A.M. Links: NYPD Turns Backs on De Blasio, Judge Considers Releasing Eric Garner Grand Jury Record, Jury Selection Begins in Boston Marathon Bombing Trial

|

  • During Sunday's memorial service for murdered NYPD officer Wenjian Liu, numerous uniformed police once again turned their backs in protest on Mayor Bill de Blasio.

  • New York Judge William Garnett will hear arguments today on whether or not the grand jury proceedings into the police chokehold death of Eric Garner should be made public.
  • ESPN SportsCenter anchor Stuart Scott has died at age 49 from cancer.
  • Former Arkansas governor and outspoken social conservative Mike Huckabee has resigned from his Fox News talk show in order to weigh a 2016 presidential run.

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

Advertisement

NEXT: Jacob Sullum on Obama's Improving Drug Policy Record

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. …police once again turned their backs in protest on Mayor Bill de Blasio.

    In their defense, everyone who doesn’t wear the badge is the enemy.

    1. Hello.

      B-b-b-ut…

      Corporate profitmateering records!

      http://zealllc.com/2015/fedabdns.htm

    2. That is only common sense. After all NYC is now officially a war zone.

      You can’t expect these poor boys in blue to face the casket because that leaves them totally unprotected against drive by shootings from all the gang bangers out there who are dying to shoot at the cops during the funeral.

      They only turned their backs on the mayor so they could set up effective fire zones against the enemy.

  2. Man launches $3 million police brutality lawsuit after he was allegedly battered with a nightstick by NYPD officer in subway station for fare dodging

    New York City facing $3 million excessive police force lawsuit brought by Donovan Lawson
    Lawson claims he was beaten during a November incident at a Brooklyn subway station
    Officer Evans Mazile was caught on camera using a nightstick and hitting Lawson’s head during the attempt to arrest him
    Lawson was seen with blood all over his face and on his hoodie

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..dging.html

    1. He was wearing a garment known to legislators to be dangerous, so what did he expect?

      1. Lawson was seen with blood all over his face and on his hoodie

        If he was in OK…they might have also fined him $500 for wearing that.

    2. Can’t be brutality. Both the officer and the suspect are black. Everyone knows that the problem with the police is white racism and not excessive aggressiveness.

      1. Hey, if he didn’t want to be beaten bloody with a nightstick (choked, Tasered, shot, etc.) he shouldn’t have jumped the turnstile.

  3. Guns N’ Roses star Slash’s estranged wife Perla Ferrar wants ‘half of the money he made since they married’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..money.html

    1. Was he stupid enough to get married in a state that mandates this? Did he sign a pre-nup?

      1. Something tells me ‘half of the money he made since they married’ GT 5X more money than he has now.

    2. Have you read his memoirs? What he’s able to remember is pretty damn funny

  4. ‘Black Brunch’ demonstrators storm New York and California restaurants as part of plan to ‘target white spaces’ in protest over ‘police violence’

    Demonstrators today stormed ‘white spaces’ in New York and California
    Declared: ‘Every 28 hours, a black person in America is killed by police’
    Asked diners to raise their fists in air ‘for black lives’ – which many did
    However, some mocked it, while others deemed it ‘pathetic’ and ‘stupid’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..lence.html
    derp

    1. I found the twits sent in response to the event amusing.

    2. The pictures from Twitter and twitchy are awesome. Most of the diners look kind of embarrassed and didn’t know what to do.

      Those protesters are fucking over their natural allies now that this has all been racialized and it’s becoming nothing but a stupid white privilege argument.

      Shut the fuck up while I eat my waffles, as Obama would say.

      1. Shut the fuck up while I eat my waffles, as Obama would say.

        *Michelle* Obama?!

      2. Enjoy and behold all one Camila Ibanez:

        https://twitter.com/QuePasaApaza

        1. Saw her tweets on twitchy. Seems like a piece of work. She’s working the whole Native American/Slave thing to the fullest.

          Must be nice to have all these past injustices to go to when you want to indict a whole group of people just by the way they look.

          1. Community organizer / Story-Teller / Artist / Cat

            1. Did you see the self-description of one of her friends/supporters?

              “Queer 1stGen Asian Am* settler/ writer / educator / agitator / organizer / smashing colonialist imperialist capitalist white supremacist cis-hetero patriarchy”

              1. That’s gold, Charles, gold!

    3. No justice, no quicke!

      (I wish that were original to me.)

    4. I’d raise my fist, then my finger, and see what happens.

  5. ‘This Paul McCartney guy gonna be huge!’ Kanye West fans question who the ‘newcomer’ is after Only One collaboration

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..ation.html

    1. Kanye West has so much star power that he’ll boost this Paul McCartney person’s career retroactively. Mark my words.

      1. Kanye West is bigger than God.

        1. Kanye West is bigger than God the dumbest man on earth. Kim will prove this when she cleans him out in about 4 years.

      2. When I was a kid I hadn’t heard of Aerosmith until they make that video with Run DMC.

        1. I still haven’t heard of Run DMC, is it a road race?

          1. Well, technically, you have heard of Run DMC.

            1. Leave my bad jokes alone!

              (Not that I really expect anyone to do that)

      3. he’ll boost this Paul McCartney person’s career retroactively.

        Because Paul is already dead right?

        1. *looks for old record to play backward and determine who killed him*

    2. Those tweets are so obviously jokes. And not funny ones.

    3. Paul McCartney is struggling to pay his alimony. That’s the only explanation I can come up with that he would ever be in the same room with these people.

      1. Exactly. McCartney working with that putz is sad.

        Just doesn’t seem right.

      2. All things considered, he didn’t pay that much. The decision is worth reading if only to see the full depth of Ms Mills’ self-delusion

      3. As I understand it, Paul just loves to create music.

        1. So why is he working with Kanye, then?

          1. Probably for the same reason Jimmy Page worked with Puff Daddy.

        2. What’s wrong with that? He needs to know, cause here he goes again.

          1. I hope he doesn’t team up with David Coverdale.

  6. The vertigo-inducing moment a daredevil climbs 1,500 feet to change a lightbulb atop a TV tower… and pauses for a SELFIE at the peak

    Climber Kevin Schmidt, of South Dakota, climbs to the top of the KDLT-TV antenna in Salem
    He’s seen in stunning footage as he makes his ascent precisely and steadily, clipping his safety gear to the tower as he goes
    At the end, he pauses for a well-deserved selfie ? but not before changing that lightbulb

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..ELFIE.html

    1. “How many people does it take to change this lightbulb? Just one, but it has to be the *right* person. Booyah!”

    2. Ummm, what’s the point of the selfie if the (assumed) drone is capturing the moment…and taking better pictures too.

      1. “Look ma, no hands!”

  7. ‘I lost half my body weight and I hated it’: Woman, 29, describes how she went from 300lbs to 135 – and it nearly drove her to depression

    Andie Mitchell was 268 pounds at the age of 20, panicked and went on diet
    When she reached 135 pounds, she felt a pressure and self-consciousness
    Describes the pain of denying herself pizza and cupcakes
    After therapy and years of blogging, she is happy at 150 pounds

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…..ssion.html
    Drove John to depression as well.

    1. ” the pain of denying herself pizza and cupcakes”

      Jesus, talk about first world problems. Fuck that idiot.

