Barbara Boxer

One Muslim Group Unhappy About Charlie Hebdo Cover; Risen Won't Be Asked to Name Names; Kamala Harris Running for Senate: P.M. Links

|

  • The Streisand Effect takes a European vacation.

    A Muslim group in Egypt (a country that notably imprisons dissidents and journalists, even Muslim ones) is warning Charlie Hebdo not to publish its latest issue with Mohammad on the cover. I don't think it's going to work.

  • Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times Reporter James Risen will not be called to the stand to testify in the trial against Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA officer accused of leaking Risen classified information for a book. Risen had said he would not name his anonymous source, even if ordered to do so, and was risking jail time.
  • California Attorney General Kamala Harris, a Democrat, has announced that she intends to run for the U.S. Senate seat that Sen. Barbara Boxer will be vacating come 2016.
  • Jury selection began today in the trial of Ross Ulbricht, accused of being the operator of online black market Silk Road.
  • The passwords on a bunch of social media accounts over at the Department of Defense changed after somebody managed to take control of Central Command's Twitter and YouTube accounts yesterday and post pro-ISIS comments.
  • CNN has gotten permission from the Federal Aviation Administration to use drones for reporting. Maybe they'll finally find Malaysian Airlines Flight 370.
  • A federal judge has struck down South Dakota's ban on gay marriage recognition, but stayed the ruling pending appeal.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content.

NEXT: Use of Chokeholds "Alarming," Says NYPD Inspector General's Report

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. Get ready for the great carbon tax grab. Just as consumers start getting used to the idea of lower gasoline prices, putting billions of dollars in their pockets for spending on other things, politicians are conspiring to grab it back.

    Ontario, doing what it does best. Fuck over everyone living in it. At least I can easily pull shoot and move to the US with my dual citizenship. I just wish the US was the free market capitalist wild west everyone up here pretends it to be.

    1. Hello.

      “A Muslim group in Egypt (a country that notably imprisons dissidents and journalists, even Muslim ones) is warning Charlie Hebdo not to publish its latest issue with Mohammad on the cover. I don’t think it’s going to work.”

      What part of ‘fuck off’ don’t these assholes get?

      1. The part where they know that threats of violence work like a charm on 99% of “journalists”.

        1. I am curious how many media outlets will run something along the lines of “Je suis Charlie.”

          1. It’s been so long since I took French that I always read that as Jesus, Charlie

        2. Not just journalists. A few years back Yale University Press published a scholarly book about the Mohammed cartoon incident, but didn’t include the cartoons.

  2. The passwords on a bunch of social media accounts over at the Department of Defense changed after somebody managed to take control of Central Command’s Twitter and YouTube accounts yesterday and post pro-ISIS comments.

    Our country is once again safe.

    1. They change them from 1 2 3 4 to 5 6 7 8

      1. from “password” to “password1”

        1. ONE…

          TWO…

          THREE…

          FOUR…

          FIVE.

          The password is ONE-TWO-THREE-FOUR-FIVE.

          1. That’s the kind of password an idiot would have on his luggage.

          2. I have that same password on my luggage!

      2. Go ahead and laugh. The things I’ve seen…

    2. Withering sarcasm, the mother tongue of libertarianism.

    3. One question no one seems to be asking – why does CentCom (and the DoD) even *have* social media accounts?

      1. Several of us asked that yesterday.

    4. The password was easy to guess because it was “obamasucks.”

  3. …is warning Charlie Hebdo not to publish its latest issue with Mohammad on the cover.

    Or else what?

    1. Or else they’ll release the dogs with bees in their mouths, and when they bark they shoot bees at you.

      1. Release the robotic Richard Simmons!

        1. Of course you’re the one who got the reference.

          1. And of course both of you are referencing a bit that got cut from an original episode, and you would only know of it from watching a different episode that showed outtakes. So a double-deep reference!!

            1. Point of order: The dogs with bees in their mouths line was from the original episode. The robotic Richard Simmons was from the outtakes.

              1. Nobody watches that show.

          2. It’s the one thing I’m good for.

    2. They’ll say it was so much better when Postrel was in charge?

      1. DRINK (but not alcohol)!

        1. This non-alcoholic fluid that I drank doesn’t taste very good. Maybe it’s an acquired taste. Is “correction fluid” GMO free?

    3. Or else you get…

      “I agree. Sure, freedom of speech is a right, not a privilege, as Turley points out; but to keep our freedoms, we must use them wisely. When some in our society choose to endanger the rest through repeated provocation, leaders haven’t much choice other than to make public admonitions about bad judgment–or worse yet, regulate it through law. Freedom isn’t free, as they say, and it certainly is not absolute if we all desire peace.”

      http://wapo.st/1tToCwC

      1. Disgusting.

      2. It’s as if they have completely different definitions of “freedom” and “liberty” than one finds in a dictionary.

        1. I think their dictionary is written in crayon.

      3. When some in our society choose to endanger the rest through repeated provocation,

        How am I responsible for some barbarian primitive’s violent reaction, again?

        1. The heckler’s veto writ large.

        2. By their logic, women should stop having abortions because the practice has incited violent people to shoot at and bomb abortion clinics.

