Rolling Stone Sued Over Rape Story, Verizon to Buy AOL, Dems Attack Trade Deal: P.M. Links

|

  • Do we need a trigger warning for images that inspire rage, not trauma?
    Rolling Stone

    An associate dean at University of Virginia has filed suit against Rolling Stone magazine over its now-thoroughly-discredited campus gang rape story. She alleges that the story represented her as callous and indifferent to the "incident."

  • The White House said today it supports the USA Freedom Act, which would add restrictions to the National Security Agency's bulk data collection processes and end mass gathering of Americans' phone records.
  • Verizon will be buying AOL for $4.4 billion dollars. Yes, people still use AOL to connect to the internet. The purchase also includes the Huffington Post and some other sites.
  • Senate Democrats spoke out today against the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade bill until their particular interests are pandered to.
  • Deputies in Riverside County, California, have been responding very positively to their test run with body cameras. The details are vague, but apparently the cameras have a calming effect on the people they're interacting with.
  • One of the officers charged in Freddie Gray's death in Baltimore had a nasty feud with his ex-girlfriend's husband and attempted to use the law inappropriately to punish the guy.
  • The sheriff of Cuyahoga County in Ohio has announced that that their investigation into the death of Tamir Rice, 12, killed by Cleveland Police, is nearly done.

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

NEXT: 'Competitor's Veto' for Taxi Services Killed in Montana

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. The White House said today it supports the USA Freedom Act…

    Because we’re just gonna ignore it anyway.

    1. Hello.

      Here’s hoping Rolling Stone will fast become Spending Stone.

    2. It’s a student counsel resolution.

      1. council. Whatever, NAZIS.

      2. Way to mock their trials…

  2. Verizon will be buying AOL for $4.4 billion dollars.

    Note to self: Dump Verizon stock.

    1. What asets does AOL have? Serious question.

      1. Oh. Huffpo. I mean, I guess its an asset. Financially.

        1. I actually had a look at the site last month. Jesus. I’l never get that time back.

        2. Think they have pretty decent traffic on their home page and still have a good number of e-mail users. And they own some stuff.

      2. The email accounts of every geezer on the internet.

      3. Billions of start-up CDs that can be sold off as novelty drinks coasters, or suncatchers.

      4. Kramer broke it down pretty well this AM on Squawk on the Street…

        http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000378834

      5. Ad network.

      6. HuffPo, Engadget, TechCrunch, and a variety of other content sites. It also has a decent-sized ad network. Those two — ads and content — are what Verizon is most likely interested in.

        For what little their worth, it owns some brands that you might not have known still existed, like Moviefone and MapQuest. And as mentioned, they make a lot of money every year on legacy dialup subscribers.

        1. *they’re worth

    2. Heard on the news this morning that AOL still provides 5 million dial up connections to customers.

      1. And they all read HuffPo.

        1. I can’t imagine that abortion of a site would ever load on a dial up connection.

          1. Talk of dial up always reminds me of the old clip: If “24” took place in 1994.

            1. Comcast has done nothing for anyone.

              /Stormy

            2. That’s two minutes of my life I’ll never get back….

              /only made it about 1/2 way

              1. You missed the part where there was a mole inside CTU:

                “He’s got control of our geocities page.”

                “God help us all.”

                1. The part where someone picks up the phone and disrupts the internet connection was hilarious and something I’d completely forgotten about. Also where they shut down because they were paying for internet by the hour.

                  I can’t even imagine trying to explain some of those things to my son. And to think that 1994 only seems like a few years ago — based on this it seems like a century ago.

            3. I’ve never seen 24, so I’ll skip it.

      2. AOL still bills for 5 million dial-up connections. I’m guessing they still provide about 5. The rest of those accounts are autodrafts from the checking accounts of senile and/or dead people.

        1. Exactly why the AOL merger is going to be so profitable. Dead people can’t cancel their accounts.

  3. Senate Democrats spoke out today against the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade bill until their particular interests are pandered to.

    Obama filibustered on his own petard.

    1. I don’t watch news on TV, but I assume he is being taken to the woodshed for this amazing rebuke by his own party. Or are the Republicans are being blamed?

  4. “An associate dean at University of Virginia has filed suit against Rolling Stone”

    The real victim here: UVA administrators.

    1. While I am no fan of the UVA administration based on their mishandling of this, I hope the lawyers grab Jan Wenner’s motherfucking leg.

      1. Sullivan did a poor job, but it sounds like Eramo is rightly going to tackle Rolling Stone and Erdlely through a glass table.

        1. Erdely’s friends will probably just tell her not to tell anyone about it though if she ever wants to get invited to parties again.

      2. They have a very interesting legal strategy.

    2. They were the actual targets of the fraud. The fraternity was just collateral damage.

  5. Yes, people still use AOL to connect to the internet.

    Name *one* person.

    1. Hillary.

      1. Are you *certain*?

        1. Only on her one handheld device.

      2. You’ve Got Bribes

    2. My older brother; he’s 65.

  6. An associate dean at University of Virginia has filed suit against Rolling Stone magazine over its now-thoroughly-discredited campus gang rape story. She alleges that the story represented her as callous and indifferent to the “incident.”

    Sometimes the truth hurts, patriarch! (wait, “she”? what?)

  7. “One of the officers charged in Freddie Gray’s death in Baltimore had a nasty feud with his ex-girlfriend’s husband and attempted to use the law inappropriately to punish the guy.”

    And once again, American police abuses are first reported on in a British newspaper! Go team!

    1. Fleet Street doesn’t have to worry about its reporters being arrested by them, or being denied access to juicy stories by them.

      1. That’s probably part of it. But I suspect a bigger part is the popularity of “look how violent/stupid/fat Americans are” stories. Helps distract from the awful state of things over there.

