A.M. Links: Obama Plans Executive Action on Overtime, Rand Paul Courts Marijuana Donors, Chris Christie Launches White House Bid

|

  • Credit: White House / Flickr.com

    President Obama plans to take executive action this week to expand overtime eligibility rules in retail stores and restaurants.

  • Rand Paul has become "the first major-party presidential candidate to publicly court donations from the pot industry."
  • Greece is now just hours away from defaulting on its bailout debt to the IMF.
  • ISIS has beheaded two women in eastern Syria.

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

NEXT: LSU Prof Fired for Telling Jokes Is Latest Victim of College Anti-Sex Hysteria

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. President Obama plans to take executive action this week to expand overtime eligibility rules in retail stores and restaurants.

    Too many waiters and store clerks anyway.

    1. Hello.

      “President Obama plans to take executive action this week to expand overtime eligibility rules in retail stores and restaurants.”

      Bring us your flakes, irresponsible and tardiness!

    2. Actually expanding overtime pay is likely to lead to MORE waiters and store clerks because it will NOT result in overtime pay for those workers but rather it will result in more part time workers (working under 28 hours a week to ensure they aren’t eligible for benefits) and a rule that no one is allowed to work more than 40 hours a week

      1. ^this^ – at this rate, we’ll all be part-time workers.

        1. And there will be 0% unemployment!

        2. How many part-time employees are working 30 hours a week since Obamacare? I doubt there are many, if any at all.

          1. I am, but only because I already had healthcare from one of my employers, and have made sure that I hit at least 31 hours each week. Plus, that job is so understaffed, they don’t have a choice, and I’m the only one who knows about half the job, and therefore have to be there enough to help teach the new people their job.

            1. That is good, of course, but the reason you can work the 31 hours is because you have healthcare at another job, correct? I would think that is rare.

              1. No, I can’t work more than 29.5 at the other job, because the one I work at for 31 hours gives me healthcare. If I hit 30 at the other job, I must have healthcare from them too, and if I decline it, they get fined. In other words, Obamacare is telling me I’m a wrecker and hoarder.

          2. I am working 32-37 a week and I don’t get insurance. I’m not entirely sure why I’m exempted from getting health insurance, but I supposedly am.

    3. I don’t know. I mean #workiswork, amirite? Why should the government be telling two consenting adults how to conduct their affairs? #stayoutoftheboardroom

    4. He plans to take executive action next year to extend the term of his office. Temporarily, until the national emergency is over.

      1. Until ALL the national emergencies are over.

        /Heil, God-Emporer of Dume, BO the 1st, Long may he reign. *genuflects*

  2. ISIS has beheaded two women in eastern Syria.

    For being witches? In case they weren’t medieval enough for you before.

    1. They’re just trying to keep up with the Saudis

    2. I didn’t know they had ducks in Syria?

      1. No, but they do have very small rocks.

        1. and gravy.

        2. Who are you, who is so wise in the ways of science?

    3. Yes, for sorcery, along with their husbands, according to the Jerusalem Post. The JP also says this is the first time ISIS has beheaded females, but Google seems to turn up several articles from August 2014 with headlines implying women were beheaded.

      Oh, also ISIS apparently crucified five men yesterday for eating during Ramadan.

      1. HOLY FUCK!! They really are the fun police. What a bunch of dicks!

        WHO WOULDN’T WANT TO JOIN THIS GROUP OF FUN-LOVING SCAMPS!??!?!

        1. Radical Islam seems to be a competition to see who’s the most devout. Sort of like SJWs.

          1. Being the most devout isn’t a problem, it’s the underlying principles that make the difference.

          2. Radical Islam seems to be a competition to see who’s the most devout. Sort of like SJWs.

            Exactly.

      2. And the decision to crucify people for eating during Ramadan is really just an extension of laws that exist in many Muslim countries, such as Morocco where they will jail you for eating during Ramadan.

        Now, crucifixion is obviously vastly worse and more evil, but it irritates me that ISIS is referred to as not Islamic by people like Obama when all ISIS is really doing is implementing more brutal punishments for all sorts of religious practices that are also illegal in other Muslim countries. ISIS is different from other Muslim countries in terms of the brutality of punishment, but the actions they punish are pretty firmly in line with the modern Middle East.

        1. the modern Middle East.

          I lol’ed.

          1. b-b-but the world is flat! /Friedman

          2. “I lol’ed.”

            Well, the Middle East was actually less authoritarian 50 years ago than it is today, so I guess I should call it the ‘contemporary’ Middle East.

            1. Yes, it was better 50+ years ago. And 500 years ago for that matter. Funny they went from astronomy and arithmetic to beheading people for sorcery.

        2. I forget where, but I saw a table that compared the Sharia legal code as enforced by Saudi Arabia and ISIS. The only major difference was the permissibility of keeping slaves, because Saudi Arabia finally got around to de jure abolition in 1962.

        3. I ate falafel for lunch in Syria during Ramadan, in 1993. I also drank booze in the bar at the Baron Hotel in Aleppo.

          That shit is all ISIS.

          1. Syria was also a secular dictatorship rather than an outright Muslim state. Assad is an Alawite who are Shi’a followers of Ali in a country which is 64% Sunni. He is a dictator from a significant Syrian minority who actually went to school as an eye doctor in the west and who therefore never attempted to implement anything resembling Islamic law.

            Iraq was similar under Saddam. But in most of the Middle East, booze is not legal. It is not legal in Iran, it is not legal in Saudi Arabia, it is not legal in Kuwait, it is not legal in Afghanistan, it is illegal for Muslims to drink in Pakistan (they’ll let you drink if you’re not a Muslim), and it is a controlled substance in Jordan, all of which are nations more firmly theocratic than the secular dictatorship in Syria.

            Syria’s and the UAE are the outliers in the Middle East when it comes to alcohol laws, not ISIS. And even in the UAE, Muslims are not allowed to drink and foreigners can only drink if they purchase a license.

            1. Correction: Assad apparently wasn’t educated in the West, he went to Damascus University but worked as an eye doctor in London.

              I knew there was a western connection somewhere.

          2. I had a vendor/merchant invite me for tea in the middle of the day, first week of Ramadan, in Northeast Afghanistan. I asked him if it wasn’t a problem, with Ramadan and all…he replied “pffft! Mullas!”

          3. That shit is all ISIS.

            That shit is all Wahhabis trying to get the entire Muslim world to conform to the cultural practices of Gulf Arab desert nomads. And if you look at the past 30 years of Malaysia…they’ve had great success.

            This was Afghanistan in the 1950s.

            This too

            1. And if you look at the increasingly fundamentalist Rohingya in Myanmar and if you look at the crazy fundamentalists now living in Europe and if you look at the trajectory of tribal Pakistan and if you look at the Muslim Brotherhood…

              ISIS did not start this, they’re the heirs to a 70 year long fundamentalist religious reformation.

              1. The problem with an Islamic reformation is that it started from crap.

                So, having it return to the kiddie-diddling, unbeliever-murdering origin is not a good thing for the rest of the world.

            2. This.

              It’s as if the very worst of the Christian fundamentals here, say the Westboro Baptists, took over and started imposing their laws on everyone else.

