I read Marshall McLuhan once, if it matters.

    – Kmele: The ‘3-Banger’. One of our favorites. Kmele seems to always favor the tattersall shirt with this, which we’ve been ‘meh’ about, but the maroon tie is just cherry-on-top priceless perfection. We’d love a ‘cream-colored’ spread-collar shirt with this, or just plain white, but this ain’t bad at all. We throw him the laurels of victory for merely showing up tonight. NEVER LEAVE US AGAIN

    Mul?umesc

  26. I don’t use a pillow when I sleep. True story. I consider it a crutch.

    1. Who needs pillows when you have a pile of Thai whores?

    2. Real men sleep on rocks.

      But some think those Egyptian headrests were for mummies in the afterlife, and not really used by the living.

    3. Have fun with your bent neck.

  27. Except for that guy that they killed.

  28. That’s unfair. You don’t know what heart they gave him. MAYBE IT WAS HITLER’S.

  29. The Chair Force doesn’t have a commander rank. Maybe it was Coast Guard.

    1. She said he was “a” commander. It’s not a rank, it’s a position.

      1. “Chair” Force is still a great dig, though.

          1. I’m sure you’d never heard it before

              1. Your airplane had a chair, yes or no? I REST MY CASE.

            1. I myself have great admiration for men who wear scarves.

  30. < i The Independents can’t HANDLE the truth!

  31. You can’t have Mugshot Monday without an actual mugshot.

  32. That guy kept checking his answering machine?

  33. Sounds like someone needed to lose some weight.

  34. Flow forming? Is this PMF or PMS? AMIRITE PEOPLE?

  35. Reason would post the email, those arrogant bastards!

  36. Whatever was hacked was too boring for me to care about. Unless it involved tits, or racist remarks about someone, i don’t understand the fuss.

    1. It just shows another facet of how completely whacked NorKor is to do that to Sony because they made a movie which said anything about their beloved leader.

  37. Was that Sandra Bernhard in drag?

  38. Welch thinks the mayor is boss of the cops? Read your union contract.

  39. Hey! Kmele, at least let the guy finish his point.

  40. Balko in the last minutes of the show? What is this?

    1. To be fair – he is the headline act. You save him for last.

      And they don’t dare interrupt him else they get the Balko Stare of Death

      1. Plus, there’s no way ordinary mortal balls could handle a full 60 minutes of Balko.

        1. His fighting name is Ragely Ball KO.

  41. “Radley, you have five minutes to get a word in edgewise. GO!”

  42. I like that idea.

    Who is this Balko fellow?

  43. I don’t know, Balko. It looks like in your job you’re gaining an unhealthy amount of weight.

    1. Maybe he has a thyroid condition. Or the diabeetus.

      1. Maybe you’re just a weight gain apologist.

  44. As long as insurance keeps paying out settlements, no local change.

  45. Who is this, Kmele Foster or Cathy Young? PICK A SIDE.

  46. No Kmele. The entire profession is corrupt. At a very minimum they all condone this behavior.

  47. Well, Foster is defending coppers whereas Malice is tarring them all thugs. This is weird.

  48. Don’t attack a man’s t-shirt.

  49. So they were fucking incompetent!

  50. Were they professional? I doubt it. I bet they acted like you had stolen their car. I bet they acted like it was personal.

  51. They stopped Malice from backing up his point, whatever it was, by telling him they had to wrap it up, but they keep going?

    1. Apparently 2 politically unpopular points you can’t make on Fox Channels.

      – Cops suck
      – Abortion lowered crime rates*

      *this a tricky point, because it presupposes how urban blight scaled significantly upward had roe-v-wade not happened. It presumes that the late 70s-80s environment was just a taste of what it ‘could have become’.

      I am aware that ‘mass abortions’ never happened. However, lower birth rates in poor communities did. And there was a poverty-baby-boom that fueled the crime rate in that period.

      Anyway, i would have enjoyed hearing a discussion about it rather than a trite dismissal.