        1. That, too, Zeb.

  8. http://www.weeklystandard.com/…..44873.html

    So is Obama a sexist for going after Elizabeth Warren or is Warren a racist who can’t handle the fact that there is a black President?

    1. Warren is a racist unless or until she wins the Dem nomination at which point she will be the sexist victim of a lame-duck president.

      1. She just can’t handle a strong black man. Native Americans never have accepted black civil rights and power in this country.

      2. She’s 7/8ths racist

    2. Is this what they mean by intersectionality?

      1. [golf clap]

        Yeah, I’m going to start hammering that intersectionality bullshit in comments on other fora.

      2. What is intersectionality? Seriously, I have never heard that.

        1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

          Enjoy. Or not. First sentence:

          Intersectionality (or intersectionalism) is the study of intersections between forms or systems of oppression, domination or discrimination.

          On the up side, it’s entirely possible that the entire grievance industry may consume itself in a maelstrom of intellectual cannibalism.

          1. Never cross the streams.

            1. It would be bad.

          2. It is the same thing that always happens to leftists, they always need an enemy so they always turn on each other eventually.

            1. See; Trotskyites, counter-revolutionaries, Robespierre.

              They’re all splitters.

          3. “intellectual cannibalism” – in this case that would be pretty thin gruel.

        2. Think of the Warren/Obama dustup as The Grievance Singularity

    3. It’s the Koch brothers that are making them do this.

    4. The left’s new focus on sexism is basically a distraction to keep their masses from paying attention to all the civil liberties and war abuses that the Democrat administration is committing.

      And the libertarian crowd (and conservatives) has been caught addressing this distraction, as opposed to maintaining focus on constitutional abuses and the erosion of the rule of law.

      Guess who grabbed whose motherf***ing leg?

    1. Big chief knock around prize squaw.

      1. + 1 trail of tears

  9. She alleges that the story represented her as callous and indifferent to the “incident.”

    I thought the whole point was that there was no incident.

    1. That there was no incident makes the libel even slimier, doesn’t it?

    2. Jackie did in fact report something to the woman who is suing, and that woman did have to deal with it.

      1. Jackie: “I’d like to report a savage gang rape.”
        Admin: “Oh, wow. On our campus? That’s horrible. Who were the perpetrators?”
        Jackie: “I can’t say”
        Admin: “OK, did you report this to the police?”
        Jackie: “No.”
        Admin: “Do you have any proof that this occurred?”
        Jackie: “OMG I FEELZ ZO TRIGGERDZZZZZ!1!1!11!!!”

    3. There may well have been an incident. Just not one that has any relation to the one published in RS.

      1. The incident was that a utterly deranged sociopath cooked up a completely unbelievable rape fantasy in order to catfish a guy she had a crush on into being her white knight. Everyone who knew her knew the story was complete and total bullshit and acted appropriately. She ends up reporting version 1.2 of the story to the university and they expected evidence and names; Jackie just couldn’t even.

        Rape advocate/whatever student ditchcunt hears about some Rolling Stone dumb cunt trolling for rape stories, introduces the deranged sociopath and dumb cunt. Story written and published. Story so fantastically absurd to anybody with a partially functioning brain that it is immediately questioned and just as immediately collapses.

        Blah, blah, blah Columbia J-school!!!!, credentials!!!!, rape denialist!!!!, blah.

        1. No one would ever believe such a crazy story. Our studio’s going to pass.

    4. I thought the whole point was that there was no incident.

      I “wish” Scott had used punctuation often used to confer a sense of incredulity or to attribute a characterization to someone else.

  10. The details are vague, but apparently the cameras have a calming effect on the people they’re interacting with.

    And they don’t turn some of the population into reavers.

  11. She alleges that the story represented her as callous and indifferent to the “incident.”

    The incident being?

    1. The incident being Jackie’s complaint to the UVA admin.

      1. You people are killing me. Literally killing me.

        1. Does that mean you won’t be posting first tomorrow?

          1. He has an estate lawyer for that.

            1. Look, his will was very specific. If I’m to get his extensive collection of makeshift pringles can fleshlights, I have to continue his legacy of first posts.

              1. Secondhand fleshlights. Now that’s a fetish.

  12. And if you really want to troll the fuck out of these people just say

    “I just want to point out that when the Democrats had a white President who wanted a trade deal, the Democrats in Congress stood by him and didn’t stab him in the back. “

    1. I promise you the answer would be: “If even Democrats have unconscious racist tendencies, imagine the actual racism of Rapubicams!”

    2. Didn’t a majority of Dems vote against NAFTA?

      1. They didn’t filibuster it. And there were enough Dems and Republicans to do it. But when there was a white President, the Dems let there be an up or down vote. Apparently only black Democratic Presidents don’t deserve an up or down vote on their trade agreements.

  13. Ha, ha.

    Obama goes after people who send their kids to private school.

    http://twitchy.com/2015/05/12/…..ool-video/

    This guy.

    1. You were on that page and didn’t link to Jessica Valenti being a fucking idiot?

      “Jessica Valenti ?@JessicaValenti
      The guy next to me on the subway was checking Twitter; he followed almost all the same people I did but NO WOMEN. Passive sexism is for real”

      In the 15 seconds I spied on a random man’s twitter feed, I didn’t see any women tweet. PATRIARCHY

      1. It won’t happen again.

      2. Sargon of Akkad has taught me that Jessica Valenti is a national treasure.

      3. That tweet was the saddest thing I read today.

        1. But was it…the worst?

      4. It must be really hard living in her head. Imagine if you were the sole arbiter of morality and there were so many people to judge and so little time. I’d be a wreck. Thankfully, I don’t suffer from that form of mental illness.

      5. “Moreover, I noticed one of the tweets was ‘would u do @JessicaValenti’.”

