A.M. Links: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached, NYC Pays $5.9 Million to Family of Eric Garner, Boy Scouts Welcome Gay Leaders

|

  • New York City has agreed to pay $5.9 million to the family of Eric Garner, the man whose death at the hands of the NYPD was caught on video last year.
  • "Greece's leftwing Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras faces a showdown with rebels in his own party on Tuesday furious at his capitulation to German demands for one of the most sweeping austerity packages ever demanded of a euro zone government."
  • Closing arguments are expected today in the death penalty trial of Colorado movie theater shooter James Holmes.

New at Reason

Peter Suderman: The FDA Wants to Ruin Your Treats

Trans fats make donuts and popcorn delicious. Soon they may be illegal.

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

Advertisement

NEXT: The Shadowy World of Cybersecurity Mercenaries

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. A nuclear deal with Iran has been struck.

    The DoJ stands ready to indict any in Congress who oppose.

    1. Hello.

      Greece shoulda taken the first deal.

      1. I’ll see you at the opera tonight. I’ll hold your seat till you get there. After you get there you’re on your own.

        1. What about my monocle?

      2. 22 minutes late and 120+ comments. It’s the Wild West in here.

    2. I considered taking the name “Chip of Etiquette” and trying to wrest the crown from you.

      1. $20 on Fist.

        Nothing personal, but you have the same acronym as Creedence Clearwater Revival, and it’s Fist.

        1. I ain’t no fortunate one.

        2. I didn’t do it because I knew I couldn’t compete with the master.

    3. Why would they do that?

      1. Isn’t the one they just took even tougher compared to the original deal? That’s my impression.

        1. Yup.

        2. Mine too. FoE just phoned in that first comment.

          1. When there’s vocal opposition I will be vindicated.

            1. It was not your best performance. Humble thyself and move on.

              1. I’d say it’s right on par.

    4. In other words, Israel is running out of time to attack.

      1. Nah. They have all the time in the world.

      2. There’s always time to retaliate.

  2. Is that “New at Reason” a new thing at Reason or just something Root is trying out?

    1. They used to embed videos at the bottom of Morning Links. Holy shit, remember that?

  3. The NASA probe New Horizons has completed a historic flyby of Pluto.

    Now on to Goofy, who can actually talk.

    1. Why is Pluto an actual dog, while Goofy is a humanoid walking, talking dog, anyways?

      1. If I remember my Disney-verse continuity correctly, Goofy was a botched lab experiment on a dog

      2. Chimera.
        Just think of most cartoons as templates for our trans-human future.
        Furries, all the way down.

      3. There’s a great line in Michael Chabon’s The Yiddish Policeman’s Union where the protagonist ponders how he was always disturbed by Pluto – “a dog, owned by a mouse, daily confronted with the mutational horror of Goofy.”

  4. Scottish Barmen Refuse To Wear Kilts Because Women ‘Can’t Stop Groping Them’

    A group of barmen have stopped wearing kilts because they claim women wouldn’t stop groping them while they worked.

    Staff at the Hootananny in Inverness wore the traditional Scottish tartan to give the venue even more of an authentic feel.

    But they are complaining that female revellers are constantly lifting up the kilts to see if they were naked underneath.

    Some claim they were even groped on their penis.

    We have to teach women not to rape.

    1. Staff at the Hootananny in Inverness wore the traditional Scottish tartan to give the venue even more of an authentic feel.

      “Drink at the Hootananny and feel the staff!”

      1. I see what you did there. But I don’t want to feel it.

    2. Groups of women are some of the most rapey you will ever encounter. Men just don’t act traumitized because some woman copped a feel. Male strip clubs don’t have bouncers ready to pounce if a hand goes where it isn’t supposed to.

      1. I’m still traumatized by a gang-rape committed by a girls gynmastic team.

        (yes, I know, it’s a cool neologism)

      2. mine did

    3. “O lad I don’t know where you been but I see you won first prize.”

    4. Unfortunately they were Scottish pub women.

      1. I choose to imagine such women all look like Karen Gillan.

    1. Shaking my head.

    2. No one ever thinks of the unintended consequences, but I’m sure there’s an ordinance in the wings ready to fix this.

    3. ‘Ms Vithoulkas said options for smokers in the CBD were now so limited that “people are just huddled around garbage bins”.’

