The Independents

On The Independents: Scalise's Dukey, NYPD Slowdown, Disputed Hack, Obama on Race, More Grubering, the Big (and Forgotten) Stories of 2014, a New Enemy of Freedom, and Punch-drunk After-show!


I'm the one on the left. |||

Tonight's live episode of The Independents (Fox Business Network, 9 p.m. ET, 6 p.m. PT, repeats three hours later) features not one but TWO Party Panels, the better to get the conversation slingin' back and forth.

Group 1 is the ladies: Julie Roginsky (Fox News contributor, Democrat) and Amy Holmes (host on The Blaze, not-Democrat), who will talk about the latest NYPD work-slowdown, the furor over incoming GOP Minority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise's history with David Duke, the perhaps-related grassroots revolt against House Speaker John Boehner, and the increasingly implausible explanations for the Sony hack. Playing for Team Dude is composed of comedians Jimmy Failla and Brian Morgenstern, who will go over the most Tweeted stories of 2014, and the most now-forgotten stories of 2014.

The co-hosts will chew on President Barack Obama's latest comments on race relations, Jonathan Gruber's latest gifts to the world, and our new Enemy of Freedom. Then, online-only aftershow, at!

Follow The Independents on Facebook at, follow on Twitter @ independentsFBN, hashtag us at #TheIndependents, and click on this page for more video of past segments.

NEXT: D.C.'s New Attorney General Says Congress Has Not Blocked Legal Marijuana in the Nation's Capital

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Sounds like some serious busienss..

    1. What the fuck?

      1. It’s a dead-man’s switch. Something’s gone wrong.

        1. It’s the End Times.

          1. It’s worse than than that. It’s become a Canadian chatroom.

            1. The resident Canadian chickenhawk is the only real problem. The others at least have a brain.

              1. I have a brain and I use, which is why I don’t use retarded terms like ‘chickenhawk’.

  2. Reply in post re: the NYPD’s fucktardery:

    McGarnagleTaylor Berman Today 2:28pm

    “The Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association has warned its members to put their safety first and not make arrests “unless absolutely necessary.”

    So they’re more or less admitting that their policing is not necessary 94% of the time. Sounds about right.

    Sounds like McGarnagle’s a Reasonoid….

    1. Well McGarnagle, Billy is dead! They slit his throat from ear to ear.

      Thanks to Bill DeBlasio!

    2. I don’t think their JOBS are necessary.

  3. the most now-forgotten stories of 2014

    I was going to ask about one of them but I forgot about it.

  4. Once again, I’m on the sidelines. A casualty of the Fox/Dish war. No < i The Independents for me. So the rest of you better step up.

    1. So that’s what it is.

      /goes back to cutting turnip for no reason.

  5. In the post below this, Bo posted this article about Canadian Tories recriminalizing the sale of sex. (He said they ‘recriminalized prostitution,’ but they really didn’t since Canada had one of those horribly idiotic systems where it’s legal for the woman to sell sex but not for the man to buy it. Hence, they really only criminalized it for the woman, since it was already illegal for the man).

    What amazed me was this fucking paragraph:

    Aside from the fornication and adultery, aside from the desecration of the sacred, aside from the banalization of longing and romance, aside from poisoning the wellspring which has been so fruitfully repressed, sublimated and transformed, there is something so bifurcating and self-destructive about prostitution.

    Holy purple prose and mixed metaphors, Batman! I am so sick of that banalizized longing, those wellsprings simultaneously poisoned, repressed, sublimated, and transformed, that bifurcated destruction which prostitution has forced upon us!

    How do people learn to write like this?

    1. This guy needs to learn to edit. In particular, he should count how many adjectives he’s using and then cut them in half:

      Our garden has become a wasteland. Food and sex are tasteless, soulless simulacra. We are all but incapable of circumspection, as infantile selfie shows claim to be reality. We are utterly estranged?from God, from nature, from each other, from our bodies and from our very selves. And so we must go into the desert to find spiritual strength.