      6. A Valenti tweet from last year:

        The court basically ruled women on the subway have no expectation of privacy -this is what happens when your body is seen as public property

      7. Wait, if he followed almost all the same people as she does, does she not follow women either?

        1. They all block her

      8. Passive sexism Peak shithead is for real

    2. Many socialists are vehemently opposed to private schools. Apparently they want all of us to go down with the ship.

      1. They are totalitarians. Everything must be a part of the state.

        1. Their totalitarianism is why they want us to give up our guns.

      2. They are opposed to private schools like Soviet communist party was opposed to private shops.
        There were no private shops in USSR, just that party functionaries had shops of their own, that only they could use, and that had actual stuff.

        1. Those hard currency store were still state-run, but offered better goods and services.

          1. That was my point, yes 🙂

            They want all schools to be state-run, because they know their state-run schools will be better than the ones for the plebs.

      3. They say their aim is to fix public schools by forcing everyone to attend them. Only when the children of the upper classes are educated there will the upper classes do anything to fix them.

        That, of course, ignores the fact that the lower end of what they consider the upper classes, those who can’t afford private schooling, regularly do try to fix the schools and are regularly thwarted and denounced by the teachers unions.

        1. upper class families will just use private tutors and home schooling. problem solved. (for them)

          1. Oh, they want to go after home schooling, too, but they’ll have a tough time with that. Private tutoring will be harder to kill, especially since it will be public schoolteachers doing a lot of that – no conflict of interest there, folks.

            1. I don’t see most teachers I know working that kind of overtime.

              1. I do, and it’s not OT, it’s a side gig which is independent of the schools. Very independent. Cash only. Word of mouth. Waiting list.

                IOW, they accept cash under the table to give the kids the attention they should have gotten in school. Duly noted that the tutors sometimes tutor kids from other schools, classroom teachers have to spend time enforcing BS rules, etc.

        2. They say their aim is to fix public schools by forcing everyone to attend them. Only when the children of the upper classes are educated there will the upper classes do anything to fix them.

          I know SO many people who actually believe this. It is just another prog fairy tale, like if only the top .001% paid proper taxes, it would be easy to fund any Democratic initiative.

    3. That’s just for other people. He’s being a libertarian for himself.

      1. I’m sure he will be given a special pass because the security needs of presidential children would overwhelm a public school. And whatever you do, don’t mention that the Carters sent their kid to DC Public schools.

        1. Yeah, but look how that turned out.

    4. It should also be mentioned that Punahou is one of the most elite, preppy schools in Hawaii. It’s a huge campus outfitted with a ton of resources, and the student body is generally made up of elitist douchebags.

      And I’m not just saying that because I went to the small Catholic school across the street. And Punahou used us for overflow parking for their big events. No, I’m saying it as an objective observer. It is the closest thing Hawaii has to a Sidwell Friends type of school.

  14. apparently the cameras have a calming effect on the people they’re interacting with.

    That, my friends, is how you do deadpan humor. Very nicely done.

    1. But it could be literally true: perhaps the people interacting with police are on better behavior when they know they are being taped.

      1. That would make sense.

  15. Tom Brady’s agent is a clown show. How does someone with that much money manage to hire someone this stupid?

    http://blog.masslive.com/patri…..ensio.html

    Yeah, the NFL conspired to entrap and disgrace one of its most marketable stars. They do it all of the time. Its like that time they framed Roger Staughbach for gambling.

    1. The Pats would be wise to reconfigure their image.

      Might I suggest the New England Patriarchs?

      1. If Brady had just been a man about it instead of a crap weasel and just said he told them to do it but didn’t realize they were going to break the rules, the entire thing would have blown over. The Patriots only got slammed because the entire organization told the league to go fuck itself. Bob Kraft apparently thinks none of the rules should ever apply to his team.

        1. Who deflated the Colts’ balls?

      1. Project Iron Scrotum

        1. “Ah, the old bulletproof cup routine.”

          “Back in my day we used blanks. You’re a sick fuck, Mac. “

          1. Cannot wait for the new one.

            1. Huh…. new one?!?!?!

              1. Their Kickstarter campaign raised a shitload of money and apparently they are greenlit for some sort of matching amount from a studio. Don’t know about distribution and marketing though.

      2. Of course, it’s always been MLB that doctors the balls to make home runs more common.

    2. Hey, it’s working for Hilary!

    3. Who deflated the Colts’ balls, John?

      1. They weren’t deflated, not outside of the rules anyway. And again, why on earth would the NFL have a vendetta against its winningest franchise?

        1. The Colts’ balls also lost pressure between kickoff and halftime.

          Who deflated them?

          They didn’t fall below 12.5, but they lost pressure.

          How did they lose pressure?

          Who deflated them?

          1. The lack of global warming likely deflated the balls. As T drops, P drops.

          2. Absolute or gauge? Does it matter in an elastic bladder?

        2. And again, why on earth would the NFL have a vendetta against its winningest franchise?

          I think the league overcommitted to the concept of an investigation, and would have been embarrassed to admit the truth:

          The Colts’ and Patriots’ balls both lost air pressure, and there’s no way to tell if the Patriots’ balls were deliberately deflated, because all they had to go by were the game officials’ general recollections about where the balls initially tested at.

          If they admit that both the Colts’ and Patriots’ balls lost pressure just because, then that makes them look stupid for not realizing that balls would behave in this way. Because I’m willing to bet that game balls lost pressure during the game in every game played in low temperatures since the fucking beginning of the league.

          And the league benefits from this report. The whole country is talking about the NFL…in May.

          The ratings the league will get for Patriots’ game 5 will be much higher than they would have been.

          Blowing the Patriots up into a league of super villains benefits the league.