      1. This seems to be some kind of girl thing. I’ve never seen a guy act like he’s missing his heroin fix because he shouldn’t eat some ice cream or chocolate, but I’ve seriously seen girls act like addicts that absolutely must have these things to live.

        1. What about burgers or chicken wings?

        2. The standard american girl diet is basically all carbs.

      2. Seems a bit harsh.

        There is some reason (or reasons) why people have a hard time losing weight. And I don’t think it can be put down entirely to idiocy.

        1. I’ve gone up and down in weight over the years. I lost 40 pounds doing Atkins, then gained it all back. Recently I lost 50 pounds after I finally got a handle on what was causing the problem. I think it’s the key to anyone who’s overweight.

          HORMONES

          You must get your hunger hormones in check. You can “train” them over the course of a few days and train yourself to eat right over the course of a couple of weeks. Now you’ve got a new eating habit, you’re never all that hungry, you’re able to eat much less than you did before, and the pounds melt away without that much effort. The weight stays off because it’s the new habit and your hormones aren’t making you ravenously hungry anymore.

      3. In a TEDx talk about her memoir

        Fuck that idiot.

        Seconded.

    2. 150 is still a lot less than 268…

      1. Yeah, seems like she found a good weight. I think that where a lot of people go wrong with weight loss is trying to stay at too low of a weight.

        Of course, I have no personal experience on the subject. I have the opposite problem and have to work hard to put on weight.

        1. I have the opposite problem and have to work hard to put on weight.

          I had that problem while I was in my 20s and working in restaurants. Then I got a sit down job after finishing college. Along came the gut.

          1. I gained 5# per year after leaving HS. This was fine when you start at 6′ 125#. I needed lots of weight. Eventually, this became a problem.

            In the last year Ive dropped about 25, Im about 192 or so now.

            Goal is mid 180s.

            1. The weight isn’t as important as the waistline.

              1. I agree. But Im not radically changing my body type or anything, so weight is a good proxy.

  8. New York Judge William Garnett will hear arguments today on whether or not the grand jury proceedings into the police chokehold death of Eric Garner should be made public.

    The pros? Transparency. The cons? Some prosecutors are going to look political, I guess.

  9. NYPD vs MTA

    I guess I have to side with the MTA on this one. I guess.

    1. Do I have to take sides? I hate both groups.

    2. The 28-year-old victim was walking away from off-duty Officer Mirjan Lolja ? who was irate about having to wait 20 minutes for a train ? when he charged the transit worker on a Bronx platform two days before Christmas, she said.

      In case you didn’t get it the first three times NY Daily News used that exact sentence in their post.

      1. off-duty Officer Mirjan Lolja

        So, not, at the point in time of the attack, actually a cop at all.

        Just another citizen.

        Yet, oddly, they will be treated as if they were on duty when this happened.

        And so we see that being a cop isn’t a job, after all. It really is a feudal status.

    3. The officer claims the conductor was the aggressor and grabbed his phone when he tried to take her photograph, sources said.

      Outstanding.

    4. “I thought people were lying,” she said. “I thought there’s no way it could be a police officer acting like that. I still can’t process it.”

      “I mean, not once did he shout for me to stop resisting.”

    5. Lolja has been on the force seven years. The conductor is a rookie with about 10 months on the job.

      He has seniority. Advantage: Cop.

    6. I see that cops all over the country are doing their best to pitch in with the PR effort now that they are under fire by the press and public.

      Also, I think I see a problem: “”I thought there’s no way it could be a police officer acting like that. I still can’t process it.”

      Yeah lady, it is a real shocker isn’t it?

      1. I thought there’s no way it could be a police officer acting like that.

        That’s actually the start of an excellent legal defense when charges are brought for exercising your right of self-defense against a cop.

  10. Researchers find link between inequality and economic growth

    “Rising inequality holds back economic growth — according to a recent report by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)…”When income inequality rises, economic growth falls,” the authors of the report concluded.

    They explained their findings by pointing out that wealth gaps hold back the skills development of children — particularly those with parents who have a poorer education background. In other words: A lack of access to high-quality and long-term education among poorer citizens in many OECD countries hurts the economy.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..e&hpid=z18

    1. “A lack of access to high-quality and long-term education among poorer citizens in many OECD countries hurts the economy”

      Sounds like we need more Federal Pre-K funding and more student loans for College. That will fix things.

      1. Plus more bailouts for America’s horribly underfunded school systems.

    2. They explained their findings by pointing out that wealth gaps hold back the skills development of children

      Above certain minimums, this has to be false.

      1. “Oh, very well. *Mineshaft* gaps, then.”

      2. Elaborate, fluffy?

        1. OK, fine.

          My parents had combined inflation-adjusted income in the $100k a year range.

          Growing up in that household, I achieved a certain level of skills development.

          By “a certain level”, I mean “the maximum possible”.

          Additional inputs could not have given me any greater skills development than I actually achieved. In fact, a large number of the inputs I got went to waste (in the sense that I didn’t utilize or exploit them – they were bringing coals to Newcastle).

          Now, if we had incredible economic growth for the next 1000 years and everyone became the equivalent of today’s billionaires, but an exact replica of my family existed that made only the income realized by my family in the 70’s, that would be a hell of an income gap.

          But it would have absolutely no impact on the skills development of circa-3000’s replica me – because the possible skills development available to me already capped out at the 70’s income level.

          I therefore conclude that above certain minimums (in this case, the minimum represented by my parents’ 1970’s income) income differentials can’t matter to skills development.

          1. OK. So this is all based on the premise of a point at which additional inputs would not increase development anymore, am I correct?

            1. Law of diminishing returns is universal.

              It applies to almost* everything.

              *I literally cant think of an example

              1. Well, except for the government of course. Throwing money at it always makes it better.

      3. The conclusion I pointed out below agrees with your assertion. Poor folks having significantly fewer resources than not-as-poor folks seems to be detrimental to their development (and eventually economic growth), but rich folks having significantly greater resources than middle-class folks doesn’t seem to provide a similar edge. Simply put, the point of diminishing returns on childhood education is achievable for most of the population.

        What this really means is that we should be nuking inner-city school districts and starting over, since they are wasteful failures utterly failing to achieve results in the population where they can have the greatest effect, but that option is never on the table.

        1. Last weeks EconTalk was on just this.

          Basically, in slums in very poor nations, parents are ignoring government schools and sending their kids to local private schools. About 70% in most of the places the interviewee has looked at (India, Liberia, Sierra Leone, etc).

          They are paying the equivalent of $1 per day and getting much better education than the free government schools provide.

    3. Correlation, causation, etc.

    4. Insofar as anything good happens in NZ, people assure me that it’s a socialist paradise. For this, however, it’s a hellhole of loonytarian wingnuttery. Head, I win; tails, you lose.

      1. *Heads

        Inequality ate the s.

        1. Don’t you win if you get head?

      2. This is particularly surprising, given that New Zealand was once considered a paradise of equality, as Max Rashbrooke, the author of a book called Inequality: A New Zealand Crisis, pointed out in the Guardian newspaper.

        He also blames New Zealand for a lack of affordable homes which led to higher rents and unpaid mortgages.

        I fucking hate command-control types.

    5. Wow! The fucking morons confused the correlation of two variables that are dependent on a common cause for one causing the other.