      Fornication and adultery are no longer the awful defiling of the union of husband and wife, or worse still, a desecrating debasement of the physical metaphor for the relationship between Christ and His Church. We no longer marry and we no longer pray. Sexual desire is no longer enticed by the veiled and suggestive; the crescendo of a cultivated longing.

      YEAH! Crescendo that cultivated longing! Crescendo it hard!

      1. Cut his adjectives in half? Bullshit. Someone needs to cut that guy in half.

      2. Discussion about legalizing* prostitution should begin by acknowledging how bad it is.

        When some libertarian defends the free speech rights of nazis, he generally starts by saying, “these nazis are horrible people but we must protect” etc.

        So why, when it comes to legalizing prostitution, you have to pretend it’s just a morally neutral business transaction.

        Yes, prostitution is all the things that guy says, and eye-rolling isn’t going to change that.

        *technically it was never illegal per se in Canada, just hooking on streetcorners, running brothels, or living off the income of prostitution. But I’ll waive that quibble.

        1. Buying/selling sex is AWESOME. Why should I pretend it’s anything else?

        2. “Stop liking things I don’t like because of my arbitrary religious morality! STOP IT” /Eddie

        3. Discussion about legalizing* prostitution should begin by acknowledging how bad it is.

          Why is it bad?

          1. Sex is good. Selling is good. Why isn’t selling sex good?

            1. Eating is good. The human body is good. Therefore – cannibalism! Q.E.D., sucker.

              1. Don’t knock it til you’ve tried it.

                1. EAT ME!

        4. Yes, prostitution is all the things that guy says, and eye-rolling isn’t going to change that.

          But, it strikes me that the only harm is in his perception of it. If the more didn’t exist against prostitution, the points he makes wouldn’t apply.

          It’s a circular argument. Prostitution is bad because it undermines these values. And these values are right because they disallow things like prostitution.

      3. Awful defiling? Is there pleasant defiling?

        1. My favorite is ‘desecrating debasement.’ Oh no! Not desecrating debasement! That’s the worst kind!

          1. Well Catholics DO have sanctifying debasement, so there’s that.

    2. Harper is a fucktard and I cannot wait for the Supreme Court to take his shitty pro-serial killer law to the woodshed, which it will. I’ve heard reports that the provinces and other jurisdictions just aren’t interested in enforcing this thing.

      1. Cyto, will we ever get concealed carry here? I heard rumblings after that shooting in Ottawa but I have absolutely zero faith in ever being able to exercise my right to self defence in this northern tundra.

        1. errr don’t really want to have to exercise my right to self defence, more exercise my right to bear arms.

        2. Holy crap, that would be a stunner if it happened.

          1. This country is so messed up with guns. I can’t stand the absolute fear of firearms here. And the absolute USA bashing that almost immediately ensues when a debate on firearms arrises.

            1. America bashing is basically a central concept of Canadian nationalism nowadays, and it’s desperately sad. If half your national identity is based on ‘hurhur at least we’re not Americans’ your national identity’s not that great to begin with.

              1. The classic retort to someone who espouses any pro-gun philosophies is to immediately tell that person to move to America if they like their guns so much. Canadians don’t need those icky things!

                It fucking disgusts me because their opinion restricts me from protecting myself if need be. It also makes it a giant pain in the ass to acquire firearms and keep them without breaking some stupid fucking rule attached to owning them. Fuck off slaver.

                1. I took the possession and acquisition license course awhile back, and the amount of people who acted like I was some sort of monster for doing so was shocking. Most of it really does just come down to the fact that most Canadians are completely terrified of firearms.

                  1. Aren’t there literally tens of millions of guns in Canada? According to this they’re 12th in the world at 30.8 guns per 100 people. There are 35 million Canadians which means there would be about 13 million guns in the country.

                    How can Canadians be that terrified of guns when that many Canadians own them?

                    1. Depends on the locale, like the U.S. there’s an extreme divide between rural and urban. If you live in a rural area, like where I live now, rifles and shotguns are basically a normal part of life. When I took the PAL course I was living in a more ‘urban’ area (urban area for Canada=more than 100,000 people) and the response was a lot more negative. In terms of handguns (which requires a restricted firearms license) there’s a lot of people in both areas that just don’t understand why anyone would want one.