      Looking for food.

      1. Smokers are the Anglo world’s new bums.

    4. Pubs, cafes and restaurants have been forced to adapt to the state’s new anti-smoking regulations, with some venues choosing fags over food by restricting outdoor dining.

      They just won the right to marry who they want, so I guess it makes sense certain businesses will cater to them more.

  5. Taxpayers Spend $3.5 Million to Find Out Why Lesbians Are Fat

    The study, “Sexual Orientation and Obesity: A Test of a Gendered Biopsychosocial Model,” seeks to determine why there is a disparity in the obesity rates between straight women and lesbian women and straight men and gay men.

    According to the study, “It is now well-established that women of minority sexual orientation are disproportionately affected by the obesity epidemic, with nearly three-quarters of adult lesbians overweight or obese, compared to half of heterosexual women. In stark contrast, among men, heterosexual males have nearly double the risk of obesity compared to gay males.”

    1. Anothercway of looking at it: listening to a woman makes you fat.

      Note: Ive lost about 25# in 15 months of marriage. So my statement above may not apply.

      1. What, are you a Stockholm case? Blink twice, we’ll send help.

      2. Damn, i gained 10 on the honeymoon and another 60 in the first 18 months. I remember when I used to be skinny. It was nice.

        Note: I have been working 2-3 jobs at a time and going to school at night, so that may be a confounding factor in the weight gain.

        1. Jesus, did you get pregnant on the honeymoon?

    2. Honestly, I’ve been wondering about that, too.

      The only thing I could figure was that straight women work harder at losing weight because it helps them get laid.

      1. I’d say tthing is true for gay men.

        Men, being visual creatures, are more attracted to thinner people (unless you’re John).

    3. If you read The Washington Blade, you know why. When lesbians abuse their bodies, they do so because they’re victims and martyrs, but when gay men do so, they do so because they’re bad people. But remember: Either there isn’t a double standard, or the double standard unfairly favors gay men.

    4. Oh dear. I smell a new campaign to save the whales.

      1. Must be quite a smell.

    5. So lesbian, who are heads and above more socially acceptable than gays, are more likely to beat their partners and be fat than their heterosexual counterparts. While gays are less likely to beat their partners and be fat than their heterosexual counterparts. So it’s not the homosexual or female part that’s causing it, wonder what the social differences are between lesbians and heterosexual women that are not also applicable to gays and heterosexual men?

      I’m suspicious its feminist and progressive affiliation, but I’ve got no evidence of such.

      1. It’s almost like men like fucking attractive mates, or something.

      2. Or lesbians are consciously or unconsciously aping heterosexual male behaviors in regards to interpersonal violence and obesity.

        1. If they were doing that then their violence levels would be average to the heterosexual levels. Heterosexual men and women are about equal in likelihood to hit their partner, and men are much more likely to go to jail and be charged for hitting their partner even in situations were they did not start the violence.

        2. Better stick with “unconsciously,” that way there’s nothing to falsify.

        3. A good number of lesbians are so because they don’t fit the idealized feminine profile enough to be attractive to men.

          1. A good number of lesbians are so because they don’t fit the idealized feminine profile enough to be attractive to men.

            In college we called those “lesbians until graduation”. I.e. they are not lesbians.

          2. A good number of lesbians are so because they don’t fit the idealized feminine profile enough to be attractive to men.

            In the history of the world, there have been enormously stupid things said. People claim that there’s no progress, that ’twas ever thus. In a way, that’s depressing, it’s like finding out the last secret of the existence of the universe.

            Thank you, you have proved them wrong. That stands as the single most retarded thing ever written by someone who still has enough cerebral activity to push the keys of a computer. I am now in a much better mood, all thanks to you.

            1. This is what John actually believes.

            2. Depends on if he was referencing the higher acknowledged rates of bisexuals in women or not. A trend of the less ideal bisexual women deciding to have sexual relations with women only could result in studies saying the lesbian population tends towards bad traits.

              A lot of the homosexual community still has a negative gut reaction to someone announcing they are bisexual (it’s getting better, but it’s still there), so there is still a lot of pressure to pretend to be fully homosexual even for those who aren’t.

