A.M. Links: FIFA President Refuses to Retire, New Clinton Foundation Ties to Sidney Blumenthal Unearthed, Nebraska Abolished the Death Penalty

|

  • Credit: White House / Flickr.com

    In the face of a mounting corruption scandal, FIFA President Sepp Blatter is refusing to retire.

  • According to a new poll, Hillary Clinton faces her biggest threat in 2016 from Republican candidates Marco Rubio and Rand Paul.

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

Editor's Note: This post originally misadentified Sepp Blatter as one of the 14 FIFA officials indicted by U.S. authorities.

NEXT: Andrew Napolitano: Make the NSA Get a Warrant

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. …Hillary Clinton faces her biggest threat in 2016 from Republican candidates Marco Rubio and Rand Paul.

    I thought the biggest threat would be Hillary Clinton.

    1. I thought it was the American public.

      1. If anything, he’s what will get her elected.

        1. Ha!.

          Nostalgia for only-good-in-hindsight Clinton administration is more than being made up for by the near open sabotage Bill’s been doing to her campaign.

          1. Not so much hindsight as it is in comparison to the 15 years of liquid crap we have experienced for Presidents since he left office. I would vote twice for a guy more interested in BJ’s and good press than ones who try occupying the Middle East or nationalizing banks and healthcare

      2. That’s true. For the past couple years I’ve been saying Hillary has no chance, is going on name recognition alone, will fold as soon as the race gets serious. But recently I realized her support comes from elsewhere: voters who think if she’s elected, the effective prez becomes Bill. After all, when he ran, she said, elect him & you also get me. So probably it works the other way around. Nobody thinks she’d be any good as prez, but they figure if Bill is actually pulling the strings, things’ll be good.

        That’s practically got me convinced now. A Hillary presidency wouldn’t be awful, because she’d be just a figurehead, & Bill didn’t turn out awful.

    2. Hello.

      ‘In the face of a mounting corruption scandal, FIFA President Sepp Blatter is refusing to retire.’

      Ha, ha. He’s nuts.

      What’s the over/under he gets pinched?

      Even UEFA is getting on FIFA. The two have butted heads over the years so I’m guessing they’re enjoying this.

      1. What’s the over/under he gets pinched?

        I’d prefer seppuku. Or even a Budd Dwyer as he protests his innocence.

        1. “…The most remarkably sycophantic speech in support of Blatter came from Osiris Guzman of the Dominican Republic, who was banned from the sport for 30 days and fined by FIFA. It was Guzman who spoke of Blatter in the same terms as historical figures such as Moses, Jesus Christ and Nelson Mandela.”

          http://www.stabroeknews.com/20…..cs-remain/

          1. Sounds like speeches about Obama.

          2. The poor Caribbean and African federations are in total thrall to Blatter and his machinations because he pays them off. Jack Warner (who had a stranglehold on CONCACAF) only was excommunicated because he finally became more trouble to Blatter than he was worth in bought votes.

      2. Visa just told FIFA to clean house or find a new title sponsor. I think he’s got to go.

        1. I don’t follow this much but it’s interesting Visa was fine with sponsoring FIFA until now.

          1. If they can save $50M in bribes every time the contract comes up, it seems like good business to get out ahead. Also, RICO is no joke. Visa might be positioning for a plea.

            1. One would think they would have distanced themselves from it long ago, though. I don’t follow soccer at all and even I have heard lots of accusations of corruption in FIFA.

              1. I have a feeling that if Visa goes, InBev will be soon behind. Adidas will hang on for dear life because they’re petrified of Nike.

              2. There is so goddamn much money in soccer it’s unbelievable. Any company would be crazy not to want a chunk of that – who cares about the corruption that everyone is fully aware of anyway. At least until the corruption becomes a little too public and then it’s time for damage control.

                1. Like Brett said, RICO is no joke; this is the law that broke the Mafia after decades of failure. Blatter should buy a citizenship of and retire to a country without an extradition treaty with the US.

                  Several people have already agreed to guilty pleas, hundreds of millions in bribes (not alleged bribes, mind you, as the defendants have admitted these were bribes) have been forfeited, CONCACAF has already been gutted, and major sponsors are speaking to prosecutors.

                  This is likely just the beginning, especially considering the Swiss are also launching their own probe.

    3. Typical sexism to view men as her primary problem. Only a woman like Clinton could challenge her.

    4. Rand will piled on by all the war mongering scum from the Stupid Party.

      If he can’t hold on his senate seat, he will be finished.

  2. 58) Meet the lady who brought her 20-month old to the movie theatre and got upset when somebody yelled at her in the dark to take her vocalizing kid out of there. But see, this was a microaggression because her kid is beating brain cancer. “There’s nothing wrong [with him]. He expresses himself differently.” Lady, nobody’s yelling at you to leave because your kid is sick or expresses himself differently. They’re yelling at you because you brought a baby to a place where people are supposed to be quiet. Good God, the entitlement on display here!

    1. Did the kid pay for a ticket?

      1. Not sure, the lady doesn’t say.

      2. and I wonder what the 20 month old thought of the movie? Certainly she was there for him/her, not for herself, no way.

        1. I wonder what the 20 month old thought of the movie

          He thought nothing, because he has brain cancer! NOTHING, you heartless bastard!

          1. *Nothing*? CLEARLY he was articulating his displeasure with the film, he just expresses himself *differently*.

      3. Does it matter? Paying customers can get kicked out if they are being disruptive.

        1. Except screaming blacks. They have a cultural right to yell at the screen as if there weren’t fifty other people in the room trying to hear the damn thing.

          1. No, they should shut the fuck up too. Though I suppose it does depend on the movie. And if a theater owner knows that his audience is going to include lots of people who like to shout at movies, it’s probably a valid business decision.

            1. Though I suppose it does depend on the movie.

              I’ll give them leeway if I were at a Tyler Perry movie or something.

            2. Audience culture has varied a lot. Majority-black audiences do tend to be like that, and if that’s the expect’n, no problem.

              When I was a child, it was toward the tail end of the time that double features were common & people would “go to the movies” largely regardless of what was playing, largely to enjoy the AC. People didn’t care much what time a feature started, they’d just come in in the middle, see the other feature, then see the 1st, & leave when they got to the same point in the movie as where they came in. And there was a lot more talking in the audience. In the fancier places & in outdoor theaters there was more concern about starting times, but of course you could talk all you wanted in the car & it wouldn’t be loud enough to bother people outside it.

              It was post-Code, but the ratings system hadn’t come in yet, and although many movies would go over children’s heads, they weren’t the sort of thing parents were embarrassed for their children to see in their presence.

          2. And milennials who can not turn stop checking fucking messages.

            No, putting the screen down in your lap doesn’t hide the glow.

          3. Couldn’t you complain about watermelon rinds and fried chicken grease all over the seats too? Maybe work in something about being good at sports? I got a Goofy Stereotype Bingo card to fill out, and you could win me $5.

            1. I’ve never encountered fried chicken and watermelon in a movie theater. I have repeatedly encountered people with a cultural affinity for yelling at images on a white screen.

              1. That’s because the screen is white and therefore racist.

              2. Come on, man, at least say something about how Hindus have mind powers.

    2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..mg00000071“Meet

      1. You may be good with sermons thoughts, but you’re worse than SF when it comes to linking.

        1. The link actually works, even if it looks like shit.

          A proper SF link looks pretty but doesn’t do anything.

    3. She does know that there are theatres with special rooms for crying kids right?

      1. The ladies’ toilet?

    4. Hey it was just cancer sex – Archer

    5. It was a Disney movie? So what? I have a six year old daughter. I see every Disney movie in the theaters. Usually 3 or 4 times. It’s usually pretty quiet in the theater, despite the prevelance of small children. I understand your kid has problems, but, as stated, there are theaters where you can take him to. That wasn’t one of them.

    6. I went straight to the comments. Apparently it was a Disney movie filled with kids already? It’s been my experience kids don’t shut up in theaters; it comes with the territory and one needs to realize that. They squirm, they have to go to the bathroom, they laugh, they cry, they lose interest and start staring at you for some reason etc.

      Unless her child was really loud, was it that bad? Help me here.

      1. I remember when I went to see Jurassic Park, some idiot brought their babies to the movie. Because babies love roaring dinosaurs that want to eat them.