          1. And jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel!

            1. I’m going by Wells’ own report.

              The ball measurements are the only real “fact” we have. There are 244 worthless pages and 1 important page in the whole report. It fucking stuns me that the only important part of the report is the part they want to gloss over.

              Here is the fucking comedy they want us to accept:

              1. They don’t have starting measurements for any of the balls, because nobody wrote them down. They “think they remember” that the Patriots’ balls were near 12.5, and the Colts’ balls were near 13.5.

              2. They measure the Patriots’ balls at halftime, and they have lost air pressure. SCANDAL! IT MUST BE CHEATING! SOMEONE DEFLATED THESE BALLS!

              3. They measure 4 of the Colts’ balls, and those balls have ALSO lost pressure. This is somehow NOT a scandal and NOT evidence that someone deflated the balls.

              4. They stop measuring the Colts’ balls. “Ooopsie, no time for more measurements! The Patriots’ balls and these 4 Colts’ balls lost pressure, but there’s no need to measure the other balls! Alert the league that the Patriots have been cheating! CHEATERS CHEATERS CHEATERS CHEATERS!”

              Seriously, if fucking climate scientists pulled shit like this (“We don’t know what the starting measurement was, but we’re pretty sure the air got hotter!”) you would recognize it and call it out in a fucking heartbeat.

              1. IOW: waah.

    4. Like the people who apparently believe the NHL rigged its draft lottery to send “generational talent” Connor McDavid to Edmonton rather than Boston, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, or Toronto. Conspiracy theorists are on the stupid side of crazy.

  16. Horror as woman is crushed by 4 tonne digital advertising billboard

    The woman, who is believed to have been walking to work while on her phone, was hit by the huge metal advertising hoarding after it broke free from a wall and fell 20ft during the early rush hour.

    Emphasis added. BAN IT!

    1. When a billboard falls out of the sky and crushes you, it was your day to die, phone or no.

      1. At least it was a *digital* advertising billboard.

    2. Whatsup?

    3. I think one of the Final Destination movies ended like that.

    4. If only it had been a billboard of a giant foot advertising Spamalot.

  17. The sheriff of Cuyahoga County in Ohio has announced that that their investigation into the death of Tamir Rice, 12, killed by Cleveland Police, is nearly done.

    This has to be disappointing to the Cleveland police. Usually it doesn’t take nearly this long for the excuse to be written.

    1. Browns fan Tamir Rice will be let down one more time.

    2. That’s going to be fun.

  18. I am going to attempt* to preempt Coeus/GMSM/Irish, as I am sure one of them would bring this to your attention.

    Today, super serious feminist Jessica Valenti posted this on Twitter. She was thoroughly lambasted and of course did not have the self-awareness to realize how dumb that tweet was.

    *they probably posted it in another thread

    1. And I failed. But at least I guessed correctly!

    2. “Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns|5.12.15 @ 4:37PM

      You were on that page and didn’t link to Jessica Valenti being a fucking idiot?

      “Jessica Valenti ?@JessicaValenti
      The guy next to me on the subway was checking Twitter; he followed almost all the same people I did but NO WOMEN. Passive sexism is for real”

      In the 15 seconds I spied on a random man’s twitter feed, I didn’t see any women tweet. PATRIARCHY”

      I’m actually kind of ashamed.

      1. That still isn’t as good as Sally Cohen calling the guy who gave her a break and let her on the MTA after she had forgotten her fair a racist. Cohen really is in a league above even Valenti and Marcotte.

      2. Proud. The correct spelling is proud.

        I think it’s cool how most everyone who posts regularly has a distinct personality, to the point where I bet people could figure out who was posting what, even if the squirrels blacked out folks’ names.

    3. Lil Divil ?@DivilsAdvocate 5h5 hours ago
      @JessicaValenti so if you don’t immediately see female tweets whilst EAVESDROPPING that proves sexism? How fucked are you?

      Nailed. It.

      1. A lot fucked Tonio. A whole lot fucked.

        1. Hey man, YOU try carrying the burden of wrapping Christmas presents! You have no idea what that poor woman has to go through every year.

      2. Maybe he was gay. Punch down much, Jessica Valenti?

  19. The sheriff of Cuyahoga County in Ohio has announced that that their investigation into the death of Tamir Rice, 12, killed by Cleveland Police, is nearly done.

    Let’s take bets. Indictment/no indictment, acquittal/conviction, riots/no riots?

    1. I say indictment, conviction on some lesser charge like involuntary manslaughter and some laughable punishment like 2 years of probation, no riots.

    2. Ima say Indictment, acquittal, riots.

    3. No indictment, no riots. At least this guy is smart enough to keep the investigation open until after the funeral is long past.

    4. No indictment, officer fired (gets his job back on appeals). Some riots.

    5. I’m a dreamer: indictment/conviction/no riots.

    6. Is “Scot fucking free to kill again” an option? Because that’s what I’m going with.

    7. Indictment, acquittal, victory parade by the CPD.

    8. riots will be weather dependent. If we are back in the 80’s with nighttime temps around 70, you betcha. Although you may be safer at night there with a crowd around.

  20. The details are vague, but apparently the cameras have a calming effect on the people they’re interacting with.

    Police were present, citizens were filmed, and nothing else happened.

    It’s like enacting the ACA and declaring it a success; all they have to do is get rid of some of their previous policing statistics and *viola* their body camera idea worked.

    1. That actually is not surprising. You have to remember that as bad as cops are, a lot of people are belligerent assholes too. And the knowledge that everything they are doing is being filmed and could be shown to a judge or jury most certainly will give a few of them pause for thought.

      1. Yes. I know a guy who tried to bait a black state trooper into beating him trying to have a way out of a DUI, just throwing around the worst racist shit he could come up with. He said the trooper said, “I’m gonna do it!” And his partner said, “oh shit” and then the first guy aded terroristic threats to the DUI. Which I think got dropped on plea with a really good lawyer and an eloquent apology letter. But yeah, there are often multiple assholes in any interaction between cops and non-cops.