              1. I wouldn’t deny their existence, but of the handful of people I’ve met over the years who claimed to be bisexual, every one of them “settled” on straight. My own gut feeling is that a true bisexual is extremely rare.

                1. And that’s another factor. Women who sleep with women as a way to either gain status (Rad Fems for example) or attract male attention amazingly enough have personality flaws, which depending on how a study is conducted could get dumped into the lesbian population statistics.

                  1. What you call “personality flaws”, I call “daddy issues”.

                    Yeah, baby!

            3. Hear, hear.

              1. Jester, you should probably clarify who you were agreeing with. Otherwise you just look like your cheering on whoever posted last.

    6. Maybe it’s because women are far less visually stimulated than men. Thus, partners of women are less concerned about their physique than partners of men.

      1. That’s actually a really good point that I didn’t think of.

        1. You were a little busy eating chocolate ice cream straight from the carton while standing in front of the freezer crying about the evil matriarchy keeping your people down. I’d sing “We Shall Overcome” with you, but I need to go oppress my husband for having a Dad-bod. BRB.

          1. *triggered*

          2. I can’t do that unfortunately. I already ate all the chocolate ice cream last week, and it’s too early to start on the Pina Coladas.

            Also, I’m female.

            1. Also, I’m female.

              Sooooooo, come here often?

              1. Depends, how big is your comic book collection ;P

                1. Mine is huge.

                2. how big is your comic book collection

                  *immediately runs to store to buy comics*

            2. I’m becoming more convinced by the day that if we did a Big Reveal, there not only are indeed libertarian women, but the guys may be slightly outnumbered.

              1. What precisely are you planning on for this “Big Reveal”, HoD?

                Should I get my camera?

                1. Better be careful what you wish for Igor, she may be one of John’s type of women.

                2. I’m going to show the world my giant mecha.

                  I’M GOING TO SHOW THE WORLD!

              2. I think we are still the minority, but not quite the unicorn most make us out to be. It’s hard to tell, though, because unlike other forums women on reason don’t seem to feel the need to identify their gender in their handle.

                1. I demand that all the female libertarians on this site adopt nicknames that clearly indicate their gender.

                  I justify this as a “common sense” rule so that we can reduce the level of sophomoric, straw-man debate.

                  And correspondingly increase the level of sophomoric, awkward cyber-stalking.

                  1. My handle already has that special smell of female about it, surely?

                    1. Yeah, but it also implies you think you’re an anthropomorphic fox or panda or something. 😉

      2. Yes. Also, most women I have met seem to enjoy more than anything else laying around in bed, watching TV, and eating sweets. If two of them get together and do lots of that, the results are predictable.

        1. Wow, that’s so interesting! Men and women have more in common than I thought, because most women I ave met seem to enjoy more than anything else lying around on a couch, playing video games, and drinking beer.

          1. Haha, men, obviously.

          2. My intent was not to insult women or call them lazy. They’re just more homebodies than men, and generally less adventurous. At least in the social circles I encounter. Most guys my age that I know (mid 30s) do not pay video games and enjoy outdoors activities like fishing. And when we spend time with our girlfriends it’s usually watching Netflix.

            With regard to the eating sweets, guys tend to crave high protein stuff like BBQ which at least has some nutritional value, although some of my fatter male friends have a sweet tooth as well.

            1. Most guys my age that I know (mid 30s) do not pay video games…

              After all, Chipper doesn’t know any, so it must not be happening.

              1. I never said that. That’s the reason I qualified it with guys I know. I also did that in the original post.

              2. I would say that over half of the twenty to thirty-somethings I know are rabid gamers, spending hours a night sitting in front of a computer screen or TV.

                One of my (gal) friends loved to complain about her boyfriend spending all his time gaming instead of interacting with their kid.

                Don’t know how common it is…

                1. LH, are you in a tech-oriented field? I’m an ironworker. That may explain the difference.

              3. I work on a crew of about a hundred guys. Very few are into video games that I know of. However, I’ve gone shooting and fishing with a bunch of them and talked about it, shared pics on Facebook with others. Pardon me for observing the trend.

            2. *Because our female companions don’t want to do outdoors stuff with us as much as they want to cuddle while watching Devious Maids.