          1. Bobby Jindal approves

            ALLEGEDLY…

          2. That’s different because birthing camps or something

        3. Because you triggered it. You probably didn’t even give them the courtesy of a trigger warning. What are they supposed to do, not be triggered?

        4. How am I responsible for some barbarian primitive’s violent reaction, again?

          Have you never hear of a little thing called “The White Man’s Burden”, Mr. Dean?

      4. If these fucking morons knew the history of political cartoons in the USA — especially in the 19th century (they were viscious) — they’d shut the fuck up.

        1. Boss Tweed would agree with you.

    4. Or else what?

      Perhaps they’ll get the city council of Dearborn, Michigan to vote on a resolution of disapproval.

  4. CNN has gotten permission from the Federal Aviation Administration to use drones for reporting.

    Besides the ones we regularly see sitting in front of the camera?

    1. Ooooh burn!! Give Wolf Blitzer some ointment!

  5. More state power, not free speech, the likeliest we-are-Charlie result

    And Canadians are certainly not Charlie. My guess is that an English-language version of Charlie Hebdo wouldn’t last even a few days in Canada before concerned Muslim or Christian or Jewish citizens would be demanding charges be laid under Canada’s hate-speech laws, or dragging the magazine before one of our provincial human rights commissions that specialize in rooting out offensive expression.

    Once in a great while, Neil Macdonald writes something cogent.

    1. I wonder what Canada would be like if it had the same constitution as the US. Would it have stayed closer to the original intent of the document?

      1. Well we tried to conquer integrate you into our glorious republic and y’all were all like “Oh, no thank you, we still prefer British rule.” Time passed, the moment passed, and you’re stuck with Ottawa.

      2. I would wager “no”.

      3. Our constitution is the direct result of our having rebelled against England. Canada was the kid who lived in mom’s basement until she kicked him out.

        1. But still puts mom’s face on their money.

      4. Oh boy. That’s a tough one. I haves to thinks.

    2. BECAUSE rts, WE KNOW HOW TO BALANCE GOOD TASTE AND FREEDOM!!!

      1. REASONABLE LIMITS

        /puke

        1. LESS FILLING!

    3. “Canada even has an anti-blasphemy law on the books. It was last used in an attempted private prosecution against the distributors of the Monty Python movie Life of Brian in 1980.”

      Reasonable limits.

  6. California Attorney General Kamala Harris, a Democrat, has announced that she intends to run for the U.S. Senate seat that Sen. Barbara Boxer will be vacating come 2016.

    Decisions, decisions!

    She is 1/2 Indian, but only 1/16 Libertarian.

    Should I vote for her?

    1. I would vote for General Kamala…

      1. Given that it is California, who is less of the 2 a$$holes? Harris or Newsome?

        1. I just like the part of the name. General KA-MA-LA. Rolls off the tongue.

          1. From wikipedia:

            While serving as District Attorney in Alameda County Harris recruited other District Attorneys and filed an amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller, arguing that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to own firearms.[50] Harris also supported San Francisco’s proposition H, which would have prohibited most firearms within city limits.[51]

            Ugh.

    2. 1/16 Libertarian.

      Like Lizzie Warren is 1/16 indian?

      1. I can’t imagine that Willie Brown’s ex-girlfriend and Democratic drone like Harris is even 1/500th libertarian. Oh, maybe she’s OK with pot and gay marriage, but that’s probably it.

        1. The way in which she would be OK with those would no doubt be horrific in execution.

  7. Grosse Pointe Park chief defends police beating suspect and actually states the phrase

    “Due to the totality of the circumstances, we believe the actions of the officers in affecting the arrest proper.”

    Neat.

    1. The totality being that he’s wearing a badge.

    2. The only thing better would be watching the news and see some pig say, “Totality of circs! Good shoot! Smooches hth”

      1. They’re having to say it so often anymore that the general populace may.come to understand that.shorthand.

    3. What, did you think Dunphy invented “totality of the circumstances”?

  8. GET THAT FUCKING AUTOPLAY VIDEO OFF THE SITE

    1. Yes, please.

      1. But you’ll only hear it here from Atlanta’s top news station! How can you pass up that privilege?

    2. I’m all for a free press, but autoplay videos just go too far.

  9. California Attorney General Kamala Harris, a Democrat, has announced that she intends to run for the U.S. Senate seat that Sen. Barbara Boxer will be vacating come 2016.

    Might as well call the decorator to schedule the office redesign now. After others such as Gavin Newsom agreed not to run against her, she is an absolute certain winner. I can’t even think of something she could do to lose this, especially to a Republican.

    Can anyone come up with a possible scenario where she loses? In this state, even a sex scandal would just gain her votes.

    1. No. I mentioned this in another thread — this is not a race, this is an anointing. Harris will be the next senator, and Newsom will be the next governor.

    2. What if she once said something nice about a Republican?

    3. Maybe if she got videoed being drunk and murdering a transgendered hooker while screaming transphobic slurs. But probably not even then.