      2. I don’t think it’s surprising.

        I think it’s counterfactual to assume that cops are never assholes and that the filming hasn’t/doesn’t quell some of that and that you have to be fantastically statist and/or egomaniacal to posit the sole driving force behind any response is the citizens/perps.

        Maybe not in the specific jurisdiction, but generally, belligerent asshole civilians/perps weren’t exactly the impetus for the cameras.

        1. They are all assholes. Cops and the people they mostly deal with are all the fucking dregs of humanity. I don’t like any of them.

      3. I would imagine that anyone retarded enough to pick a fight with the cops would potentially be too retarded to worry about being recorded. But I could be wrong (see Brett below).

  21. “One of the officers charged in Freddie Gray’s death in Baltimore had a nasty feud with his ex-girlfriend’s husband and attempted to use the law inappropriately to punish the guy.”

    The link goes to the U.S. edition of the Guardian.

    Thank God for the English press, otherwise I wouldn’t know what was happening in the U.S.!

    1. What kind of a nut goes out with a cop’s ex girlfriend? There are plenty of women who don’t have sociopath ex boyfriends and husbands who have the power of the state behind them. No thanks.

  22. What does this comment section need?

    Elizabeth Stoker Breunig

    “Welfare Is the Best Weapon Against Nepotism”

    …What. She then proceeds to attack conservatives by a) misrepresenting an argument from Kevin Williamson and b) holding up David Brooks as some sort of hero of conservatives even though they all hate him.

    “Nepotism is especially good at securing covetable slots in society?that is, jobs and positions that come with a great deal of wealth and cultural capital. Consider the Sony exec who bought his daughter into the Ivies: her degree, though purchased, will still out-prestige another candidate’s state school degree when it comes time to compete for jobs. (That is, if she even has to search for a job outside Sony.) To make sure that these rare and desirable slots are equally available to the rich and poor alike, one potential solution could be to assign them by lottery?which is the kind of bizarre answer that only seems likely to sweaty right-wing columnists plagued by leftist night terrors. A far more sensible solution would be to assemble a welfare regime that will guarantee that, no matter who you are, you can live a long and healthy life.”

    Holy mother of all fucktarded nonsequitors, Batman. I’d also like to point out that the person making this argument is a privileged rich girl who went to Brandeis and fucking Cambridge.

    1. You leave that sweet girl alone. She’s adorable and sweet and perfect and I WILL BREAK YOUR LEGS.

      1. She is so fucking cute.

        http://www.autisminvestigated……VMQEr.jpeg

        But she is evil Warty. She is not stupid, she is evil. But so damned cute.

        1. The fact that the link to a picture of ESB is to a website called “Autism Investigated” is just brilliant.

          1. If only she had that as an excuse. I know she is evil and epically ignorant, but I can’t help but want to try and save her and fix her. It is a good thing I got married because a white knight complex leads only to bad places and and deranged girlfriends slashing your tires.

          2. Jake Crosby’s site! That will come back to haunt her some day.

            1. http://www.autisminvestigated……r-bruenig/

              ^ HOLY FUCK, SHE’S ALSO IN A CRAZY FEUD WITH ANTI-VACCINATION LUNATICS!

              How does crazy ESB end up in so many feuds with other crazies?

              This article also proves once and for all that nothing raises your opinion of someone like reading an insane hit-piece against them.

              “When I was an undergraduate student at my and Bruenig’s alma mater of Brandeis University, I began an initiative to found a student group dedicated to raising awareness for autism spectrum disorders on campus. Bruenig wrote an article for a campus newspaper that gave sole credit for the founding of the club to someone else and none to me. This was in spite of the fact that Bruenig was well-aware of my involvement in the club, and it was I who originally introduced her to the person she credited. So I contacted the newspaper about the inaccuracy, and a correction was made to the piece. End of story, or so I thought.”

              This is easily the pettiest grudge I have ever read.

              1. Also, Brandeis should be ashamed of the fact that they educated Breunig AND a well-known anti-vaccination nutter at the same time.

                Raise your standards, Brandeis.

        2. I found her… unattractive… to use a euphemism.

          1. *nods aggressively*

        3. She’s definitely also stupid.

        4. Don’t you just want to hug the stupid out of her? All she needs is love, love, love is all she needs.

          1. Like I said, a white knight complex leads to bad places. Mostly with her killing your cats or filing a false rape report against you.

            1. This reminds me, Roosh V, the creepy as hell pickup artist, got in a hilarious feud with ESB because she kept mentioning him in her New Republic articles. He therefore asked his twitter followers “would you bang her?” and ESB proceeded to claim she was being threatened with rape.

              #greatmomentsintwitterhistory

              1. And of course she was secretly eating up all of the attention and the knowledge so many men would bang her. Hell, it wouldn’t surprise me if the Roose guy didn’t bang her on the condition he didn’t tell anyone.

                It would be so easy to manipulate one of these morons into bed. It would almost be unfair.

              2. Roosh V, the creepy as hell pickup artist,

                He can’t help being Armenian.

                I kid! I kid!

                1. Driving while swarthy is not a crime Mulatto.

                  1. That’s what I keep tell them, but they keep on mentioning things like “restraining order” and “100 yards from schools and public parks”.

                    1. You are just a victim of the man.

          2. “Don’t you just want to hug the stupid out of her”

            It doesn’t work. One of the hottest girls I went out with as a young man was not bright. Very sweet, just dumb. It took me two weeks to break it off because I was just hoping something was there that I was just missing. Unfortunately not the case.

            1. At least she wasn’t crazy.

            2. You fucked up.

              Very sweet, hot, sane, but dumb? You would likely have had the happiest marriage ever.