      A = Income Inequality
      B = Growth
      C = Free Markets

      C increases B and reduces A

      A no more causes a lack of B than dementia causes your dick to fall off (hint: it’s the syphillis that causes both).

      1. Unless you’re getting a BJ from a hooker with dementia.

    6. Seems to me that they buried the lede.

      Economically, the authors are particularly worried about the gap between low-income households and the rest of the population. “In contrast, no evidence is found that those with high incomes pulling away from the rest of the population harms growth,” the authors wrote.

      Dollars to donuts this report gets spun in a way that completely ignores this conclusion.

      1. KDN, I actually believe the proggies like that conclusion even better, because it allows them to redistribute from 60% of the population, not just 1%.

    7. I think it is a mistake to look at inequality as a single phenomenon. The things that lead to high inequality in less developed countries and in first world countries.
      But in either case, it seems like inequality is a symptom more than a cause of problems. And in richer countries it is far from clear that rising inequality is a problem at all.

    8. You can readily discount any economic study that confuses wealth with income.

  11. Former Arkansas governor and outspoken social conservative Mike Huckabee has resigned from his Fox News talk show in order to weigh a 2016 presidential run.

    He’s never going to be president, so I guess that’s win-win.

    1. TV is better for it, and since he won’t win, the presidency is better for it…yup, win/win/

    2. He ought to weigh himself on a scale first. He’s starting to look like Taft.

    3. Huckabee’s ‘look’ is one of a gang member in a 50s movie. I mean, the obscure one without a name and takes orders from Cagney.

    4. While it may just be ignorance of him on my part I do have to admit that I find him slightly less obnoxious than the typical Republican SoCon and WAY more palatable than Santorum.

  12. “Why Republicans are ready for Hillary.”

    They finally are admitting their fetish for pantsuits and granny sex?

    1. Fun factoid: when doddering old Ronald Reagan got elected in 1980, he was 69 years old. If Hillary Clinton gets elected, she will be… yep you guessed it: 69 years old.

      1. That factoid is going to cut two ways, you know.

    2. Ah, she’s finally decided to return to her original party?

      1. The Granny Panties and Moral Outrage Party?

        1. Nope. She was a Republican. And she still is, secretly.

  13. Body builders argue over the number of days in a week

    http://forum.bodybuilding.com/…..=107926751

    1. Why do you make us laugh?

      1. I thought it was going to be a joke about leg day not existing.

    2. I think I just got more dumberer.

    3. Nobody’s that fucking stupid.

      He HAS to be trolling.

      “Sunday isn’t a day!”

      1. I really liked when he tried to draw it out, and managed to get both the wrong number of weeks and the wrong number of days per week:

        Ill do it out in 4 weeks for you, maybe it will make more sense?

        Week 1 – Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday
        Week 2 – Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Sunday
        Week 3 – Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, Monday
        Week 4 – Wednesday, Friday, Sunday, Tuesday
        Week 5 – Thursday, Saturday, Monday, Wednesday
        Week 6 – Friday, Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday

        1. Ill do it out in 4 weeks for you, maybe it will make more sense?

          Ends with “?” Self doubt creeping in.

    4. Looks like this guy studied at this school of mathematics

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CACQmiaU6CU

      1. He should just offer to trade them money at those rates.

    5. How many revolutionary government have tried to replace the seven-day week with a ten-day “week”?

    6. A WEEK IS NOOOOTTTTT SUN-SUN!!!! IT’S SUN-SAT, S-E-V-E-N- DAYS!!!!

      Sun-Sat is only 6 days?!

      Sunday ONE
      Monday TWO
      Tuesday THREE
      Wednesday FOUR
      Thursday FIVE
      Friday SIX
      Saturday SEVEN

      That killed me.

      1. Just wow.

        Wonder if this though:

        Sun-Sat is only 6 days?!

        Was due to the thought that is Sunday is the first and Saturday the seventh, what is 7 – 1?

        Which I think, if true, makes them seem even dumber, assuming it’s possible.

        Either way, it’s idiotically funny.

        Now only wondering what the follow-up Darwin Award story will be.

    7. That’s hilarious

  14. I see Root is turning his back on alt-text, though I can’t figure out what the protest is for.

    1. Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Awareness Month

      1. Hey, check your caption privilege!

    2. No, the alt text was moved to a different article in order to be seen by an impartial commentariat

  15. Lawrence Summers-low and middle class catch break on low gas prices, so let’s fix that by raising taxes!

    “While the recent decline in energy prices is a good thing in that it has, on balance, raised the incomes of Americans, it has also exacerbated the problem of energy overuse. The benefit of imposing carbon taxes is therefore enhanced.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    1. Remember when Summers got pilloried for suggesting that there could be something to researching gender differences in capacities or affinities for STEM? It occurs to me that since we often hear that women are more likely to be poor, and since the poor are the one’s most lifted by low gas prices, that his greater sin re women is pushing this statist nonsense.

      1. No, it is an excuse for more statist nonsense to subsidize the poor harmed by the carnon tax. Chasing their own tail is a justification in itself.

    2. “While the recent decline in energy prices is a good thing in that it has, on balance, raised the incomes of Americans

      So, spending less on something is an increase in income? That’s the stupidest thing I’ve read this morning.

      1. Moreover, spending less on something is *saving*. I saw it on the news, so it must be true.

      2. Stop questioning the economics knowledge of a Harvard Professor!

      3. Shorter Summers: “People have more money in their pockets; let’s take it!”

        1. Or prevent it from ever reaching those pockets in the first place…

      4. So, spending less on something is an increase in income?

        Maybe he meant discretionary income. If so, that is what he should have said.

      5. From an economic standpoint it can be yes.

        It doesn’t raise your pay but it does raise what you can buy with it which has much the same effect, especially when the good in question is a necessity that you have little choice but to consume at any price.

        1. Gas isnt a necessity.

          Other fuel prices are probably, but no one NEEDS to drive an auto.

          1. Err, that is complete bullshit.

            Sure I could *not* drive a car but that means living within 5 miles of my job.

            Being forced to live within 5 miles of my job means I can never buy a house (jobs don’t last for 30 years in my field), or even lease one (since changing jobs means moving to a new home less than 5 miles from that location and I don’t always get to pick when the job ends) it means finding a tenant at will rental.

            A tenant at will rental large enough for my family within 5 miles of my place of work (if such a thing even exists) would cost around $4500 a month.

            And that is living in the metro Boston area, one with a fairly good transit system

            1. Sure I could *not* drive a car but that means living within 5 miles of my job.

              Problem solved.

              See, it isnt a necessity.

              1. 1 problem solved, more problems created.

                The only economically viable solution is to commute to work

              2. And I must add,

                We are just talking about 1 person there are about 15x as many jobs as there are housing units within 5 miles of where I am sitting right now. No matter how you cut it someone is going to have to drive to get to this office park

        2. It doesn’t raise your pay but it does raise what you can buy with it which has much the same effect,

          Err, not really.

          If I earn and spend $100, then I support $100 of economic activity, regardless of whether $10 or $20 goes to gas. Shifting expenditures from one category to another is not the same, economically, as increasing expenditures across the board.

    3. $10/gallon (or whatever arbitrarily high price you select) gas prices are evil when the money winds up in the hands of the energy companies. But such prices are suddenly, magically virtuous if the money winds up in the hands of Big Government.