              You can’t help but think that many people, especially the more educated non-country hicks, will privately thumb their noses at the religious rednecks in power while publicly doing whatever it takes to not get arrested. No doubt there is a thriving but dangerous black market all through the region.

          4. I meant that the crucifying, non-boozing, beheading shit is all ISIS, not really Muslim. Syria, Iraq, UAE, Turkey, and Morocco (where, BTW, many restaurants remain open during the day during Ramadan) were and/or are governmentally non-dogmatic. Syria was, as you said, a secular Ba’athist dictatorship until the last few years.

      3. Google seems to turn up several articles from August 2014 with headlines implying women were beheaded.

        Yeah, I seem to remember them displaying what was claimed to be the head of one of the female peshmerga snipers who had been popping jihadis.

    4. “Arab Spring”.

      1. What that area needs is a strong arm thug/dictator.

        Like Saddam. He would be perfect.

        1. Saddam was awful, but he fundamentally understood what the dumbass neocons apparently didn’t: his people at heart are a bunch of tribal, primitive, violent throwback savages.

          They’re even worse than you are (which is a tough bar to get over), and the civilized world thus has no choice in that region but managing and dealing with the lesser of all the evils.

      2. Aye, a’might too strong.

    5. Update: ISIS geologists discover a way to prevent earthquakes by employing sheep’s bladders.

  3. Chris Christie is officially launching his 2016 presidential campaign today.

    If he somehow wins I’m moving everyone but me to Canada.

    1. I don’t care how much I like hockey and poutine and Timbits…I ain’t a goin’!

      1. It’s not so bad up here.

        We just got functional toilets in 1997!

        1. Hmmm… maybe a Toronto suburb? OK, I’ll go if I am guaranteed a year’s supply of peameal bacon sammiches!

          1. Hmmm….a Toronto “Subdivision”?

            1. Here’s to hoping I’ll be too cool to be cast out.

              1. By quoting Rush, you have already lost that fight.

          1. They’re two-holers. By functional, he means your ass won’t freeze to the seat.

            1. So no clog (until they clog all the way to the top) models, then.

    2. The word ‘launch’ and Christie don’t really work well together. ‘Lunch’ sounds better.

      1. You’ve never seen a battleship get launched? It kind of slides down into the water with a tremendous splash.

        1. Battleship? Not a whaler?

          1. Christie is rightfully afraid of whalers!

          2. “Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.”

            Disclaimer: This is a quote from Moby Dick in response to the whale reference preceding; it is not in any manner to be construed as a threat.

            1. What would the Cohens do with ‘Moby Dick’?

              1. Coens – “Oh Brother, How Fat Art Thou?”

    3. While I won’t be sending him money, I did sign him up for the Cannoli-of-the-Month Club.

      1. That is probably really appreciated.

      2. My guess is that he is already a member.*

        *This is a photo of Chris Christie in white baseball pants.

        1. *this is a link I shan’t click*

        2. What, he’s going to decline an extra box of cannolis?

        3. I like the way the baseball pants highlight his gunt.

          1. Some things can’t be unseen.

        4. Oh dear.

  4. 67) I must admit I have a little difficulty reconciling the professional and courteous interactions I’ve always had with the police, even when getting tickets, with the behavior of cops I see in articles linked to here. Then too, my cousin is married to a (recently retired) cop in Omaha. He’s always struck me as soft-spoken, even gentle, and raised five children who are all employed, productive, mostly well-adjusted. He grew up in a Spanish-speaking family and I think he was hired at a point in the 70s when the Omaha PD realized it needed native speakers to reach out to that community. The only stories I’ve ever heard of his police work are that he hated working concerts because of the loud music and because the teen-agers took an intentionally defiant attitude. I have to wonder?is he one of the good ones, perhaps because he came into the police department as an outsider? It’s hard to picture him taking part in a beating or other bad cop behavior. Just how deeply does such behavior permeate departments? 1%? 10%? 25%? 100%? Is there a secret professional life my cousin led that never spilled over into his personal life at all?

    1. My BiL is a NYPD cop and is the nicest guy I’ve ever met. He has told me that 90% of the people he works with are complete dirtbags. So, 1 in 10 are good/decent…

      1. Anecdotal support – 14 of my fraternity brothers ended up in the NYPD. Only one of those wasn’t a sociopath shitbag. I know two other guys that are also cops – one is a total racist and a lying fuckface, the other is a good guy. So for me it’s 2/16 that are respectable humans.

        1. I know a lot of cops (I used to work in the prosecutor’s office). I found that the average patrol/beat cop was pretty shitty, the undercover guys were all assholes, but the detectives tended to be mostly ok.

      2. I have an ex-coworker who became an NYPD cop. Nicest, most respectful kid imaginable. But no matter how ‘good’ he is, he’s now sanctioned by the state to use violence against people for consensual, victimless, politically incorrect crimes. And he made that choice.

        1. I’d say it’s amazing the contortions people go through to square that with the prospect of life employment – but it really isn’t. Sad and frightening.

    2. I know a good guy who joined the Buffalo PD. Don’t know if he stayed that way.

    3. I’ve spent much of the past couple years working with LEOs, mostly in a ride-along situation. I also play hockey with several officers.

      I, too, have trouble reconciling the people I know on a personal level, and the way my nuts feel every time I read Radley Balko.

      However, all the guys I know admit that the job changes them; that alcoholism and divorce occur at a higher rate for their cohort than for other Americans. They try to compartmentalize the job from the rest of their lives, with varying degrees of success. Some also regret the loss of the individual they were prior to donning the uniform.

      Ultimately, while I can enjoy a conversation or game of shinny with them, I’d certainly keep my distance if testosterone started to flow. I guess I treat them like a semi-tame – but still dangerous – animal.

    4. Most likely because if you are middle/upper middle class, your interactions with them are mostly limited to traffic infractions. They just want to get the revenue from you and move on. Totally different story if you live in the Wrong Neighborhood or are one of Those People.

  5. Serial poop smearer on the loose in Ridgewood

    In a statement released Friday, Ridgewood cops said an unidentified white male, about 5-foot-10 with short blonde hair, wearing shorts and a t-shirt, on June 20 went into the bathroom of a service station on Goffle Road.

    The vandal “wiped excrement on the walls, floor and toilet” before leaving in a white van, police said.

    It’s the fourth such incident to occur in the last week at a Ridgewood business.

    1. Having worked at an amusement park in my youth, I can attest that poop smearing behavior is not highly unusual.

      1. I used to dread/be fascinated by the bathrooms at the public park near my house where I grew up in NC. Why would somebody do that with their feces? How did they actually get it on the ceilings? Why was it like that every single time, over a period of years, I had to go to the bathroom there?

        1. People are, in general, nasty. Dogs have a more highly developed innate sense of cleanliness.

          1. Well, we are primates…

        2. Poop is funny!

      2. Seems to be. A couple of years ago I happened to have lunch in a Detroit area Tim Hortons (it was handy, sorry) and went into the restroom and immediately left and told the manager. I couldn’t believe someone could make such a mess, nor could I fathom why someone would want to do so.

      3. That’s why I hate using Porta-Potties – it’s like people are saving up the biggest turd of their lives before going to the ballpark.