              You found a unicorn (hot, sweet, and sane) and dumped it because it’s horn was crooked.

        5. meh

      2. I don’t know what you people are on about. “Cute”? She looks like a completely unremarkable 12 year old.

        1. You are a hard man Zeb.

          http://www.livingchurch.org/si…..ge/Bruenig Elizabeth Stoker.jpg

          She is adorable. yeah, I know she would happily volunteer to work in a death camp if she and her ilk ever took over. But she would be a cute death camp guard.

          1. So she’s G-Rated Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS? And the camp would be pink, with electric fence also lit up with christmas lights?

            Actually that sounds cool. Fuck it, John, you are just coming up with movie idea gold today! You need to hit LA!

          1. So grateful it came out orange.

        2. That’s the point with these weirdos.

      3. You people need help

        1. I agree! You are all a bunch of super weirdos!

        2. Someone’s jelly.

          1. It’s true, I’ll never have the cute, innocent look that comes from having the approximate IQ of a stapler. But I’ve come to terms with that.

    2. I love that she conflates (a) parents who read to their kids and (b) nepotism, as if they are anything close to the same thing.

      1. I love that she says nepotism can be defeated by welfare and never comes close to even arguing that point since her actual argument is “let’s just allow nepotism to happen and also give people shitloads of welfare money.”

        1. What’s really tragic about this is that she developed this level of mentality not in spite of Brandeis and Cambridge but because of those two institutions. Forget their bias, few institutions are even capable of teaching logical thinking any more.

          1. She probably did well on her SAT or she wouldn’t have gotten into those places. So she was at one time probably a bright and hard working young girl. And those places transformed her into an angry ignorant fanatic. Those colleges have a negative value added. They take some of our best and brightest students and make them more ignorant, less rational, and worse in every way.

            1. She probably did well on her SAT or she wouldn’t have gotten into those places.

              Divinity student, dude. Divinity.

              1. She was a Divinity student? Ah she was fucked in the head from birth then.

    3. What does this comment section need?

      Elizabeth Stoker Breunig

      NO! NOOO!!!

    4. A far more sensible solution would be to assemble a welfare regime that will guarantee that, no matter who you are, you can live a long and healthy life.

      ESB, not just a socialist, but a utopian socialist… because not enough people have been led to the Killing Fields to have their skulls split open with farming hoes.

      1. Her “utopia” isn’t the same as your ‘utopia”.

    5. a welfare regime that will guarantee that, no matter who you are, you can live a long and healthy life

      Damn is she evil. She wants me to be healthy and get old? Fucking cruel and unusual.

      1. You are going to get old Nikki. But don’t worry, I will still think you are the bestest. Of course I will be old too. So no one will care what I think. But I still will think it.

        1. You’d better let me be as unhealthy as I want, at least.

          1. Don’t worry, Nicole. If I have any say you’ll die of liver cirrhosis at the age of 47 after a lifetime of over-drinking whiskey.

            Because that’s how much I care.

            1. Irish Whiskey?

              1. Why limit yourself?

                1. Well, you know, Viscount Irish.

    6. Consider the Sony exec who bought his daughter into the Ivies: her degree, though purchased, will still out-prestige another candidate’s state school degree when it comes time to compete for jobs. (That is, if she even has to search for a job outside Sony.)

      This is so retarded, many of the Ivies have incredible needs based scholarships, essentially they are pay what your parents can afford. They can do this because of people like this Sony exec who buy their children’s way in and/or pay full sticker price.

      1. They can do this because of people like this Sony exec who buy their children’s way in and/or pay full sticker price.

        More like they can do that because of the interest of their endowments and profits from public-private research enterprises. If every undergraduate at Harvard disappeared off the face of the Earth tomorrow, Harvard would still make tens of millions of dollars in profit, not revenue, each year.

        1. Supposedly those schools spend more than the ridiculous annual price-tag on each student. At least that’s what my alma mater claimed. So if all the undergrads disappeared, they could really clean up.

          I can’t quite figure out how they manage to spend all that money. Maybe they use it to heat the dorms.

    7. From comments: “In contrast The Clintons and Obama’s are a real American success story.They” built that” all themselves.{Maybe that is why republicans hate them?}They didnt come from wealthy or powerful families.Given the opportunity to participate at the highest levels they BOTH achieved and accomplished things { Clinton is a Rhodes scholar ,Obama the first black editor of the Harvard Law review and graduated with honors} all on their own.Of course some credit must go to the good schools they were lucky to attend and their middle-class status.”

      Cute.

      1. I can’t believe she gets paid for this crap.

        1. Barely. You think The New Republic is using a 24 year old because she’s expensive?

          1. Even that’s too much.

            The ignorance of history on display threatens the general welfare!

    8. One of the commenters takes the opportunity to flog Piketty’s book, as if it’s a big secret.

    9. I go to New Republic maybe once a quarter, but there is one crazy bitch who shits all over every comment section I see. Every. Single. One. What kind of life must you have to be able to do that?

  23. OK, I’ll risk posting this one –

    Anonymous pregnant Satanist in Missouri sues for the right to ignore the state’s abortion waiting-period and related laws. Her suit is based on the state Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Believe it or not, her Satanist beliefs are that she can abort at will – I’ll credit her with sincerity, she *is* a Satanist after all.