        1. I remember seeing the South Park movie and being surprised at how many families felt it must be okay for all ages because it was a cartoon.

          1. That blew my wife (who holds I forget how many degrees and a Masters in early childhood psychology blah blah and teacher for over 20 years) too. She thought it rather absurd.

            I remember years ago while sitting in a cafe with her and the guy next to her was talking about taking his child to see ‘Austin Powers’ (the first one) and expressing regret for having done so.

            She wanted to grab and slap him across the face for being so childish and clueless. YOU’RE A PARENT part of that is determining what is appropriate for your child to watch.

            1. That blew my wife…too

              Are we doing phrasing now?

              1. Michael: (Into phone.) Really? And all the guys like her, huh? That is, that is, that is great. Uh, you mean “away,” though, right? Because otherwise it sounds a little different, but, uh, that’s, uh, that’s outstanding. You forgot to say “away” again. But listen, let me call you back in a bit, okay? Bye. (To Lindsay.) Nellie has blown them all away.

              2. Are you suggesting my wife is Lola?

            2. My parents used to go see movies that I wanted to see before they’d let me go. They got to determine if they thought it was appropriate and gave them an excuse to go out on a date.

          2. Ha. Watched a guy bring a few 8-10 years old to see Ted. My wife looked at me and said “I hate our fucking town.”

            1. My dad took me to Quest For Fire on my 12th birthday. That was his version of the birds and the bees talk.

              To this day I grunt when I see a woman bent over at a stream.

              1. I remember my parents being scolded by the little old lady in the ticket booth because they were taking 13 year old l0b0t to see Fast Times At Ridgemont High and that film shows bare breasts.

                1. I still think the funniest was when I was, maybe 10, and my step-grandmother took me to see the Blue Lagoon. She had no idea and covered my eyes while taking me out of the theater.

                  I wanted to see Airplane. But, she didn’t think that was appropriate for my age.

                  1. Surely you can’t be serious.

            2. I still remember 1974 when the local theatre had an ‘uncut’ “Enter the Dragon” as a PG movie.

              My best friend and I were 9, my brother was 8- Boobs, blood, and karate, what’s not to like?

      2. This is the point I was going to make Rufus. Kid movies are usually pretty rambunctious. It is kind of stupid to think that you can make them sit still and be quiet in the best of conditions.

        I’m thinking the kid must have been really loud if he could get someone to yell at him.

        Of course it is Minnesoda and we do believe pretty strongly in complete silence during movies, so maybe the guy was just a jerk for yelling.

        1. Some people are excessive though. My brother and his wife got me tickets to go see old-timer tennis (Lendl, Cash etc.) for some reason for my birthday a few years back. I reluctantly decided to take my daughter who was seven or eight at the time. It was a chance for her to ride the Metro and see a sporting event as I’m apt to do with her.

          Now remember. It’s not ATP tennis or anything serious. It was her first kick at sitting in arena seats (at the Bell Center) and just when I was gonna teacher some basic etiquette (like not kicking the back of the seat in front of you etc.) the guy in front of us had the gall to give ‘the look’ barely 10 minutes into our sitting. I stared right back at him ready to verbally nail him if he dared open his trap. Him and his dour wife intently watched as if it was Wimbledon.

          Anyway. It was the perfect life lesson.

      3. Something tells me that she wouldn’t have been yelled at if the kid were as noisy as everyone else in the room. Also realize that the mom is the sort of person who writes a HuffPo article about this microagression and she goes out on a limb to assert that the guy didn’t like the differentness of the kid’s noise, not the noise itself.

        I ‘d say things weren’t exactly as innocent as the author would imply.

    7. Shorter version: Here’s my victim cred, shut up, get the fuck out of my way.

      1. ^this. and there is no victim cred as powerful as a childhood cancer

    8. You were the man who shouted: “Get that kid out of here!”

      In the dark, like a coward.

      Clearly he should have turned the lights on first or waited til the end of the movie he couldn’t hear.

      1. Better yet, he could have just shouted “FIRE!” in the crowded theater and emptied it quickly.

    9. If somebody played the “my kid has brain cancer” card, I’d totally let her and the kid do whatever they want. I’d go from being annoyed to buying them popcorn and washing her car while they watch the movie.

  3. Hundreds of people have been ordered to evacuate flood-threatened parts of Texas.

    Because, you know, those are now wetlands.

    1. Wetlands are like the EPA’s Dar al Islam.

    2. I hear a rare bird is now sitting in a puddle in the middle of San Marcos. Nobody comes back until the eggs hatch.

    3. Hundreds of people have been ordered to evacuate flood-threatened parts of Texas.

      INSERT The Daily Show writer’s repetitive FEMA “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” joke here.

  4. Try this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..mg00000071

  5. Is that a rifle in your pants… or a Warty defense system?

    Man stuffed AK-47 rifle down his pants at Davie pawn shop, police say

    1. There is no defense for Warty.

    2. It’s not a clip, it’s a MAGAZINE!

    3. The owner of Public Pawn and Gun … noticed Alvarez limping out of the store

      “Oh, sorry, man. I thought it was *Pubic* Pawn and Gun.”

    4. This guy took the “guns as phallic symbols” nonsense a little too literally.

      1. This guy took the “guns as phallic symbols” nonsense a little too literally.

        Like these guys

        Love Gun

        You pulled the trigger of my
        Love Gun

  6. Former New York Gov. George Pataki has announced his intentions to seek the White House in 2016.

    The White House isn’t hiding.

  7. 10,000 a month? Seriously, how can you justify that kind of wage for essentially lobbying yourself?

    1. “Fake charities”

      1. Yeah I know, but didn’t anyone ever ask questions? The charity wasn’t exactly low profile, and Hillary wasn’t always running for president.

        1. The Beltway Class is OK with this shit, at least when the right people are doing it.

          1. I wonder how Mitt would have fared it came out that his wealth was a result of his fake charity organization.

            1. Considering they take him over the coals for Bain Capital, I think we know the answer.

    2. It was just that good of advice.

    3. “High cost-of-living area.”

    4. Remember, of the 100+ million that she took in only 9M was used for the Foundations purposes and the difference was spent on ‘administration’.

      Thieves dont justify their theft. Of all the people in the country Hillary is the worst possible choice for president. She is nothing but a straight up con artist.

      1. I know. The only possible candidate? How about in the bottom one percent of people eligible for the office? Holy shit, that we keep having to discuss this is so sickening. It’s not even about politics now.

      2. Holly Gennero McClane: After all your posturing, all your little speeches, you’re nothing but a common thief.
        Hans/Hillary Gruber: I am an exceptional thief, Mrs. McClane. And since I’m moving up to kidnapping, you should be more polite.

  8. The Clinton Foundation reportedly paid Sidney Blumenthal $10,000 a month while he provided advice about Libya to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

    Advice about how to further business interests connected to Libya?

    1. “Advice about how to further business interests connected to Libya?”

      What difference ? at this point, what difference does it make?

  9. Jessica Valenti: “Worldwide sexism increases suicide risk in young women”

    It was Dr Suzanne Petroni, the senior director for gender, population and development at the International Center for Research on Women, who first realized the chilling statistic as she was going through a WHO special report on adolescents. In a section on how maternal mortality has dropped, there was almost a throwaway line: “[M]aternal mortality ranks second among causes of death of 15?19-year old girls globally, exceeded only by suicide.”

    Petroni called a friend at the WHO to make sure the stat was correct and then dug a little deeper: she found that not only had suicide taken over maternal mortality as the top cause of death for adolescent girls, but she told me: “it was clear that from at least 2000 it was a leading cause of death in this age group”.

    “We need more research and evidence to tell us if it is actually happening for the reason we hypothesize it is ? which is that gender norms and inequality have a significant link for suicide vulnerability”, Petroni said.

    Seems the headline doesn’t match the article.

    1. Aren’t women way less likely to die from suicide than men?

      1. Yes. And more likely to injure others while doing so. Because women usually choose perceived non-disfiguring ways like taking off their seatbelt and driving into head on traffic at high speeds.

        1. That is certainly the feminine brand of stupid.

          1. Speaking of feminine brand of stupid, this morning I saw a woman applying makeup in her car while running the engine – in a closed parking garage. I wouldn’t mind except that other people park there too.