        1. I don’t think it’s so much saving up but the only time you willingly go in is when you’ve got explosive diarrhea and no other choice.

    2. But how do we know the poop was made of cereal and not from some other food source?

    3. My best friend went to MSU. There was a “serial pooper” who would leave the poo tacked to a bulletin board in various dorms.

      And according to the high school teacher who taught psychology, our high school had one as well, who left a poo in the center of the auditorium stage. Every. Day.

  6. Yep, Yanis Varoufakis has just made it official. And the verdict IS……

    “Fuck you, we ain’t paying!”

    1. Back to the Drachma for Greece, then. Oh and to the IMF: I’m sure you’re glad you gave Greece all that money over the last 5 years. Maybe now you will learn to not give out loans to countries that are deep in the red, but of course not, you’ll do the same thing for Italy, Portugal and Spain in the next 5 years. Just wait for it, because it will happen.

      1. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-15748696

        “The biggest European economy owes France, Italy and the US most money. However, these economies also owe Germany billions in return.”

        Look at the numbers.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin…..e-owe.html

        1. http://www.theguardian.com/new…..rauss-kahn

          Those are the biggest countries who owe.

        2. Italy is the lynchpin. If it goes, Europe is screwed.

          1. It won’t go imo. Germany, France and Italy are simply too intertwined in terms of trade and how much they owe each other.

            Irish made a good point in the other thread about Sweden always getting fiscally responsible when they need to. Same with Italy. It has the capabilities to do it.

            But like I argue, the situation is simply not all that much better among the core European nations.

  7. Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush is releasing 33 years of tax returns.

    All of them listing him as a different race.

    1. I thought that was okay now. We’re all whoever we want to be. For instance, I’ve decided that I’m president. I am issuing an executive order transferring all federal assets to me.

      1. You don’t get to decide that you are president. That’s insensitive. You have to “identify” as president. It has to be “who you are”.

        I have a buddy who identifies as LeBron James, despite being a 5’6″ jewish guy with no jumper and limited leaping ability. We try not to pass the ball to him …. he always jacks it up at the first opportunity.

        1. I do identify as president. I’ve even worked for the White House, feeling the oppression as they insisted on treating me as a legal fellow, and not as POTUS. In addition to assuming the role demanded by my self-identification, I also intend to seek restitution for the anti-presidential discrimination against me.

  8. Tax that church

    http://fusion.net/story/158096…..ing-taxes/

    1. Tax exemption/breaks = subsidize according to libtards

    2. Way to prove Chief Flipflopper Roberts correct…

    3. What good is having a right if you can’t force others to participate at the point of a gun?

    4. If nothing else, it will be help actual religious people distinguish which churches belong to Caesar (or Uncle Joe, as the case may be), and which churches belong to God.

      Being singled out to pay taxes should be a mark of pride for a church.

      1. That said, any such taxes should be referred to as “social justice jizya”.

        1. I would like to see them be sued and forced to take away the tax exempt status of all Islamic non profits due to their stance on SSM. Then suddenly a few SJWs end up beheaded in a gutter, and the whole idea of revoking tax exempt status of organizations for their ideology becomes taboo.

    5. Do the progs realize that their beloved separation of church and state is supposed to be a two way street?

  9. How hedge-fund geniuses got beaten by monkeys ? again

    Someone who put 20% of their money in a federally insured bank savings account, and the other 80% in a random collection of stocks from around the world, picked by monkeys, would be up about 6.2% so far this year. (And that’s assuming for the sake of simplicity that you earned 0% interest on the savings. In reality, you could have done slightly better)

    In other words, they would still have earned more than twice the returns of the average hedge fund.

    1. Hmmm…I am announcing my new fund…MonkeyHedge. We use only the best, simian-driven data in our work to make your investment grow!

        1. Do they make more than the Primate Rate?

          1. Yes, if paid in pounds (of bananas) anthropoid.

            1. Since Swiss started this shit, I’ll have to fill in.

              *Narrows gaze at all you fuckers*

              1. Oh, you got my joke? I thought pounds avoirdupois was too unusual to get noticed, especially when I changed it.

    2. Brokers and hedge fund managers make money off of fees and commissions. They don’t give a shit about performance.

      1. Only good enough for you to not leave.

        1. Sure, the returns are low this year, but in the long-term we will eventually outperform!

      2. Very true, until the performance of their client’s portfolios decline to the point where said clients decide to get a new broker. But that has been a rarity lately, especially if the broker has any sense of the market whatsoever.

      3. Fund managers do care about performance but a lot of them (or more likely, nearly all) will be closet indexers in order to not stray to far from their performance benchmarks and remain employed.

        1. Absolutely.

    3. This isn’t really surprising. To beat the market you have to take risk, which assumes possibility of loss. The monkeys diversified, so it would be unlikely to beat the market, but isn’t exposed to as much risk.

      1. Indeed.

      2. To be sure, the monkeys aren’t acting randomly but base their selections on some kind of monkey reasoning. Perhaps we should take their brains and insert them in fund managers’ heads.

        1. Would that increase or decrease the poo-flinging?

          1. Well within the standard of defecation.

            1. *narrows Bayes*

              1. That one actually made me laugh when I typed it.

  10. Rand Paul has become “the first major-party presidential candidate to publicly court donations from the pot industry.”

    Soccer mom donations down.

    1. Soccer mom donations? What are we ISIS now?

    2. The ones who need pot the most.

    3. Oh right, like the soccer moms don’t sneak off and try to relive their youth with a J or two.

      1. They ain’t reliving their youth, they’re self-medicating.

        Soccer-momming is hard work, yo!

    1. It’s a constitutional right to live in NYC…

    2. And the government restricting the use of the landlord’s property for the benefit of others is not a “taking”, because FYTW.

    3. Hey – they are the reason NYC is so noted for affordable, high-quality housing.

      So, shut up, he explained.

    1. I thought these assholes were supposed to discontinue pursuit in heavily populated areas?!!? WTF?!?!?

      1. It is against policy, but… you know… FYTW

      2. Well I’m sure they were told but with a knowing wink…plus once they are running on adrenaline in the hope of a kill you really can’t hold them responsible anyway.

        1. Actually, the police chief, who seems to be a more reasonable guy than you might expect, has asked for a review of the pursuit policies. Especially since the pursuit was started because the cops thought they saw a gun.

      3. The penalty is a paid vacation.

        1. The police can’t even be sued in Michigan. They have to actually physically come in contact with the victim to assume any blame. So even if they ran this car off the road and killed those kids, nothing will happen.

      4. I thought these assholes were supposed to discontinue pursuit in heavily populated areas?

        Detroit is heavily populated?

      5. Since when is Detroit a heavily populated area?

        1. read the WHOLE thread before posting, k?

  11. John Roberts, Intimidated by the Left?

    The reason Roberts believes the court’s reputation is at stake may be the key to understanding what’s happened. Roberts doesn’t feel protective of the institution because of parochial vanity or romantic nostalgia. He’s protective of the court because it’s been under relentless attack from the left as long as he’s been there.

    Whether it’s Clinton-appointed Stephen Breyer talking darkly at the Aspen Institute about conservative justices or Rachel Maddow’s anti-Supreme Court screeds, or President Obama repeatedly assailing the justices in public, the threat from Democrats to the court is this stark: If you don’t decide cases in our favor, we will delegitimize you in the eyes of the American people.

