Cleveland Police Reform Detailed, Weather Deaths in Texas, Oklahoma, Mexico, and India, Supreme Court to Take Redistricting Case: P.M. Links

|

  • To protect and BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!
    Credit: pquan / photo on flickr

    The settlement deal between the City of Cleveland and the Department of Justice on law enforcement abuse there requires, among other things, the police to stop pistol-whipping people in the head and firing warning shots. I think even cop shows know police aren't supposed to do those things.

  • A federal appeals court refused to lift a block on President Barack Obama's executive action to shield millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally from deportation. States have filed suit, saying the president's move is unconstitutional. The courts seem to be agreeing so far.
  • At least six have been killed in storms and flooding in Oklahoma and Texas, including a teen returning home from prom. At least 30 people are reported missing in Texas. The death toll for a tornado in Mexico is at 14.
  • On the other side of the world, more than 1,000 have died from extreme heat (well above 110 degrees) over the past week in India.
  • The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge about Texas' redistricting plan, focusing on whether districts should be set up based on total population or total registered voters in the area.
  • Free-range parents in Maryland have been cleared of neglect charges for letting their children walk home from a nearby park along, but they still face some other charges.
  • The secret trial of a Washington Post journalist accused of espionage in Iran began today. He faces 20 years in prison.

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

NEXT: Cleveland Police Settlement with DOJ to Include 'Exacting' Use of Force Rules, Like Offering Medical Assistance and Prohibiting Retaliatory Force

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 secret trial of a Washington Post journalist accused of espionage in Iran began today.

    Obama is envious.

    1. Hello.

      HOVER CRAFT!

      http://yhoo.it/1J3lJhm

      1. Meh. It’s full of eels.

        1. I like eels.
          Except as meals.
          And the way they feels.

          1. Not a fan of unagi sashimi, then?

            1. I fucking love unagi.

              1. Are you familiar with Genki Genki?

                Trigger Warning: everything

            2. Ummmm…haven’t had that since my last trip to Ichi Umi.

              1. Isn’t that where the Edmund Fitzgerald went down?

    2. The sad part is when I read the headline for this I assumed the prosecution was being done by the US government.

  2. I think even cop shows know police aren’t supposed to do those things.

    If they’re not on FX.

    1. Yeah, you don’t beat with the pistol. You beat them with a phone book, no bruising.

      1. Always from the neck down

      2. I thought it was a bag of oranges?

        1. A bag of Valencia oranges, yes. You beat the person with them, then eat the oranges afterward. Everybody but the beaten guy wins.

      3. Unless you’re Omar, then that phone book saves you from a stabbing.

        1. Phone books: A Sword and a Shield (sort of).

          1. I honestly never considered that Neil Peart wrote this about phone books.

  3. A federal appeals court refused to lift a block on President Barack Obama’s executive action to shield millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally from deportation.

    Which let him down, his pen or his phone?

    1. The Cleveland Browns?

      1. His Cleveland Browns pen http://shop.clevelandbrowns.co…..-Grip_Pens

        His Cleveland Browns phone?
        http://sportsnationcases.com/p…..1036241371

    2. “States have filed suit, saying the president’s move is unconstitutional. The courts seem to be agreeing so far.”

      Courts? Courts? We don’ need no steenking courts.

  4. I’m mostly familiar with the application of Nash to economics and political science. I keep hearing about his influence on biological evolution. Who has done the most interesting research with regards to evolutionary Nash equilibria?

    1. Isn’t this just a dolled up Mexican standoff?

  5. Simon Fraser University embraces bitcoin for buying textbooks

    A British Columbia university is now accepting the digital currency bitcoin at all of its bookstores, a move that staff claim is a first for Canadian post-secondary schools.

    Simon Fraser University has also announced that automated bitcoin vending machines will soon begin operating on campuses in Burnaby, Vancouver and Surrey.

    1. I wouldn’t mind getting paid in bitcoin as well.

      1. Is this a solicitation?

        HM: Internet Gigolo?

        1. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.


  6. Fired Portland police officer commits suicide by train

    I don’t enjoy this story one bit, but I do enjoy the post of a FB friend of mine who was an academy classmate of his. Apparently even cop tributes must get passive voice.

    An academy mate who’s life was traumatically altered because he was an officer during a time of overwhelming policy, procedural and equipment changes

    Emphasis added.