        1. Well, she is a woman…

          /TIWTAALW

    2. And when has Jessica ever let facts get in the way of her articles?

      You all complain about Marcotte, about ESB, about all the others. Jessica Valenti is still the worst.

      1. Worse than Nicole?

        1. I didn’t say that…

      2. Jessica Valenti actually seems to be mentally ill.

        1. I have pointed out many times that all of the feministas are batshit insane. All you have to do is dig a little bit and you will find that they all admit to it. Hell, they wear crazy like a badge of honor.

          1. Well, they’re all driven crazy by the patriarchy, so that too is men’s fault.

    3. In other words we already have our conclusion now lets see if we can cherry pick any evidence whatsoever to support it.

      1. This

      2. You pass the training session, “Social Science research in the 21st century”.

    4. Last I checked, about 80% of suicides are men, Men also make up about 90% of homicides and workplace deaths, in addition to dying about 7 years sooner on average.

      Funny how that patriarchy works out.

      1. We really need gender equality in those areas.

      2. When men choose to commit suicide it’s in the service of oppressing women, because they often do so to duck financial obligations. When women choose to do so it’s an expression of helplessness in the face of male oppression.

    5. She’s just throwing shit around at this point.

      She’s a child with lipstick.

    6. God, that’s idiotic. Nothing is actually happening. It’s just that other causes of death are becoming less of a problem. Which is a good thing. I would say that unless there is a large increase in the suicide rate, suicide being the leading cause of death among some group should generally be something to celebrate. It means that great progress has been made against other causes of premature death. The leading causes of death among young people should be suicide, car accidents and drug overdoses. It is a sign of amazing progress in reducing disease and violence that has happened.
      And if sexism increases the suicide rate, then that should be going down too since the world is really far less sexist than it ever has been.

      1. Overall, suicide rates globally actually have increased.

        http://www.suicide.org/interna…..stics.html

        Suicide rates have increased 60% in the last 45 years. They’ve increased for everyone though and also suicide rates are higher in the first world than the developing world so if sexism causes suicide, why do all the horribly patriarchal third world countries have lower suicide rates than enlightened Finland?

        1. Interesting that France has 2 to 2.5 the rates of neighboring countries like Spain, the UK and Italy.

          1. Must be the French gun culture.

            They need more gun control.

        2. So you’re saying what we need is more sexism to stop suicides?

        3. Interesting. I blame it on first world people having too much leisure to reflect on themselves and their lives. Which is also a good thing.

          I still say it’s a better situation than some disease or something being the leading cause of death. Something has to be the leading cause of death and suicide is something I know I can avoid.

          1. Something will always be the leading cause of death for [x] and that something will always be a crisis needing to be addressed with massive redistribution to [x].

        4. Huh. Guyana is way up there. I wonder if that’s a residual effect from Jim Jones.

  10. Blatter was among the 14 soccer officials charged this week by U.S. authorities

    War on Football! er, Futbol!

    1. What are you, Brazilian or something?

      1. +1 Campeonato Brasileiro

        1. You want corruption…read about that league. You won’t regret it.

  11. Exclusive: Russia masses heavy firepower on border with Ukraine – witness

    Russia’s army is massing troops and hundreds of pieces of weaponry including mobile rocket launchers, tanks and artillery at a makeshift base near the border with Ukraine, a Reuters reporter saw this week.

    Many of the vehicles have number plates and identifying marks removed while many of the servicemen had taken insignia off their fatigues. As such, they match the appearance of some of the forces spotted in eastern Ukraine, which Kiev and its Western allies allege are covert Russian detachments.

    The scene at the base on the Kuzminsky firing range, around 50 km (30 miles) from the border, offers some of the clearest evidence to date of what appeared to be a concerted Russian military build-up in the area.

    1. Ukraine headlines are beginning to sound alot like Voyager-leaving-the-solar syestem headline

      1. You mean Lou Reed is dead?!?!?

      2. Except the Voyager ones actually say something interesting if you look into it. If you are interested in that sort of thing.

  12. “Blatter was among the 14 soccer officials charged this week by U.S. authorities with racketeering, fraud, and money laundering.”

    Sepp Blatter was NOT one of the 14 indicted.

    Much to my fishy chagrin.

    1. I’m hoping he gets caught up in the Swiss investigation of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups.

      1. Putin wonders why the USA is involved.

        http://www.espnfc.com/fifa-wor…..a-meddling

        1. Because it was, apparently, American companies doing the bribing of the federation US Soccer is a member of; the US Soccer organization was also implicated. Jurisdictionally, it makes 100% sense.

          1. US Soccer was implicated? I didn’t hear Gulati’s name.

      2. *nodding aggressively*

  13. Scott Walker attacked over abortion quote that he didn’t actually say

    Newsrooms took it from there, editing together Walker’s comments so that they could claim in headlines that the Republican lawmaker said “forced ultrasounds” are “cool.”

    Right Wing Watch, a left-wing watchdog group, was one of the first to take on Walker’s comments, publishing a story Tuesday titled “Scott Walker: Ultrasounds Should Be Mandatory Since They’re ‘A Cool Thing.'”

    On Wednesday, multiple newsrooms appeared to follow Right Wing Watch’s lead.

    Talking Points Memo published a headline that read, “Scott Walker: Mandatory Ultrasounds Are ‘Just A Cool Thing’ For Women.”

    1. Another fake but accurate news story. How does the media have any credibility anymore?

      1. What do you mean ‘anymore’?

  14. Blumenthal … was providing unsolicited intelligence

    What does that even mean?

    1. I got a few detentions in middle school for “providing unsolicited intelligence,” but back then we just called ’em smart-ass remarks.

      1. “Got your ‘unsolicited intelligence’ right *here*!”

      2. Any use of intelligence in middle school was unsolicited.

        1. At $10K a month, it was definitely solicitated.

          All parties involved should probably be charged with solicitation.

  15. A former Reagan aide says Fox News is bad for Republicans. Is it?

    But Fox has proven it can influence elections. It went on the air in October 1996, and by June 2000, 17.3 percent of Americans said they watched it regularly. It wasn’t available nationwide, so researchers tracked 2000 election results in towns where it was and wasn’t available, with controls for demographics and geography. In a study on their findings, published in 2006, the researchers found that Fox had had “a significant impact” on the election, and towns where it was available saw anywhere from a 0.4 to 0.7 percent increase in the Republican vote share ? or about 200,000 votes nationwide. Its influence was less pronounced in rural areas and Republican congressional districts and the South, which they believed was because voters there already voted Republican, and thus there was a smaller portion of the population that could be persuaded to do so. Towns with more cable channels, and thus more competition for eyeballs, also saw less effect.

    1. So essentially, when people stopped getting all their news from one side of the aisle some of them started to think that the other guy might have a point. Amazing how that works.

    2. Shut them down!

      Repeal the 1st amendment!

  16. Pataki is no lackey!

    Do I have a career in political campaign advertising?

  17. “”How to break free from monogamy without destroying marriage

    “Before online dating, before her two kids, before the Big Conversation with her skeptical husband, Jessie already had an inkling that maybe she wasn’t quite like the ladies she saw at church, that maybe the sexual strictures of life in D.C.’s monied suburbs weren’t for her.

    “”Her first marriage, in her early 20s, had ended after an affair. (Hers.) Her second marriage, started shortly thereafter, was “happy ? very happy,” but as her boys grew up and moved out and moved on, she was left faintly bored….

    “”In 2010, Jessie approached her husband with an idea she called “ethical non-monogamy.” They would stay together as each other’s primary, lifelong partners, but they wouldn’t rule out other relationships ? as long as they happened openly. Jessie has shown her husband her profile on several dating sites, including Open Minded. When she returns from her weekly date with one of her four extramarital partners, she tells him as much, or as little, as he likes.

    1. “”Publicly, no one knows about this arrangement. (It’s why we have agreed to just use her first name in this story.) Jessie doesn’t plan to tell her children, though she could see it coming up one day. She and her husband still have sex, still go to social functions, still celebrate anniversaries.

      “”But that whole thing about “the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law .?.?. so long as he liveth”? To that, Jessie says no thanks.

      “”More and more women will make this choice or consider it, [biological anthropologist Helen] Fisher expects; it’s in keeping with decades of widespread social change and women’s empowerment.””