    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US…..431180271/

    This case seems to be prompting multiple smug-gasms on the Left. Here’s an op-ed by an executive at The Satanic Temple, the woman’s organization:

    “we feel that The Satanic Temple has already done much to reframe the ongoing debate regarding Religious Liberty, its uses and limits. Suddenly gone are the days in which Religious Privilege seemed to exist to the benefit of a single creed. All at once, the all-too-numerous flagrant theocrats holding public office across the nation are made to sullenly realize that Religious Liberty isn’t theirs alone. Hail Satan.”

    http://www.orlandoweekly.com/B…..strictions

    1. To complete the Retard Singularity, Amanda Marcotte praises the Satanists in Rolling Stone:

      “Silly rabbit! Didn’t anyone teach you that “religious liberty” means giving fundamentalists?especially male fundamentalists ? control over women’s bodies? Who on earth would think *women* have religious liberty, particularly over something so intimate as their beliefs regarding sex and reproduction?”

      http://www.rollingstone.com/po…..506?page=2

      That should show those bleevers! They’re, like, sooo inconsistent, it’s not as if they believe that laws against abortion are the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling government interest, the legal test for when it’s OK to curtail religious practices.

      Actually, the Satanist legal papers make my point for me:

      “An act motivated by a “religious belief” can run the full range of human activity from singing a hymn in a quiet country church to the suicide bombing of “the infidel” on the streets of Bagdad”

      Which of these examples do you think most corresponds to the religious justification for abortion?

    2. You always have to bring religion into Satanism, don’t you?

      1. If they were real Satanists who were throwing spells and curses and such, I could respect them. Instead, they are just a bunch of atheist, lefty assholes.

        1. What is a lawsuit, if not a spell and a curse?

        2. These people aren’t even LaVeyan Satanists doing what they wilt because that’s the whole of the law and stuff. How boring.

          1. Speaking of Satanists, did anyone else catch Sunday’s Penny Dreadful? That was creepy on so many levels (not all of them Satan-ey).

        3. If there is any “real” satanism, it probably is the atheistic, hedonistic self-worshiping type. If they are also leftists, they are doing it wrong. Everyone knows Satan is apolitical. The spells and curses are either from neo-pagans or the fantasies of the hysterics behind the satanic panics of the 80s.

          1. Yes, the idea of Satan should be admired, not as a real being, but as a *symbol* of human self-assertion – probably got a big boost in the Romantic Era, when some dudes were like “whoa, man, Milton’s Satan is, like, the *hero*! Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven, that’s deep!”

            LaVey made Satan a symbol of the Nietzschean aspirations of humans who were too smart and independent to have a Sky Daddy. And liked to dress up and make meaningless incantations – a need largely met nowadays by the death metal bands, etc.

            There’s still an extra element – the fun of freaking other people out and basically telling them to f themselves. The freaked-out part went off the deep end in the 80s; more freak-outing than the freak-outers intended and several false accusations.

            1. “the idea *that* Satan should be admired,” etc. etc.

              1. that was a close one

    3. Actually since this and several other comments like this are directed at me I will give you a huge amount of credit. You actually have made some brilliant arguments recently and have not been interjecting religion into every thread. I think there is a direct correlation between the two. As I said before I appreciate your thoughts on most subjects. And since this is the PM lynx there is no such thing as being off topic so it would be entirely appropriate to link any story you want.

      And this is my final comment here. Enjoyed it but the subject I would like to discuss so as to better understand it is basically closed to discussion.

    1. I loved the parting shot about the conscience.

    2. But b/c its Krugman it will not matter. You cannot shame the shameless.

      1. He’ll never read it. He’s admitted to not reading conservatives or libertarians. He’s also had the gall to claim he can represent his opponents arguments better than they his. Which is not true.

  24. The details are vague, but apparently the cameras have a calming effect on the people they’re interacting with.

    In that the people they’re interacting with mysteriously don’t need to be shot for furtive movements?

    Is it the people they’re dealing with or the officer whose every move is being recorded that’s benefiting from the ‘calming effect’?

  25. I’d just like to say that photo of Elizabeth Stoker Breunig looks like somebody whose highest realistic aspiration in life should be “chief assistant dog washer” at a no-kill dog pound.

    1. In a just world, that is what she would be and also someone’s cute bubble headed wife. Sadly, we don’t live in a just world and she went to the best schools and gets to spew her idiocy for a living.

    2. I’d like to assist in washing her dog, if you know what I mean.

  26. I was getting lunch at a Thai food truck today, and a sign caught my eye. It said:

    “We cook using nuts. If you cannot handle nuts, we will not serve you.”

    My mind immediately flew to wedding cakes. Here again, we have a “born this way” condition (nut allergy:homosexuality), a public service (Thai food:cakes), and a refusal to serve a certain class of people in they way they wish (won’t cook without nuts: won’t create gay wedding cakes).

    Philosophically, is there a difference that I’m missing?

    1. Peanutards aren’t thought of as a class. I guess. I dunno.

      1. It’s a disability.

        1. Exactly. And that’s why my class action suit against the discrimination I face at Red Lobster is going to bankrupt those crustacean-slinging monsters.

          1. Willy Wonka is going to be wearing a wooden barrel with suspenders when you’re done with him!

        2. It’s refusal to take the hint that god wants you dead.

    2. Protected class trumps argumentative consistency every time.

    3. Philosophically, is there a difference that I’m missing?

      No, and the CRA legislation against that truck would be hilarious. And the poor bastards are just one crazy, entitled mother of a kid with a peanut allergy away from it.

    4. “If you cannot handle nuts, we will not serve you.”

      So…many…jokes…

    5. Well there is one critical difference. Homosexuals exist, deadly peanut allergies [practically] don’t exist.

      It’s believed by real researchers that no one wants to listen to that the number of people suffering deadly peanut allergies number somewhere in the single digits… total. Not per thousand, but in the country.

      1. I’m sorry, I’m technically not correct. It’s believed to be anywhere from .2% to .3% of the pop. So I guess a few more than single digits.

        I do like this quote:

        Nicolas Christakis of Harvard Med. School told the BBC that there was “a gross overraction to the magnitutude of the threat.” He even said that the fear of peanuts had led to a situation resembling mass psychogenic illness– one known as epidemic hysteria.