    1. Apparently even cop tributes must get passive voice.

      The bad grammar is just a bonus.

    2. There are some Tulpas on that thread, sucking some of the coppiest dicks in America.

    3. Wait, what?

      He was traumatized because they told him he had to do his job a different way with different stuff?

  7. …but they still face some other charges.

    I mean, authorities put too much effort in not to come away with something.

    1. I asked in another thread, but where are the comments on the NRO? They don’t show up in my browser, and the list of links doesn’t show them either.

      1. I think it’s Diqus, which means a 50/50 chance the comments won’t work at all.

        1. I think it’s Diqus,

          That’s a John-level typo. 🙂

          I tried a different browser, and was getting a Javascript error, which might have something to do with it.

          1. Where’s John? What happened to him?

            1. Yeah. Where is he?

              1. I was also thinking the threads have been missing a certain intellectually contorted soconitarian. Hope he’s okay. When he resurfaces, we’ll have to run some Ideological Turing Tests to make sure it’s not a different sockpuppet.

        2. You’re being too kind too Disqus.

        3. Biggus Diqus?

      2. At the end of each NRO post on the left there’s the “View Comments” link.

        1. What’s an NRO?

          1. The ghost of WF Buckley

          2. The National Reconnaissance Office.

          3. Neocon Republican Orifices

      3. And it seems to be one of those goddamn neverending pages that adds more when you get to the bottom and is in general a nasty memory hog, possibly even worse than H&R (but not as bad as Nicole).

        1. This is why you’re everyone’s favorite browser/web-design grumpy old man.

          Have you considered Lynx?

        2. Because loading 800 comments page by slideshow-like page is better?

      4. At the end of a piece there is a “VIEW COMMENTS” button in light grey text.

        1. Jesus, I needed to refresh…

          And yeah, Disqus sucks, etc. etc.

        2. MJGreen: Self-Harm Enabler.

        3. I’ve also got my browser set to use a battleship gray background by default, since I find that easier on the eyes.

          (Yes, I know you all think I’m weird.)

          1. A gray background is demonstrably easier on the eyes.

            I’m not about to dig up stuff I researched years ago, but suffice to say I did days of searching when I was at the end of my first semester in grad school and couldn’t see a damn thing after writing 4 30 page papers in about a week.

            Light gray background, with very dark gray text is best.

    2. I wonder if this will be the case where they realize that they can’t sneer an argument out of court. Without even considering the long-term impacts, SCOTUS killing the subsidies would be a sight to behold in terms of liberal/progressive vitriol reaction.

      1. I don’t know. One thing about the NYT story is that the claims it make about “drafting errors” were not, in fact, argued.

        1. I’m probably remembering wrong, but in the first O-Care case, didn’t the Sol Gen. office fail to make the argument the ultimately prevailed, i.e. “its really IS a tax”? I thought Virilli at oral argument specifically said that was not what he was arguing, but that was still what Roberts hung his hat on.

          1. True on both. Nobody is argueing drafting errors since it was added, not left out and yes, I think it’s true the SG never argued that the penaltax was a tax. John Roberts invention (though everybody knew it was a tax).

            1. I think it’s true the SG never argued that the penaltax was a tax.

              I’d have to check the briefs, but I think they did make this argument. I know it was in circulation, anyway.

              Everybody treated it as a throwaway, yeah-right kind of argument, right up until Roberts needed a pretext to switch his vote.

      2. Congress will just go back and change the language, adding that bill on as a rider to a welfare spending bill or something that Obama won’t dare to veto.

      3. Whatever happens in this case and the gay marriage cases, I can’t wait for all the tweets towards @SCOTUSBlog blaming them for it.

        1. MSM is already shoving out articles saying, oh dear this is bad for the GOP, what will they do to fix this mess. I think Pelosi said the same thing.

          Fuck, if I was in Congress I’d say your move Obama or introduce the repeal bill again, but I think the dipshits in charge will try to buy votes by extending subsidies.

      4. SCOTUS killing the subsidies would be a sight to behold in terms of liberal/progressive vitriol reaction.

        The sight to behold will be the market crash that follows the decision. The right thing to do is kill the subsidies, but I’m so so worried about muh retirement accounts.

    3. Was that a “mistake,” the product of changing political circumstances? Maybe. Does that matter? Nope. From a historical or political perspective, it is certainly interesting to ask why the various proposals that made up Obamacare were smooshed together so incompetently. But such a question should be irrelevant to the Supreme Court.