                    2. Also, if I wanted to take a restricted firearms course, there’s very, very few instructors left. Closest one I can find is near Kingston and that’s a six hour drive for me.

                    3. Most of them are in rural Canada. Urban Canadians are just as retarded as their American counterparts.

                      As for the acquisition course John alluded to, I took it and remember the instructor throwing out specious stats about how Canada is much safer than the USA and used NYC as an example.

                    4. Man Rufus, your instructor sucked. Mine talked about how stupid the laws made after the ?cole Polytechnique massacre were, how to legally buy ammunition in mass from the U.S., and what airlines treats firearms well during transportation.

                    5. Damn.

                    6. In fairness, he did allude to the silliness of our laws.

                  2. When I took that course the instructor told us there is no realistically legal way to defend yourself with a firearm in your home. He said basically just don’t bother getting your gun out if you hear something and stay in your room and hide until the person leaves… he is retired police.. is that what they mean by NORTH STRONG? Hide and let looters take what they want?

                    1. That’s exactly true Smilin’. The basic argument is nothing good will come of it since the legal system will find a way to put you in prison.

                      Want bizarre? My instructor made the point of if you have to kill make sure you use ANYTHING but a gun.

                      To me, this was the epitome of irrationality. And Canadian law with respect to self-defense is IRRATIONAL.

                    2. Set bear traps?

                      You guys all have ’em, right?

              2. America bashing is basically a central concept of Canadian nationalism nowadays

                I’d say it’s less intense nowadays than in a long time.

                1. It’s still pretty bad. Spark up an innocuous conversation about America with anyone, anywhere at anytime. Watch and marvel. You’ll get the odd thoughtful informed Canuch (ahem, waves hand) but for the most part…DERPISTAN.

                  My friends still say stupid things like ‘you think America can do no wrong’ to me whenever I merely try to point out the errors in their statements.

              3. THIS, John.

                All debates with clueless Canadians end up with ‘at least we’re not American!’

                Pathetic in our splendid mediocrity.

            2. The guns situation is bad but we’re nowhere as bad as in England aka The Mothership.

              The CPC doesn’t GAF about gun freedom. The only we I can see us getting gun liberty is through civil disobedience in the prairies starting with rural Alberta. Just people walking around with guns and local PDs refusing to stop it.

    3. The Tories are backwards on social policies and are big spenders.

      But it’s so sad that I had to vote for them because the options were worse – the NDP, Green and the children’s party in all their inglorious, vapid, pseudo-populism: The Liberals under one Justin Trudeau.


      1. I just don’t vote. Although I did see a Libertarian party lawn sign when I got off the 401 exit to my parents place when the election was on. That made me smile.

        1. I saw a couple of Libertarian Party signs last Ontario election. I doubt they’ll go anywhere but it’s nice to see.

          1. I followed the facebook group for the party for a while.. I stopped following. I swear it was run by a 16 year old.

            1. I looked at their website a couple years ago…it was about a decade out of date then. They’ve apparently updated it since but they come off as not being very tech-savvy.

              1. They come off as being not very serious at all. Not that I really have a problem with a pole who doesn’t take his job seriously and just parties.. sort of like Ford.. but I don’t think they will attract too many that aren’t already solidly libertarian.

                1. Honestly, none of the minority parties in this country run themselves professionally at all. The Libertarian Party showed up at Occupy protests, the two communist parties are just screaming weirdos, Christian Heritage is basically a parody of fundamentalists, and the Greens (who desperately, desperately try to act like they’re serious) are filled with people who think oil is abiotic and talk about ‘community based’ economies.

                  1. HAHAHAHAHAHA! You seriously have a party up there called ‘Christian Heritage?’

                    1. Yep. They’re mostly the remnants of the old Social Credit movement, which pushed a bunch of broken economics and controlled a couple of the Prairie provinces during the Depression. Canada was really weird politically in the 30s and 40s.

                    2. Time to bring these guys back:


                      As for the Libertarian party, it still stinks of the age old stereotype of how people view libertarians. We have no real libertarian impulse.