        1. The only way the Freakynomics people can even have the slightest opportunity to make their case is by simply changing the meaning of words so that abortion is defined as a non-crime.

          Hey, let’s define infanticide as legal and noncriminal, then kill a bunch of babies born to poor mothers, then assert that a certain percentage of these babies would have grown up to be criminals, and presto! Infanticide reduces crime!

          1. The only way the Freakynomics people can even have the slightest opportunity to make their case is by simply changing the meaning of words so that abortion is defined as a non-crime.

            Since it’s not a crime, they don’t have to change anything.

            Guess who’s shifting the burden!

            1. OK, infanticide guy, would you reduce crime by killing off babies who were born in poverty and desperation, at risk of becoming criminals?

              1. I would not, but that’s not my choice to make, nor is it yours.

                1. It’s just worth repeating that you would legalize infanticide in certain instances.

                2. Are you seriously arguing in favor of infanticide for poor people again?

                  I’m amazed you haven’t walked this horrible argument back yet. Double down, Cyto! Double down on the baby killing!

                  1. Cytotoxic wants to kill poor babies? I thought he wanted them all to move to the US to get on welfare.

                  2. Not just for poor people.

                    A while back I read about a couple whose son was born premature. His brain bled and he got cerebral palsy. His parents have to raise this broken unit, and they shouldn’t have had to. It was immoral to force it on them. They should have had the option of post-birth abortion.

                    There’s no reason for me to walk back anything. My logic is as sound as ever, and superior to the others on this sub-thread.

                    1. How about if a baby is not ‘damaged’ in any way? Moreover, how damaged does a baby have to be for you to justify killing it? Would down-syndrome be sufficient?

                    2. Down-syndrome is absolutely sufficient. Cleft-pallet syndrome is not because it is easily repaired.

                      How about if a baby is not ‘damaged’ in any way?

                      I’m not sure. I think we need to do more research. What’s so great about babies anyway?

          2. If you agree with Eddie’s premises his conclusion is very sound!

            1. So that raises the question – are my premises correct or not?

          3. Well, I mean, abortion wasn’t a crime after it was decriminalized. That’s tautological. It may not be a good thing, but “crime” is whatever the sovereign makes it. You could repeal all laws against homicide and reduce crime.

            You’re arguing past Cyto on this point, dude.

      1. On the latter, I seem to recall Freakanomics making the claim but having to walk it back (or not walking it back but still being refuted)?

        1. No they didn’t and no they weren’t.

          1. Heroic Mulatto|12.15.14 @ 10:58PM|#

            Yes, kinda.

            The below does not sound like a “retraction” =

            “The inclusion of state-year interactions and controls for cohort size makes greater demands on the data by single year of age than the crude rule of thumb abortion proxy used in Donohue and Levitt (2001) could support. A more thoughtfully constructed proxy yields results that are in many cases stronger than those reported in our initial paper, even after addressing the issues raised by Foote and Goetz (2005). Thus, while criticism of us as authors for weaknesses in the initial paper are warranted, we do not believe that the Foote and Goetz analysis calls into question the conclusions reached in Donohue and Levitt (2001)

            1. I didn’t say it was a “retraction”, I said that Acosmist’s memory was kinda correct in that D and L acknowledged there was an error in their data that reduced the magnitude of the effect, but that the correlation was still present, or even stronger.

        2. No – it was a controversial point when it was made, and i think some people in the media have decided that the argument was ‘refuted’ for the sake of killing it as a topic of discussion.

          From a technical, statistical point of view, i’ve never seen any ‘proof’ he’s wrong. HM links below to the arguments/counterarguments

          There was some compelling case made that abortion was *less significant* than Donohue-Levitt supposed, because there was not the kind of ‘mass uptake’ of abortion/change to birth rates broadly among the poor that would entirely explain the drop in crime rates that actually later occurred.

          However, the change was so consistent across different regions that there’s still reason to believe it had a significant effect on people in the worst social conditions such that birth rates in the ‘criminal classes’ were affected.

          The ‘crack cocaine’ theory was not a counter-argument so much as an ‘add on’ that explained the massive peak/fall off in crime in the late-80s/early 90s.