      I guess we have to wonder if the Supreme Court will see this as a mistake and then do the usual gap-filling with the legislation.

      1. There’s oversights, which I guess the Court can fill.

        Then there’s amendment of enacted statutory language, which the Court shouldn’t ought to do.

        Of course, the word “mistake” is ambivalent. It could mean they made an inadvertent drafting error. Or, it could mean they intended to set it up that way (according to Gruber, who was there) and in retrospect that has turned out to be a mistake because they miscalculated that states would respond to the incentive.

  8. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge about Texas’ redistricting plan…

    Well, let’s define our terms, gentlemen. Are we talking about redistricting or are we talking about reapportionment?

    1. We now interrupt this public affairs programming to bring you a football game.

    2. Definitely redistricting. Could be reapportionment, if subtracting the non-voters leads to a House seat going from one state to another.

      This is a fascinating case. It seems to point up an inconsistency between “every representative should have the same number of people in their district” and “every vote should count the same.”

      If you live in an area with a crapload of non-citizens/non-voters, then your vote will count for more under the “every representative should have the same number of people in their district” theory, as there are fewer people that can vote in that election.

      OTOH, under the “every vote should count the same” theory, if you live in an area with a crapload of non-citizens/non-voters, that representative will represent more people.

      Kind of a conundrum. It’ll be interesting.

      1. Forced voting. Do I have to think of everything?

        1. And don’t forget to force *kids* to vote, too.

      2. The constitution clearly states that the districts will be apportioned according to population, not numbers of voters, or even numbers of citizens. Just plain persons.

  9. The secret trial of a Washington Post journalist accused of espionage in Iran began today.

    You know who else uses secret trials and secret evidence?

    1. Cersei Lannister?

    2. The authors of the Disposition Matrix?

    3. Hector Berlioz?

      1. ?? Is there a secret message in the Symphonie Fantastique or something?

          1. Damn, that is some impressive obscure music knowledge.

            And your interest in black dykes is noted.

    4. Secret Squirrel?

      1. Now we know where he hides his nuts. He couldn’t keep his squirrel secret.

    5. If I told you, I’d have to try you in an undisclosed location for the crime of *redacted*

    1. OMG! It used germanium chips? That’s why it was was rented for $2500/mo in 1960. Jesus.

  10. The Science Is Settled, Bitches!

    An Epidemic of False Claims
    False positives and exaggerated results in peer-reviewed scientific studies have reached epidemic proportions in recent years. The problem is rampant in economics, the social sciences and even the natural sciences, but it is particularly egregious in biomedicine. Many studies that claim some drug or treatment is beneficial have turned out not to be true. We need only look to conflicting findings about beta-carotene, vitamin E, hormone treatments, Vioxx and Avandia. Even when effects are genuine, their true magnitude is often smaller than originally claimed.

    The problem begins with the public’s rising expectations of science. Being human, scientists are tempted to show that they know more than they do. The number of investigators?and the number of experiments, observations and analyses they produce?has also increased exponentially in many fields, but adequate safeguards against bias are lacking. Research is fragmented, competition is fierce and emphasis is often given to single studies instead of the big picture….

    1. Four year old link?

      Not that anything has changed in my necks of the woods…

      1. Came up today on SlashDerp.

    2. An Epidemic of False Claims ?The problem is rampant in economics, the social sciences and even the natural sciences, but it is particularly egregious in bio[-]medicine.

      “But not Climate Science, no! Because Science is Settled!”

      1. On top of this, up until a few years ago, the entire academy of “climate scientists” was blondes with big breasts and dimples who were studying to become “meteorologists”, aka TV weather girls.

    3. Supporting the null hypothesis just isn’t sexy.

    4. False positives and exaggerated results in peer-reviewed scientific studies have reached epidemic proportions in recent years.

      Does this mean that The Golden Girls might not have turned a generation of men into gays?

      1. DENIER!!!!!!!! Burn the heretic!!

  11. Baby Peggy, and the other surviving silent film stars

    Well, Peggy, now 96-year-old Diana Serra Carey, was the only star, making millions and being washed up by the time she was 10 thanks to her family spending all the money. If you can find it (I don’t know if it’s on any of the streaming services), watch the documentary Baby Peggy: The Elephant in the Room.