        But hey, it’s all good. Since MJ legalization in Washington, a new one has come out: Deadly marijuana allergy. Luckily, while marijuana was illegal, they could move through society knowning that they’d never come in contact with anyone or anything that had been within 100 miles of marijuana at concentrations of 3ppb. But now that it’s LEGAL? Well…

    6. Philosophically, is there a difference that I’m missing?

      Yes. In the first case you are asking the business to make an explicit accommodation; in the second, you are asking them to treat you like every other customer.

      1. How so? Thai food has nuts, and Wedding cakes from Christian bakeries have a bride and groom on it.

        I messed up the exact quote, so here’s a pic of the sign.

        1. Fuck! Here’s the text link

          http://s3-media4.fl.yelpcdn.co…..ORdg/o.jpg

          1. I’ll have the #3, please.

          2. Wait, it just says “allergic,” not “allergic to nuts.”

            It is like the sound of a billion jokes begun…and suddenly silenced.

        2. If you choose to create a hypothetical wherein “won’t create gay wedding cakes” means “will create a wedding cake for a gay couple with the knowledge they intend to use it in a gay wedding, but will only put on a standard bride-and-groom topper” then sure, it’s similar, albeit with a few caveats that I don’t care enough about to discuss.

          But I don’t know why you would define it that way.

    7. ” If you cannot handle nuts, we will not serve you”

      I need to get a T-Shirt with this

      Also, this warning should be included with college applications

  27. If you cannot handle nuts, we will not serve you.

    I can’t handle nuts*. I’m strictly (VEHEMENTLY) heterosexual.
    *excluding mine, naturlich.

  28. Well there is one critical difference. Homosexuals exist, deadly peanut allergies [practically] don’t exist.

    It’s believed by real researchers that no one wants to listen to that the number of people suffering deadly peanut allergies number somewhere in the single digits… total. Not per thousand, but in the country.

    1. Since about 150 people die each year in the U.S. due to a reaction to eating a peanut, I am going to call bullshit on the idea that that there are like 9 people in the U.S. who have a life-threatening allergy to the nut.

      1. I corrected myself. See my post above. .2 to .3 % of the country believed to be affected.

        1. No worries man. That makes more sense.

      2. And actually, the best statistics I can see is around 150 (less actually) die from ALL food alergies, peanuts included. Although it’s believed that peanuts make up the biggest percentage of those. However, according to the school system, there are several kids per class that have this condition.

        Someone’s the bigger liar, and I don’t think it’s me.

      3. Although I’m finding other sources that say the 150 is way, way overblown, estimating the TOTAL deaths from ALL food allergies to be around 11. (Eleven).

        According to an article I’m reading on another device (sorry for lack of link) the 150 total came from a media resource kit from the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network, a lobbying group headed by marketing exec from Dey Pharmaceuticals, the maker of epipen.

        1. I have 3 with deathly peanut allergies in my family. I think the stats you are finding are low, as the many doctors we’ve encountered keep saying the severe allergy is common.

    2. But it’s not about deadly peanut allergies. I’m not gonna eat peanuts even if it just makes my tongue feel funny for an hour. Gay marriages aren’t a life or death issue either (Middle East excluded)

    3. “the number of people suffering deadly peanut allergies number somewhere in the single digits… total.’

      I have personally epi-penned someone asphyxiating from eating something with peanut in it

      I think you might need to double check your sources.

      1. Well that settles it, then.

        1. Anecdotes for the win!

          next = shark attacks: caused by urinating in the ocean?

      2. Then you sir, were practically struck by lightning:

        The underlying number of food allergy deaths according to ICD-10 codes isn’t publicly available in CDC databases because it is so small–statistically insignificant, according to the CDC. A call to the CDC press office revealed that the number of deaths from food allergies, as collected from 2.5 million death certificates across the country, is miniscule. Only eleven people died from food allergies in 2005, the last year for which we have data available. More people died from lawnmower accidents.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..51462.html

        1. not to quibble (excessively),

          but looking at “Deaths” is pretty weaksauce for a kind of ‘threat’ that is well known and easily averted.

          (in my own case, the individual who had the reaction had time to actually go to her car, get the epi-pen, and then hand it to me because she was afraid she’d break it.)

          meaning plenty of people can have life ‘threatening’-allergies, and still never die

          You can’t infer the number of people who have said allergy from ‘death’ stats.

          Also, ‘life theatening’, as a definition, is actually pretty wide. what might kill an old person or babies may only cause discomfort to healthy adults

          1. Exactly. As long as you live within 45 mins of a hospital or carry an epipen or the local squad can get to you, it’s not deadly. Uncorrected you’re dead.

    4. Peanut allergies…Shouldn’t we just call it Carver’s Curse, or something along those lines?

  29. He’s also had the gall to claim he can represent his opponents arguments better than they his.

    Wait- Krugabe, Professor Argument by Assertion himself, really said that? Awesome.

  30. I’m sorry you found out what a racist moron I am

    An incoming Boston University professor who called “white college males” a “problem population” and was publicly criticized by the university’s president said on Tuesday she regrets making the remarks.

    ——

    “I regret that my personal passion about issues surrounding these events led me to speak about them indelicately,” she said in a statement. “I deprived them of the nuance and complexity that such subjects always deserve.”

    Don’t you crackers dare judge this woman.

    1. That takes the non-apology to new heights of bullshittery

    2. nuance

      Use of this word is a sure sign of both an A. ham-fisted completely un-nuanced retard, and B. a left-winger trying to sound smart after saying something profoundly stupid.

    3. I deprived them of the nuance and complexity

      Translation: I should have been more subtle

  31. “I can’t help it if you thin-skinned honkeys don’t want to admit what a bunch of monsters you are.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.