    This is a dangerous game, but it may have worked. Conservatives feel betrayed by Roberts, as perhaps they should. But it’s possible that when we look back on the first 15 years of the 21st century, it will be remembered as the time the Democrats vowed to blow up this country’s democratic institutions unless they got their way. And that’s not “a very good thing.”

    1. REad that. Good read. Cannon may have a point. Roberts did go conservative on Michigan vs the EPA.

    2. So, going left on a handful of headline-grabbing major decisions, preserving institutional prestige and authority for the rest of the time?

      1. It would seem, Sermon, it would seem…

    3. So, Roberts saves the court from being delegitimized in the eyes of half the people, by delegitimizing it in the eyes of the other half? How does that make any sense?

      1. My guess is that conservatives don’t really feel the court has been deligitimized as much as Roberts himself has been delegitimized.

    4. What passes for reasoning in the ACA cases should be exhibit.A in any attempt to delegitimize the court.

      1. I would throw in Kelo {public = private) and Raich (interstate = intrastate)

  12. Greece is now just hours away from defaulting on its bailout debt to the IMF.

    I’m beginning to suspect that was a high-risk loan.

    1. Are you saying I should ot have just purchased those long term Greek bonds?!!

        1. You should have purchased as much as possible. NOT.

      1. I tried to buy puts on Greece, but it turns out those don’t pay, either.

        1. Might be a good time to short the drachma, because that’s gonna be like zimbabwue dollars.

          1. Is there a market for shorting the drachma? I mean, who wouldn’t go short on that currency?

  13. The bride wore white and the groom wore out his batteries: First robot wedding in Japan takes place and even ends with a kiss

    Two robots have tied the knot in Japan in what is thought to be the first wedding of its kind in the world.

    Frois, the groom, and bride Yukirin walked the aisle, wore traditional outfits and even carried out a ‘wedding kiss’ at the event in Tokyo on Saturday.

    Special invitations were made, featuring a picture of the two robots inset in a heart, and the 100-strong congregation included a range of smaller robotic models.

    After the ceremony the couple even managed to ‘cut a cake’ before an automated orchestra performed a song for the equivalent of their first dance.

    1. That song was a certain Styx tune, right?

        1. Dude, I’m married.

          1. Joke #1:

            I thought you were trying to get the polygamy suit rolling

            Joke #2:

            That explains the alien baby.

            Real reason:

            I was trying to guess the Styx song.

            If not that, was it “Renegade”? “Blue Colar Man?” “Fooling Yourself”?

            1. Let’s go with #1. I’ll bring my cousin. We’ll get two suits out of that.

            2. I saw Styx (sans DeYoung) and Yes a couple of years ago. Styx played one sound from the Kilroy Was Here album. Not song, sound. Apparently the rest of the band is still pissed about that one.

  14. Does anyone remember this Reason TV Classic?

    Reason.tv: Governor Luis Fortuno on How Puerto Rico Avoided Becoming “America’s Greece”

    https://reason.com/blog/2012/04…..-on-how-pu

    1. I noticed the coincidence. Leftists took over both Greece and Puerto Rico last January – and both ran out of other people’s money at exactly the same time.

  15. “ISIS has beheaded two women in eastern Syria.”

    I am – quite frankly- getting sick of ISIS’s shit. Getting to the point where I am going to form a private army just to A) get my hands on some REALLY cool weaponry and B) go out there and show them who their Poppa Charlie is…

  16. Countries that speak fewer languages are more prosperous

    The US is a bit of a strange case. True, you can find hundreds of languages spoken in the country (experts believe as many as 800 languages are spoken in New York City alone). But English is still the dominant language for now.

    “What practical conclusions can be drawn? In the case of immigration, linguistic assimilation is important: Whether or not immigrants and their children keep their old languages, they must master the languages of their new countries,” The Economist said. “The host countries must create the kind of inclusive society that says that anyone putting the effort in will be welcome.”

    Of course, there are always exceptions. North Korea and Bangladesh are poor and linguistically homogeneous, while Switzerland has four languages but is rich. And then there is South Africa, which “does better than its multilingualism would predict.”

    1. “Statistically, homogeneous European nations and Anglophone dominant nations are rich.”

      1. Seems like a pretty dumb case of comparing apples to oranges. Isn’t the better comparison American vs. European market? In which case, number of spoken languages appears insufficient to predict anything at all.

        Surprised the Economist would publish that.

        1. The magazine cites the work of Bodo Steiner and Cong Wang, economists at the University of Southern Denmark, who explored the relationship between linguistic fragmentation and social capital in countries. … [social capital] includes things such as corruption, rule of law, prevalence of tax evasion, people joining religious or sports groups, “feelings of societal fairness,” confidence in the government and press, etc.

          So in other words, bullshit. I’m going to be over in this corner, with China and her 7 mutually unintelligible dialects (languages that share the same writing system, really), gazillion sub-dialects, and 10 billion dollar GDP.

          1. But do you have a cool name like Cong Wang?

            1. But do you have a cool name like Cong Wang?

              Sadly, no.

            2. Everybody Wang Cong tonight?

          2. 10 billion? Wow, that sucks. That’s less than $10/person.

            1. 10 billion?

              Sorry…lack of coffee. 10000 billion.

              1. Wow, that’s some growth rate. Since this morning? And all because China banned coffee?

                1. And all because China banned coffee?

                  No, because the price of all the tea in China rose.

                  1. Economics is far simpler than they led me to believe in four courses in the subject in college.

  17. Even the conservative David Brooks wants social conservatives to give up the culture war.

    I mean, why are they so obsessed with sex?

    In other news, Brooks wonders why Ukraine is so obsessed with Russia.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06…..inion&_r=2

    1. David Brooks would be out of a job if he couldn’t be the token “reasonable” conservative.

    2. Not that he’s completely wrong, but Brooks is not a conservative.

      1. DING!! We have a winner! Anyone who regards David FUCKING Brooks as anything but a dancing monkey to the liberal NYT organ grinders is a fucking idiot. The man is nothing of the sort of a conservative.

        1. I like the image you placed in my head.

          1. I’m here for you, Florida Man.

      2. Certainly not a conservative like Huckabee/Santorum/Dubya et al.

        1. Shriek derp de derp. Derp de derpity derpy derp. Until one day, the derpa derpa derpaderp. Derp de derp da teedily dumb. From the creators of Der, and Tum Ta Tittaly Tum Ta Too, Shriek is Da Derp Dee Derp Da Teetley Derpee Derpee Dumb. Rated PG-13.

          1. This comment deserves an award for being timely, cognizant, and a perfect distillation of all the is PB.

        2. No. Not conservative period. Except to suck off the liberals at NYT. Much like you, dipshit. Oh! I forgot! You are “classically liberal”!

          BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…

          Oh yeah, talk about Santorum and Huckabee some more! You know how we all REALLY support them here!!

          Dipshit.

          1. Santorum, Huck, and the Bushes are the conservative mainstream, you fucking idiot.

            Rand/Ron Paul are outcasts who will never do shit in the GOP even with Rand’s recent pandering to it.