          I think people like Eddy freak out about it because it sounds like someone’s making an argument in favor of abortion for social-engineering purposes. No one really is making that case, but rather simply pointing out that its a statistically compelling case for why crime in the 1990s declined so steeply all over the country – a sociological phenomenon that has few comprehensive alternative explanations.

          1. Has nothing to do with being controversial, and Steve Sailer I am sure would be quite on board saying that aborting blacks would reduce crime, if we’re going by…temperament.

            Strange to have Cyto and HM have entirely opposite views – thanks HM for the link to that, THAT’S what I was thinking about.

            It’s muddy enough that I wouldn’t want to go around casually saying “abortion reduces crime.” So that’s probably not a good thing to throw around like it’s an item of actual knowledge rather than just speculation. Has a Cliff Claven like element to it.

          2. I think people like Eddy freak out about it because it sounds like someone’s making an argument in favor of abortion for social-engineering purposes. No one really is making that case, but rather simply pointing out that its a statistically compelling case for why crime in the 1990s declined so steeply all over the country – a sociological phenomenon that has few comprehensive alternative explanations.

            In fact, if you actually read Freakonomics, Leavitt explicitly states that he’s making no moral argument in favor of or against abortion, and mentions that if someone believes abortion is murder then clearly the decline in crime rates came about as a result of the worst Holocaust in history.

            He directly addresses this point, says that whether not you think it was ‘worth it’ is entirely dependent on whether or not you believe abortion is murder, and simply argues that he believes the evidence backs him up.

            He could very easily be wrong, but the claim that he didn’t consider the point about abortion possibly being wrong itself is simply not true. He does mention it and makes no particular argument on whether abortion in and of itself is moral.

            1. Does he say how his figures would be affected if he included abortion in the crime statistics?

          3. “I think people like Eddy freak out about it because it sounds like someone’s making an argument in favor of abortion for social-engineering purposes.”

            Ah, yes, “I’m reacting calmly but *you’re* freaking out!”

            Setting that aside…

            Before abortion was legalized it was part of the crime rate. When it was legalized it *wasn’t* part of the crime rate. Some economists who agree with the legalization of abortion think they have evidence that abortion reduces the crime rate.

            That only makes sense if you don’t think abortion is a crime. If you think it *is* a crime, I would love to see your evidence that an increase in abortions leads to *net reduction* in crime of all kinds.

            1. “crime” is arbitrarily defined by the state of the law. Staaaaaahp.

              1. You’re describing your position, not mine.

                I don’t think the state can make murder legal or noncriminal.

                Abortion is a crime whether the state acknowledges it as a crime or not.

            2. “I’m reacting calmly but *you’re* freaking out!”

              Passive-aggressive catlick is passive-aggressive.

              Before abortion was legalized it was part of the crime rate. When it was legalized it *wasn’t* part of the crime rate. Some economists who agree with the legalization of abortion think they have evidence that abortion reduces the crime rate.

              Freaknomics parsed the data. There findings were not some artifact caused by subtracting abortion from the frime rate.

              1. Should infanticide be included in crime statistics?

                What about infanticide of Down Syndrome babies?

            3. “Ah, yes, “I’m reacting calmly but *you’re* freaking out!””

              Well, trying to change the subject to something basically unrelated to the argument (*the ethics of abortion) isn’t ‘freaking out’,

              …but its still not part of the point being discussed; which was, ‘did it reduce the crime rate *back then*’

              someone could conclude it had a HUGE effect, and still be entirely ethically opposed to abortion. I don’t see why that’s a problem.

              1. For crying out loud, are you including abortion in the crime rates or not?

                1. “For crying out loud, are you including abortion in the crime rates or not?”

                  Did you miss this? =

                  As you can see in this chart = the crimes being tracked are “murder, rape, assault, robbery, burglary”

                  you can see a large rise in crime in the 1960s-1980s

                  then a steady drop off for the subsequent decades

                  those statistics do not include abortion.