      Oh, and lest you think this is weird, be assured that it’s a trend among “more and more progressive couples.”

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..?tid=sm_tw

      1. Sorry, but the second they mentioned her having an affair I lost the ability to believe this is a long term solution. Sounds like she is going to hold onto the poor sap she is currently married too until it is more profitable to divorce him. She doesn’t have any integrity or ability to make sacrifices in order to be a decent human being. If she did she would have left the first marriage before jumping into bed with someone else.

        1. All that based on an article that has nothing from the husband? I think you are a bit hasty in your judgements.

          1. Having an affair in the modern era makes you untrustworthy and without integrity. The affair is a breach in trust, and if you had integrity you would have gotten a divorce instead.

            1. Yeppers. But people don’t like words like morals and ethics anymore. Want to screw around? Marry someone who is okay with that and knows what you’re doing.

              We really have a cultural malaise where people consistently mock the idea that honesty and morality are a good idea. And that extends far beyond marriage, of course.

              1. The only mistake I see in this discussion is the assumption that in the past people were different, more moral or ethical. There is nothing new under the sun.

                I know a thousand stories from generations past of infidelities and open marriages. It isn’t more common now, it is just more talked about. I am not even sure of that much.

                Honorable people and those with self awareness, intellectual integrity etc. have always been a small minority of the population.

                1. Didn’t say past people were different. Past people had an excuse for resorting to affairs. They lived under very different divorce laws, and many marriages were arranged and treated in a very different way. It was possible to be trustworthy and with integrity and still have a affair in the past. Now days, not so much.

                2. “I know a thousand stories from generations past of infidelities and open marriages. It isn’t more common now, it is just more talked about. I am not even sure of that much.”

                  Sure, there were plenty of people in the past who defied the norms of marriage. There were even people who preached against those norms – though those people tended to be regarded as radicals.

                  But at the very least, changing the norms will change behavior at the margins. There would be a certain number of people in the old days who would be discouraged by pro-marriage norms from sleeping around, who in the absence of such norms feel free to fool around.

                  Let’s look at the norm against white supremacism. There were plenty of non-racists willing to defy those norms in the past, but the racist norm allowed people on fence to choose racism over equality, whereas now the norms nudge fence-sitters into at least publicly disavowing racism.

                  So I’m not saying the past was a paradise, since some of their norms were worse than ours. But their marriage norms were better.

                3. I’m not going there, but I do think things are worse, just because people tolerate them much more than they used to. I’m not talking so much about loose sexual morals, drug use, or stuff like that, but about honor, integrity, honesty. Those are almost a joke now.

            2. I think there is a lot more involved than you make out. Especially if there are kids involved. It’s stupid just to lay down rules like that and declare that they apply universally to every person and every circumstance. People should do what works to make them happy. Especially in their personal life. You have no idea whether these people are happier with this arrangement than they would be if they were divorced and no basis at all to judge.

              1. There are high-risk behaviors and low-risk behaviors. You pick.

              2. Seeing as my parents divorced and my younger siblings parents divorced, I can say that having kids makes it more critical to divorce as opposed to having an affair. My parents divorced when I was two, before their feelings could get too hurt and the bitterness could take over. Because of this I never had to deal with the stress of my parents fighting through me or living in a unhappy home.

                My siblings weren’t so lucky. Their parents held out for years past the point the divorce should have gone through. Not only did they have to live with parents that weren’t happy, after the divorce they had to deal with parents that were bitter and subconsciously still fighting with the other parent through the kids.

                Also, note I never said the arrangement couldn’t work. I said I didn’t believe this arrangement would work, because the woman has already demonstrated great character flaws in an earlier relationship. The problem with affairs is that they are done behind the other partners back without respect for the feelings of the person you’re in a romantic relationship with. If your upfront about what you are going to do beforehand there is no issue.

                1. And your personal experience applies to everyone how? Yes, there are definitely people who should get divorced for their own sake and for their children’s. There are also cases where people get past an affair and continue to have a marriage that at least provides a good environment to their kids. I have anecdotes too.

                  1. You’re the one claiming I have no idea about the different situations that an affair could occur in, and you specifically highlighted relationships with kids. If you are going to talk about what I do and do not know personal anecdotes are fair game.

                    And seeing how we are dealing with personal opinions on people who can be trusted and not laws, I can lay down as many blanket rules and judge as much as I want. This lady wants to convince me that her relationship is going to work in the long run. Due to the fact she has displayed major character flaws in the past, I am not going to be convinced of her point unless she can show that she has actually overcome said flaws.

                  2. Zebulon, I think the point is that it’s a very risky behavior. Arguing that it could possibly work for these people is missing the point that the percentages are very bad. Would you put money on this working out?

        2. She had an affair in her first marriage more than 20 years before she went to her second husband about opening their marriage.

          Now I don’t know about you but since nothing has been posted indicating any affairs in a more than 20 year long marriage I think we can safely discount the affair as a youthful indiscretion that she learned from and likely never repeated

      2. I say good for them if they can make it work.

        1. It won’t. Well, the odds are against it, anyway. Polyamory really requires that all participants have no real emotional ties as partner disposability is a key feature. In this case, the husband has those ties so, ultimately, there’s gonna be trouble.

          1. Most people can’t do it. But I have to admire those who can.

            1. I’d really like to hear the husband’s take on all this. I think you’re right that it might be possible for some people to make this work, but not many.

            2. I’d never try to stop anyone from trying (save for advising against it if my opinion/advice were asked for),nor participate in one again but I’d hardly use the word “admire” to describe those who are really into it. Based solely on the Polys I’ve met and known, I think “pity” is more appropriate.

              The only upside I can see towards an open poly society is knowing who’s who.

              1. You seem to have more direct experience than I.

          2. I’ve heard there a whole country of people who do this. (France)

            1. A frenchman comparing our two countries in the mid-19th century:

              “Although the travellers who have visited North America differ on a great number of points, they all agree in remarking that morals are far more strict there than elsewhere….

              “Amongst aristocratic nations birth and fortune frequently make two such different beings of man and woman, that they can never be united to each other. Their passions draw them together, but the condition of society, and the notions suggested by it, prevent them from contracting a permanent and ostensible tie. The necessary consequence is a great number of transient and clandestine connections. Nature secretly avenges herself for the constraint imposed upon her by the laws of man. This is not so much the case when the equality of conditions has swept away all the imaginary, or the real, barriers which separated man from woman. No girl then believes that she cannot become the wife of the man who loves her; and this renders all breaches of morality before marriage very uncommon: for, whatever be the credulity of the passions, a woman will hardly be able to persuade herself that she is beloved, when her lover is perfectly free to marry her and does not….

              1. “The very circumstances which render matrimonial fidelity more obligatory also render it more easy. In aristocratic countries the object of marriage is rather to unite property than persons; hence the husband is sometimes at school and the wife at nurse when they are betrothed. It cannot be wondered at if the conjugal tie which holds the fortunes of the pair united allows their hearts to rove; this is the natural result of the nature of the contract. When, on the contrary, a man always chooses a wife for himself, without any external coercion or even guidance, it is generally a conformity of tastes and opinions which brings a man and a woman together, and this same conformity keeps and fixes them in close habits of intimacy.

                1. “Not indeed that the equality of conditions can ever succeed in making men chaste, but it may impart a less dangerous character to their breaches of morality. As no one has then either sufficient time or opportunity to assail a virtue armed in self-defence, there will be at the same time a great number of courtesans and a great number of virtuous women. This state of things causes lamentable cases of individual hardship, but it does not prevent the body of society from being strong and alert: it does not destroy family ties, or enervate the morals of the nation. Society is endangered not by the great profligacy of a few, but by laxity of morals amongst all. In the eyes of a legislator, prostitution is less to be dreaded than intrigue.”

                  http://genius.com/Alexis-de-to…..-annotated

                  1. I suppose I should also add this:

                    “Almost all men in democracies are engaged in public or professional life; and on the other hand the limited extent of common incomes obliges a wife to confine herself to the house, in order to watch in person and very closely over the details of domestic economy. All these distinct and compulsory occupations are so many natural barriers, which, by keeping the two sexes asunder, render the solicitations of the one less frequent and less ardent?the resistance of the other more easy.”