                      If one were to arise it would be in Quebec where Quebecers exhibit are much individualistic attitude constantly questioning authority as opposed to Canadians in the rest of the country.

                    3. I agree. Honestly whenever I’m in Quebec I find the people remind me of the Americans I know. More outspoken, more questioning, more entertaining to hang around.

                      People in Ontario are the arbiters of go with the flow, accept mediocrity with open arms, and bend over and take most anything the government gives them.

                    4. Honestly, can anyone outside of Canada and America even tell the difference between our peoples? Let’s say I took someone from Canada and, say, Minnesota. How many people from Europe could tell which was which?

                    5. I just wish Quebec would get its shit together in terms of its provincial spending, but I get the feeling that’s part of the reason for Quebec cynicism.

                    6. Well, Couillard is trying.

                      But unions (les syndicats) are extremely powerful – more than anywhere else on the continent.

                    7. Couillard also banned fracking which makes him a huge a-hole. NEED MOAR RECESSION

                      Quebec has been the epicenter of the Canada’s cultural left with prairie socialism more or less dead. Now that too is ending. Quebec is normalizing and will continue to unless they get a whole lot of equalization. MorOntario is now the Center-Statist stronghold of Canada.

                    8. Quebecers, as a whole, are a blast.

                      And there’s definitely a strong hint of pro-Americanism here more than anywhere else in Canada including Alberta.

                      Quebecers LOVE Hot-rods, hot-dogs, edgy things and NASCAR.

                      A guy I knew put it best: Americans are Quebecers glorified to the nth degree.

                    9. Means nothing, but my newest distributor for ebooks is from Quebec, and his site seriously kicks ass as far as functionality. Also, he won’t send me any 1099s.

                      /My other good distributor is French.
                      //Followed by Germany.
                      ///Then UK.
                      ////U.S.? Ingram. Fuck ’em.

                    10. Wow, Olympia Press is still around, eh?

      2. On the subject of prostitution, Trudeau doubles down on the stupid, claiming that “prostitution itself is a form of violence against women.” Apparently he’s a fan of the Nordic model.

        1. Yeah, there are no heroes where hooking is concerned. Progs seem to be doubling down on the argument that prostitution is by its very nature a crime against Collective Womanhood while conservatives maintain their long standing belief that big government is evil unless it can be used to impose their religious beliefs.

        2. FFS. Of course JT couldn’t just take the easy win. He has to fuck it up.

          1. He really, really wants the female vote, and I believe he thinks his prostitution position is a winning strategy.

            1. Oh, he’ll get the female vote. All he has to do is keep up the stupid emotional talk, keep his shirt unbuttoned and they’ll overlook his simplistic, vapid gaffes because dreamy.

              1. The Liberal Party really seems to be doubling down on the vapid, emotional platitudes after their last two leaders completely lacked charisma. As much as I dislike Harper I’m hoping they still lose because this lowest common denominator bullshit is a lot more sickening.

              2. I don’t think it’s working. The poll numbers for the Liberals should be a lot better than they are. The heat hasn’t even been applied.

      3. Don’t vote for the CPC. Please. This is not the only issue they are evil on ex surveillance.

        1. This, don’t waste your vote on Statists. There are no freedom friendly choices with reasonable hopes to win or even influence. At least in the States the Libertarians influence the Republicans somewhat.

  6. Sadly, your fashion sense has gotten worse.

  7. OT: I ripped this from a Forbes comment.…..n-of-1873/

    “Orthodox economic historians have long complained about the “great depression” that is supposed to have struck the United States in the panic of 1873 and lasted for an unprecedented six years, until 1879. Much of the stagnation is supposed to have been caused by a monetary contraction leading to the resumption of specie payments in 1879. Yet what sort of “depression” is it which saw an extraordinarily large expansion of industry, of railroads, of physical output, of net national product, or real per capita income [emphasis mine]? As Friedman and Schwartz admit, the decade from 1869 to 1879 saw a 3-percent per-annum increase in money national product, an outstanding real national product growth of 6.8 percent per year in this period, and a phenomenal rise of 4.5 percent per year in real product per capita.”