  10. If I had a giant nut sack on my head I’d probably be crying too.

    1. That’s bad etiquette, Slammer. How do you think that would make the guy teabagging you feel?

    2. Wadda ya mean, ‘if’?

  11. Quite the tubby toy.

    The Biggest Ship in the World Tears Down Abandoned Oil Rigs

    Offshore oil platforms face an existential crisis similar to the rest of the world’s: They’re in trouble when the oil runs out. But whereas people can turn to other forms of power, rigs are doomed. If they’re in the Gulf of Mexico, they’ll often be sunk in place for marine life to colonize. (Quite successfully too. A recent study found that rigs are among the most productive fish hatcheries on the planet.) But by law, the dry rigs in the North Sea oilfield, Europe’s largest, must be completely removed. Until now this has meant a long process of piecemeal dismantling, but this summer, when the Dutch company Allseas’ newest ship, Pieter Schelte, goes into service, the job will get much simpler.

    1. Can’t they just leave them so some British family can declare one a sovereign nation?

    2. It’d be sweet to have the world’s largest ship named after you.

  12. Already covered:

    http://www.americanthinker.com…..ve_tv.html

    1. Sheesh. Should be Already covered”

      Muslim mayor of Rotterdam tells some Muslisms to F off:

      http://www.americanthinker.com…..ve_tv.html

      1. Rotter, Rotter, Damn Damn Damn!!

        Good for him. Let’s see if he starts a trend.

        1. He’s actually the second piece of a trend, after Sisi’s awesome speech and show of solidarity with Christians in Egypt.

          1. Yeah I sure both of the left Christians in Egypt are glad to hear it.

            Anyone else notice how multiculturalism and diversity tends to be a one way streak? As the West becomes more Muslim I don’t see the Middle East becoming more Christian, or Westernized.

      2. So, finally a Muslim leader denouncing the radicals.

        A shit-ton more of that is needed.

  13. Egypt’s official Religious Edict Authority

    Wow! How’d you like to be Director of *that*?

    “Not only is it written, I’m fucking saying it!”

  14. http://www.wired.com/2015/01/a…..-on-earth/

    What it is like to live in the coldest town on earth.

    1. So D.C. then?

  15. The Crusades – the leitmotif of prog derp when it comes to history – wasn’t so evil. Then again those of us with a nuanced view on such a complex event knew this, right?

    http://www.intercollegiaterevi…..read-this/

    1. I’ve never understood this, especially when bin Laden and some other Muslim radicals have used the Crusades as a partial justification for their jihad against the West. I mean, Spain? Hola?

      1. “I’ve never understood this, especially when bin Laden and some other Muslim radicals have used the Crusades as a partial justification for their jihad against the West.”

        I’ve never understood why Muslims whine about the Crusades for several reasons:

        1. The Crusades were considered super important by Christians, but most of the Muslim world at the time saw them as a side show to their much more important battles with the Byzantines, other Muslims and the Mongols. Saladin barely even fought the Franks for the first half of his career, but for some reason he’s remembered as an arch-Jihadist when most of his life was spent consolidating power against other Muslims.

        2. The Muslims won. All the Crusader States were irrecoverably destroyed and most of the Christians who remained were slaughtered or enslaved.

        3. The Muslims then spent the next 500 years invading Europe, conquered Greece and much of Eastern Europe, and almost conquered Austria.

        The Crusades are an example of the Muslims kicking ass. Why would you be upset about that?

        1. Because getting their asses kicked up into their hats by the Mongols in the same relative period isn’t particularly heroic?

          1. Eh. With the Mongols, they lost the battle but won the war (of ideas).

          2. Mongolian BBQ: conquering hearts, minds and bellies since the 13th century invasion of China.

            1. We just ate at a Genghis Grill, which does Mongolian style. We used to have a BD’s Mongolian, which I liked a little better, but it’s all good.

        2. The crusades were a Christian counter attack against centuries of Islamic imperialism. The Muslims act like bullies who spent years terrorizing smaller kids, and then constantly whine the about the one time one of the kids finally hit them back.

          1. “The crusades were a Christian counter attack against centuries of Islamic imperialism. The Muslims act like bullies who spent years terrorizing smaller kids, and then constantly whine the about the one time one of the kids finally hit them back.”

            HAHAHAHAHAHA. Yeah, okay. The Crusades were not a Christian counter attack. It wasn’t viewed by the people at the time as a counterattack against aggression. It was viewed by the people at the time as an opportunity to slaughter the infidel and conquer the Holy Land as a means of extirpating their own sins.

            Plus, if the goal was a counterattack on the Muslims, then why did the Christians continuously fight with the Byzantines (who would sometimes make alliances with the Muslims rather than the Crusader states), why did the Fourth Crusade sack the Greek Orthodox Christian city of Constantinople, and why were so many Crusades nothing but a mad scramble after Jerusalem?

            Because it wasn’t a counterattack against Muslims. It was an example of crazed religious fervor being used by the Catholic Church as a means to expand its own power.

            1. BardMetal is right. The Crusades started in response to Muslim expansion and atrocities against Christians. Of course they tended to go off the rails, in part because having large numbers of Crusaders traveling while “living off the land” meant that they were like a plague of locusts to anyone in their way, including Christian cities.

              1. He’s also right about so many Muslims being unable to let go of perceived grievances that happened hundreds of years ago. As if every non-Muslim alive today should be held personally responsible for it. Reason #3,875 why progressives love them.