          3. As someone who is Polyamorous and in an open marriage that has lasted 15 years I can tell you with absolute certainty that you don’t have the slightest fucking clue what you are talking about.

            1. 18 here. *fistbump* Congratulations.

          4. And you know that from your decades of successful poly relationships?

      3. be assured that it’s a trend among “more and more progressive couples.”

        Along with so many other good ideas!

      4. it’s a trend among “more and more progressive couples.”

        When you apply goalpost-shifting progressive logic to your marital vows, you will end up with a progressive utopia marriage, aka, no marriage.

        And remember – it is conservatives believe that progressives are deluded, while progressives believe that conservatives are evil.

        1. When you apply goalpost-shifting progressive logic to your marital vows, you will end up with a progressive utopia marriage, aka, no marriage.

          It takes a village… to satisfy your whore of a wife?

  18. Shocking body cam footage shows moment cops throw handcuffed eight-months pregnant black woman to the ground

    Charlena Cooks of Barstow, California was eight months pregnant when she and an employee at her daughter’s school got in a ‘petty’ argument
    The employee called police after the two women fought in the school parking lot, who said no charges could be filed
    They then asked Cooks to give them her name, something they did not ask the employee, and grew agitated as she refused
    Two officers then pulled her arms around her back and shoved her to the ground to cuff her
    She can be heard screaming on the body cam the entire time that she is pregnant
    Charges against her were ultimately dropped, but the Barstow Police Department stands behind their actions

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

    I wish this stuff could surprise me.

    1. They didn’t just throw any ole pregnant woman to ground. . .

  19. The smarter the president, the better: Thomas Jefferson, Warren Harding and the importance of being an egghead

    By contrast, in the historiometric approach, a person’s IQ is quantitatively estimated based on variables having known correlations with IQ, such as highest level of education, academic honors, scores on college admissions exams, occupation, and preferences. In his study, Simonton found that IQ estimates for the first 42 presidents (Washington to G. W. Bush) ranged from 118?around the average for a college graduate?to a stratospheric 165?well beyond the conventional cutoff for “genius.” (The three lowest, from the bottom, were Ulysses S. Grant, Warren Harding, and James Monroe. The three highest, from the top, were John Quincy Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and John F. Kennedy.) What’s more, IQ correlated positively with a measure of “presidential greatness” based on multiple rankings and ratings of presidents’ leadership ability?and the relationship went in a straight line. The smarter the president, the better, roughly speaking. Simonton’s IQ estimates also correlate positively with a ranking of presidential performance compiled by statistician and FiveThirtyEight.com founder Nate Silver.

    yeah…

    1. JFK is rarely ranked highly as president by historians (though he is by the American people) mostly because he didn’t accomplish anything in his term. And yet he has the third highest IQ, huh?

      Milton Friedman always said that Nixon had the highest IQ of the presidents he met.

      1. In the first century of this country, a president was judged to be good if he didn’t accomplish anything. That was back when Americans had a healthy distrust for the federal government. Not so much anymore.

      2. And according to Hunter S. Thompson, much to his dismay, a superior grasp of College football to his own!

      3. I always heard that Nixon is/was widely thought of to be one of the sharpest guy’s we ever had as president, besides Obama of course.

      4. Nixon just used it for evil purposes.

      5. Well he did accomplish getting the United States involved in Vietnam, and that wonderful military adventure know as the Bay of Pigs. Wait a sec. Why do people still like him? He was a complete fuck up.

        1. Hey, now! He was smart enough to know that he should wear makeup when appearing on TV. So, there’s that.

        2. People still like him because he got killed.

          1. People still like him because he got killed.

            The best kind of President

          2. I like to imagine him getting shot prevented him from becoming the first president to die of a drug overdose. It was probably the trajectory he was heading on.

        3. Well, at least conservatives don’t ignore his actions and have come to accept Nixon’s legacy keeping a rather sober perspective on his Presidency – from what I can discern anyway.

          Liberals on the other hand, still treat Clinton as if he’s a throw back to a great period lost and who knows how they’ll even deal with Obama for posterity.

      1. He can never be as cool as Washington.

        1. Washington by many contemporary accounts, was a tremendous dbag.

    2. Wasn’t Hoover a genius? Many engineering patents and a fortune from his mining operations.

      So smart, he thought he could manage the economy like a mine. I’ll take a man of middling intelligence who knows his limitations (and the government’s).

    3. “(The three lowest, from the bottom, were Ulysses S. Grant, Warren Harding, and James Monroe. The three highest, from the top, were John Quincy Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and John F. Kennedy.)”

      Grant wasn’t what you’d call a great President, but I hear he managed OK as a general.

      Adams II was really smart, but he couldn’t get his national-university idea through Congress.

      Monroe at least had his Doctrine, but he was dumb enough to abandon his limited-government principles.

      Warren Harding presided over a recovery, and put Charles Evans Hughes at State, and Mellon at Treasury. Even his scandals involved trying to get a reliable oil supply for the Navy.

      JFK, that genius, brought the world to the brink of armageddon, all the while suffering from genius STDs and taking medicine from a top physician called Dr. Feelgood.

      1. Grant was an awful politician but a great general in both the tactical and strategic sense. he did what other “smarter” men but failed leaders do not: exercised the willingness to adapt to a situation and exploit all resources at his disposal to achieve his objective.

        He knew the limitations of his army and himself and adapted accordingly. He was probably the greatest “leader of men” outside of George Washington ever to hold the office and he was a poor president (achieving little of what he sought to) because being a leader of soldiers or private citizens is not the same as being a politician.

        That aside, IMO you have to measure how successful a president is by comparing what he accomplished versus what he set out to do. Any other metric is competely subjective and really boils down to a opinion on likability by the authors.

        1. He was probably also one of the best people to ever hold the office, unfortuantely that also contributed to his failures as a politician becuase it made him far too trusting of his friends (and those who cast themselves as his friends for their own personal benefit).

          Hell in some ways he was kind of a real life Ned Stark

          1. From what I’ve read, you are right.

            He was also very god friends with Mark Twain, which puts him in good company as far as I’m concerned.

    4. What’s more, IQ correlated positively with a measure of “presidential greatness” … Simonton’s IQ estimates also correlate positively with a ranking of presidential performance

      And do they correlate with any *actually known IQ scores*? This is known as “validation”.

    5. “By contrast, in the historiometric approach, a person’s IQ is quantitatively estimated based on variables having known correlations with IQ, such as highest level of education, academic honors, scores on college admissions exams, occupation, and preferences.”

      This seems really stupid. None of these people actually took IQ tests. Therefore, you’re just trying to randomly estimate IQ scores based on how they act in their lives, which is bound to be off by a large degree.

      1. Nevermind that once you reach certain threshold, IQ means nothing. Motivating principles take over.

        1. This is quite true. I know several people who clock in at 180 IQ and their success is more related to motivation than raw smarts.

      2. Exactly – In a major crisis, I would take Grant over any number of other presidents, lousy as he was – day-to-day – as Commander in Chief.

    6. And here I thought W was the doopidest.

    7. TOP

      MEN

      1. ^THIS.

        The cult of the Presidency abides.

        Why not ditch democracy and just find the highest IQ person in the US – maybe the Unabomber – and make him President?

    8. “This view puts greater emphasis on interpersonal skills than intelligence. The president is someone you should want to have a beer with, or maybe go bowling with”

      Er, pass.

      I like how they presume to know who people want to have a beer with.

    9. 165 IQ is “stratospheric?”

      1. Actually yeah, it puts you out somewhere near or in the 3rd standard deviation

    10. Jimmy Carter worked with nuclear reactors in the Navy. You have to be pretty smart to get that job. He even helped dismantle a reactor after a partial meltdown. And yet , somehow, his knowledge of nuclear reactors did not lead to a successful presidency.

    11. UNABOMBER 2016

      Because high IQ means better performance.

  20. what now?

    Elon Musk will not save us: Why libertarians waiting for a superman are wasting everyone’s time

    If you’re familiar with the kind of pop-Nietzscheanism that suffuses elite libertarian circles (Mike Huckabee-style religious conservatism is more the province of the rabble), you can basically guess where Poulos’ argument goes from there. An out of control egalitarianism, born from insecurity and fear, causes us to keep geniuses like Musk from reaching their full potential. Due to a meek, docile and hidebound fealty to the supremacy of government ? usually not something associated with Americans, but whatever ? we are “setting our sights too low,” because “our government is incapable of doing the big things that actually need to be done.” Rather than squabble over a carbon tax or international treaties, Poulos writes, we should “turn Washington into the biggest venture capitalist in the world, and hand Silicon Valley a blank check.”