      1. Pushing for a regressive tax like one on gas I think means the person can never, ever, credibly profess to be ‘for the poor’ again. Ever.

        1. At that moment, they are ‘for the environment’ or maybe it’s ‘for the children.’

          1. Not poor children, I guess.

            1. It’s those poor children whose parents are forced to pay for $10/gallon gas instead of putting a little more food on the table or toys to play with.

              1. Democrats are for controlling the poor and keeping rich liberals feeling good about themselves.

                1. EBT, free school lunch, and preschool for the poor provided by Uncle Sam only.
                2. Carbon taxes and cig taxes for the rich libs to feel like they are on the right side of history.

        2. Typically when someone says they are ‘for the poor’ what they mean is that they want more poor people.

      2. I’ve been sitting here waiting for gas price increases via tax increases. Only I thought they’d wait a little longer.

        1. It’s okay because gas prices are so low now, so it won’t really hurt. And I’m just positive that they will rescind those tax increases when the price of gas goes back up.

          1. Like they did last time?

  16. Would you be cool if a friend interrupted your birthday party to have her first foursome – and you weren’t invited?

    http://www.salon.com/2015/01/0…..ationship/

    1. You need to quit posting this stuff from that Onion knock-off web site and post derpy stuff from Oz.

      Tell us who you rode with today

    2. If your girl isn’t into other girls, the group sex is never going to happen.

      Guys do it to have sex with multiple girls. Girls do it to have sex with other girls. 99% of the time anyway.

    3. What the hell is it with commies and sexual licentiousness?


    4. The author

      I’ll be in my bunk

      1. I liked this page better.

        http://www.yoonjkim.com/night-…..my-awards/

        Let me know when the bunk is free. I’ll be needing some too.

  17. Sorry to hear about Stuart Scott.

    And…that was a pretty cheesy call that flag pick up against Detroit.

    And…it seemed each time Detroit had Dallas’s offense stopped in their tracks a call against them kept the drive alive.

    1. I was shocked about that actually. Stupidity in assessing PI is something I’m numb to now. But picking up a flag? Wowzers.

      1. I was watching the game without caring who won – and I was really annoyed at how bad the officiating was in that game.

        1. The Packers should be good enough to overcome bad officiating.

          1. My major concern now is that the obvious strategy for the Ravens on Saturday is to chuck it deep towards Browner’s side of the field as often as possible.

            1. Isn’t that pretty much their strategy all the time?

            2. The Ravens benefited from the Steeler’s loss of the 2nd leading rusher in the league who also is a great pass blocker and pass catcher.

              1. The Steelers benefitted from the Ravens losing their #1 running back, their #1 tight end, and their entire secondary. For some reason, none of that seems to matter.

        2. Exactly. I found myself cursing at Dallas. Sure, great teams find ways to win but that was a game-changing call.

          1. Yeah, welcome to the world of 1975 “Hail Mary” Vikings fans.

            1. ’76 Patriots Raiders playoff game. Sugar Bear Hamilton called for roughing the passer after he tipped the ball. Gave the game and the Superbowl to the Raiders.

              http://www.boston.com/sports/f….._at_r.html

        3. I hear ya, Drake.

          As a Cowboy fan, I was drinking so I don’t recall the details, but there were some bad calls going both ways.

          Picking up that flag was probably the worst, though.

      2. Did you forget Carolina?

      3. Stupidity in assessing PI is something I’m numb to now.

        So you’re used to PI being exactly 3?

        1. Side note… in college we had a discussion in my dorm room about this whilst working on a problem set. I (engineering guy) was arguing with Math guy that, for most practical purposes, substituting in 3 for pi was generally just fine.

          Whereupon roommate #3, astrophysics guy, said that for his work he basically estimated the value of pi to be 1.

          1. Astrophysicists are used to putting the +/- on the exponent.

            1E12+-2

      4. “Stupidity in assessing PI is something I’m numb to now.”

        And roughing the passer.

        1. And not allowing defensive backs to destroy receivers who catch balls over the middle of the field.

          In the old days they used to say “he wasn’t afraid to catch balls in the middle of the field” about tough receivers.

          I feel bad for the defense. The way they call the game, they really don’t have a chance.

          1. Because the league has decided that fans want to see lots of offense and scoring, so they keep handicapping the defense to make it happen. Sucks as far as I’m concerned.

            1. And fear of concussions I reckon.

              Yeah, defenses don’t have much of a chance. If this keeps up we’ll get ‘roughing the running backs’ penalties.

    2. Stuart Scott was at Carolina when I was there. He was an incredibly charismatic guy. He lead the step team for the Alphas – he was a pretty great dancer, which is an odd thing to say about a sports caster. It was fun having an old schoolmate doing the sports every night – he’d yell out “Tar Heel” every time a former Heel was featured in a highlight.

      I didn’t know him much at all, but I ran into him quite a number of times because my ex was a little sister to his frat so we were at the same parties. From everything I saw he was a pretty great guy – as charismatic frat-boy types go. Despite it being the times of “School Daze” and Farrakhan, he never gave us any crap… unlike some of his frat brothers.

  18. The most important initial question will be whether a potential juror would consider imposing the death penalty. Everyone picked for this jury must be willing to do so. Defense lawyers have complained that this stacks the deck against their clients, but being “death qualified” is the law.

    “Death qualified.” Nice band name.

  19. Why Mike Huckabee matters ? a lot

    “That’s because, arguably more than any other potential candidate, Huckabee has an extremely niche and devoted base of support: evangelical Christians. The ordained Southern Baptist minister is a natural fit for this group, and it’s a major reason he did as well as he did in 2008.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..ers-a-lot/

    1. Chuckelbee can lock up about 30% to 35% of the caucus voters in Iowa, but won’t pull more than 5% or 10% in New Hampshire. He can hang around through the southern primaries, but he can’t win the nomination. He is a distraction, nothing more.

      1. yeah, but the political reporters get to post a ton of sweet copy about Repubs coming for your birth control and putting bibles under your bed.

        1. Well, when he’s winning states (even at 30-35%) it would be a little silly not to mention him and what he stands for.

          1. Considering that he has already failed twice in presidential campaigns, then nothing he has to say means jack shit.

            1. “Considering that he has already failed twice in presidential campaigns”

              Like the last GOP nominee?

              1. Yes. Romney is proof that Huckabee should just find a nice dark quiet place to hide.

                1. But he’s proof that there’s good reason not to ignore him. GOP second-placer’s have a way of becoming the nominee later.

                  1. Huckabee has never been close to second place at the end of the primary season.

                    1. 2008: 2. Romney 22.46%, 3. Huckabee 20.43%

            2. It’s just to make Jeb look good in comparison.

              1. One good thing about Jeb Bush is that I think he could undercut Huckabee with his core base.

          2. Oh sure, I have no problem with that, but the biased press (I’m sure you’ll disagree) will blow his influence way out of proportion and as kinnath and others have said, he won’t win in the long run.

            SoCons are important to Repubs, but they don’t control things — dipshit soft conservatives/business crony people like Boehner do.

  20. Salon does it again: an article about govt subsidies for high fructose corn syrup that still only blames teh kkkorporashuns for our enormous arses

    1. Unbelievable.

    2. The documentary Fed Up about sugar added to processed foods has a scene where the doctor recommends people cook real food and take it upon themselves and not rely on regulations. It was refreshing. Too bad it was tucked away among the deleted scenes.