              2. The atrocities against Christians were mostly perpetrated by the Crusaders. Before that, Christian folk had been well tolerated in the Caliphate except for during the reign of Mad Caliph Omar. He was deposed by the time the Crusades started, so that kind of vitiates the ‘self-defense’ excuse.

              3. Don’t forget that they practiced by slaughtering Jews at home before going East.

          2. I think Christendom went on the offensive first.

            1. You do realize that the Christian communities in the middle east predate the Muslim ones by centuries don’t you? What do you think happened to them?

              1. I realize that but it was Christendom that embarked on The Crusades first.

                1. How is that even possible?

                  If not for Muslim conquest of Christian lands (ie, basically the whole former area of the Roman Empire), there couldn’t be a Crusade.

                  Muslims started it when they came out of Arabia and conquered pretty much everything in sight, all the way west to Spain, all the way East to India and parts of China.

            2. Well, not that this crap matters today, anyway, but the conquest of Spain was centuries before the Crusades. Spain is technically in Europe.

        3. They are upset because the crusaders were barbaric murdering assholes who slaughtered the population of the towns they liberated wholesale and for no good reason.

          1. As opposed to Islamic murdering assholes who slaughtered Christians in the region prior to the Crusades. Where’s you moral outrage about that? Or is only Western civilization held to any moral standards?

            1. I’m pretty sure Cytotoxic has plenty of moral outrage about Muslims doing bad things too. He is the chief warboner, after all.

              Can’t a person say that one thing was bad without mentioning all of the other bad things that have happened?

              1. Cytotoxic has this perverted thinking that massive Muslim immigration is good but we should bomb the shit out of Muslims in their own countries.

          2. So, they are upset the Crusaders beat them to it?

            1. Only if you ignore the 5 centuries of Islamic conquest prior to the Crusades.

      2. especially when bin Laden and some other Muslim radicals have used the Crusades as a partial justification for their jihad against the West. I mean, Spain? Hola?

        Conquest is supposed to only go one way. One a land and its people have been absorbed into the Dar al-Islam there it must stay until the end of time.

        1. Exactly, and that is one reason for their extreme hatred towards Israel.

            1. Nope. Even secular or Christian Arabs hate Israel. The anti-semitism persists throughout Arab culture. Israel’s first enemies were all pan-Arab national-socialists.

              1. “Even secular or Christian Arabs hate Israel.”

                Where do you get that idea? Btw, all Palestinians may be Arabs but not all Arabs are Palestinians. Also, unless you go by the political definition of Palestinian, it’s highly unlikely that every non-Israeli from the area is against Israel.

    2. The Crusades may not have been by their nature evil, but all those brutal massacres of prisoners perpetrated by Christians sure were – especially Richard the Lionheart marching 3000 prisoners he’d promised to let go out of Acre and killing them all.

      There’s also the 4th Crusade where the Venetians tried to recoup their monetary losses by using the Crusade to inexplicably topple Constantinople and kill a bunch of Greek Christians for no reason.

      1. Ooh, Remember the First Crusade when they wiped out the Jewish communities in the Ruhr valley region on their way out? Fun times.

      2. This was the middle ages, things like that weren’t very unusual for the times.

        1. No they weren’t. You seem to be under the assumption I’m pro-Islam in this instance. I’m not. I don’t care about Christian vs. Islam in the fucking Middle Ages because both religions were barbaric by modern standards and unworthy of being praised.

          What annoys me is the people desperately trying to behave as if Christian atrocities in the Holy Land were somehow justifiable because the Muslims conquered Jerusalem 300 years earlier.

          Hell, if it was a Christian counterattack then why did they go after Jerusalem rather than swiftly liberating the Iberian Peninsula at a time when it was still largely ruled by the Moors? The Reconquista didn’t end until the 1400’s, so surely if the goal was a counterattack against Islam, the first order of business would have been freeing the much closer Christians in Spain rather than gallivanting half-way around the world to retake Jerusalem.

          1. if it was a Christian counterattack then why did they go after Jerusalem rather than swiftly liberating the Iberian Peninsula at a time when it was still largely ruled by the Moors?

            Because at the time of the First Crusade the Almoravids were at the peak of their power*?

            *Lesson learned from many games of Crusader Kings 2

          2. Because of the religious significance of Jerusalem, a city that not only once controlled Christians, but also where Christians who forbidden to take part in pilgrimages thanks to it’s new Muslim rulers.

            Not to mention the Byzantine emperors were the first to call for a unified front against the Muslim invaders. After all they really had the most to gain.

            You think you could get various European powers that spent centuries fighting against one another to unite to strengthen Spain? Impossible. But getting European powers to unite to take back the birth place of the lord and savior from the heathens, well then you might have something.

            1. “Because of the religious significance of Jerusalem, a city that not only once controlled Christians, but also where Christians who forbidden to take part in pilgrimages thanks to it’s new Muslim rulers.”

              Bingo! Which is why you’re wrong to claim it was a counterattack. If it had been a counterattack, the goal would have been to gain as much land back from the Muslims as possible, particularly Christian land. But this wasn’t the goal. The actual goal consisted largely of the desire to gain control of Jerusalem. This is because it wasn’t a counterattack in any rational sense but an outgrowth of religious fervor.