    Yet as obvious as the solution looks, we still won’t do it. Our “fear” and our “resentful queasiness about the new ruling techno-class” ? our worry that granting them this “cultural permission” will allow them to create “a civilization apart: plainly higher and better than us” ? won’t allow it.

    1. My fear is way less that Elon Musk isn’t achieving his full potential, and way more that the average person who wants to open a nail salon or small industrial shop isn’t able to do so because of licensing, or can’t find a place to open due to zoning restrictions, or can’t hire somebody at an affordable wage because of minimum wage laws.

      1. If only Republicans understood, and could explain this to the American people. Regulations are not there to stop a bunch of Captain Planet villians from dumping toxic waste into rivers just for the EVULZ. They exist to destroy small business. To prevent the poor from getting off the government dole to turn what could be self-made men into employees instead.

        I would prefer a government that had massive taxes on my economic activities instead of a government that constantly prevents my economic activities with new laws, regulations licensing requirements, etc.

        It really is a great evil that forces men to live lesser lives then the otherwise could.

        1. Most regulations started because something bad happened. But the regulatory agencies eventually get too close to the industries they are regulating and begin doing things like blocking competition. This is almost universally true, so it’s not about the wrong laws or wrong people. It’s about a busted system.

          1. It is about the wrong laws. It is precisely because of the wrong laws.

            1. Not really. At least, that’s not the whole story. Some enabling acts are fine–accepting that the resulting regulation is legitimate for the moment–but what happens after that is not fine. So much is haywire–legislatures cede, usually illegally, too much power and discretion to the agency, agencies operate far beyond the black letter of the law, with virtually no consequences, courts justify everything they do, with few exceptions, and, of course, the regulators love to keep the number of regulated entities small. And that’s just for starters.

              1. What do you think “the system” actually is? A building? A group of people? If a system of social order is “busted”, does that mean we need to hang some new gutters and slap on a new layer of paint on Capitol Hill?

                Of course it’s the laws, because that’s what the system is.

                1. My point is that the written laws aren’t even close to the totality of “the law.” It’s one of the big problems today.

          2. But the regulatory agencies eventually get too close to the industries they are regulating

            The fundamental regulatory conundrum: you can’t effectively regulate an industry you know nothing about, and you can’t learn about an industry without getting involved in it.

            Thus you either end up shutting down entire industries because you have ivory tower fools making the rules, or you end up with far too cozy relationships that favor the big players. Given the choice of the two, I’d take the latter every time, but it’s a false choice that shouldn’t exist in the first place. Yet whenever there’s “a problem”, this is everyone’s go-to “solution”.

            Of course, the biggest problem is that lawmakers don’t face the consequences they should. They can almost always get away with royally fucking a small minority of the population and still enjoy boisterous support from a majority.

        2. “Regulations are not there to stop a bunch of Captain Planet villians from dumping toxic waste into rivers just for the EVULZ. They exist to destroy small business. To prevent the poor from getting off the government dole to turn what could be self-made men into employees instead.”

          ^This^This^This^This^

          1. Indeed, there was already a system in place to deal with polluters and the like; it’s called tort. In fact, it was by and large governments who gutted that system, thus inventing a false necessity for regulatory agencies. Most of the great industrial-ecological disasters can be traced to some government making a bad decision. It should come as no surprise that entities who exempt themselves from the law end up violating it all the time.

      2. I agree. While it’s fine what Elon Musk is doing but let’s face it, part of it is ego and does little to impact local entrepreneurs. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Ego drives many accomplishments.

        But for me, the small stuff is equally if not more important. Letting the average person pursue their interests with limited bureaucratic interference is just as important as dreaming big as Musk does.

    2. I wasn’t expecting Elon Musk to save me.

    3. I was going to write something about how Silicon Valley doesn’t need the government to be its venture capitalist, but then I saw it was Salon.

    4. I don’t think the Poulos chap is a libertarian in the H&R sense. Why would we let the government form a new techinco-industrial complex entirely dependent on government funding? Look how well the space program is going.

    5. But according to a recent column in the Week by the conservative writer James Poulos, all that public-spirited organizing is a mistake. What the world should do instead, he says, is give tech billionaires like Elon Musk anything they ask ? and then get the hell out of their way.

      I didn’t realize that was a libertarian solution

      1. Yeah, I don’t want Musk and other entrepreneurs to get special treatment. I just want no one to get special treatment. How about we let the market operate?

    6. People actually think Elon Musk is some sort of Jesus?

      And f*** it – I don’t want to be saved, I just want to be left the f*** alone.

  21. China Says Its Most-Wanted Fugitive Is in U.S. Custody

    China’s most-wanted fugitive, an official accused of embezzling more than $40 million, is in U.S. custody, according to the Communist Party’s anti-graft agency.

    Yang Xiuzhu, who fled China in 2003, was detained after entering the U.S. using a fake Dutch passport last year, according to the party’s Central Commission for Discipline Inspection.

    In the first confirmation of Yang’s whereabouts in a decade, the commission’s International Cooperation Department said she escaped from detention in the Netherlands in May 2014 – – after being rejected for political asylum and before she could be sent back to China.

    1. Yang needs to tell the Coms about E Plebnista …

      1. E Plebnista, why don’t you come to your senses?
        You been out ethnic cleansin’ for so long now.
        Oh, you’re a hard one, but I know that you got your reasons,
        These guys that are beamin’ you can hurt you somehow.

        With apologies for the source material. But it scanned, damn you, it scanned.

    2. “Herro, I have Dutch passport, as you can see. I love Gouda cheese, and dikes, and windmills. I…hey, get you hands off me!”

    3. That is not an attractive woman. Even with the money. Looks like 1950’s stereotype Chinese mother-in-law…

  22. OMG LOL I thought I didn’t want kids and then I wanted kids OMG tee hee LOL

    You hate this fucking guy too

    But I’d written all those articles about #BlackLivesMatter. Half the people who follow me on Twitter followed me because of those viral tweets I made. I have talked a very big talk about caring about police brutality against black Americans.

    And it’s one thing to simply not intend to go to a protest because you don’t think you have time. It’s another to have the protest suddenly turn out to be a few hundred feet in front of you and to choose to physically turn your car around and drive away.

    There’s an empty parking spot on the street at Detroit and 55th. I jump out, click the fob and start striding briskly past the cop cars, trying to catch up. They pay me no mind. It’s around 5:30 p.m., and it turns out my day is only beginning.

    1. Tried to read those. Failed.

      1. Yeah, the don’t want kids article was essentially “once I was in my 20s and now I’m in my 30s.”

    2. Judging you for having the opportunity to beat that guy up and not taking it. Very disappointing.

  23. Former New York Gov. George Pataki has announced his intentions to seek the White House in 2016.

    Recall all of your magazine covers, we need to add another white male!

    1. Pataki? That isn’t a Gringo name is it? It sounds like some kind of swarthy, mediterranean tribal name.

  24. End of an era: Technology is changing the way we park as tickets decline:

    Smartphones and new technology have made it easier to pay for parking in the District, and the result has been a decline in the number of tickets issued, an analysis shows.

    In just four years, the number of parking tickets issued in the District has dropped by 300,000, according to city records. More than half of drivers who use on-street parking are estimated to be using the Parkmobile app, an average of 600,000 per month. Add drivers who use credit cards to pay at meters or pay stations, and about 70 percent of on-street parking transactions are cash-free, D.C. records show……
    Last year, the District’s inspector general issued a report critical of the city’s ticket-writing practi?ces. The report included the comment of a “senior District official,” granted anonymity by the inspector general, who said, “One of the beauties of parking, it’s like the [Internal Revenue Service]. If you get a parking ticket, you are guilty until you have proven yourself innocent. .?.?. And that’s worked well for us.”

    1. From the comments:

      econundertow
      5/27/2015 12:02 PM EDT
      Get rid of the cars and there is no more parking-ticket problem.