              This impression I have may be a product of the selection of people I interact with, the culture here, or my rampant sexism. Ymmv.

            3. Your social circle sounds like a real bundle o’ douchebags.

              1. Your social circle sounds like a real bundle o’ douchebags.

                Literally the only things you know about them are that they work in the same industry as me, enjoy the outdoors, fishing and shooting, are past the age where video games are interesting, and date/marry women who are homebodies. Where are you getting that from?

                1. You mean, you don’t like it when people make sweeping judgments of you based on silly assumptions?

                  1. How is “most women I’ve met” a judgment of you, again?

                    Kristen actually called me and my friends douchebags.

            4. hey’re just more homebodies than men, and generally less adventurous

              Holy crap, where did you get such a myopic view of the female gender?

              Get into any adventure sport, and you’ll find there are many badass chicks.

              1. Right. And that is a tiny subset of the larger female population.

                1. And that is a tiny subset of the larger female population.

                  Except you originally wrote, “most women I have met seem to enjoy”.

                  Nice goalpost move.

                  1. How does the existence of a small outlier group disprove the larger trend of the overall group?

                    I’ve met some badass chicks in my time. But, nonetheless, most women I’ve met are homebodies. How are those two statements contradictory?

                  2. Me: “Most women I’ve met prefer not to work on their own cars.”

                    CCC: “Yeah, but there are female mechanics out there somewhere!”

                    Is that about the scope of your argument?

                    1. Further, within that analogy, my argument would have been: therefore it is likely that all women prefer not to work on their own cars at the same rate as the group of women I have met thus far.

        2. I don’t normally participate in the am lynx, but I came here just to give you this.
          Maybe your intent wasn’t to be offensive, but you’re painting with such a broad brush it’s impossible not to be.

          Maybe most women you’ve met are like that and maybe most men you’ve met are more outdoorsy, but I’d guess that says more about you and your social circle than it does about the genders at large.

          1. Well now I’m going to be thinking about JLaw’s bleached anus all day. THANKS RIVEN

            1. I’ve been known to have that effect.

              I apologize for nothing.

          2. Right. That’s what I said.

        3. I come here for the articles, and I stay for the snark, but the fact that so many jumped on him making a casual observation based on the information he had (women he knows) really upsets me.

          Not offended (like so many appeared to have been from a casual, albeit broad, observation and conclusion), but kinda upset. All day I have to see and hear SJWs complain about stereotypes, and don’t judge a group by the individual. I really don’t want to have to read it at H&R (H and R… can’t remember if ampersands work).

          1. And lest I get lambasted with the “You don’t have to read it” argument, my point is rather to suggest that for the most part, we’re all family here (even Tony and PB, although they are the weird cousins), and getting offended by one person’s comment doesn’t do a lot of good in the long run. It creates resentment, and the next time each party engages with each other they’ll be more likely to think of the resentment rather than the actual substance of the comment/argument.

            Can’t we all just get along???

          2. GB, how’s law school going?

            Thanks for jumping in. I wasn’t trying to say all individual women are like X. I was trying to say population Y (women I’ve met) probably deviates from the mean the same amount as population Z (women I have not met). Which is probably a bit less collectivist. Maybe I’m being irrational on this.

            1. It’s good, thanks for asking. I’m in the home stretch, with one year left.

              And maybe it’s the law student in me that allowed me to parse out your message, but I took it to mean the smaller subset of women you know rather than all women. It was all the overreactions to your general conversation-starter comment that I thought were misplaced.

              But at this point, it’s probably not worth defending yourself anymore. I think most people have already decided you’re a chauvinist pig. So welcome to the club 😉

              1. What kind of law will you practice? My ex is a patent lawyer.

                Also, you might have hesitated to defend me if you knew that I secretly kind of like Lake Eola.

                1. Also, you might have hesitated to defend me if you knew that I secretly kind of like Lake Eola.

                  You sonuvabitch.

                  Haven’t settled on a type of law yet. Patent is unfortunately out of the question, as I have no hard science background. Last semester and this summer I have been clerking for judges and I kinda like that. But there’s not much pay in it, so I may have to sell out short term. But I am very open to everything but mortgage foreclosure law.