              Some people actually thought the conquest of Jerusalem would usher in the End Times and they’d all go to paradise. That doesn’t seem like the sort of logic you hear from someone arguing in favor of a counterattack against aggression.

              1. “Some people actually thought the conquest of Jerusalem would usher in the End Times and they’d all go to paradise. That doesn’t seem like the sort of logic you hear from someone arguing in favor of a counterattack against aggression.”

                So what? Some people thought Adolf Hitler was the anti-christ from the book of Revelations. That doesn’t make the allied invasion of Normandy an outgrowth of religious fervor.

                1. Um. Wow. What a stupid comparison.

                  Also, I do not think it is true that Christians could not go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem except during the reign of Caliph Omar, who was deposed. Aside from him, Christians were well tolerated and better off than under Crusader misrule.

          3. I, for one, am not saying “Christian atrocities in the Holy Land were somehow justifiable,” just that the Crusades were essentially defensive wars.

            1. They weren’t, yokeltarian revisionism aside. Fighting Moors in Spain could have been defensive. Fighting them in the Levant, was, well, a crusade.

              1. Islam had been spreading, largely by the sword, for hundreds of years before the Crusades began.

        2. Now who’s engaging in moral relativism?

          Actually, I don’t take a very strong view on these things for just that reason. If you ask, I’ll say that the crusades were not good for the reasons people cite. But history is pretty much non-stop bad stuff, so I’m not going to worry about it too much.

          1. That’s pretty much my position, which is why I’m very confused when people in modern times behave as if people in 2014 have some sort of stake in deciding who the ‘good guys’ were in Levantine battles that occurred in the 1100s.

            1. Because the modern world wouldn’t be any different if the Muslims controlled half of Europe.

              You think would libertarians would appreciate the culture that their political beliefs stem from. How popular are libertarian ideas outside of the Western world?

              Would anything even remotely approaching libertarian ideas even exist if Europe was part of Dar al-Islam?

              1. Because the modern world wouldn’t be any different if the Muslims controlled half of Europe.

                If my uncle had tits, I could call him my aunt.
                That’s not what happened. And there is no way to say how things would be now if it had happened that way. Maybe Islam would have mellowed out as Christianity has since that time. It is impossible to say. And pointless to argue about.

                1. So put your fingers in your ears and hum. History isn’t important at all apparently.

                  Why is is so difficult for to grasp that different cultures are in fact different? Or that their beliefs, and worldview have a cultural origin?

                  Do you honestly think you would be a Libertarian if you were born in Saudi Arabia?

                  1. Moorish Spain was better off than it was after the Christians re-took it.

                    1. Thats why everyone here would rather live in an Islamic society then a Western one right?

                    2. Back then, yes.

                  2. History is important. But Muslims taking over Europe isn’t history. For all anyone knows, if that had happened, Islam might be a very different thing today. Of course cultures are different. And I am not afraid to say that there is something wrong with cultures that don’t value liberty and individual rights. But if you are going to engage in counterfactuals like that, you can’t just assume that nothing else would have changed in the last 700 years. And the fact that some good may have come from the crusades is no reason to excuse the terrible things that were done.

            2. I really think that that kind of thinking is one of the biggest problems with the world. Too many people worry about whose ancestors killed who and whose fault everything is. The only way to a more peaceful world is if people stop worrying about crap like that and making it part of their identity.
              To take an obvious example, it doesn’t matter at this point (I’m not Hillary. After enough time it really doesn’t matter) if the founding of Israel was a good thing or a bad thing or who did or didn’t get fucked over when that happened. What matters is to start respecting everyone’s rights now so that everyone’s life can improve. The evils of the past will never be fixed or undone.

    3. … I love the Assassin’s Creed picture at the top.

    4. I hate conservative revisionism. Yes, the Crusades were evil. They were ostensibly in response to the actions of Mad Caliph Omar who was being bad to Christians-who did not have it too bad in the caliph up to then. Thing is, Omar was deposed and replaced by the time the Crusades started. The Catholic church also clearly wanted The Crusades as a way to gain power, and Pope Innocent III nearly took control of Europe. Further, I really don’t see what concern any of the European countries had with the actions of the caliphate in The Levant-aside from Byzantium, which was fighting them. BTW The Byzantine Empire got wholly fucked over in the 2nd Crusade which I am pretty sure was just a glorified raiding party on Byzantium.

      The initial crusaders carried out mass slaughter of civilians including many Christians-Greek Orthodox monks were eaten by Crusaders. Further, there was plenty of for-profit plundering going on. The Templar Knights were basically the world’s first multinational.

      1. Once Byzantium fell Islam marched all the way to the gates of Vienna. European countries had a good reason to be concerned about what happening with the caliphate.

        1. You left out the fact that Byzantium fell largely because it was hollowed out by the sack of Constantinople that was carried out by the Fourth Crusade.

          If the Western Christians were really so fearful of Muslim aggression, why did they help destroy the one superpower that stood in the way of Islamic expansion?