            1. SO go to Hot Air and troll them, dipshit! I’m not the fucking idiot for NOT GETTING THAT REASON IS NOT THE CONSERVATIVE MAINSTREAM YOU FUCKING MORON.

              Your trolling is so obvious and shitty, you stupid fucktoilet.

        3. Actually, quite a lot like Dubya, you ignorant ass

      3. I wanted to clarify that I was kind of joking about “even the conservative David Brooks.”

        To me, it would be one thing to tell the SoCons forthrightly, “you’re wrong about this culture war stuff, so I invite you to repent and change your minds!”

        But it’s different to concern-troll about “because I care about you, I advise you to give up this hopeless crusade.”

        That’s about as credible as the hunter telling the deer, “come on, you know you can’t win, so just get it over with, kill, dress and cook yourself!”

  18. Records show Clinton withheld emails about oil, terrorism

    Clinton removed specific portions of other emails she sent to State, suggesting the messages were screened closely enough to determine which paragraphs were unfit to be seen by the public.

    For example, one email Clinton kept from the State Department indicates Libyan leaders were “well aware” of which “major oil companies and international banks” supported them during the rebellion, information they would “factor into decisions” about about who would be given access to the country’s rich oil reserves.

    The email, which Clinton subsequently scrubbed from her server, indicated Clinton was aware that involvement in the controversial conflict could have a significant financial benefit to firms that were friendly to the Libyan rebels.

    1. If Clinton were adept at deeming what is unfit to be seen by the public she’d never give another speech.

    2. FAKE. SKANDULZ!!111!!

    3. If true, that’s a crime, right?

      1. That would be another to add to her list, yes. Not that it matters since the only people in a position to hold her accountable have no desire to do so.

      2. Name WIN except that the z gets cut off. :[

    4. Okay, so when, precisely, is she getting prosecuted? Perhaps a state should do it, since the Obama DOJ apparently only prosecutes the totally innocent and defenseless.

  19. Driver plows through Renton pot shop

    The chain-reaction crash started with a two-car collision around 2:30 a.m. at SE 173rd Place in the Fairwood neighborhood.

    The crash caused one of the drivers to smash through the front of the dispensary.

    One car caught fire, and both drivers were taken to the hospital.

  20. The economic plan that could save America (but scares conservative billionaires senseless)
    Guaranteed government jobs would be a huge boon to the American worker ? and deprive the rich of their power

    Long-term unemployment is the scourge of modern economies. In a society where people take value from work, unemployment is destabilizing and degrading. A bout of long-term unemployment can permanently scar worker, leaving them with lower wages and fewer usable skills. Last year, Jared Bernstein and Dean Baker put forward a persuasive case for a return to full employment as the palliative to unemployment. But it’s increasingly clear the private sector cannot create full employment on its own. Even at the height of the Clinton boom, millions of African-Americans and low-skilled workers were jobless. To get full employment, progressives should embrace an idea that hasn’t surfaced recently in mainstream American political dialogue: a universal government job guarantee.

    the world needs ditch diggers too.

    1. Brilliant plan. Look how well it worked for Greece!

      1. And for the Soviets!

        1. “We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.”

          1. I could see this working if it were like the WPA (although that was a giant hole government shoved money down), because the WPA and some of the other New Deal programs gave us tangible things that lasted generations. However, given current environmental policies and labor and safety laws, I sincerely doubt you’d be able to do anything of the sort.

            1. Nice handle. Does 2008 coincide with the end of the Republic?

            2. A government make work program today would be to hire lots of diversity coordinators, community agitators, envrionmental snoops, etc. All actively destructive to economic activity and wealth formation / retention.

            3. Third world, here we come.

        2. And for DC under Marion Barry.

          1. Worked in “House of Cards”, is all I’m sayin’…

    2. Animists decide that everyone will wear a fetish, since some fetish wearers get rich.

    3. Guaranteed government jobs

      There’s something about guaranteed jobs that disincentivizes productivity. For the life of me, I can’t figure it out.

    4. That makes perfect sense! Since money and wealth are interchangeable, print money to pay people for doing nothing of value, and we’ll all be rich!

    5. “Last year, Jared Bernstein and Dean Baker put forward a persuasive case for a return to full employment as the palliative to unemployment.”

      What does this mean? Full employment makes unemployment go away? No shit.

      “Even at the height of the Clinton boom, millions of African-Americans and low-skilled workers were jobless”

      This person doesn’t know what full employment is. Between the last few years of Reagan’s term and the last few years of Clinton’s (it was really a boom that started with Reagan – hilarious to see them gloss over that fact) we had what economists would consider full employment. For America, 4.5% is considered to be right around full employment since there’s always going to be people who are between jobs so full employment does not mean 0% unemployment.

      1. It would if the government were given the power it needs to compel employment. Why do you market people love inefficiency so much? More than one product, allowing for 4.5% unemployment, etc., etc., etc. Only total government can ensure total efficiency.

        That’s how it goes, right?

      2. Jared Bernstein…Joe Biden’s economic brain!

    6. Here’s a thought: let’s get out of their fucking way and let them get jobs.

      The problem right now is socialism — they want the poor to have consumer goods, but they don’t want them to have any capital (because that should all go to “The People”, ie the PIGLETS), because that would threaten their power. So they pretty much kill any chance they have of creating work for themselves with red tape, punish saving and investing, and then say “hey, come work for us, we have capital”.

  21. Burger chain adds bugs to the menu…on purpose

    Typically bugs in fast food are cause for concern?and often an angry social media post. But one burger chain will soon be adding them on purpose.

    On July 1, Wayback Burgers will debut an Oreo mud pie cricket protein milkshake made with Peruvian chocolate-flavored cricket powder as part of a limited-time offering of two protein-packed shakes.

    1. I’d try it. Wouldn’t be the first time I’ve eaten insects. Though it might be the first time I did it sober and not on a dare.

  22. Has there been any discussion about how LGBT gun rights group The Pink Pistols was excluded from Seattle Pride, as was the LP?

    1. At least Seattle Pride understands: Win First, Then Purge.

      If only libertarians could get there.

      1. You know who else purged after he won?

        1. Joey Chestnut?

          1. No way that guy purged after winning. Gotta be Kobayashi.

    2. When you said a ban on pink pistols I thought you meant pink guns and I thought “that’s dumb”, then I realized you meant people and I thought “that’s dumb”.

    3. I misspoke…it was Olympia (WA state capital).

      I believe other Pink Pistols chapters were excluded from some other pride events, but it happens that the head of the national PP group is in WA state.

    4. Link on the LP ban (the LP was the only political party to support gay rights until 2008, when the Dems jumped on the bandwagon). That’s 30 years of support. But because those fuckin’ Libertarians like guns and hate taxes, they gotta be banned.

      1. The Pride parades have been little other than far-left sideshows for as long as I can remember. I’ve been to a couple (and the LP was there – at least in NYC) but probably never again.

  23. If everything falls into place we’ll be closing on our new house next week. Knowing my luck the world will collapse into financial chaos just at the point where I’m signing the dotted line.