          3. Unless they’re upset because they consider themselves to be ‘women he’s met’ because of online babble.

            Otherwise it looks like standard SJW ‘we’re gonna misconstue what you said, change it’s meaning into something of our own creation that’s heinous, and lambast you for having ‘said’ it.’ bullshit.

            And I think we all expect better than that from the quasi-illusory Women of Reason.

            1. It was a sort of shockingly SJW outpouring all of a sudden.

    7. 3.5 million to test a model on data already generated by other projects. Granted, these days that means 2 million goes straight away to the University coffers to pad the administrator salaries. Still that leaves 1.5 million which is not a bad deal to run some stats.

    8. If there is a causal link:

      Is it lesbianism that causes obesity,
      or is it obesity that causes lesbianism?

    9. The male gaze cures fatness, obviously.

      1. The male gaze Penis-touching cures fatness, obviously.

        Men gaze at everything, the dirty eyeball-whores.

        1. Penis-touching cures fatness, obviously.

          Is that why my first wife got fat after we got married?

          1. Is it why one arm has better definition than the other?

        2. Men gaze at everything, the dirty eyeball-whores.

          Ugh, men are the worst (especially the white ones).

    10. “why there is a disparity in the obesity rates”

      Good god, I’m so fucking sick of hearing this word (or the word “inequality”). Don’t get me wrong: equal opportunities and equal rights are of paramount importance. But the left has conflated them with equal outcomes, equal possessions, and now, equal fatness.

      They want every race incarcerated in perfect proportion to the percentage of the population that they account for. And if it doesn’t end up that way, it’s evidence of a huge racist conspiracy.

      They want every profession split 50/50 between males and females (or, more females than males would also be acceptable, but not the other way around). And if this is not how it is, it’s part of the War on Women? and evidence that we need mandatory paid maternity leave.

      Now they want lesbians and straight women to be the same weight. I don’t even know what kind of idiotic program they’ll come up with to “remedy” this “problem”, and I’m scared to find out.

      1. It’s not worse than this phrase: “disproportionately affected by the obesity epidemic”

        It’s like it’s something that just happens to people, something drifting in the air that happens to shift more in some people’s direction than others, no agency involved whatsoever.

        1. I physically shuddered when I read that, Bo. You’re right. That is the Nicole of phrases.

    11. It is now well-established that women of minority sexual orientation are disproportionately affected by the obesity epidemic

      They contracted obesitus, huh?

    12. Always thought it was a fashion thing.

  6. New York City has agreed to pay $5.9 million to the family of Eric Garner…

    That will teach the leadership and law enforcement in the city not to pull that again.

    1. Well, I mean, the money’s coming out of the pockets of the cops who killed him and out of the PD’s budget, and the city had to admit wrongdoing, right? Right?

      ::sticks fingers in ears, loudly says LA LA LA LA LA, doesn’t listen to anyone who tells me differently::

      1. the money’s coming out of the pockets of the cops who killed him

        I shouted out
        Who killed Eric Garner?
        When after all
        It was you and me

        #Governmentiswhatwechoose2do2gether

        1. God I hope you just made that up

          1. but of course! with acknowledgment to the real RS, Mick and Keith!

    2. Indulgences have always been paid for via taxes.

  7. Obama hails step towards ‘more hopeful world’

    Now, *that* is leadership.

    1. What happened to the “change” part?

      1. Ask Kaitlin Jenner

      2. /licks tip of pen.

        Jots down ‘hate speech by old man with candy’ in copy book.

        /narrows gaze.

        1. Fuck Canada, eh?

          1. /nervously dials Human Rights Commission number.

  8. I’m not sure who here is on the Pacific NW coast, but we’ll miss you all.

  9. India second biggest loser of rich citizens

    India has the second highest millionaire outflow, or number of Indian HNWIs ( high net-worth individuals) moving out of the country, reveals a new report from New World Wealth, a global wealth sector information consulting services firm.

    According to the report, the number of rich people changing domicile has increased dramatically since the turn of the century. Over the last 14 years (2000-14), India saw 61,000 HNWIs leave the country. It was second only to China, which witnessed 91,000 millionaires move out.