      After 100 years or so of inconvenience, our descendents would learn how to live without cars; a lesson our great-grandparents learned without difficulty.

      We don’t have a choice, our supplies of cheap, loss-leader fuel as well as supplies of low-cost credit (low real cost credit) are exhausted. Right now credit is most important, the rising real cost of credit is why fuel prices have crashed. Like it or not we are in the process of being de-carred. As with all such things, the process has begun at the margins: the average Syrian, Greek, Libyan, Malian, Nigerian (Brazilian/Russian/Indian/Chinese) can no longer afford a car. Neither can 1/3 of the US workforce: none of the above have access to credit.

      Our only choice is whether we de-car gently and make the best of it or do we go out kicking and screaming, turning the US and the West into Chechnya?

      Remember: if you drive a car you are funding #ISIS …

      So this person exists.

      1. Oh….

        /Edith Bunker.

      2. Can you get a migraine from reading too much stupid?

      3. Get rid of the cars and there is no more parking-ticket problem.

        Get rid of your head and there is no more headache problem.

      4. The the average BRIC resident can “no longer” afford a car? Apparently the Chinese were all driving cars under Mao but the Western press conspired to keep it a secret.

  25. Feds Help Finance Creation of Implantable Body Antenna for ‘Long-term Patient Monitoring’

    The government has so far given $5,070 for a graduate fellowship to work on the project, which begins June 1.

    Looks like the call for austerity is starting to take roots.

  26. Putin weighs in on FIFA

    Putin said even if “someone has done something wrong,” Russia “has nothing to do with it.” He then tried to portray the probe as a U.S. attempt to go after dissenters, likening the case to the persecution of whistleblowers Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.

    “Our American counterparts, unfortunately, are using the same methods to reach their goals and illegally persecute people. I don’t rule out that this is the case in relation to FIFA,” Putin said. “I have no doubt that this is yet another evident attempt to derail Mr. Blatter’s re-election as FIFA president. We are aware of the pressure that he was subjected to in relation to Russia holding the 2018 World Cup.”

    1. Putin wishes he could be as corrupt as Blatter.

      1. corrupt Blatter

        Sounds like a, um, condition.

        1. Kind of like ‘Santorum’.

    2. Methinks he doth protest too much. The US investigation didn’t even touch on the 2018 or 2022 World Cups. Or anyone outside of North and South America.

      Now the Swiss…

    3. I suddenly have this vision of Hillary Clinton fleeing the U.S. and becoming Putin’s Foreign Minister.

      1. +1 Russian Reset

        1. That suddenly makes so much sense.

  27. Nebraska is now the 19th state to have abolished the death penalty.

    They’re not letting anyone live there anymore?

    1. I listen to various international broadcasters, and Radio France International’s English Service covered Nebraska this morning, but not this story from the EU.

      The foreign chattering classes are really obsessed with the US.

      1. “Ha ha, now your are *really* Finnish! Goodbye, criminal scum!”

      2. They are.

        It’s nauseating because they say stupid things.

      3. “My answer was that I could consider it,” said Lindstr?m at a Finns Party press conference. “So it’s a little bit unbelievable to write that I was a killer and murder and all that.”

        Dude, you’re *Finnish*. You guys are like the most heavily armed, bloodthirsty, lethal people north of the equator outside of North America. You shouldn’t be surprised at all to be characterized that way.

      4. Jealous bitches always despise the best girl in the room.

  28. According to a new poll, Hillary Clinton faces her biggest threat in 2016 from Republican candidates Marco Rubio and Rand Paul.

    They take showers the most presidentially.

  29. an aside: I really enjoy the Hardcore History podcasts by Dan Carlin so I thought I would check out his political ones – Common Sense.

    First one I listened to he started making some decent points, quoting Rand Paul – but then went on with Robert Reich (ugh)… and then Senator Warren (double-ugh).

  30. Great Moments in Central Planning

    In the USSR, nail factories were evaluated based on the total mass of output, not on how many of their nails were bought. So, the factories produced very heavy nails to make their quotas look good, even though the nails were useless to consumers. This led to a mysterious shortage of nails.

    Also, there was a crisis in the USSR for much needed mining equipment. The specs said the equipment had to be painted with red oil-resistant paint. The factory only had green oil-resistant paint and regular red paint. The factory director chose to make the equipment and then keep it in the warehouse without painting it. When he was asked why, he said he did not want to get sent to Siberia for sending out equipment with the wrong color of paint. Meanwhile, Soviet miners were dying from lack of the equipment.

    1. I want the Soviet Union back.

      I would have started a Kickstarter campaign to buy free flight tickets for any progressive wanting to live in a communist country, and encouraged them to leave America.

      1. Cuba and Venezuela still exist.

      2. You’d think a track record of millions upon millions of murders would invalidate communism’s legitimacy. The lesson here is to not underestimate the endurance of human stupidity.

    2. And a Sanders Administration would be different, how?

      1. A Sanders administration will pass a mandate saying all children must be fed, and the Sanders administration bureaucrats will find 23 brands of deodorant and feed them to the hungry kids to meet the mandate, so they don’t get shipped to gulags in Northern Alaska.

  31. Blatter was among the 14 soccer officials charged this week by U.S. authorities with racketeering, fraud, and money laundering.

    Combining David Blatt and a police blotter, what could go wrong?

  32. 124 years of environmental failed predictions. Will post in PM links because it’s too good:

    http://www.lowerwolfjaw.com/agw/quotes.htm

    1. IN 1798 Thomas Robert Malthus inaugurated a grand tradition of environmentalism with his best-selling pamphlet on population. Malthus argued with impeccable logic but distinctly peccable premises that since population tended to increase geometrically (1,2,4,8 ) and food supply to increase arithmetically (1,2,3,4 ), the starvation of Great Britain was inevitable and imminent. Almost everybody thought he was right. He was wrong.
      In 1865 an influential book by Stanley Jevons argued with equally good logic and equally flawed premises that Britain would run out of coal in a few short years’ time. In 1914, the United States Bureau of Mines predicted that American oil reserves would last ten years. In 1939 and again in 1951, the Department of the Interior said American oil would last 13 years. Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

      “Plenty of Gloom”, The Economist 18 Dec 1997

    2. Oooo, that’s some heinous web design.

      It’s a good start, but it needs better design and citations.

  33. Working at home today with a cold – and my wife won’t go to the store for me to get a supply of tonic water. The monster!

    1. Her name wouldn’t happen to be Nurse Ratchet now would it?

  34. After seeing mattress girl’s rousing success, negratude takes the stage.

    I had convinced myself into believing what Paul had done to me was permissible, or potentially even harmless, but was convinced otherwise when Paul repeatedly retaliated against me in a lecture class in which we were both enrolled after Carry That Weight’s National Day of Action last October. After reporting the retaliation (which was dismissed by the investigative team in the Office of Gender Based Misconduct as “hyperbolic and illogical”) I struggled even further to believe that my experiences were real, that my rights to exist and feel safe on this campus were legitimate, or that I had done the right thing in coming forward with my experience. It came as no surprise to me when, on November 26th, 2014, a maintenance person working in the Cafe in Dodge came up to me from behind, cornered me against the wall, and raped me?somehow, I was convinced in that moment, I had brought this upon myself.

    1. For my Visual Arts Senior Thesis I will use a meditative dance practice that harnesses kinetic energy within my body as an embodied metaphor for the evasion of structural and interpersonal violence, and as an incipient expression of black, trans/feminine and queer identity and resistance. As a literal expression of my right to both occupy and negotiate discursive and physical space both on campus and in the United States more broadly, the dance will center black, trans-feminine and queer experience within the national discourse surrounding sexual violence and racist brutality, and challenge the audience to redefine our collective understanding of anti-blackness and trans/femininity’s integral relationship to rape and mass incarceration.

      1. You have got to watch the video.

        1. *stabs Coeus with fork*

        2. No, and you can’t make me do it. My brain is already refusing to read past the first couple of lines of your second post.

        3. That video gave me the shits. Literally.

        4. Is this the one where she struggles to open the can of soup? Because I watched that on suggestion from one of you sadists a few months ago and I ain’t been right since.

        5. “You have got to watch the video.”

          Fuck you. I am not watching that. No way.