          1. If the Western Christians were really so fearful of Muslim aggression, why did they help destroy the one superpower that stood in the way of Islamic expansion?

            Don’t forget the head-scratcher that was failure of any sort of Franco-Mongol alliance to materialize.

            1. I think westerners were starting to get a little tired of the Crusade by the time that idea was being thrown around.

            2. It’s all Prester John’s fault.

        2. And Byzantium fell partly because of the losses it sustained from the Crusaders that assaulted it. Further, have you considered that the Muslims pushed in so far because of memories of the Crusades? Now that’s blowback.

          1. Did the Muslims ever stop pushing?

            If a man assaults you on the street, and finally you start hitting him back, would you assume that the man if now fighting you because you hit him, or is he just continuing his attack?

            1. Before that, the only European entity those Muslims were fighting was Byzantium. At the time, the Caliphate had fractured I think and the ones they were (unjustly) fighting in Spain were of a different caliphate. It is a shame that the Muslims of Spain lost they were a superior civilization at the time.

              1. Well you have to get through Byzantium before you can go into Hungary or Austria if you’re coming from the east, or you have to go through Spain if you’re coming from the west What a coincidence both those places were under assault by Muslims.

                Perhaps the Muslim armies should have just stayed in the Arabian peninsula instead of invading Christian Egypt, or Christian and Zoroastrian Babylon, etc..

                1. Well if Christian Europe wanted to really stop the Muslims then they should have sent reinforcements to Byzantinium instead of the Levant and not fucked over Byzantium.

          2. Actually ‘blowback’ wasn’t the reason, it’s because Constantinople was always a major conquest goal in Islam because Muhammad supposedly talked about it in a hadith. Mehmed and other Islamic rulers specifically targeted the Byzantines for a sense of legitimacy.

        3. +1 Gates of Vienna

      2. Crusading Christian Cannibalism.

        Cannibal Christians! The sequel to Cannibal Girls!

        http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069841/

    5. Wow. Way too much love for Islam here.

      Islam attacked and conquered BEFORE the Crusades started. There is no way to say that the Crusades were not a response to these invasions.

      Islam was not attacking Christendom–it was attacking the non-muslim infidels in the areas around the Dar al-Islam.

      And quite a few of them fell.

      Because they were not united–most were in various mutually hostile city-states.

      Making it about religion was the only way to get cooperation.

      And religion just barely kept it together.

      But none of that alters the simple fact that none of it would have happened if a conquering Islam didn’t throw the first blow.

  16. Attorneys release audio from a hearing last year in the I-want-cake case from Colorado. Bear in mind we’re talking about a baker who didn’t want to make a cake celebrating a same-sex union, and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission wants to punish the baker for this.

    Here is some wisdom from Diann Rice, the chairperson of the Civil Rights Commission, from last year’s hearing:

    “I would also like to reiterate what we said in?the last meeting [concerning Jack Phillips]. Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust? I mean, we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use ? to use their religion to hurt others.”

    http://www.alliancedefendingfr…..etail/8700

    1. It’s sad that freedom of religion has to be used in defense. They should just be able to say “I didn’t want to make them a cake.”, and that should be the end of it.

      1. Absolutely, but people fighting for their religious rights don’t want to wait in line behind Lester Maddox* for getting their rights.

        * Lester Maddox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…..rant_owner

    2. “Objection, Your Honor. Godwinning.”

    3. I’m with you here but just remember this the next time you want to compare a meter maid to the gestapo.

    4. Sorry, she’s not the chair of the committee, she’s a “Diann Rice, Rep. Community at Large, Loveland.”

      http://cdn.colorado.gov/cs/Sat…..1629085306

    5. Did nobody ask her to explain her claim that freedom of religion was used to justify slavery and the Holocaust?

      I would have loved to have that on record.

      1. So the Nazis believed in the freedom of religion?

        1. That’s what I’d like to hear her explain. What religion were the Nazi’s practicing that justified(required?) the Holocaust?

    6. I’m curious, would it be okay for a black baker to refuse to bake a cake for a KKK rally?

      1. Would it be kosher for a Muslim baker to refuse to bake a cake for a bar mitzvah? For celebration of Diwali?

        This is really, really insane.

        1. Having made the personal accquantance of a Muslim baker (from Syria…his Baklava is unbelievably good), so far, he’s been happy to take my money in exchange for baked goods to be used in any context.

      2. Can I insist a Jewish caterer bring me ham sandwiches on a Saturday?

    7. I would also like to reiterate what we said in?the last meeting [concerning Jack Phillips]. Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust…

      What excuse did the Soviets have then? How about the Cambodians? The North Koreans? All ostensibly “non-religious” regimes and yet all carrying out ruthless purges and oppressions and having murdered more human beings in one century than the Roman Church did in ten?

      I would say to Ms. Rice, goofy bitch that she is, is that people die, have died, and will continue die, because those who have power desire their deaths. The justification, whether it is “God commanded it” or “terrorist” or “witch” or “enemy of the people’s revolution” comes after the determination that their deaths furthered the interests of the powerful.

      If you can list “hundreds” of situations where “freedom of religion” has been used to justify discrimination, I can list thousands of situations where people have had their lives stolen because some king, priest, bureaucrat or “chairperson” refused to part one quantum of power.