    Baby Peggy in Captain January

    1. Thanks Ted, this article is fantastic. Will watch the movie later

  12. BREUUUUUUUUNNNNNNNIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGG!

    “After wages of abstinence fades away for the silliness that it is, we are then told to look towards risk. You see, the capitalist doesn’t just put capital in and get passive income out. There is at least some chance that they don’t get passive income out and may even take losses. Indeed, the compensation of capital investment directly relates to the risk that such a thing will happen.

    As I pointed out earlier, this argument also is not compelling. Under capitalism, two people taking on identical risks (e.g. equities with the same risk profiles) do not receive identical compensation for doing so. In fact, that is integral to the whole idea of risk. Compensation on the basis of risk is no different, on an individual deservingness level, than compensation for lottery winnings. In both cases, money is put into the system with some level of risk of loss (in the lottery winner’s case, huge levels of risk) and then, if you are a lucky one, you get a bunch of money out. This compensation is not based on individual desert (whether productive or otherwise); rather, it is based on the exact opposite of it: randomness and good fortune. It’s gambling.”

    In Matt Breunig’s crazy nonsense world, people just randomly invest in companies with no rhyme or reason so it’s no different than the lottery.

    1. The politicians they vote for, of course, are well thought out and therefore those votes are meaningful instead of totally random.

      1. The difference being, that whatever politician is voted for, or elected, the outcome is the same…

        You have a chance at winning the lottery.

    2. Compensation on the basis of risk is no different, on an individual deservingness level, than compensation for lottery winnings.

      Deserves got nothing to do with it.

    3. Under capitalism, two people taking on identical risks (e.g. equities with the same risk profiles) do not receive identical compensation for doing so.

      Because in some non-capitalist system, there is someone with a God’s eye view who does what exactly? Ensures that everyone who takes a certain type of risk on, ends up with the same result? How is it risk then? What the hell does this even mean.

      1. I don’t understand that sentence. If you and I buy the same Small-cap fund and the same time with the same $500 investment we get the same price so how does it happen we have different compensation?

        Also, he’s tripping into that Bernie Sanders ‘who needs that much’ trap with his ‘deservingness’ nonsense.

        1. That Bernie Sanders “too many brands of toothpaste” is straight out of old John Kenneth Galbraith. Apparently going back to the 70s is not enough for the Dems, they want to go back to the 60s now.

          1. When you say 60’s you mean 1860’s right?

            1. Have you considered how much demand would get a boost from a replay of Civil War?

              /Krugman

            2. ’60s and 1860s.

              I really try not to be that pedant, but I had a coworker that I had to go in and change dozens of his reports because he was doing two digit dates as 57′ instead of ’57 because of this common error. It’s a contraction apostrophe to indicate the removal of the century.

              Seriously. I’m sorry to be that guy on this.

              1. Fascist…

        2. Think he’s talking about private equity. Like the guys who funded Google were just lucky compared to the guys who funded pets.com

    4. Uncertainty vs. risk, how does it work?

    5. It’s all part of the “luck” narrative. People are only successful because of luck, blind random chance. And people are only unsuccessful because of luck too. So if it is all just random, the “unlucky” deserve the wealth of the “lucky.”

      This also feeds the “privilege” narrative.

      1. I don’t deny some luck is involved sometimes but these people seem to think it’s the single most important factor in the equation.

        Using luck is a nice way to neatly package your envy.

        1. But see… it’s not envy, it’s righting the wrongs of a universe indifferent to virtue.

    6. on an individual deservingness level…

      Possibly the stupidest series of words ever written.

      1. The Breunigs are the family that keeps on giving. I can’t wait to read what their child has to say 30 years from now. It’s going to be so fucking stupid I can hardly even stand it.

    7. You see, the capitalist doesn’t just put capital in and get passive income out. There is at least some chance that they don’t get passive income out and may even take losses.

      Is it just me, or is this dripping with undeserved snark on a high undeservingness level? I think Matt honestly pictures all capitalists as fat cats in 3 piece suits, throwing money into a bank and getting profits back.

      They “may even take losses.” Yes, that’s what happens to most people who invest in capital and try to start a business. Something of which I’m sure you’ll never have first-hand experience, you twat.

  13. Diqus, which means a 50/50 chance the comments won’t work at all.

    Yeah, disqus comments NEVER load on my computer. It’s a blessing.