                  Hope that helps.

                  1. Yes, it does.

                    So you don’t think abortion is a crime.

                    So you begged the question.

                    Good thing Cyto is here, so you won’t think I’m coming out of left field by raising the following issue:

                    If you’re studying whether killing newborn babies born to poor mothers will reduce the crime rate, would you start off by assuming, without giving any reasons, that killing newborns *isn’t* a crime? If you arbitrarily excluded these infanticides from the crime statistics, wouldn’t that reduce the value of your data?

                    I mean, imagine saying, “we know that killing potential criminals when they’re newborn babies reduces crime, and by the way we don’t count the killing newborns as a crime, because we want to be as neutral as possible!”

                    Would anyone besides cyto buy that?

                    1. “So you don’t think abortion is a crime.”

                      No; the statistics we’re talking about don’t *include it*

                      which doesn’t require any belief at all from my POV. they #s are still the #s.

                    2. Also – you keep doing this…

                      ” you’re studying whether killing newborn babies born to poor mothers will reduce the crime rate…”

                      No.

                      The factor being looked for in the data is whether the legalization of abortion in the 1970s affected the drop in crime in the 1990s

                      last i checked, that was in the past.

                      The fact of whether it did (or didn’t) in that historical example from a statistical POV has zero relationship with arguing that abortion has any significant effect in ‘reducing the crime rate’ now, or ever in the future outside of that specific case study. Separate issues entirely.

                      again – you seem to think there is no way to talk about statistics without ALSO having an ethical debate about how statistics *should be* defined (as opposed to how they are)

                      That’s your problem. It doesn’t mean that people engaged in looking at numbers are *doing it wrong*, or something.

                    3. OK, so just to be clear – we’re excluding abortion from the crime statistics? And the decision to exclude abortion from these statistics may or may not allow the conclusion that “abortion reduces crime rates?”

                    4. Think of it this way, Eddie, say in a village of 100 people the rate of murder goes up. When we look into the numbers we see that the rate of jaywalking went down. We do the math and find that the increase in the murder rate had a strong correlation to the rate of jaywalking. So we do a further study and find that through regression analysis that there was a casual relationship between an increase in murder and the decrease in jaywalking (that is, if you kill people, you have less pedestrians that could possibility jaywalk). We do further analysis with tons of other independent variables: fraud, theft, dancing on Sunday, etc. and find a casual relationship between the increase of murder and the decrease of the other crimes. So yes, it is possible have an increase of incidents of one crime that results in the overall reduction of all crimes.

                      And, to a normal person, that doesn’t mean that we should legalize murder.

                    5. “Notorious G.K.C.|12.16.14 @ 12:11AM|#

                      OK, so just to be clear – we’re excluding abortion from the crime statistics? And the decision to exclude abortion from these statistics may or may not allow the conclusion that “abortion reduces crime rates?”

                      again, you’re playing word games with yourself.

                      “we’re” not excluding or including anything.

                      The data we’re working with compares ‘violent crime statistics’ (rape, assault, non-abortion murder, etc) and the rates of change therin to rates of actual abortion uptake during a fairly short period in the 1970s, relative to the change in crime in the early 1990s.

                      You keep trying to change the point. You dont seem to want to allow anyone to engage in a secular debate about the relationship of discrete sets of data without first proving to you that they hold a certain opinion for/against abortion itself and whether or not it should/should not be classified a certain way.

                      I don’t know if its been noted before, but im personally neutral in the whole abortion debate and have no interest in staking out any position for/against. Its not relevant as far as this specific example goes, despite your insistence that its impossible to talk about these data without some kind of decision on the ethics of ‘abortion-as-murder’

  52. Kmele says that the Freakonomics ‘abortion’ theory was disproven.

    Anyone have a link to the counter-theory?

      1. At best, even if large numbers of abortions kill a certain proportion of babies who might otherwise have grown up to be criminals, then you *still* haven’t proved that increased abortion reduced the crime rate. After all, any drop in potential crimes committed by these aborted people is made up for by the increased crime figures represented by the higher abortion numbers.