    1. Not the only depression orthodox economic historians intentionally misinterpret.

      The Depression of 1920?21 was an extremely sharp deflationary recession in the United States, shortly after the end of World War I. It lasted from January 1920 to July 1921.[1] The extent of the deflation was not only large, but large relative to the accompanying decline in real product. Wiki.

      And yet somehow it didn’t last 12 years.

  8. Kansas court orders more state spending on schools

    The panel said the evidence suggests base state aid should increase to at least $4,654 per student ? which would amount to about $548 million a year. However, the panel also suggested the figure could be much higher.

    Don’t worry they didn’t just pull this number out of their asses.

    Kansas once promised its base state aid would reach $4,492 per student, and the three-judge panel pegged its lowest figure for what’s adequate to that number, adjusted for inflation since 2012.

    Promised! Promised, you hear me! Politicians, by law (evidently), must keep their promises, especially promises to children. Oh yeah, don’t forget inflation.

    $4,492 does seem low…

    Kansas spends $13,269 per student in its public schools, but that figure includes federal funds and local property tax dollars. The state’s own base aid ? a figure seen by educators as measuring state dollars for classroom and general administrative expenses ? is $3,852 per student.


    1. The three-judge panel said it understands that the state faces “a self-imposed fiscal dilemma” and suggested negotiations among the parties.

      Why not have a classroom ratio of 10:1 and an Ipad for each student in Kansas’s new post-scarcity world.

      I got a suggestion. How about they negotiate lower salaries and benefits for judges? Wait, what am I thinking? This would result in pay that was “inadequate from any rational perspective of the evidence” and thus against the law.

    2. To be fair, Kansas City MO is way over in another state, so how could anybody in Kansas learn a lesson from there?

    1. I tried to respond to that but I can’t figure out how to use twitter.

    2. Do any of you ever reply to these sorts of Tweets?

    3. So when are they going to end the denial and just rename themselves Airstrip One?

    4. For those who don’t want to read twitter.

      Scotland Police “Please be aware that we will continue to monitor comments on social media & any offensive comments will be investigated”

    5. Wow. If you want to know what the crazy feminist fascists here want…..…..althy.html

      The vilest of the vile.

    6. It is Scotland.

      Swearing is/was illegal in many Scottish cities.

  9. Tidbit = The singer* from Catherine Wheel now makes super-expensive resto-modded and tuned 964 Porsches @ …wait for it….

    *”Singer Vehicle Design

    Want to drop $400,000 on a ‘used car’? Give him a call!

    Really, its not as bad as it sounds. There are guys in the UK who do the same thing to 1960s E-Types and they go for more than half a mil.

    1. Yeah, I’m in the “I don’t get it” column on these kinds of cars. I want to….drive them. The concept of anything more than “get them running good” and some performance upgrades (same for my bikes) just baffles me.

      Plus, I like working on them myself.

      1. Its an “LA” thing, as far as i can tell.

        everyone wants to one-up each other on how fucking expensive and exclusive they can make their rides. So there’s been a boom in “Boutique Restorations” that hand-tweaks automobiles.

        There’s even a fucking ‘Art-House Designed’ Ford Bronco you can buy for $200,000 or so

    2. Meh. I could probably get something way more interesting for that price, like an Arnolt Bristol or a nice Iso Grifo.

  10. McGruber!

    1. Looks like your keepin your bod pretty tight

  11. The Independents Attire Review, 30 December 2014

    Pivotal Experiment-Edition

    – Kennedy: Yeah its the black shirt. We rate it One Ronny Dio Horn rather than the coveted “Double Horns”.

    – Matt: Charcoal Suit #3*, w/ blue shirt, grey tie. “doable”. After the colorless Yin-Yang getup with Kmele last night, we were maybe expecting pink and blue and possibly polka dots. This seems in the same ‘neutral’ vein.

    (*I have numbered it “3” for my own purposes. I purposely don’t count the O.G. Black Thing as an actual “suit”, and rather have arbitrarily started history with the birth of Matt’s Navy Suit. It makes sense to me, which is what matters.)