  14. Compensation on the basis of risk is no different, on an individual deservingness level, than compensation for lottery winnings.

    Yes it is. If we don’t compensate big risks, people won’t take them, and we won’t benefit from the ones that succeed.

    1. How do you figure that an individual doesn’t “deserve” to get compensated for taking risk, again?

      Would this also mean that someone who risks their life to save someone doesn’t “deserve” more recognition than someone who does not?

      1. Was that reply to me or to the original comment? I’m on your side here.

        1. That was a rhetorical “you”, not a Torso-targeted “you”.

      2. All I know is the left is wasting its time with this ‘who deserves what’ argument.

        There is literally endless streams of permutations to render the exercise futile. Unless they take over our lives, they can never know who ‘deserves’ what. It’s quite mad actually to believe they can.

        1. Yet it’s the core of social justice philosophy. They see something they don’t like, and say that goverment ought to go fix that. It leads not only to economic stagnation and less freedom, but arbitrary and contradictory behavior by the government.

          1. And rent-seeking Oppression Olympics on the part of the populace.

          2. And rent-seeking Oppression Olympics on the part of the populace.

      3. People “deserve” whatever was agreed upon ahead of time. We don’t need a third party judging who gets what based on their own subjective values.

        If the two parties concerned with a deal agree that Party A gets all of the profits, then Party A deserves all of the profits. It’s their business, and they decided that.

  15. So, is everyone still on vacation or something? 60 comments 30 minutes into the links is pretty low.

    Somebody toss out a sexy, sensationalist story to punch things up.

    1. It’s not sensationalist but very sexy.

      I’ll put this here

      1. He’s a sexy fellow when he isn’t going full homeless.

      2. He looked better when he was roiding it up more blatantly, but it’s nice to see useful-looking dudes getting praise.

        1. He’s doesn’t need to be useful, just pretty, pretty and dirty. The homeless scruff is nice because he can always be scraped and hosed.

          I think he did some chemicals when he did that MMA film, but it was a temporary thing for the movie. He’s quite skinny now.

          1. He’s doesn’t need to be useful, just pretty, pretty and dirty

            Someone’s been reading my diary.

          2. but it was a temporary thing for the movie

            Oh my sweet summer child. I bet you think Thor wasn’t on the Dianabol and Accutane diet either.

            1. Oh, I assume when actors get really big and/or cut for a role they use something from the pharmacy. I just don’t think they necessarily use it after.

              Tom Hardy got skinny as did Bradley Cooper after American Sniper. I assume they use it as a tool temporarily (if they’re smart).

        2. Concur, “insane muscles” is vastly overstating it… after waiting for the page to load.

    2. Everyone is spending all their time in the new secret chat room.

      1. Shush!

        1. I’ll keep talking about it until I receive my invitation..

          1. How can you be invited to something that doesn’t exist?

              1. *Throws black bag over db’s head, renditions him to North African black site*

                1. There’s a north Africa?

      1. Too skinny.

        1. Now you’re on sarcasmic’s list.

        2. Too skinny for what?

          Were you looking for her to move furniture for ya?

          Maybe you should be on Jesse’s list.

      2. And hasn’t she cranked out a couple of little ones as well? Impressive.

        1. Oi, I didn’t see your jab in the Ru Paul thread until later and I wanted to say “well done”.

          1. *flipper salute*

            My time here has been relatively short and infrequent though so I HAVE been guilty of stepping into an argument on behalf of certain individuals of whom I have little notion of their historical behavior.

            1. If you wait for perfect knowledge of inside jokes you’ll never jump in. The crack you took was redemptive.

        2. Four kids.

          1. Good genes and a good trainer.

            I would gargle with her bathwater.

      3. I’m curious: Would Jesse hit that?

        1. Wayne’s World era Tia Carrere or bust.

          1. *nod aggressively*

          2. So nobody really is *that* gay?

    3. John’s not here. Probably cuts overall post count in half. More if a troll shows up.

      1. John’s not here and trolls aren’t either…hmmmmm

        1. Has John finally gone Deathwish and tracked them all down?!

    1. OK, *now* can we stop using Social Security numbers for stuff other than Social SecuritHAHAHAHAHAHAA!! Damn, couldn’t quite get it out!