    1. Nice. Hope all goes well with the house.

    2. At least you have a good rate?

      1. Not bad – thanks to the low rate I’ll be paying a tad less than my last house – if you exclude the property taxes.

        Part of me will be missing living in a rented house – it was a super quiet neighborhood and I had a big wooded lot. But the house was small and the home next to me is abandoned. Plus my wife hated that she could redecorate the interior and exterior to her liking.

        1. Either you have the best wife in the world or that was supposed to be “couldn’t”.

          1. the latter. I’m running on pure anxiety these days.

            1. Congrats anyways. Not the former? *Old married geezer laugh*

    3. something I should have added. My current rental lease goes until the end of September. That means I’m going to get stuck paying a mortgage and the rent for two months. Hoping to find a good way of getting out of the final month of rent payment… but not holding my breath.

      1. I’ll look for you on Judge Judy!

    4. Good luck! Yesterday I made an offer on a townhouse that was accepted…off to inspection and contract, hopefully.

      1. Get a good inspector and be certain you understand the rules concerning the HOA’s responsibilities and whether they include any portion of the building (roof, exterior walls, plumbing, etc…)

        1. Thanks, Lee G!

    5. Congrats!

      Once you get the keys, make sure you pee in all the corners: it’s the only *real* way to establish ownership.

  24. Surprise! Rand Paul’s marriage response flies over Amanda Marcotte’s head, leads to terrific column

    The argument is that because a law limiting marriage to man-woman marriage and a law setting minimum wage are both laws that put limits on contracts, then you can’t oppose one limit while supporting the other. Either you’re for all limits or none at all. Paul, in classic libertarian (read: 13-year-old Ayn Rand fan) form, is trying to argue that it’s somehow hypocritical to think that laws should be assessed on their merits, as opposed to reduced to this childish black-and-white thinking where you either are for rules or against them.

    [snip]

    The liberal position is completely consistent here. We believe that the government should create sensible regulations on what kind of contracts people can enter into, to protect people and help society flourish. Liberals don’t oppose the idea of an employment contract. We simply believe that there should be limits on what an employer can demand of an employees, to prevent exploitation. More specifically, we believe all employment contracts should have a built-in baseline: Minimum wage, maximum hours, health and safety protections, minimum benefits, that sort of thing. Anything you want to add to it, have at it, but in order for your contract to be valid, it had to fall within these parameters.

    The lack of self-awareness

    1. Well, like most liberals she has no philosophical underpinnings other than “We want what we want.”

      1. Don’t be silly they want “sensible regulations”. See how simple it all is.

        1. I’m stunned that people get away with using that phrase, when almost everyone knows that a more appropriate phrase for most regulation is “senseless regulations.”

        2. Sensible regulations = Cake.

    2. More specifically, we believe all employment contracts should have a built-in baseline: Minimum wage, maximum hours, health and safety protections, minimum benefits, that sort of thing. Anything you want to add to it, have at it, but in order for your contract to be valid, it had to fall within these parameters.

      You can do it your own way. If it’s done just how I say.

    3. Society can now flourish. What don’t you stupid, dirty, childish, doodie-headed fucking liber-fuckingtarians understand about that? Gay-bashing children, that is what you are.

    4. I wish to, again, express my gratitude that you are willing to expose yourself to Marcotte in order to save the rest of us.

      1. Commentz:

        And it’s easy to be a libertarian or communist when you have no responsibilities to the real world. Or you have others around to support you.

        I thought we were all monocle wearing 1%ers? Now we are all living in mom’s basement?

        1. Also, libertarian or communist. One in the same.

        2. when you have no responsibilities to the real world.

          You mean like supporting a family, making house payments, keeping two cars on the road, paying property taxes, and keeping any number of bars financially stable?

          1. Roadz? ROADZ?

            Yeah, except for that stuff (well, not the bars), I have absolutely no responsibilities to the real world.

            /derp

    5. So if it were “reasonable” for only one man and one woman to enter into a certain type of contract, not being eligible if they are currently in this special type of contract with another….

      1. I know, right? She is amusing to read because most of the time she proves the opposite of what she is arguing.

        In this case, restrictions on how much you can pay an employee is just as arbitrary as how many men and women can enter into a marriage contract. There’s no overall principle because progressive have no principles.

    6. Since any sane adult deciding freely would agree with the goodthink, anyone who disagrees with the goodthink must be [circle all that apply: mentally ill, childish, under duress]. This is the level at which progressives routinely argue.

    7. We believe that the government should create sensible regulations on what kind of contracts people can enter into, to protect people and help society flourish. Liberals don’t oppose the idea of aan employment marriage contract. We simply believe that there should be limits on what an employer can demand of an employees a person can consider a spouse, to prevent exploitation. More specifically, we believe all employment marriage contracts should have a built-in baseline: Minimum wage, allowable gender combinations, that sort of thing. Anything you want to add to it, have at it, but in order for your contract to be valid, it had to fall within these parameters.

      Derp!

  25. Tonight Jupiter and Venus will nearly align in the sky

    The two planets will appear to be a double star to the naked eye

    The two brightest planets that can be seen from Earth will come this close to one another on Tuesday evening.

    For anyone looking at a clear sky in North America, Venus and Jupiter will be just one-third of a degree apart in a phenomenon known as a conjunction and will have the appearance of a double star to the naked eye.

    The stunning sight will be the culmination of the planets’ movement over the past few weeks, as they have been slowly creeping toward one another. According to Sky & Telescope magazine, conjunctions between the two planets aren’t actually that uncommon?there was a Venus and Jupiter conjunction last August and there will be another one in October.

    But the publication’s Alan MacRobert also points out that though “[t]hese planetary groupings in the sky have no effect on Earth or human affairs,” the conjunction “can lift our attention away from our own little world into the enormous things beyond.”

    And peace will guide the planet, and looovvvvveeee will steer the stars!

    1. Get the drum circle together.

    2. Jupiter and Venus are colliding? Oh, no! Run for the hills!

  26. Sexy Twitter selfies of UK Councillor Karen Danczuk

    Her estranged Labour MP husband is no great shakes, she must be pretty high maintenance for him to walk away from those pretty doe eyes.

    1. I wonder if she thinks her eyes and breasts are her best assets.

      1. From what I can see, they are.

        1. Cone shaped.

          who also runs a deli with her husband,

          I believe if you had a picture of her ass, you’d know where all the deli profits are going.

      2. I bet there’s a reason she isn’t showing pics off her ass.

    2. If she’s posting racy selfies to the internet, it’s a strong sign she’s trouble.

      1. Apparently the ex hubby is mad because she used the divorce to bring publicity to her personal trainer’s gym. I have to say I kind of respect that.

    3. She does have a pretty face.

      1. You know who else had a pretty face?

        1. Inmate #L23411J?

        2. Your mother?

          1. Nobody ever looks at her face.

  27. Stiglitz: Europe’s assault on Greek democracy

    But why would Europe do this? Why are European Union leaders resisting the referendum and refusing even to extend by a few days the June 30 deadline for Greece’s next payment to the IMF? Isn’t Europe all about democracy?

    In January, Greece’s citizens voted for a government committed to ending austerity. If the government were simply fulfilling its campaign promises, it would already have rejected the proposal. But it wanted to give Greeks a chance to weigh in on this issue, so critical for their country’s future wellbeing.