        What’s that you say? You aren’t defining abortion as a crime? Oh, I see, you’re engaging in a scientific technique known as “begging the question” or, less charitably, “cheating.”

        1. What’s that you say? You aren’t defining abortion as a crime? Oh, I see, you’re engaging in a scientific technique known as “begging the question” or, less charitably, “cheating.”

          That would actually be you, oh most dire of projectionists. “It’s a crime because I say so!”

        2. “What’s that you say? You aren’t defining abortion as a crime? Oh, I see, you’re engaging in a scientific technique known as “begging the question” or, less charitably, “cheating.””

          Oh, the irony!

      2. Thats what i’ve read before.

        I’ve never seen any kind of ‘case closed’ debunking at all. I knew about the ‘crack’ factor – and think it was huge in places like NY and LA, but his point about the consistency of the drops in crime across many states i think is compelling in suggesting that abortion (and how it affected birth rates or even attitudes towards pregnancy) had a major role.

        1. Are you defining “crime” to *exclude* abortion?

          1. Like any rational person, I would expect him to.

          2. When people talk about the rise in crime in the late 70s into the 80s, they are not talking about ‘increased abortion’.

            As you can see in this chart = the crimes being tracked are “murder, rape, assault, robbery, burglary”

            No one treats ‘Abortion’ as a crime in this particular statistical argument about whether abortion affected ‘crime rates’

            sorry if you were confused

            1. “No one treats ‘Abortion’ as a crime in this particular statistical argument about whether abortion affected ‘crime rates'”

              No one? I thought I just *did* include it.

              So let’s get back to the real question – is abortion a crime, or ought it to be?

              1. How is that the ‘real question’ in a discussion over whether abortion played a role in crime? It’s a question alright, a begging one, but not the ‘real question.’

                Think of this analogy: what if someone says, the legalization of concealed carry made the crime rate drop. If someone said ‘yeah, but carrying a gun absent the legalization of it would of course be a crime, so unless you factor in all that crime by people carrying concealed you haven’t answered the question!’

                I’m not sure why you’re being so silly on this. It’s not important to your values, if legalized abortion did make the crime rate lower AND abortion was murder of innocent babies then it would be monsterous to suggest we should have done it because it achieved that result.

                1. Wait, you said above, “If you agree with Eddie’s premises his conclusion is very sound!”

                  OK, are my premises correct or not?

                  1. I don’t agree with your premise that abortion is a crime, both as a matter of positive or natural law.

                2. RETARD: “Abortion reduces the crime rate!”

                  ME: “No, it doesn’t.”

                  RETARD: “Why would *you* care, you’d be against abortion even if it *did* reduce the crime rate!”

                  ME: “It *doesn’t* reduce the crime rate.”

                  RETARD: “You have no right to say that, even if you’re right!”

                  1. What is it with people redefining words around here today? Earlier we had a thread in which it was argued that executions are “murder.” Now we hear that abortion is a “crime.”

                    Legal killings are, by definition, not murder.

                    Legal abortion is, by definition, not a crime.

                    You may object to either or both, but please, let’s not refine words.

                  2. No,Eddie. Whether abortion reduces or does not reduce the crime rate, a very poor argument in that debate is ‘abortion is itself a crime, so of course it doesnt!’

                    1. Like someone said above, “If you agree with Eddie’s premises his conclusion is very sound!”

                    2. Eddie, when someone tries to win an argument by insisting others agree with his premises, that’s often a bug, a sign of question begging, not a feature.

                    3. No, I dared ask that you define your terms.

                    4. Again, if you ‘win’ by definition that is question begging.

                    5. Good thing I didn’t ask people to agree with my premises. I *did* say that your arguments are only persuasive to those who decide not to count abortion in the crime statistics.

                      If you can’t tell the difference between these two positions, all I can say is…

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M54rv3hfIkc

                    6. You win, Eddie, if people buy your question begging they must admit you are correct!

              2. “So let’s get back to the real question – is abortion a crime, or ought it to be”

                The “Real Question” being, “lets argue about abortion ethics rather than crime statistics”?

                have fun

                1. How can you *possibly* discuss the crime rate in this situation without deciding if abortion is part of the crime rate?