    2. How many of the identity thieves are actively drawing paychecks from the IRS?

    3. If you don’t receive a letter, you don’t need to worry:…

      Or, you know, the USPS lost your letter.

      1. Unpossible!

  16. Guess the feminist who thinks you’re all committed rape apologists.

    Note: The conclusion of the study that she links to as ‘proof’ that you’re all a bunch of rape denialists has the following conclusion:

    “Both incapacitated and forcible sexual assaults and rape have reached epidemic levels among college women. Interventions to address sexual violence on campus are urgently needed.”

    Gee – that sure is an awful lot of feminist cliches jammed into one sentence. I’m sure there was no way the researcher could possibly have a motive to run an illegitimate study for political reasons.

    And, once again!, the study she links to is behind a paywall so I can’t read the full text. How much do you want to bet that if I were to read the full text of the study there’d be methodological errors out the ass? And how much do you want to bet Valenti herself didn’t pay the $30 to read the full study and is therefore basing her claims about rape denial on an abstract the methodology of which she hasn’t actually read?

    I will say that at least this time the person who ran the study actually had enough subjects that the study could theoretically be legitimate. They actually say they had 400 subjects, so at least I don’t have to mock them for having 60 subjects and claiming they’re a legitimate survey.

    1. I was wrong. I guessed ESB. Guess I was thinking she could out-idiot her hubby (I’m surprised she’s not a political lesbian, by the way).

    2. I’ve never been committed.

      1. To a cause or a place, Bobarian?

        1. Uhhh…. yes.

    3. I noticed with these articles the comments section often blast Valenti.

      Also, one of my employees just exposed her ass right in front of me as I sit at my desk as she leaned over to sign a paper.

      /cue devil and angel from ‘Animal House’.

      1. DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!

        /flailing robot arms

    4. Is there some objective, scientific definition of “epidemic levels”?

      1. In SJW language, “epidemic levels” means we actually can’t find a single verifiable case of what we’re talking about but we’re SURE it must be a lot!

  17. Both incapacitated and forcible sexual assaults and rape have reached epidemic levels among college women.

    Define “epidemic”. With numbers. Verifiable numbers.

    1. While you’re at it, define “incapacitated” and support the inclusion of “incapacitated” rapes with objective validation of the alleged victim’s level of incapacitation.

      1. Obvs “incapacitated” means “being female and having imbibed any amount, no matter how small, of one or more intoxicants…also when you said ‘yes’ but really meant ‘no’ and the male in the encounter did not properly use his mutant telepathic abilities.”

    2. In this case, she claims the number is 20% because of a single study that came out regarding an unnamed (!) university. Furthermore, the entire study is hidden behind a paywall and Valenti makes no mention of the study’s actual methodology, so I can only conclude that she’s determined it’s totally legitimate based on nothing but an abstract.

      I’m willing to bet this study was loaded with self-selection bias, which is normally how feminist hacks get the numbers they want.

      That’s not how you science.

    3. Or videos.

      …is what a misogynist would say, but not me.

    4. Science is rape
      During what is known now as the “Science Wars”, she was part of a debate regarding the value-neutrality of the sciences. This aspect of her work has been criticized by some scientists.[2] Harding referred to Newton’s Principia Mathematica as a “rape manual” in her 1986 book “The Science Question in Feminism”, a characterization that she later said she regretted.[3]

      1. Principia Mathematica, raw and uncensored, yours for a low, low price when purchased together with the erotic classic Origin of Species!

      2. Reminds me of the introductory paragraph to this article, which I always thought was pretty good, the rest of the article less so.

      3. Harding referred to Newton’s Principia Mathematica as a “rape manual”

        The mind boggles.

    5. Considering the term “epidemic” specifically refers to the rate of spread of infectious disease, not amount of cases, their metaphor is meaningless and completely unjustified when it comes to the conclusions we can base from quantitative data. A good editor should have caught that.

      But who gives a fuck about scholarship and academic rigor, right?

      1. Probably the best evidence that feminist science is total horseshit is the fact that no matter how they define rape feminists studies always manage to come to the conclusion that 20% of women are raped.

        It’s hilarious. Logically speaking, if you define rape differently in two different studies, you should not continuously get 20%. There are studies that include literally all unwanted sexual touching and conclude that it’s 20% and there are studies that include only forced rape and come to the conclusion that it’s 20%.

        What this means is that feminists have it in their heads that 20% is the number and they purposefully fuck around with statistics until they get a pre-determined answer.