    That concern for popular legitimacy is incompatible with the politics of the eurozone, which was never a very democratic project. Most of its members’ governments did not seek their people’s approval to turn over their monetary sovereignty to the ECB. When Sweden’s did, Swedes said no. They understood that unemployment would rise if the country’s monetary policy were set by a central bank that focused single-mindedly on inflation (and also that there would be insufficient attention to financial stability). The economy would suffer, because the economic model underlying the eurozone was predicated on power relationships that disadvantaged workers.

    1. And, sure enough, what we are seeing now, 16 years after the eurozone institutionalized those relationships, is the antithesis of democracy: Many European leaders want to see the end of Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras’s leftist government. After all, it is extremely inconvenient to have in Greece a government that is so opposed to the types of policies that have done so much to increase inequality in so many advanced countries, and that is so committed to curbing the unbridled power of wealth. They seem to believe that they can eventually bring down the Greek government by bullying it into accepting an agreement that contravenes its mandate.

      …A yes vote would mean depression almost without end. Perhaps a depleted country — one that has sold off all of its assets, and whose bright young people have emigrated — might finally get debt forgiveness; perhaps, having shriveled into a middle-income economy, Greece might finally be able to get assistance from the World Bank. All of this might happen in the next decade, or perhaps in the decade after that.

      By contrast, a no vote would at least open the possibility that Greece, with its strong democratic tradition, might grasp its destiny in its own hands. Greeks might gain the opportunity to shape a future that, though perhaps not as prosperous as the past, is far more hopeful than the unconscionable torture of the present.

      I know how I would vote.

      I’m flabbergasted this is becoming a mainstream left-wing talking point.

      1. Greece, with its strong democratic tradition

        Says someone who knows nothing about the long history of political dynasties in Greece.

        1. Small parts of Greece, that once had a democratic tradition, millennia ago. . . .

      2. When they run out of other people’s money, they get very cranky.

      3. Shorter leftist: “Gimme, gimme, gimme!”

      4. I hope they vote no, so Stiglitz can see how well they shape their future without OPM.

      5. It’s not an assault on democracy, you idiot. Greece is fucking broke, and they can’t repay their loans. Buying stuff with other people’s money is great, until that money runs out and guess what? The well went dry, and it should stay dry to teach Greece a lesson in financial responsibility.

      6. This is one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard. The Greek government is beholden to the Greek people and can be elected or not elected based on performance. The rest of Europe is not beholden to Greek voters at all so how on Earth is it an attack on Greek democracy not to let the Greeks do whatever they want?

        So if Obama said ‘if you elect me, every country on Earth will give us 100 billion dollars’ would it be an attack on American democracy if those other countries told Obama to go fuck himself?

        1. Honestly, this is where we and the rest of the West are heading. Can we not stop the madness before it’s too late? Or perhaps, too later?

      7. They really seem to think that there is no end to other people’s money. The most appalling thing about it is that they expect hard working Germans and Brits who have saved their money to give it up so a bunch of tax dodging bums in Greece can retire at 50. They are not so much evil as completely insane and irrational.

        1. They’re only insane and irrational if the Krauts stop paying.

        2. They really seem to think that there is no end to other people’s money.

          Is there no more ink or paper for the printing presses?

          1. They don’t have access to the printing presses. Not unless they leave the Euro and go back on the Drachma, that is.

            1. And that will work for a matter of months. Everyone is expecting a massive inflation if they get control of their currency again.

        3. Not so different from many here.

        4. Stiglitz is a Keynesian.

          He really believes that if the government expands the welfare state, or just spends more money on any damn thing, the Greek economy will recover.

          However, the meanies over in Germany and at the IMF won’t give them the money to do that even though the Greeks voted for it. And that’s not nice.

          1. I’m impressed (in a bad way) by how many people think smoke and mirrors constitute an economy.

      8. Greece, with its strong democratic tradition, might grasp its destiny in its own hands.

        I especially love that this writer is so historically illiterate. I mean, he is aware that Athenian democracy died over two thousand years ago at the hands of other, more authoritarian Greeks right? Yep, those Spartans and Macedonians, very pro-democracy. As were the Romans, the Byzantines, the Ottomans, and the Venetians. As were the Greeks themselves. I mean, I’m sure they didn’t have a dictatorship or monarchy in the recent past.

        The stupidity of ‘pop culture’ history drives me nuts.

        1. Also, let’s not even touch on the idiocy of elevating democracy to the status of a holy undeniable truth. Just because a large group of people believe or want something, doesn’t make it true. Consensus does not equal reality. Just because a bunch of Greeks feel they can keep borrowing money they can’t pay back does not magically mean it won’t fuck them in the long run.

          1. Spreading democracy is the secular version of the Crusades.

  28. So progressives have been desperately trying to explain why the gay marriage decision doesn’t mean polygamous marriage should be legal and they’ve been failing miserably. Jonathan Rauch wrote about it and linked to this article on the subject which is just filled w/ irrational question begging. Best part:

    “Here is something else to consider: As far as I’ve been able to determine, no polygamous society has ever been a true liberal democracy, in anything like the modern sense.”

    Prior to the last 20 years no liberal democracy had gay marriage either. Oops.

    “Other things being equal (and, to a good first approximation, they are), when one man marries two women, some other man marries no woman. When one man marries three women, two other men don’t marry. When one man marries four women, three other men don’t marry. Monogamy gives everyone a shot at marriage. Polygyny, by contrast, is a zero-sum game that skews the marriage market so that some men marry at the expense of others.”

    Except for the fact that there are currently a large and growing number of Americans who have never been married. Polygamy in a gender neutral fashion would not skew the numbers because a) people don’t always marry for life so there’d be divorces and b) polygamy would only cause this issue if everyone was already married and there were no unmarried women, which is not true.

    1. But of course you know that you can’t have people marrying outside their generation(like totally arbitrary no. 7 yrs+/-), that would just be creepy…

      1. Yeah, if a 60 year old billionaire marries a bunch of supermodels, I have a slight suspicion those girls are going to be back on the market at some point.

        1. But it could be twenty, thirty years down the line, when their main assets are whatever was not squandered from his fortune.

    2. He also left off the possibility that one of those wives might take a second husband separate from the first.

    3. It is an interesting question how polygamy would really work in a non traditional and non male dominated society. Very few women are interested in sharing their husband. This is why polygamy is normally associated with patriarchal societies. Unless the men can marry women young and force them to accept it, polygamy generally doesn’t happen.

      Given that we are not a patriarchal society and that women don’t generally marry young, I think polygamy would be very rare even if it were legal. It would mostly exist in ethnic enclaves of cultures where it is accepted. Even there, however, it likely wouldn’t last as the women there figured out they were no longer in Bananastan and don’t have to take it anymore.

      You never know but I think if it was suddenly legalized and recognized under the law, it would be limited to a few old perverts in religious cults and who haven’t given up the way of the old country and a few libertine yuppies on the upper East Side who be the subject of fawning long form articles in New York Magazine. For the rest of the country it would be a big “meh” or a bad joke men tell to annoy their wives.