    1. Can Galt’s Gulch handle the influx?

    2. The top five destinations for Indian millionaires were the UK

      Ha! Suck on that USA. *fires up bagpipes*

  10. Florida Woman dickslaps lesbian partner with dildo

    Not sure how Jezebel will react to this.

      1. LH laughs at you.

        1. True. But to be fair, he laughs at everybody.

    1. Not sure how Jezebel will react to this.

      Time to ban dildos?

      1. Women will blame the patriarchy, men will blame feminism, and everyone will learn nothing and be far happier in themselves for having opposite narratives confirmed by the same event.

      2. ‘Oppressed Women Beaten with Patriarchal Symbol – Outrage to Follow!’

    1. No, it just means we need to tax rich people $313 billion more!

      1. A platinum $1T coin would more than cover that.

        1. FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT!!!!11!!11!!! /progderp

        2. Why platinum?

          Just make it out of wood.

        3. For about 3 years anyway.

          (I think that’s how that works. Never RTFA!)

  11. “Greece’s leftwing Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras faces a showdown with rebels in his own party on Tuesday furious at his capitulation to German demands for one of the most sweeping austerity packages ever demanded of a euro zone government.”

    Good thing I stocked up on popcorn.

    1. My Greek friends are telling me Greeks are refusing to make changes going on with their lives, taking vacations, living the high life etc.

      I liked what the Finnish minister said the other day. I paraphrase, ‘I cannot go back to the Finnish people and tell them their tax dollars will go to keep Greeks living a lavish lifestyle.’

      1. I listened to some asshat on NPR’s Dianne Rheem show yesterday wailing about how the northern Europeans are trading in stereotypes about lazy Mediterraneans. Nobody ever thought to ask him why the northern taxpayer should be asked to underwrite the banks making the bad loans.

        The ONLY reason that the Greeks are getting any more money is because the banks have been backstopped by guaranteed future collections from northern taxpayers. If the banks had no government guarantees, this ridiculous charade would be over immediately.

        1. Exactly. This is about interest on loans, not about stereotypes and hurt feelings. I wouldn’t expect the typical NPR listener to get that.

          1. Don’ tell them that.

            Most of them truly believe that they are intelligent, educated, well-rounded, cultured people.

            Anyone that thinks differently, or god forbid, watches Faux News, is a contemptible undereducated hillbilly bigot.

            1. *cough* my mother and sister *cough*

  12. Why your pills may be making you angry: As statins are linked to aggression in women, the mood-altering side-effects of everyday medicines

    When you take a commonly prescribed drug for a physical condition such as high cholesterol, asthma or acne, or even the birth control Pill, you may be alert for signs of physical side-effects. But such medicines can harbour a more insidious danger: they may make you aggressive, violently jealous, suicidal or even homicidal.

    This little understood threat was highlighted this month when researchers found that taking statins to lower cholesterol and prevent heart problems can make some women aggressive and violent, reports the authoritative science journal PLOS ONE.

    1. It’s quite possible for these medications to have all kinds of long term side effects. I don’t think it’s really reasonable for drug companies to document 30 year interaction effects between drugs. Pharamaceuticals are fine to solve a targeted problem and maybe not such a great thing to be on for decades, at least when the problems can be mitigated with diet, exercise, or other self improvement, which they often can.

      1. That’s my take on medicine – provided I don’t need a pill to live day-to-day or reduce pain to manageable levels – I believe that exercise and diet are the best medicine. That and sex & booze.

        1. Yup. I get a laugh out of all the drug commercials… “May cause death.” Then the same drug appears in an ambulance chaser commercial next year. Rinse and repeat.

    2. … the authoritative science journal PLOS ONE.

      From Wikipedia:

      Operating under a pay-to-publish model, PLOS ONE publishes approximately 70% of submitted manuscripts.

  13. From WND… warning.

    Dem judge orders psych counseling for D’Souza

    D’Souza’s defense counsel Benjamin Brafman provided evidence to the court that the psychiatrist D’Souza was ordered to see found no indication of depression or reason for medication. In addition, the psychologist D’Souza subsequently consulted provided a written statement concluding there was no need to continue the consultation, because D’Souza was psychologically normal and well adjusted.

    But Judge Berman, who was appointed by Bill Clinton, disagreed, effectively overruling the judgment of the two licensed psychological counselors the U.S. probation department had approved as part of D’Souza’s criminal sentence.