    3. Government can do no wrong, even when the counterevidence stares us in the face.

  21. Seven problems for markets in 2015:

    http://seekingalpha.com/articl…..ge=2&ifp=0

    I think you should be able to view without registering.

    1. The amount of trading on margin is becoming scary.

    2. Nope. registration required.

      1. Damn. Well, it may be worth it. It’s free and they do send some good stuff.

        1. Try bugmenot.com

          http://bugmenot.com/view/seekingalpha.com

          It is a great site. They usually have a bogus set of creds you can use for sites that want you to register for free.

  22. Liability Concerns Prompt Some Cities to Limit Sledding

    “We have all kinds of parks that have hills on them,” said Marie Ware, Dubuque’s leisure services manager. “We can’t manage the risk at all of those places.”

    “Gonna be tough sledding today.”

    “Why’s that?”

    “No snow.”

    1. We have all kinds of parks that have hills on them,”

      The risk of children converting potential energy to kinetic is everywhere! Clearly the solution should be for the adults to blast those hills into flat spaces…for the children

      1. It’s interesting that *sledding* is the villain here — not skateboarding, say, or bicycling.

        1. They’ve solved the swimming pool risk problem (though I think its more about the money to pay lifeguards) by replacing them all with splash parks.

          But a hill is just there, no city budget needed or supervision — I’m sure they can ask the Feds for money to hire Snowguards.

          1. The problem is stupid juries. When a jury gives a guy 2.5 million for driving a sled in to sign post, the city has no real option except to ban sledding.

      2. Repeal the law of gravity!

        1. Big Gravity won’t let that happen

          1. They have too much pull!

          2. We should bring them down!

      3. While they’re at it, they might as well make everyone literally colorblind, for the sameness.

    2. We had a really nice hill ruined by the city putting up a fence halfway down the slope just to prevent sledding.

      It was a nice man made hill for a water tower. Locals would go there and have a great time. Then one year they put up a fence. Talking to some of the other locals they confirmed the fence was just to stop sledding because the city council was worried about liability.

      1. That sucks….and is a prime monkeywrenching opportunity for some industrious 14 year olds.

    3. Rich. Hello. Haven’t you watched ‘It’s a wonderful life’ when Harry almost drowned after his sled fell through some ice and he had to be saved by George? I mean, George lost his hearing as a result of it.

      COMMON SENSE.

      1. In the deleted scenes from the super-secret box set, you see that the Baileys sue the shit out of the city for doctors’ bills and pain and suffering.

    4. “Leisure services manager”?

  23. How’s that NYPD strike going?

    Has DeBlasio crawled over broken glass to Lynch’s office to kiss his ring sphincter live on the teevee, yet?

    1. Thanks for that image, LPB.

      I shan’t be having lunch today.

    2. Many years ago there was a guy in our dorm who had this ring he liked to wear all the time. He lost it once, and went around telling everyone he lost his ring in the men’s restroom. I think he thought all the snickering indicated someone had swiped it as a joke.

  24. Battle of the attention whores: Palin v. PETA

    “The controversy started with Palin’s New Year’s Day post on Facebook. She used 6-year-old Trig’s need to get to the sink, stepping on the black Labrador retriever in the way, as an example for overcoming obstacles…

    PETA responded to the images of the child on the dog with a statement to Politico. ‘It’s odd that anyone ? let alone a mother ? would find it appropriate to post such a thing, with no apparent sympathy for the dog in the photo,’ PETA President Ingrid Newkirk said in the statement.

    The comment brought out another, lengthy post from Palin in defense of the dog treatment. Palin also decried what she called PETA’s ‘hypocritical’ and ‘flighty standards.’

    ‘Did you go as crazy when your heroic Man-of-Your-Lifetime, Barack Obama, revealed he actually enjoyed eating dead dog meat?'”

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/…../21238271/

    1. Why is Palin an attention whore for defending herself? I get it Bo you hate her and in a just world she would be locked in a camp somewhere. The fact that she is allowed to roam free and say things no doubt offends your delicate sensibilities. But sadly we don’t live in what you would consider a just society and she is allowed to defend herself.

      The nerve of that women for sitting down and taking abuse from her betters. Doesn’t she know her place?

      1. John, her facebook oosting of every detail of her life is one sign of what I’m talking about. And while PETA is an easy foil because they are the height of stupidity, Palin’s response to them is borderline unhinged.

        1. John, her facebook oosting of every detail of her life is one sign of what I’m talking about.

          So she’s like every woman in the 35-54 demographic?

          1. Do you find that an endearing quality of that demographic? Yes, part of Palin’s banality imo is that she seems like the epitome of a soccer mom on a reality show.

            1. I mean, look at her response. Paragraph after paragraph of blog-level stand up. It just reeks of the kind of knee jerk, over the top reaction that most soccer mom’s have if anyone dares criticize any aspect of their parenting.

              1. There are FAR WORSE women than Palin.

                And uglier too.

            2. Why call Palin out as an attention whore when it’s something lots of Facebook posters do?

              1. Because she’s a public figure? If I think it’s something sad when I see it being done by ‘lots of Facebook posters do’ should I be more or less critical of the same behavior by a public figure?

                Also, this is kind of in the context of a woman who does reality shows of her family and breaks her neck to get in front of a tv camera quite regularly.

                1. She is only a “public figure” because a lot of people like her and want to hear what she has to say. If that wasn’t true, then no one would read her facebook page or listen to what she says. The fact that people like her Bo does not obligate her to stop speaking or not have a Facebook page.

                  Again, your problem is that you don’t like her and thus think she has no right to speak in public. As I said above, go fuck yourself. Its a free country and she can say what she wants and her doing that and people choosing to listen doesn’t make her an attention whore or anything other than someone you don’t like.

        2. John, her facebook oosting of every detail of her life is one sign of what I’m talking about.

          Oh My God, the woman posts on facebook every day. Jesus Christ Bo, how fucking dare she think she has the right to do something about a hundred million other people do every day.

          Again, it bugs you that she has first Amendment rights and uses them and won’t just shut up and take abuse from her betters. That is really all there is to it. Maybe some day we can pass a law depriving of people you don’t like from saying anything. Until then, go fuck yourself.

          1. My goodness you get really upset when someone criticizes this lady!

            1. Bo Cara: Sarah Palin eats babies and fucks sheep
              John: That’s a bunch of nonsense!
              Bo: Why are you such a reflexive Sarah Palin defender?

              1. Wow, this woman brings out the reasonable in people. That’s really an honest summary of what I said!

              2. You’ve got to love that the very same people who went ballistic when that snarky blogger criticized what the Obama daughters were wearing are obsessed with Bristol Palin of all people. Double standard much?

                1. That’s my problem with the whole Palin obsession.

                  The double-standards.

                  Two words: Elizabeth Warren.

                  1. I’m still waiting for the Liz Warren Porn Parody…

                    1. liz warren and sarah palin parody
                      whose nailin palin now?
                      the BDSM sequal

        3. Isn’t the whole purpose of facebook to post stupid inane shit about every detail in your life?

          i’m kinda asking, because I have probably only been on FB a handful of times, mostly by accident.

          1. Part of the reason I stopped going is that it turns even seemingly normal people into attention whores. It was making me hate my extended family.