      2. FTFC: I found this very powerful and wish you the best. Without imposing myself, I hope I can recommend some occupational courses perhaps as a paralegal or lab technician. I mean, just to pay the rent as you “perform” struggling black trans/femme artist.

        1. I hear McD’s may pay pretty good in the future… Can you program a robot?

      3. After reporting the retaliation (which was dismissed by the investigative team in the Office of Gender Based Misconduct as “hyperbolic and illogical”) I struggled even further to believe that my experiences were real,

        It came as no surprise to me when, on November 26th, 2014, a maintenance person working in the Cafe in Dodge came up to me from behind, cornered me against the wall, and raped me

        Fucking fruit loop. Wonder what she defines rape as?

        1. I struggled even further to believe that my experiences were real

          It is a struggle to believe that fake things happened.

    2. What in the hell? That person is either putting on a performance art show or needs mental help.

      1. You act like those are different things.

        1. Well, by performance art I meant to imply satire, but I get your point.

          1. DICKNANIGANS

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdXo8uJ9NSk

            About the same, I wager…

    3. Wouldn’t a better use of time be to report the rape to the police rather than make-up a dance about it?

      What sane person thinks: Hmm… get the police to arrest my rapist or make an interpretative dance about being raped? Decisions, decisions.

    4. When even an entity called the Office of Gender Based Misconduct dismisses your sexual-misconduct complaint as “hyperbolic and illogical,” it’s time to consider the possibility that you may be a loony.

    5. “the investigative team in the Office of Gender Based Misconduct”

      We really have lost, haven’t we?

      1. Yes. What do you suppose the office staff do all day? How many violations of policy do they process every week? How does this not fall under a more general Office of Student Conduct?

        /napolitano off

        1. See, the Office of Student Conduct had some assholes that nobody liked working there who were totally couter-productive. When some of the flakier nutters in the student body proposed an Office of Gender Based Misconduct, the saner elements of the OSC jumped at the chance to ‘promote’ (off-load) the flaming assholes.

          This is bureacratic jui-jitsu 101.

  35. According to a new poll, Hillary Clinton faces her biggest threat in 2016 from Republican candidates Marco Rubio and Rand Paul.

    Standard disclaimer that all polls are stupid and meaningless when taken this early, but really, shouldn’t this be the only poll that matters? How can anyone take a primary poll seriously when it has Ben Carson tied for first?

  36. For eight straight working days, when I have gone to get coffee, the pot has run out when I’ve taken half a cup. This has happened whether I go to get coffee at 9:30, or 10, or 10:30.

    This is a giant conspiracy against me.

    1. Why is this a bad thing? It’s an excuse to make a fresh pot and then have a fresh cup.

    2. The director of my department is notorious for leaving a tablespoon of coffee in the pot, Is it that hard to fire up another batch?

      1. Not to mention a fire hazard. Hey asshole, burners meant to warm a quart of coffee cook a tablespoon down to empty and then bad shit happens.

      2. Incredibly, many people do not know how to make coffee.

        1. Or load/unload the office dishwasher.

          1. We don’t want to hear what you do to Katie at your office.

        2. I had a girlfriend whose father evidently had no idea how to make any kind of food at all. He would have starved had he not had a rather subservient wife and two daughters to take care of him.

          1. And…you’re jealous of this fortunate man?

            1. …is what a sexist would have said.

            2. He is a tremendous asshole.

              1. Ah, so there’s that 🙁

          2. I’ve known people who couldn’t cook. It boggled my mind. They lived on takeout and such. I couldn’t imagine that. Just the cost alone. For me eating food prepared by someone else is an expensive treat. To do that all the time, to need to do that all the time… I was cooking breakfast when I was ten, and these people couldn’t cook an egg.

            1. “For me eating food prepared by someone else is an expensive treat.”

              I worked in a couple of restaurants when I was a kid. I know the shit that goes on in the kitchen.

    3. Statistically its possible, but probably you have a couple of assholes sharing your coffee pot.

      1. We beat this by getting a Keurig… still have to put water in it, but a lot less dickish than leaving backwash and grounds in the bottom of the pot.

    4. Better yet, quit drinking coffee and get a Bigelow or Twinings variety pack.

    5. Check your privilege, you beverage normative slaver.

      #patriarchyproblems

    6. Might a suggest a personal French press? Wifey got me this after we broke or 40th or so glass press and I absolutely love it.

      http://www.amazon.com/oz-Doubl…..ench+press

  37. Seems like the cops in Baltimore aren’t showing up in the Western Districts. Now I wonder why that may be?

    http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/…..homicides/

  38. If Hilary can stay a viable candidate for President, why should Blatter retire?

  39. Bernie Sanders’ Dark Age Economics

    “Dollars are just a method of keeping count, and mandating higher wages for work that has not changed at all is, in the long run, like measuring yourself in centimeters instead of inches in order to make yourself taller, or tracking your weight in kilograms instead of pounds as a means of losing weight. The gentlemen in Washington seem to genuinely believe that if they measure their penises in picas they’ll all be Jonah Falcon ? in reality, their interns won’t notice any difference.”

    DAYUM, Williamson.

    1. “Poverty is worst where consumers have the fewest choices, e.g., in North Korea, the old Soviet Union, the socialist paradise that is modern Venezuela, etc. ”

      Bingo.

    2. It is maddening how many people do not understand the difference between money and wealth. Since the govt can create money, they assume it can also create wealth. So poverty could be solved if only the govt would just create enough wealth.

      herp herp herpa derp

      1. It is astonishing that the progressives still believe in this shit. And how amazing is it that they are actually contemplating a Socialist as a candidate for the Presidency of the United States? They have lost their fucking minds.

      2. Not only that, but they assume that if the government confiscates wealth, that it can magically convert that wealth into money. Think of all the starving children that could be fed if the government confiscated the Walton family’s ill-gotten wealth! Except that that wealth is not money. It’s warehouses and stores and trucks and merchandise. You can’t feed a warehouse to a starving child. Fucking idiots.

        1. This is why I don’t understand why Williamson gets the level of hate that he does around here. He writes well and calls out some pretty sacred cows…

    3. What’s the difference between women who donate their hair to Locks of Love, and members of Congress?

      The women turn in bangs, while members of Congress bang interns.

      Alternate joke: What’s the difference between a screwdriver and a politician? The screwdriver turns in screws, etc.

  40. Today in unnecessary new words: vbied (vehicle borne improvised explosive device).

    How about just calling it a truck bomb?

    The new phrase describes ISIS-sisses-cis latest weapon: captured US heavy trucks filled with more explosives than McVeigh’s truck bomb.

    1. Oh, gosh, it would be horrible if one of the ISIS people hit a really big pothole and their truck bomb went off and sent them to meet the houris.

      1. Sadly, they don’t use nitroglycerin. There was a neat French movie about guys who had to drive trucks filled with nitroglycerin on bumpy roads. I forget the name.

        1. Hey, I saw that one too!

          Who knew the French could do a cool movie with [spoiler alert] explosions?

          1. I read a story about a guy who tried to commit suicide by drinking nitroglycerin and then jumping around. I like to think he got the idea from watching Looney Tunes.

          2. The movie is The Wages of Fear. I found it by googling “las piedras nitroglycerin movie”.

            1. or the 70s remake: Sorcerer

  41. Man Threatens Suicide, Police Kill Him

    “Denise Way, Justin’s mom, said that the detective relayed to her that “they told Justin to drop the knife and he didn’t?so they shot him because that’s what we do.””

    1. Perhaps there’s a flaw in their policies and procedures?

      It’s better to be killed by the gun of the state than suicide? Is this the message?

      Nut jobs.

      1. I bet your life insurance pays out more if you’re killed by cops than if you off yourself.

        1. But cops think of themselves as Gods, and insurance won’t cover Acts of Gods.

      2. It’s better to be killed by the gun of the state than suicide? Is this the message?

        I believe the Pope would support this stratement?

        1. Wait…where did *that* come from?

    2. Dunno what they’re bitching about – the guy’s problems are over now. Thank the cops!

      HTH!
      SMOOCHES!!!
      GOOD SHOOT!!
      BOOOYAH!!!

  42. My best friend’s step-mother makes $85 hourly on the computer . She has been fired from work for nine months but last month her pay check $17089 just working on the computer for a few hours. see it here
    =============================
    Try this site ????? http://www.buzzreport20.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.