    You know who else… oh never mind.

    1. Wrongthink against the Messiah is a mental illness.

    2. He would do the same for Michale Moore, right? RIGHT?

      Anyway. I know it’s WND but scary shit right there.

    3. Sounds like Judge Berman needs the Katherine Forrest treatment.

    4. D’Souza’s violation of federal campaign-finance laws to be evidence of a psychological problem

      If you doubt the good intentions of the State, you must be mentally ill.

    5. The US becomes more like the old Soviet Union every day.

    6. “I have become very attached to my students,” he said. “There are around 100 of them, in classes ranging from beginner to intermediate to advanced.”

      He said many of them have now seen his film, “America,” which he gave to them as a Christmas present.

      “They have gotten to know me and my situation,” he said. “And they are now huge fans. If you ran Obama against me with this group, I doubt he would get a single vote.”

      Making lemonade from lemons.

    7. I thought that said barfman for a second.

    8. What little I know of this (mostly by reading what was linked somewhere during our own recent Troubles) was indeed scary. He was also ordered to do 8 hours of “community service” every week for five years.

  14. …furious at his capitulation to German demands for one of the most sweeping austerity packages ever demanded of a euro zone government.

    Awesome. Tsipras is hopefully recognizing what everyone else has been dealing with from his group.

    1. he must … put in place quasi-automatic spending constraints

      Whatever *those* are.

    2. Is this real austerity or the same type of “austerity” that Krugman is always whining about (i.e., increased spending at a slower rate)?

      Because one of those isn’t actually austerity

  15. AMAAANDA!

    Could Scott Walker Steal Female Voters From Hillary Clinton?

    Nowhere is this more evident than on the issue of reproductive choice. Walker is a hardline anti-choice ideologue with a zero percent rating from NARAL and a 100 percent rating from Wisconsin Right to Life. Walker made restricting abortion access a major priority of his administration, signing a law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital?a standard ruse that exploits fears about women’s safety as a front to eliminate legal abortion. Walker is on record supporting a total ban on abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest. He also takes a dim view on contraception, and has undermined access to birth control by defunding Planned Parenthood and refusing to enforce a state law requiring insurance companies to cover contraception.

    Despite his radical views, Walker ran a 2014 campaign ad which implied he’s pro-choice, arguing that his attempt to legislate legal abortion out of existence “leaves the final decision to a woman and her doctor.” But the decision isn’t left to you and your doctor if the doctor is not allowed to work with you.

    1. FMK: Amanda, ESB, Jessica Valenti

      (any answer you give will be considered misogynist and violent, so watch out!)

      1. If those were my only options, I’d use the bullet meant for the kill on myself.

      2. How can you tell the difference?

      3. Obvious – Kill Amanda Marcotte, fuck Jessica Valenti, marry ESB because I know I can change her, dammit.

        Plus, kill Amanda Marcotte is a given and I don’t think ESB would have pre-marital sex due to her religious inclinations. This is so obvious.

        1. I’m with Irish. Although I only endorse face-fucking Valenti, because no one could keep an erection going with her running her damn mouth.

          And I think she admitted that her baby cored out her pussy like a smelly apple.

        2. “marry ESB because I know I can change her, dammit.”

          TIWTANLW

          Why buy the cow when you can buy a chicken and change it into a cow using magic?

          1. Look, if all those women can change their bad boy, abusive boyfriends into model husbands with the power of their love (something I’m assured happens all the time), why can’t I do something similar to ESB?

            1. I’m also convinced that repeatedly dousing that dead tooth in jizz will make it live again.

            2. At least your fur will hide the bruises, or whatever is the crazy feminist equivalent…tattoos denoting your male privilege?

        3. ESB is married and can’t get divorced, dude.

          1. He’d need another bullet.

          2. Pretty sure she could buy an annulment, we just would need Jesse to seduce her husband.

      4. Aside from the fact they all need a good jizzing, I’d go with kill Marcotte (too annoying from the links you psychos have sent), fuck Valenti because she is fuckable and marry the commie if anything because she seems like she could raise a family. But you still would have to take on a mistress because she probably will be a tight ass in bed and won’t do anal or something.