    8. Wait. Freedom of religion was used to justify slavery and the Holocaust? Sure, there were religious justifications for the former (not sure that really was the justification for the latter), but the freedom part isn’t really a factor.

  17. I’ve just been informed that there are now only either vegan or gluten free Thin Mints cookies.

    BURN IT ALL DOWN.

    Except the Samoas of course.

    1. My understanding is that Thin Mints were unintentionally vegan either all along or for a good while. I think maybe that’s just become generally realized.

      1. Well, shit.

        *attempts to put it all out*

        1. *throws fire extinguisher at fire*

          1. *trips over fire hose, falls face first into fire extinguisher, and catches on fire, running wildly in.circles*

            1. *activates GoPro?*

            2. *picks up fire axe, looks at db and wonders if this what it’s for*

              1. *Trying to dial 911 but failing due to the tears of hysterical laughter filling my eyes*

                1. *Had to pee anyway, might as well try to help db out*

                  1. *records trshmnster’s “help”, makes small fortune on niche fetish sites*

                    1. *reminds Jesse that this will be the 15th edition of Golden Streams and Fiery Screams, and my royalty rate is unchanged from last time*

                    2. *reminds trshmnster that the industry is in decline and there isn’t as much money in it, yells “you’re breakin’ my balls here” and relents, agreeing to trshmnster’s terms*

                    3. It’s good to remember that a shitload of junk food is vegan already. My wife has experimented with veganism (for dietary reasons) and found all sorts of foods you’d be surprised to find are vegan kosher. Including Thin Mints.

      2. When I’m feeling masochistic, I sometimes invite my associates within the vegan subculture community (whose attitudes toward the world are suspiciously similar to my fundamentalist family) to explain why they dislike unintentional vegan foods and clothing rather than real vegan victuals and clothes.

        You know you’ve been drinking the libertarian water for a long time when you’re surprised that someone cares about a stranger’s intentions.

    2. Check out Keebler Grasshoppers and Coconut Dreams. Available year round at your grocery store.

      Grasshoppers are not exactly thin mints, they’re more like fat mints. But they’re still excellent.

      1. I have four – FOUR! – boxes of those delicious Tagalongs and two boxes of Trefoils coming.

        Mmmmmm – I’ll have them gone in less than a week!

        Paging SugarFree’s doctor! Paging SugarFree’s doctor!

        1. I love them all, but especially the Do-Si-Dos and the Trefoils. Thin mints are awesome too.

      2. This is a secret, but Walmart sells a private label thin mint product that’s pretty much the same thing.

      1. I knew there was a reason I liked you. Besides the yiff pics, of course.

      2. Have you tried the Samoa ice cream that Breyer’s makes?

        1. the Samoa ice cream that Breyer’s makes

          Wait, what?!?

      3. 21comments about icecream and cookies?

        Bunch of goddamn fatties.

  18. http://chicagomaroon.com/2015/…..-the-free/

    ^ Re-Post! Please take our free speech rights, say idiots.

    “On December 12, President Zimmer and Provost Eric Isaacs detailed new steps the University will be taking to address issues of diversity and inclusion, including the establishment of two new campus climate surveys focused on gaining insight on issues pertaining to cases of sexual misconduct and underrepresented groups on campus. Given the fearful climate that many students have cited in the past few months, the University must take the issues of diversity and inclusion into account when writing about the importance of free speech. It is not enough for the University to simply reiterate its commitment to free speech; it must also discuss its nuances and where the lines between acceptable and unacceptable speech fall.

    Freedom of expression is essential to a productive and creative learning environment. This means students must be prepared to listen to opinions that differ from their own. Speech that challenges commonly held assumptions can be beneficial. Hate speech benefits no one because it seeks only to tear down, not to build up. The University needs to directly address hate speech for the good of productive discourse.”

    1. We needed to destroy the freedom to save it.

      1. I just love these rebellious, devil may care college students.

        They should make an update of Animal House where the college kids angrily denounce Dean Wermer for failing to shut down Alpha Delta Phi when everyone knew they were spreading hate speech and rape culture.

        1. I think you’ve just described the movie PCU

          1. +1 Caine-Hackman theory

    2. I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right to not hear you say it.

      1. I laughed out loud.

    3. I would be more inclined to believe there is a fearful climate on the U Chicago campus because it is a small bubble surrounded by one of the most dangerous inner-city areas anywhere in the USA. I recall friends who went there talking about the multiple locks on dorm room doors.

      I can’t imagine there are students there more frightened by what happens on their campus compared to what happens just a block outside.

      1. Microaggressions are mightier than the bullets.

      2. Once I visited a friend on the U Chicago campus who bragged that the most dangerous neighborhood in Chicago was to the East of his dormitory and the third most dangerous one was to the South.

        1. To the east of his dormitory, the neighborhood would have been Hyde Park, and beyond that, Lake Michigan.

          Lake Michigan is a pretty dangerous neighborhood though, if you’re a ship transporting lumber in the winter in the late 19th or early 20th century.