    – Kmele: Will be appearing @ the Golden Globes later where he’s going to be receiving an award for his Best-Supporting-Supporting TV Host Role in a Semi Fictional Cable TV News Program For Children.


    1. They never show Kennedy’s shoes. Why don’t they ever show Kennedy’s shoes????

      1. They did in the very first week of episodes, along with Kennedy’s long, pale legs.

        I think she demanded they put a monitor to cover her desk so as not to bimbofy her like the other Fox News hosts.

        1. I’d be OK with a desk that covers her legs and shows her shoes. I think she wears stuff like Irregular Choice or Fluevog. I neeeeed to see if I’m right.

      2. I’ve never even tried to understand what the deal is with Women and shoes.

        Even weirder = I once knew a rapper who had a shoe fetish. for real, like probably-needs-to-go-to-therapy kind of fetish. But women loved how he’d talk about their ()#*@$ shoes. They thought it was hot.

        1. When I vended at fetish shows, there was this older dude, typical 50-something Jersey Guido. He had a huge shoe fetish. Like, insane.

          So he turned it into a business. Super-long boots with 9-inch heels. Gal couldn’t walk in them. Wasn’t the point, he said.

          You would not believe the kind of ass he got. They flocked to his booth at the end of every show for discounts, and to his room pretty much every night.

  12. All I care about is when the next Two Minutes Hate is gonna be. Trying to think of something hateful and captious to say.

  13. Nine people are dead, including two young children, in the largest mass killing in Edmonton’s history.

    The comments quickly fall into calls for more restrictions on firearms.. disgusting.

    1. alchemy
      The fact is, many of the people who go on rampages, like Justin Bourque, are people who, it has been found, post pro-gun comments online and engage in anti-government, anti-gun-control hyperbole online.

      If, on the other hand, you can name us one *pro*-gun-control person who has gone on a killing rampage, please do.

      That would be very interesting to see.


      1. If, on the other hand, you can name us one *pro*-gun-control person who has gone on a killing rampage, please do.

        Christopher Dorner.

        What do I win?

        1. “The Communist party must control the guns.”
          ? Mao Tse-tung

          1. Power derives from the barrel of a gun.

        2. How about Hitler? He was very pro-gun control and I hear he went on a bit of a tear.

      2. If, on the other hand, you can name us one *pro*-gun-control person who has gone on a killing rampage, please do.

        The KKK?

  14. I personally think race-riots are always funny. Timeless.

  15. Karaoke=

    I prefer ‘Try and Little Tenderness’, if only for the long gradual buildup to the spastic screaming ending.

    Any sinatra, obviously. Strangers, My Way, The Lady is a Tramp.

    Sing-alongs? Multi-part harmony of “Lean on Me”

  16. Has anyone read this story in which a college freshman was raped as part of a fraternity initiation ritual at a prestigious southern school, was ignored by the school’s administration, and only told a random political activist her story?

    No, not the Rolling Stone one! This is a story that claimed the exact same thing happened at the University of North Carolina! Oh, and it was published in HuffPo in 2013!

    Weeks into my undergraduate career at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), a friend told me she had that been raped a few days earlier as part of a fraternity “initiation process.” I was a young advocate; I had heard stories of assault and I knew how to respond to survivors, but I had no idea what to do within the UNC university system. Therefore, I just went into action mode; my friend and I sat down in the wooden chairs in my residence hall room and began to Google resources and options for reporting… hours later, we still couldn’t find the proper university protocol.

    Huh. This story sure does seem suspicious…almost like feminists independently made up the same kind of story because it fit their common political ideals.

    1. It’s also filled with the sort of realistic, true to life dialogue of the Rolling Stone story:

      The next week I tried to report my assault. I was incredibly confident in my story as well as my new university home, and why wouldn’t I be? I was raped. It was violent. He was wrong.

      “So why are you here today?” the administrator asked me.

      “I want to report what happened and get counseling. I was raped.”

      The response which I received left me both speechless and confused:

      “Well… Rape is like football, if you look back on the game, and you’re the quarterback, Annie… is there anything you would have done differently?”