                  So…how can you *avoid* discussing what you call “abortion ethics”?

                  1. Because there are things our legal system defines as ‘crimes’ and abortion is not one of them, and more importantly the entire argument is plainly about the effects of abortion on ‘non-abortion crime’ because otherwise we’d be begging the question.

                    1. “otherwise we’d be begging the question”

                      I tried to warn y’all that you were doing this.

                  2. If you read the original study, you’ll see that the authors disaggregated crime into “violent crime”, “property crime”, and “murder”. Even if you take out “murder”, which would address your criticism, it seems that the casual relationship still holds.

                    1. Hmmm…it says “Homicide rates have fallen more than 40 percent,” without indicating how he defines “homicide,” or in particular whether he includes abortion in that term.

                    2. Did he include the murder of Imaginary Friends in the homicide rate too? Better include that along with your unborn imaginary “people”.

                    3. Eddie, before you keep charging this hill, would you take a second to read and respond to my concealed carry analogy?

                    4. I read it, and here’s my response:

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

                    5. Wow, I tried to actually address you, and that’s your response.

                    6. If I recall correctly, Lott’s study examined the connection between gun control and crimes of violence.

                      I suppose that you could say that someone could claim carrying weapons without govt. permission is a crime of violence. And I suppose that, being a lefty, you think that’s just as silly as calling abortion a crime of violence.

                    7. Because I think you’d agree there’s be something amiss about someone who argued against the claim ‘legalized concealed carry has resulted in less crime’ by saying ‘well, did they count all the concealed carrying that was a crime before the legalization?’

                    8. That’s hilarious, because the whole spat between Lott and Donahue & Levitt started when Levitt criticized Lott’s study that showed a correlation between concealed carry and reduced crime rates. Lott sued Levitt for libel and lost. Lott, predictably, was one of Levitt’s loudest critics for the abortion and crime study.

                      Reading this thread is like watching a school play that reenacts the economics wars of the early 2000s!

                    9. I guess for those that miss the entire point it’s a school play.

                    10. Bo, you petulant little twit. I noticed a funny parallel here with the context of the debates between Lott and Levitt, and you, in your infinite narcissism, take it as an attack upon your ego.

                      Considering that both my citations and analysis of Donahue & Levitt’s work based on my previous familiarity with the topic* drove a large portion of the conversation, I grasp the point, in its entirety, with an understanding that is and forever shall be beyond your intellectual capability.

                      *I first read Freakonomics and the crime/abortion study when you were in grade school.

                    11. HM: Even if you take out ‘murder’ his point holds.

                      Eddie: Does he include abortions as murder, cuz he should!

                    12. “Heroic Mulatto|12.15.14 @ 11:20PM|#

                      “If you read the original study, you’ll see that the authors disaggregated crime into “violent crime”, “property crime”, and “murder”. Even if you take out “murder”, which would address your criticism, it seems that the casual relationship still holds.”

                      Oh, well then, if you kill the right people at an early stage of development you can prevent them from committing property crimes later.

                      Supposing that’s true, what could that possibly entail for sane public policy?

                    13. Supposing that’s true, what could that possibly entail for sane public policy?

                      I know it’s late, but you must have me confused with someone who couldn’t go toe to toe with you in matching your belief of pro-lifeness.

                      The entire point of Levitt’s and Dubner’s argument is merely that social policies have unforeseen effects. I’m sure that both Levitt and you would agree that if we practiced the Roman act of decimation and randomly killed 1 out of every 10 people, we might also see a correlated drop in the crime rate. For those of us who don’t possess the moral calculus of a sociopath aren’t utilitarians, a policy of decimation would be seen as morally reprehensible, no?

                    14. HM,

                      I hope it’s apparent that I’m mainly boxing with Bo, Cyto and other choicers.

                      As for yourself, you’re looking for the various correlations without insisting on particular moral conclusions.