            1. I am certainly an attention whore. I will cop to that. But I don’t have a problem with Facebook. I may be the last person on earth who thinks that way. I like my friends and like hearing about their lives. Its really weird of me I know.

      2. But she said she could see Russia from her house, John! I saw it NBS, so it must be true!

        1. “I saw it NBS”

          ?

          1. NBC. The pathetic thing is that the C and S aren’t even adjacent on the keyboard.

            1. Understandable, I often comment from my phone and its amazing some of the things that get through.

              Anyway, I don’t have some deep seated hatred of Sarah Palin, nor do I think she is as stupid as a SNL skit. I think she’s an attention whore though who loves the spotlight and that she was, ‘not ready for prime-time.’

              1. Stop giving her attention, then.

              2. There was an obscure freshman senator from IL who also wasn’t ready for primetime, but he was on the right team and talked real good.

                1. no ones ready for primetime
                  because masters are for slaves

    2. “CRIPPLE FIGHT!”

  25. New York Judge William Garnett will hear arguments today on whether or not the grand jury proceedings into the police chokehold death of Eric Garner should be made public.

    Is the argument about whether the proper answer is “Yes” or “Hell Yes”?

    The public needs to know how its decision was made. Either to give the police some semblance of exoneration or to establish that an injustice was permitted.

    1. The problem is that part of the rationale for grand juries involve it not being public. I think that’s less relevant when the ‘suspect’ is a public official though.

      1. At this point, though, it’s more about the legitimacy of the grand jury process. Implicit in the claims that Garner didn’t get justice is the assumption that the grand jury process that led to the decision not to indite was corrupt. The specifics of the incident are all pretty much public (rumor has it there’s a video). So, I don’t see where privacy should be an overriding factor.

        1. It’s a historical thing. Don’t underestimate inertia.

  26. “When income inequality rises, economic growth falls,” the authors of the report concluded.

    Patently false. One more reason to ignore “economic research” churned out by the OECD.

    1. Patently?

      1. We took out a patent on its falsehood.

        That and it’s been disproven by history. Income equality can only be attained by driving down everyone’s income until they are equally poor.

        1. I don’t think that means there can’t be an inverse correlation between inequality and economic growth in any given sample.

          1. Well, except for the fact that the extent to which they torture the data to arrive at that conclusion would be a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

            1. What specifically do you see as the problem in their data analysis?

              1. Essentially, the OECD model assumes its conclusions on estimating what economic growth “should have been. When you look at even the WP stuff, you see that the “outperformers” focus predominantly on the EU countries that benefited from German capital infusions (and creating bubbles). The countries that that have consistently strong growth show up consistently as “underperformers”.

                They aren’t comparing wealth inequality to actual economic growth, but to economic growth relative to predicted growth from their model that advantages wealth equality.

                1. They look at inequality and growth in relation to what both were in the past, right?

                  1. Problem is that past economic growth is not an indicator of future economic performance.

                    An economy grows through 3 basic mechanism’s…

                    1) Population growth
                    2) Productivity growth
                    3) inflation

                    The first item is uncontrolable and changes VERY VERY slowly, the second is chaotic and can be very large in either direction for short periods and then flatline for decades, sometimes even centuries and the 3rd is a result of deliberate government policy but is often deliberately obscured and hidden from the official record for political reasons.

                    It is easy to measure the impact of population growth on economic growth, the problem with the rest however is that trends for any arbitrary time period in productivity changes are not project-able because the factors that caused the changes may cease to function at any time so any model of projected future growth is little more than an educated guess.

                    1. I don’t think inflation counts as growth. It gives the appearance of growth because the price increases that accompany it lead to stats like “the chocolate market grew from $60 billion to $70 billion!”, even if chocolate production fell from 60 tons to 58 tons.

                    2. No Tarran, inflation doesn’t count as growth. And really for a large society, population growth doesn’t count either. What matters is per capita GNP not total GNP.
                      The things that cause growth are,

                      1. Increases in Productivity
                      2. Increases in raw material wealth, discovering oil or gold or something.
                      3. Increased trade by either ending restrictions on trade or other countries growing and demanding more trade.

                      It is really that simple. Every case of real growth and rises in standard of living can be traced back to one of those three things.

                    3. Sadly, each time one of those things happens, you can find a murder of economists croaking to anyone that listens that it must be stopped because it’s bad for the economy.

          2. mumble mumble correlation isn’t causation mumble mumble derp

      2. Yeah. As in patented by The Late P Brooks.

    2. It’s funny how the goodthinkful will take this research from the OECD as Divinely inspired and inerrant, when they make a point of ignoring everything the OECD says about school funding.

      1. The veracity of the finding itself is an empirical matter. The political fallacies that follow are what will be troubling. For example, as someone noted, New Zealand is one of those countries touted for its progressive policies, but note in this analysis it is one of the main sufferers from economic inequality. I would hope at the least people who accepted the empirical claim here would think twice about concluding New Zealand type policies should be adopted to combat it. I still firmly believe in the long run and overall free markets will do more to lower inequality in a way that does not harm growth and with the added benefit of not violating anyone’s fundamental rights).

        1. I doubt that free markets would eventually give us less income inequality just given certain aspects of human nature. But freer markets do allow for more economic growth overall and more technological advancement, making even those at the low end of the spectrum far better off than if markets were unfree/planned and there were no/limited technological advancement.

          1. Actually free markets do lead to less income inequality. With unfree markets you get the guys running the show gaining wealth, while those they are mulcting slave away. It doesnt matter whether it’s the modern French Republic, Communist Russia, Feudal Russia or FDR-era America.

            The middle class grows when markets are freer because consumers have increased choice in what they consume and producers have increased choice in what they produce. As a result people are freer to switch what they consume to cheaper/better alternatives, while producers are freer to switch into more productive activities from less productive ones. Since almost everyone is a producer and a consumer, the result is a leveling of incomes and spending.

            The technical argument takes up a couple of chapters of Rothbard’s Man Economy and State.

            1. Better said than I could.

            2. Tarran nails it.

              Also take note that the more ‘progressive’ systems hare more inequality with the extreme example being the USSR where you had a few ultra-rich and oceans of peasants with no one in between.

              In the end that is what all these bastards whining about inequality really want.

            3. Actually free markets do lead to less income inequality. With unfree markets you get the guys running the show gaining wealth, while those they are mulcting slave away. It doesnt matter whether it’s the modern French Republic, Communist Russia, Feudal Russia or FDR-era America.

              What I should have said was, I doubt that free markets would give us little to no income inequality, just given human nature.

              Although, I suppose if you eliminated all open-ended government handouts for those that don’t work more bottom-end people would have to work and some/many/most would see the benefit of working instead of laying about – benefitting themselves and the overall economy as well.

          2. In one aspect, free markets would give less income inequality, in that the really highest incomes are less likely without government created monopolies and etc. Lots of the top .1% would merely be top 1%.

            But there might be more spread thru the middle to the top, so not sure where the net balance would fall.

            1. There would be more spread through the middle to the top as the overall pie grows, and for the bottom as well though I suspect the bottom might benefit less than the top on an absolute basis, just given human nature. But, technological progress might benefit the bottom more than the top. Since the top already have the latest and greatest toys/gadgets/devices the bottom benefits as those things become cheaper with greater technological advancement, and as new technology is introduced and gradually made cheaper the bottom benefit from that as well.