        1. 20% is like 8%.

        2. What kind of evil parents take out a second mortgage on their house to send their daughter to a place where there’s a 20 percent chance she’ll be raped?

          Better yet, what kind of mentally deficient women attend these colleges with their 20 percent rape rates and rules against carrying firearms?

  18. They actually say they had 400 subjects

    Why do I automatically assume those 400 subjects were offered an opportunity to come forward and share anecdotes about their victimization on campus?

    1. Ahem…it’s called “criterion sampling”…gotta get hip to the lingo, man!

    2. Professor Warty observed all the scientific protocols with his subjects.

  19. The challengers claim that taking account of total population can lead to vast differences in the number of voters in particular districts, along with corresponding differences in the power of those voters.

    Is that so?

  20. I’m later than usual, and John seems to be absent, but I’m going to try this again this year anyway: Going to Cozumel in 3 weeks for fishing, scuba diving, drinking and reading, and I need book suggestions. Preferably comedy. Best books I’ve read in the last few years are Lamb and The Gun Seller. Anybody got any suggestions?

    1. Thomas a Kempis, Imitation of Christ.

      Or something by Dave Barry.

      Only you can choose.

      1. I mean Dave Barry’s overtly comedic work – avoid his novels, they try to be serious.

        1. I did not know Barry wrote anything other than a column.

            1. Are actual claws involved?

            2. Not available on Kindle, unfortunately.

    2. Monster Hunter International! Gun nut bruiser accountant works for private company that hunts monsters for government bounties, when not butting heads with a government agency that has a similar, but not same, goal. Not big on style, or subtlety, but lots of humor, action, lovingly described guns and sexy ladies (and gentlemen) who wield them.
      It recently got posted as free ebook on Baen’s site, so only thing at risk is your time!

      1. Got it. Thanks.

    3. Terry pratchett if you haven’t yet. Try Going Postal to start

    4. If you like the outdoors, Patrick F. McManus is the absolute greatest.

      His books are the only ones I haven’t ditched for ebook versions.
      http://www.amazon.com/Patrick-…..sr=1-2-ent

      A Fine and Pleasant Misery
      The Grasshopper Trap
      They Shoot Canoes, Don’t They

      One of my favorite stories by him:
      http://tinyurl.com/qzzg3a3

  21. http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/2…..data-hack/

    This cyberattack wasn’t a hack in the traditional sense, the IRS said. No one broke into its computer systems and stole information. They merely used a public tool for nefarious purposes. And it was an attack the agency wasn’t well suited to combat, Koskinen said.

  22. 2 Of Hillary’s Libya Emails Are Missing

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/05…..e-missing/

    1. Only 2?

  23. Hookah smoking could be banned in Toronto establishments

    And the comments are the typical garbage:

    Lucygal
    Good, it’s about time. Why should hookah smoking be allowed in public establishments, when tobacco smoking is not? Fair is fair.

    Fuck. This. Province.

    1. Wait, who from reason posted on this article?…

      Liberty112233
      Society is getting really ridiculous. When I go to the states they practice common logic where you have non smoking places and places that allow smoking. This “right” to walk into a private business and demand they cater to you is non existent and is only a manifestation of the anti smoking lobby trying to convince us that any place with smoke should be treated like some biohazard area where you’ll drop dead in seconds. This isn’t even tobacco smoke. This makes as much sense when they use to have those smoking huts. Non-smokers for some odd reason waltzed in them and complained not because they were exposed to second hand smoke against their choice but simply because they were brain washed into the idea that they could go wherever they want so they got rid of them. I’m to believe a non-smoker is going to walk into a hookah bar (why would they in the first place?) for kicks or some non-smoking candidate who is health conscious is going to act na?ve and then is entitled to a government compensation check if they get sick? We don’t even have logic anymore with designated areas or heck even outdoor smoking bans are now leaving non-smokers equally baffled

      1. This “right” to walk into a private business and demand they cater to you is non existent

        *cough*Gay wedding cakes and pizza*cough*

    2. Where you been?

      And…yeah. Ontario is Beyond Derpdome.

      1. I’ve just been lurking a lot and not commenting.

        I need to get back into it. I miss the action.

    3. What does she think people smoke in hookahs??

      1. Banana peels, duh.

          1. Ah yes. Opium, the opiate of the masses.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.