      I was then handed a multiple page-survey to fill out about my rape.

      Grab its motherfucking leg.

      1. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA holy shit did Aaron Sorkin write this crap?

    2. These people could’ve been in Nanking during the Japanese occupation and would manage to find the one false rape accusation to hang their hat on.

      1. What’s especially amazing is that one of the woman in that story is angry the university didn’t do anything when she claims she had ‘pages and pages’ of documentation proving she was stalked, harassed, and raped by an abusive ex-boyfriend.

        Well, if you have pages of documentation, why the fuck are you going to the university instead of the police. In fact, why do any of these fucking people go to the university instead of the cops?

        Look, I understand the argument that the victim of a sexual assault might not want to come forward at all because she’s afraid or ashamed, etc. However, if someone is willing to come forward, why go to a random university bureaucrat instead of to the cops?

        If you have evidence you were assaulted, go to the police. If you try to turn the university administration into your own personal Gestapo and assume they’ll kick your alleged rapist out of college with no evidence, then you’re not going to get any sympathy from me.

        1. Irish, I think it might have to do with the fact that colleges are for many students not just places they go for educational services but they are their ‘communities’ in every sense of the word. They live on campus, they work out in the campus gym, they go the campus health center when sick, etc. They often have, or think they have, a much closer relationship with their RA, their Residence Life people, their Dean of Students Office, which usually go out of their way to get chummy with the students. That they might go to them first is not that remarkable to me.

          1. Yeah, but they don’t go to the cops at all. The story in that Huffpo article follows this narrative:

            1) Claims she was assaulted over the course of months by a crazed stalker

            2) Goes to a university administration incapable of handling these accusations

            3) Is disappointed with their handling

            4) Files a civil rights complaint

            There is no point where the cops even get involved. If you want to stop things like this from happening, we really should tell people when they go to college that the college is there to teach them, not to hold their hand, and not to engage in law enforcement behavior.

            Colleges have very specific roles, and perverting that role by forcing them to engage in investigations outside the realm of their expertise causes a host of problems and conflicts of interest. Having an outside police unit investigate is vastly superior to going to the university, and everyone should be informed of this fact.

            1. “the college is there to teach them, not to hold their hand”

              This is part of the problem. Colleges today often sell themselves as little ‘camps’ or ‘total communities’ that will ‘take care of you.’ They of course want the students to think of them that way so the students will come to them first and always.

              I have to say though that I’m not so quick to buy into the ‘why didn’t she go to the cops’ line. Every day here on H&R we go on at length about the incompetence, corruption, and unfairness of cops. I can’t in good conscience use ‘you should have gone to the cops’ as a retort to these things.

            2. Would a person raped at their company go to HR first? Why would you trust an organization that has a vested interest in keeping the rape under wraps more than the cops? Filing a false report to the cops my get you in trouble, no?

              1. “Would a person raped at their company go to HR first?”

                I don’t know about rape, but people go to their boss and co-workers first about all kinds of behaviors by other workers that would be illegal.

                1. Sorry but unless it’s a crime that directly relates to the company I don’t see normal people running to their boss about a co worker who just ran a kid down in a crosswalk. I’m thinking they call the police first. What alternate universe do you live in?

                2. It’s a good thing then that I was talking about rape and not all other kinds of behaviors.

                  1. Bo needs to argue things not being argued so he can “win”. There a literally dozens of people here that would pay to attend his first trial so we can see him “win” a judge over with his superior intellect.

          2. They live on campus, they work out in the campus gym, they go the campus health center when sick, etc.

            Well, when there’s a campus crime shouldn’t they logically go to the … campus police?

          3. That they might go to them first is not that remarkable to me.

            That’s because you’re an idiot Bo-Bo.

            Actual victims of actual crimes contact the police first. It might be campus police/security, but it’s the cops. That’s even what they’re told to do in fucking orientation FFS.

            People who are making shit up contact the Dean of Students.