                      My only quibble is that I think any discussion of crime rates should include your version of decimation, assuming it’s meted out randomly among the innocent rather than as punishment for mutineers. Keeping these “decimation” figures in the crime statistics would make it tougher to show that the crime rate was *reduced.*

                    15. . Keeping these “decimation” figures in the crime statistics would make it tougher to show that the crime rate was *reduced.*

                      See my response here

      3. Thanks for that. Wow, Lott’s a moron.

  53. Women don’t lie about campus rape

    In February 2013, Morgan Triplett, 20, visited the University of California, Santa Cruz for a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender conference. While there, she claimed that she had been raped in broad daylight on the Santa Cruz campus.

    Triplett’s story was a hoax. The bizarre truth is that she successfully used Craigslist to locate a stranger who agreed to beat her up in exchange for sex. In a failed ad, which found no takers, sought somebody to shoot her in the shoulder. A second ad, seeking someone willing to “punch, kick and bruise her” panned out. (RELATED: Student Sought Man To Beat Her Up And Have Sex, Then Reported It As Rape)

    Triplett met her unnamed mangler in Santa Cruz. He beat her up. They had sex. She used a cellphone screen reflection as a mirror to see if the injuries were sufficient. She then directed him to pummel her some more.

    With fresh bruises to substantiate her sick tale, Triplett then informed 911 that a mysterious assailant had raped and battered her while she was walking on a path looking for banana slugs ? the UCSC mascot.

    1. Believe all stories!

      1. “She turned me into a newt!”

        1. “A newt?”

          1. “I got better!”

  54. Ok, fess up. Which one of you is This kid?

    Mohammed Islam is only 17 and still months away from graduating ? but worth a rumored $72 million. “The high eight figures,” is as specific as the shy and modest teen would get when asked his net worth … “What makes the world go round?” Islam asked in the interview, explaining his preference for trading and investment over startups. “Money. If money is not flowing, if businesses don’t keep going, there’s no innovation, no products, no investments, no growth, no jobs.” … The three pals intend to make a billion dollars by next year. All while attending college. “But it’s not just about the money,” Islam told the mag, which ranked his spectacular success story as No. 12 in its 10th annual “Reasons to Love New York” issue.

    “We want to create a brotherhood. Like, all of us who are connected, who are in something together, who have influence.

    “Like the Koch brothers,” he added, referring to sibling oil magnates Charles and David, worth $40 billion each.

    1. He probably doesn’t have time to post crap on libertarian websites.

        1. Well then, to your original question, he’s obviously anonbot.

          1. CNN reported the kid admitted he was lying and made the whole thing up.

  55. http://www.washingtontimes.com…..#pagebreak

    The friends say among their concerns is the fact that the woman, named only as “Jackie” in the article, gave them a cellphone number so they could text a man she said she was seeing around the time she alleged she was gang-raped at a fraternity house.

    Eventually, the friends ended up with three numbers for the man. All are registered to Internet services that enable people to text without cellphone numbers but also can be used to redirect calls to different numbers or engage in spoofing, according to multiple research databases checked by The Washington Times. …

    The friends say Jackie also gave them the name “Haven” as the first name of the upperclassman she was seeing shortly before the purported attack, but they haven’t been able to find anyone by that name enrolled on the campus or even living in the area.

    Kathryn Hendley explained that the three friends began using the phone numbers to text Haven because they were “curious” about the upperclassman. Now, they don’t know what to think about that part of her story, the friends said.

    … Haven?

    1. Haven? That’s new.

    2. Jackie is not a particularly good liar. My question now is: how much of all this did Erdely truly believe, how much did she disbelieve but publish anyway, and how much did she just invent?

  56. I looked at the paycheck which had said $7434 , I didn’t believe that my mom in-law realy bringing in money in their spare time at their computer. . there brothers friend has been doing this for only 16 months and just paid for the morgage on there place and bought a top of the range Aston Martin DB5 .
    You can join just easy ——- http://www.jobsfish.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.