        2. ” I still firmly believe in the long run and overall free markets will do more to lower inequality in a way that does not harm growth and with the added benefit of not violating anyone’s fundamental rights).”

          I think you are wrong but I don’t think it is a problem for free markets either.

          In the long run free markets will makes us all rich enough so that work is a choice. You can go on the dole and live a comfortable but not lavish lifestyle and spend your time doing what you love, or you can go get a job and be rich.

          Free Markets are what will make it possible to have that choice. The alternative is EVERYONE living a life of poverty in the name of equality.

  27. Kroooooogman:

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c…..ance/?_r=1

    “Let’s start with jobs. France has low labor force participation by the relatively old, thanks to generous retirement programs, and by the young, partly because generous aid means that few need to work while in school, partly perhaps because a high minimum wage and other factors discourage youth employment. What about prime-age workers?”

    Is this guy for real-real?

    1. French labor force participation improves in the middle of the age curve because vast numbers of Frenchmen in those age groups abandon France and move to London in a quest to find suitable employment.

      1. “ast numbers of Frenchmen in those age groups abandon France and move to London in a quest to find suitable employment.”

        Cite?

          1. Thanks!

      2. They’re coming to Canada too.

        I have four clients who ‘escaped’ France as they put it.

    2. “partly because generous aid means that few need to work while in school, partly perhaps because a high minimum wage and other factors discourage youth employment.”

      Perhaps? Perhaps?

      Weren’t Da French Youts rioting in the streets a while back for lack of employment? Or did that not happen in the Krugiverse?

      1. They also took to the streets when the government tried to indroduce reduced regulations on youth employment because it made them easier to fire.

    3. So he acknowledges that min wage lowers employment?

      1. He got it straight out of the textbook he wrote.

    1. I recall reading that the broken equipment was an “exercise band” or something like that, so probably.

    2. The dominatrix beat him to hard with the Doomcock?

        1. beat him to hard

          I liked this rendering 🙂

          1. Harry’s getting old, it takes broken ribs to get him hard anymore?

        2. I thought you meant “The dominatrix beat him to harden the Doomcock”

      1. Nice Freudian slippery.

      2. Too much punishment, not enough bondage?

        1. Not very Christian of me, but if Harry Reid was beaten to death with a phallus, ala A Clockwork Orange, I do not think I would weep.

          1. Not even from laughter?

          2. I was actually making a “High Anxiety” reference.

            The scene where Nurse Diesel (Cloris Leechman) was disciplining Dr Montague (Harvey Korman).

            1. If you’re late you don’t get the fruit cup.

              1. “You’re so strict!”

    3. So this is an actual photograph of the incident?

      http://www.uncleardestination……thinny.png

      (Sort of SFW)

      1. You warned, I still clicked.

        the horror…the horror…the horror…

    4. The coffee was much more acidic when I vomited it into my mouth

    5. The web site is hysterical.

    6. Was he shoving a BBC dildo up his ass and it startled him?

      Just thinking out loud.

  28. If you care about the environment, then you will go out and kill deer!

    http://phys.org/news/2015-01-d…..orest.html

    Waller says attributing at least 40 percent of the change in forest structure to white-tailed deer was surprising even to somebody like him who has studied deer for more than two decades. “It’s rare in ecology to find one factor that accounts for so much change,” he says.

    1. Kill many of them if you care about my car and garden.

    2. Two words: Urban Archery. Best hunting (in sheer quantity) in my life here inside the DC beltway. Doin’ my part!

      1. The amount of deer around here is ridiculous. I live right on the transition line between urban and suburban on the DC line and they are everywhere. Constantly in the yard, in the street, eating all our plants and fucking up our trees. I don’t mind them too much, but they are everywhere.

        1. We have several foxes in my suburban neighborhood. They are beautifully quick and fluid in full flight. I would not be able to take one with a bow. And the ‘hood would stake me to the ground in full apoplectic retribution if I were to plink one of the ruddy bastards.

          1. There’s a fox den right where I hunt as well so I see more of them than deer. They’re not only quick and quiet, but they aren’t at all fooled by camouflage like the deer. They stop dead in their tracks and stare me in the eyes before taking off. Being said, I’ve had the chance to take one out, but I hunt to fill the freezer and that is all.

            1. Unless you have an unsecured chicken coupe, I can’t see how the foxes do any harm. And keeping the squirrel and rodent population down and most certainly a good.

              1. I don’t know what a pelt is worth today, but when I was a kid a nice fox pelt would get your $80 bucks or so (which was a ton to a dumb kid).

                A lot of farmers are pretty grateful when you take out a predator while hunting on their land, so it could pay of in PR too.

                I know plenty of ranchers who will let you hunt on their land for the rest of your life if you manage to plink a coyote on their property.

                1. In the suburbs they’re pretty much harmless. And in one case, kind of entertaining since one of the local foxes has no tail, likely due to a fight. Nothing is more odd than a fox w/o one of it’s defining features. Trots along like a pig w/ a long nose and I chuckle everytime I see Stumpy.

                2. Jimbo,

                  Farmers are full of shit and just lazy usually. It takes a pretty piss poor cow to let her calf get eaten by a coyote. If they are losing calves to coyotes, the problem is their cows. Foxes and coyotes will eat chickens, but so will bird dogs and a lot of other things. Again, put your chickens into roost at night and secure the coupe and the foxes and coyotes are not a problem.

                  1. Farmers have a much different view of nature than us city folk. I don’t know if I would call them lazy or full of shit. I think that they spend each day surrounded by true wild life and thus aren’t as impressed by it as we are.

                    It is pretty easy to condemn farmers for wanting to get rid of predators from our well buffered suburban lifestyles. It isn’t like having a fox around our city houses causes us any real damage.

                    It isn’t just predators either. Wild life like deer (eat valuable hay during droughts), crows (eat crops), and turkeys (roost on hay bales and shit all over them, after which the cattle won’t eat it) can cause real economic damage to farmers and ranchers.

                    To a farmer, wild life is an X factor that really impacts their income. From their point of view anything that can be done to reduce the risk that wild life will destroy their crops or herd is something good.

              2. “an unsecured chicken coupe..”? How about a secure four-door chicken?

                1. glad im not the only one who thought that when i read it

          2. WE have fox in my neighborhood too. And they are absolutely beautiful animals.

            Leave the foxes alone. They eat rabbits and squirrels. Unless they are going to start letting you hunt with your varmint rifle in town, what else is going to keep the squirrel and rabbit population in check.

            I was worried they would eat the out door cats in our neighborhood. But they seem to have left the cats alone. I guess they figure why go after a cat that has claws when you can get a squirrel without such danger.

            1. The boys and I take several meals worth of rabbits and squirrels from our back yard with a pellet gun. We get a few dumb crows each year too, but they quickly learn to leave the roost tree when they see us come out on the deck.

              We have an owl that lives in the neighborhood who has been known to take outdoor cats. One of our cats lived through an encounter with him, but needed a visit to the vet to get antibiotics to keep the puncture wounds along his back from getting infected.