          1. Shit. I meant to the West.

            1. Well, to the West is… yeah, it’s bad.

              1. “On the South Side, yeah, they’ll kill ya. But on the West Side, they will kill ya and then do shit to your body after that”

                /IDOC Parole officer circa 1995.

  19. Fuck everyone for everything.

    I just thought that needed saying.

    Please return to your normal duties.

    1. FEFE – could be a new H&R meme to add to our list . . .

  20. So my son got Destiny for Christmas and I’ve been playing one of the characters on it. Easy mindless fun. Except the PVP part of it. I cannot understand how awful I am at this game mode. It makes me sad that 10 year olds are blowing me to pieces and giggling about it.

    1. It’s easily one of the more frustrating PvP I’ve ever played.I really hate it. The co-op missions are a lot of fun though.

      I seriously think that lag time has a lot to do with it. I have one game out of ten where I’ll go 25 and 5, and the rest of the time I’m lucky if I break even.

      Also, my understanding is that health and weapon damage are normalized, but the perks that come with your armor, your weapons, and your class are not. So some people are just really good at using those slight advantages.

    2. You bought a shitty game. Thanks for encouraging the production of more shitty games.

  21. Here’s an article where Slate, pretending it has and understanding of science, triumphantly declares that there was never a pause in global warming because of a ‘reconstruction’ study. I implore you to watch the video part way down and and come to your own conclusion.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad…..exist.html

    My conclusion: holy fuck only in ‘climate science’ can you reconstruct your data and have it be totally okay, and only liberals are dumb enough to use this as a cudgel. Bonus: the data gaps this study are not present in the satellite record which has an unequivocal pause. SO they are trying to fix a non-problem with the non-solution of making shit up.

    1. I stopped reading where they claim most of the extra heat is going into deep ocean water.

      The global warmists have become indistinguishable from those guys who publish ‘science’ books with illustrations of Jesus preaching while sitting on the back of a tyrannosaurus.

      Ok it is slate, a bunch of fuckin’ pinko pieces of shit who still think global warming will be the magic bullet to kill capitalism. So there is that.

  22. Bring back the good ol’ days of earmarks! Give the two institutional parties more power! That’ll fix Congress!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZBoW1Wq2pA

    1. See, if your video autoplays, you put a trigger warning on it. Simple as that.

    2. The following autoplay: John Elway firing John Fox. Because Peyton can’t play in the cold?

  23. Just as Muslims are denouncing the Hebdo attacks, so must libertarians denounce and cast out Ron Paul. Ron Paul is deranged. He does not love liberty he just hates ‘intervention’ without rhyme or reason. He is a threat to the liberty movement and must thrown out like the rest of the Rothtard-Rockwell trash he fits in with.

    1. I campained for him during his last presidential run, but since then have come to the conclusion that he is as nutty a Jimmy “Israel is the reason for the Charlie Hedbo massacre” Carter.

      1. Paul the senior has always pushed too far on his basically isolationist retoric. Now that he’s not running for anything, he can let his freak flag fly.

        Somewhere right now, Rand is muttering “C’mon, Dad, shut the fuck up!”

        1. Yeah if anything will sink a Rand presidential run it will be his father.

          1. I’ve been wondering if that’s the reason he isn’t running.

    2. I just want to quote this so everyone ponders the comparison our friend Cytotoxic makes here:

      Just as Muslims are denouncing the Hebdo attacks, so must libertarians denounce and cast out Ron Paul.

      Then, deliciously,

      Ron Paul is deranged.

      Just let it hang there for a moment. Really savor it. It’s not every day that posts like this appear.

      1. Go ahead. Quote me. It doesn’t change my point. I’m still right.

        1. So comparing the necessity of Muslim’s rejection of murder to the necessity of a libertarian rejection of Ron Paul for his many crimes against Post-Eisenhower “conservatism” libertarianism is perfectly reasonable in the world of Cytotoxic.

          I know the internet was made for kooks and braggarts, but you’re really setting the bar high for the rest of us here.

    3. He’s saying the same things he’s been talking about since the ’70s.

      1. Ron Paul: consistently insane and now more detached from reality than ever!

    4. I don’t get it… is it critical that every attack by Muslim extremists be attributable to “blowback”?

      If it wasn’t blowback in this case, would that somehow argue for interventionism?

      1. Don’t you know that only Western, Christian, White, Heterosexual males, are held toward any sort of moral outrage. Only they can be villains everyone else is in some sort of victim group.

      2. While I think we’ve done some stupid or even merely imprudent things that have made some needless enemies and/or made us the focus of previously only nominal enemies, these guys are mostly murderous whackjobs without our help.

        It’s worth remembering that there are plenty of cultures that disapprove of the U.S. or the West in general that don’t feel the need to kill our citizens indiscriminately.

      3. It’s the savage theory of minorities. The same social darwinism that gave us eugenics is still clinging to life in both parties by removing human agency from poor people, brown people, black people and anybody else who isn’t an “evil oppressor” (as defined by a bunch of rich white elites). They don’t call them savages anymore, but that same condescension and disgust has morphed into a sick pity.

    5. Cytotoxic whips out his war boner and yells at you to get off his grass

  24. I dont think Uber Jo mAn is going to like that.

    http://www.Web-Privacy.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.