      1. I think polygamy would be very rare even if it were legal.

        Polygamy is rare even in places like Saudi Arabia, as you need to be rather wealthy before you can even consider it. You have to maintain both wives to an equal standard, so if wife one currently has a 10,000 dollar allowance, the other wife has to get that too.

        1. In Islam, you have to maintain both wives to an equal standard, so if wife one currently has a 10,000 dollar allowance, the other wife has to get that too.

          FTFY

          We are not necessarily speaking of Islamic polygamy.

      2. It is an interesting question how polygamy would really work in a non traditional and non male dominated society. Very few women are interested in sharing their husband.

        Which assumes that polygamy would remain one man and many women.

        Why couldn’t it be 7 men all married to each other.
        Or chain marriages.

        1. Or chain marriages.

          Isn’t that what that Hispanic guy did to those 3 girls he abducted and stored in his basement?

        2. ESB could probably find some willing masochists on this board to be her brother husbands. Then they would have direct access to her derp in exchange for creepy repressed sex

          1. We could call it reasongate.

          2. Meoww.

            You leave ENB alone. And whatever her derp, I can’t see sex with her being repressed. That said, however, I am her biggest male fan and no way am I signing up for that deal. I don’t care how cute she is, Warty and Sugar Free’s seconds is not something I want anything to do with.

            1. Says the creepy, creepy White Knight.

            2. ENB? Are all feminists the same to you? tsk tsk

              I don’t like to imagine the sex, but my guess is it involves feminist poetry, darkness, and lots of apologizing

              1. oh, and a picture of the pope face down on the nightstand table

    4. “Other things being equal (and, to a good first approximation, they are), when one man marries two women, some other man marries no woman. When one man marries three women, two other men don’t marry. When one man marries four women, three other men don’t marry. Monogamy gives everyone a shot at marriage. Polygyny, by contrast, is a zero-sum game that skews the marriage market so that some men marry at the expense of others.”

      What happens when one woman marries two men? Does that balance it out?

    5. I want to know why two family members can’t get married now.

      And before the idea get dismissed out of hand consider that there are more adult and senior family members living together that would benefit from the government privileges provided by marriage than there are gay people who will do so.

      So how about it, why can’t to elderly siblings marry for tax and SS benefits? Or a child and their parent for the same reason?

      1. And when they roll out the ‘ew, incest causes genetic problems’ argument it’s important to note that we don’t try to control the breeding or marriage habits of people with genetic disorders that can be passed to a child.

        1. We don’t try to control the breeding or marriage habits of people with genetic disorders that can be passed to a child anymore.

  29. So progressives have been desperately trying to explain why the gay marriage decision doesn’t mean polygamous marriage should be legal and they’ve been failing miserably. Jonathan Rauch wrote about it and linked to this article on the subject which is just filled w/ irrational question begging. Best part:

    “Here is something else to consider: As far as I’ve been able to determine, no polygamous society has ever been a true liberal democracy, in anything like the modern sense.”

    Prior to the last 20 years no liberal democracy had gay marriage either. Oops.

    “Other things being equal (and, to a good first approximation, they are), when one man marries two women, some other man marries no woman. When one man marries three women, two other men don’t marry. When one man marries four women, three other men don’t marry. Monogamy gives everyone a shot at marriage. Polygyny, by contrast, is a zero-sum game that skews the marriage market so that some men marry at the expense of others.”

    Except for the fact that there are currently a large and growing number of Americans who have never been married. Polygamy in a gender neutral fashion would not skew the numbers because a) people don’t always marry for life so there’d be divorces and b) polygamy would only cause this issue if everyone was already married and there were no unmarried women, which is not true.

    1. What about polycommenti?

      1. I’m denying other commenters the right to make one comment which could potentially destroy our liberal democracy.

    2. Is it better, or worse, then the explanations of why Jenner is really a woman while Dolezal is not really black?

    3. In the United States, there are more women than men.

      Is he trying to deny those women a shot at marriage???

      1. At one time I had the hots for another woman but was deep in a long-term relationship with another. I would have happily married both of them at the same time.

        …Only to suffer in the long-term…

    1. Why do they keep giving him work? What sort of blackmail material does he have on the studio bosses?

      1. He pulls in major international box office with his dumb, overblown action movies.

        And Americans always think ferners have better taste and more class…

        1. Aren’t most major pictures targeting the foreign market now? It would explain a lot.

      2. I actually enjoyed Jack Reacher and MI 4, so sue me. He is the best acting runner hollywood ever produced.

    2. I will only be okay with this, if fat Val Kilmer comes back for a volleyball scene and Kenny Loggins does the music again.

      1. The writers are furiously revising the script to incorporate a side story where Iceman has been his wingman for the past thirty years and their wedding is on hold while Maverick deals with the drones.

    3. Anyone want to bet that the “Young” drone pilot that Maverick needs to teach a lesson will end up being Goose’s son who would be right about the right age to go to Top Gun school for the first time when this is is released (the original came out 30 years ago and Goose’s son was about 2 which would make him roughly 34 or 35 when they release Top Gun 2)

  30. I hate these fuckhead companies that offer “six month temp contract, with option to be hired as an FTE with salary”. Gee, I wonder what happens at the end of six months, regardless of performance?

    I’m emailing with this recruiter who can’t seem to understand that in that situation, all the risk is assumed by the employee, and that I would only consider the position if it were FTE salary with bennys from day one.

    1. Actually in a lot of cases you get hired.

      That said it USED to be that when you took a contract like that you got a 10 – 15% premium on the hourly wage to compensate you for the risk and lack of benefits. Companies don’t do that anymore so yeah the company is asking you to take on a significant risk for free with a 6 month temp to perm gig but that does not mean that they don’t intend to hire you. In most cases the company doing contract to perm positions are doing so becuase they want to make sure you are a personality fit for the company and not because they are just trying to trick people into accepting a short term contract.

      1. want to make sure you are a personality fit for the company

        That’s the risk you take when you hire anyone. Nature of the beast of employer/employee relations. Hence the concept of at-will employment.

        1. At will employment has plenty of caveats these days.

        2. What city are you in, Kristen?

      2. Also, the post-six-month perm salary they’re offering is really, really high for what the job is (essentially a web content editor, with HTML and CSS knowledge). That leads me to believe they have no intention of hiring permanently.

        1. My attitude is that they should pay through the nose during the I/C period, to compensate you for the benefits and other stuff you aren’t getting, not to mention the opportunity cost of not taking permanent employment during that period.

    2. For my first job out of college I got hired to a permanent position via a temp agency. A way for a company to check you out before taking the plunge of hiring.

    3. “and that I would only consider the position if it were FTE salary with bennys from day one.”

      And why shouldn’t you? You’re in IT, right? There are plenty of employers that value what you do. Don’t waste time with the ones who don’t.

  31. Just as Lucille said I didnt know that anyone able to get paid $7158 in four weeks on the computer .You can look here????????????? http://www.workweb40.com

  32. Dopey left-wing professor Adam Kotsko on Twitter: “White people should commit mass suicide.”

    1. I’m afraid I must refuse his kind offer, but he’s free to work through the political process to compel my death. Hey, might even work!

    2. Adam Kotsko should be wedgied so far up the ass that he coughs up his underwear.

    3. You first. Show us how it’s done.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.