      2. Did you bag any pols while you were out and about?

        1. No, but the buck stops here… about 40 yards from where it’s hit.

  29. What are you saying, Sugarfree? That Nancy Pelosi’s Isolde-style cast iron breastplate was what broke Harry’s ribs?

    1. I’m just asking questions.

      1. You ask too many questions.

        1. Inquiring minds want to *know*!

            1. Oh no….

  30. “Police union leaders have said he contributed to an environment that allowed the officers’ slayings by supporting protests following the police killings of two unarmed black men, Eric Garner in the New York City borough of Staten Island and Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.”

    Yeah, because choking people to death for not paying taxes to the right king didn’t at all contribute to that environment.

    1. hahaha

      step 1: accept that it’s an infected, bacteria-ridden shithole
      step 2: burn it to the ground
      step 3: shop around all the different insurers

      that was great.

  31. Apparently, marching orders for the “social justice economics” mob have income inequality right at the top. It showed up as a talking point for the Bloombergousie this morning.

    Oh, the perfidy of economic innovation!

    1. Yeah, it really sucks that an entire new industry sprung up around the Internet in the late 90’s. The ability of people to make a ton of money in an entirely new way really skewed the inequality numbers.

      Do you think the progs in San Francisco circa 1849 complained about gold miners striking it rich and increasing the gap between the have’s and have nots even back then?

      1. Yes.

        Or the progs back on the East Coast who who too chicken shit to move west.

  32. Which is worse: Christy or Huckabee?

    1. Christie. Not only is he an idiot, he’s a Cowboys fan.

    2. Christy. Huckabee is just an idiot. He is probably at least a nice guy if you ever met him. Christy in contrast is a real asshole on every level.

      1. I tend to agree, but then again, maybe an asshole would do less damage because even his party members wont go along with him.

        Then again, again, he may cost the GOP the House/Senate and then go along with the Dems.

        1. I like Christie as my Governor in NJ. I want the Democrats to have to deal with a fucking asshole every day.

          (I certainly wouldn’t want him or Huck as President.)

          1. I agree with that. I don’t have a problem with Christy being the governor of a big nasty blue state like New Jersey. No one is going to fix that place anyway. The best we can hope for is to inflict the worst asshole possible on the Democrats there.

  33. Mark Warner proves yet again he is just as ignorant of a crap weasel as the rest of them. He is not a “reasonable Democrat”.

    http://www.politifact.com/virg…..-be-colle/

  34. Which is worse: Christy or Huckabee?

    My analysis is deeply flawed, due to the fact that I have studiously avoided paying any attention whatsoever to anything Huckabee says, but Christie seems to me to be more vigorous and enthusiastic in his authoritarianism.

    So- Christie.

    1. Christie is an in your face asshole. It is possible that Huckabee is the more dangerous authoritarian because he is nicer and more subtle about things. But that would attribute a level of cunning to Huckabee that seems far beyond his demonstrated intelligence. So definitely Christy.

    2. Christie in the debates is gonna be fun (if he runs). He seems like he has a very short fuse. I hope his opponents and debate moderators push his buttons, real good.

      1. Right now you could have a GOP debate that consisted of Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Chris Christy, Ben Carson and Rick Perry, among others. That is going to be some made for TV entertainment.

        Regardless of what you think of those candidates in particular, they will have something interesting to say even if its wrong. Contrast that with the coming Democratic Hillary versus Big Chief Warren debates. Can you imagine how dull those things are going to be?

  35. Idiot loses fingers in fireworks mishap, sues everybody he can

    However, the fireworks manufacturer is in a foreign country, so:

    A man who lost three fingers in a fireworks accident on New Year’s Eve 2013 has now filed a lawsuit against the sales agent, the agent’s insurance company and the minister of justice. He believes the firework was faulty and holds both the importer and state responsible.

    I’m sorry to say that the picture accompanying the article is not of the man’s bloody stump. 🙁

    1. Call that a fireworks story? This is a fireworks story

      Why I stuck a cracker up my clacker

  36. I like Christie as my Governor in NJ.

    The Second Amendment has become a big deal for me. That fat fuck wants NJ’s gun laws to apply to me, so he can go fuck himself.

    1. ^This.

      A candidates position on the second amendment is my litmus test. It tells me what that candidate thinks of me and what they think the relationship between citizen and government should be.

      This test has never failed. Fuck Christie.

  37. The New Professionalism

    Officer Darryl Jouett of the Erlanger, Kentucky, Police Department was headed back to his car on Saturday night when he tried to adjust his department-issued weapon in his holster, and it discharged, Cincinnati police said.
    The bullet ricocheted off the elevator walls and struck him, Police told WCPO-TV.

    1. See, even the elevators are in on the War Against Cops?

    2. Gotta love the passive voice!

    3. it discharged

      Clearly they need to replace the faulty weapon.

    4. How the hell do you manage to pull the trigger doing that? He must have had a round in the chamber and the hammer cocked while it was in the holster. I don’t see any other way this could have happened. What a moron.

      They need to go back to giving cops revolvers. They clearly are not disciplined or well trained enough to handle semi automatic pistols.

    5. The weapon discharged. The gun did it, not officer dumbshit. The weapon discharged.

      1. cuz guns kill people, not cops

  38. Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson says he didn’t trust the Ohio Attorney General’s Office to handle Tamir Rice investigation

    Oh, good! He must want to make sure the police are held accountable. He must believe that the AG won’t take a hard stance against institutional corru…what’s that?

    “I don’t think the state attorney general handled the East Cleveland shooting properly,” Jackson said. “It wasn’t done in a way that I think gave me confidence that this would have been done properly. So that’s why we turned to the county.”

    Attorney General Mike DeWine publicly announced shortly after the shooting that the case revealed a “systemic failure” in Cleveland’s police department. The shooting subsequently resulted in criminal charges against police and a seven-figure settlement to the families of the two people who were killed,

    Oh.

    1. I presume you saw Drew Carey and The Jacket confront the Cleveland City Council? Every pol in that city is full of defensiveness and excuses. And cronyism.

      1. Link for my lazy butt please.

        1. Here you go. There is a whole series here.

          1. Now that was depressing. If you have more than 3 colors on your sign it only takes 4 or 5 days to get approval. Day 1: “Ok, dats blue.” 2: “Dats green 3: “Dats, what is dat, Phil? Magenta?” Day 4: “Naw, that’s periwinkle” Day 5: “What color car gets me out of this nightmare city the fastest?”

            1. The worst was the council members’ expectation that anyone wanting to do business in their city needs to go through them. Buttering up your local city council member is the only way to get things done, and they’re damn proud of it!

              1. You could tell they hated having to sit there will these two uppity libertarians are lecturing them on making life easier for the peons. Ironically, all they wanted was The Price is Right to film there.

      2. In this city? No way. Cleveland is as clean as month-old snow.

        1. I assume you mean snow by the side of the road in Cleveland.

  39. Possible record-breaking low temperatures coming to Chicago and much of the midwest, region expected to be 10-35 degrees below normal.

    Ah yes, that “global warming” sure is a bitch.

    1. Haven’t you heard? It’s no longer global warming but climate change, so any weather whatsoever is proof.

      /sarc

  40. my buddy’s mother makes $72 /hr on the internet . She has been without work for 5 months but last month her payment was $12076 just working on the internet for a few hours. read more…………
    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  41. my friend’s sister makes $68 an hour on the laptop . She has been without work for 10 months but last month her check was $21549 just working on the laptop for a few hours. browse this site……….
    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.