    3. FWIW this story of the handling of a gang rape at Oregon State in the late 90’s has been getting a fair amount of press. If true, some of it’s pretty messed up and I guess this is the type of thing that gave ammunition to the movement to change how sex assault charges on campuses are handled.…..tio_1.html

      1. The corruption aspect of that story is horrifying if true. They’re claiming football coaches were contacting alleged rape victims to try and get them to recant their stories.

        Of course, the Oregonians’ story actually has evidence to back up its claims and interviewed a number of people involved. That’s good journalism and it uncovered what may be a major scandal. You will notice the difference between that and what most activists are doing.

        What’s interesting about that story too is how it plays into the higher education bubble. A lot of the issues had to do with deans wanting to fundraise so they could by snazzy new buildings.

        1. “the Oregonians’ story actually has evidence to back up its claims and interviewed a number of people involved.”

          So it will probably not get nearly as much attention as the RS piece…

          1. True. It only has 300 facebook shares so far. That story is ludicrous and is actually well documented. That story should have been the one that went viral, not the easily disproven Rolling Stone nonsense.

            1. Rich white frat guys fit the narrative that some want more than football players, I guess.

              1. A group of black men gang raping a white woman? Who wouldn’t want to write about that?

                I know one of the guys involved, and I absolutely believe he did it. Mike Ainsworth.

      2. Our own review of the case found that the university community failed Brenda Tracy.

        This is just bizarre. She wasn’t a student. The rape (and I’m not doubting that part one bit) happened off campus. Two of the four rapists weren’t even students. Why the fuck are we even talking about the “university community?” The community she actually lived in, Corvallis, wanted to prosecute and she declined to help. How in the fucking hell is it considered acceptable to go petition a university while refusing to help the people whose job is to put garbage like that in prison?

  17. Let’s pick the top fake scandal of 2014! Any of you Peanuts want to nominate something?

    1. I don’t know what the fake scandal of the year is, but to me the real scandal of the year is the ACA. In typical progressive form, a group of deceitful ‘top men’ regulators came up with a mammoth, bureaucratic apparatus to centrally ‘manage’ a huge, diverse national industry, and they couldn’t even get the first, most basic roll out stage done with a basic minimum of competence, foreshadowing myriad and much more consequential problems to come in such a mad scheme.

      If there is any justice, in the same way that the Iraq debacle has soured the nation on ground wars for a while the ACA will at the least sour the nation on such federal programs.

      1. A fake scandal has a large component of feigned outrage at something trivial.

        Examples include – Ebola. Grubergate. ISIS. Benghazi. Fast and Furious.

        The ACA is not trivial as more than a handful of Americans were affected.

        1. Do you think the outrage over those things is ‘feigned?’ I’m not one to buy into the conservative line about some of them myself, but I don’t think the outrage over any of them is ‘feigned.’

        2. My, what big hands you have.

        3. Sending guns to Mexican cartels =/= trivial

          Lying about murdered Americans in Benghazi =/= trivial

          An Islamic caliphate =/= trivial

          Every negative thing being proven about the ACA creation process =/= trivial

        4. My pick for fake scandal of the year would be UVA Rape-gate

          1. that fake scandal turned into a fake skandul for being a fake scandal.

            1. It’s fake scandals all the way down.

    2. UVA Gang Rape seems to be the winner.

  18. What’s up with the Canadian Orgy tonight?

    1. It’s December in Canada. How else are they going to keep warm?

      1. What are they going to do, watch Canadian football?

      2. Usually we just build more Igloos.

        1. Ahhh. The Canadian Tuxedo.

          1. It’s like you’re in my head.

  19. Check out the last four comments here:…../#comments

    Those commentors are clearly disobeying a lawful order from an officer to “stop complaining and grow up”.

    1. Until you are a sociopath and have to crack heads, stop judging!

      1. Or else.

  20. It is quite cold this evening. No more flip flops for me this week.

    1. Here, let me slice open a tauntaun for you to climb inside.

      1. Make it a Berkshire Pig and you have a deal.

  21. I didn’t believe …that…my friends brother woz like realie bringing in money part time from there new laptop. . there uncles cousin haz done this less than twenty months and by now paid the mortgage on their house and got a great new Lancia Straton .
    see this site :::::—–

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.