    2. My girlfriend thinks he’s ugly and misshapen. Pretty much guaranteed to not get her vote.

      1. Are you talking Scott or Hilary?

        1. both?

    3. a law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital?a standard ruse that exploits fears about women’s safety

      So the left loves all regulation…except that which personally inconveniences them. A chink in the armor!

      1. And the right hates all regulation unless it’s fucking over the left.

        1. Shh, a lot of people here are only capable of seeing one way down that street!

      2. A chink in the armor!

        Lacist?

        1. Oh, myyyyy.

      3. Is that the state’s standard regulation for clinics petforming outpatient surgeries?

    4. I like how taking a favorable view of contraception requires making the taxpayers fund Planned Parenthood and forcing insurers to cover contraception.

      1. By that standard most libertarians have a dim view of contraception.

  16. So now that Obama has capitulated to Iran and sold out Israel, I wonder if all those liberal Jews who happily voted for him not once, but twice, are feeling proud today. #dumbrules

    1. Liberal Jews don’t read wingnut.com for their GOP talking points.

      1. Well, look who’s here. Congratulations on somehow convincing the Post to rehire you, fuckface!

        Here’s the thing though: most people don’t change what they fundamentally are. And what you are is a vile cretin with a big mouth who isn’t nearly as smart as he thinks he is. The fact that you’re already back here proves that.

        That’s why I would bet everything I have that it’s only a matter of time until you fuck up yet again and force them to fire you again. And when that happens, take one guess as to who’s going to be here to laugh at your dumb ass and remind you that he told you so.

      2. Remember, PB, “depression is anger, turned inward.”

      3. Is that you, Richman?

    2. Well, let’s add neocons to all the anti-immigrant folks here.

      1. Well someone has to act as a counterweight to the Mullah cocksuckers around here.

        1. Awesome.

      2. What are you talking about?

        Who is anti-immigrant here?

        1. You’re kidding, right? On any given immigrant thread you’ll find about half of the commentariat (though interestingly not a single writer) spouting conservative talking points on the issue.

          1. No. I wasn’t kidding.

            And I think you suffer from a disease whereby you read what you want to read cuz I have not concluded that (aside from a couple of people).

            1. Look, I think I’ve actually pointed this out to you on immigration threads. The traditional libertarian is towards open borders, but about half of the commenters here favor positions much more like a typical GOP Presidential candidate would. Do you disagree, because I’m sure I can pull the latest one up.

            2. As far as Bo’s concerned, the very idea that there’s a fundamental problem with a policy of unlimited “free” immigration AND abundant public welfare offends his “libertarian sensibilities” – and if you’re even prepared to acknowledge that it’s a problem, you fail his purity test.

              He’s not interested in a reasoned, honest discussion of these kinds of issues. He’s interested in *derailing them*, and then whining about being called on his “shitting on the thread”.

              1. Igor hits it out of the park!

                Hey Bo, just because we’re pragmatists who realize the fatalism of open borders and a massive welfare state doesn’t mean that you’re somehow a more pure libertarian. I’ll be happy to talk open borders as soon as your progressive cohort is willing to come to the table on SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Ocare, and the thousands of other welfare programs that are bankrupting this country even without open borders.

                1. You’re reasoning could just as easily apply to some warped leftist restrictions. In fact, most of the public health statism we see these days is justified in the same way (since we have this welfare state taking care of sick people we have to restrict the freedom to drink soda, smoke, etc.).

        2. I think Bo means anyone who is against totally open borders which is prima facie evidence of racism.

          I also love the conversation above where Bo is convinced Reason is filled with neo-cons and Frayed Knot thinks everyone loves the Mullahs. It’s like they both read bizarro world versions of reason with no bearing on reality.

          1. Where did I say ‘filled with neo-cons?’ They’re quite a few, but not ‘filled.’ You’re looser with the truth than a prostitute is with their chastity.

          2. I’m know understanding why John’s comments during my last argument with him on immigration were so full of invective.

            With allies like Bo, who needs enemies?

      3. If only we had a white Republican president like John says things would be great.

        ISIS would be defeated and markets would be setting records!

    3. I think liberal Jews tend to be critical of Israel do they not?

      1. Most liberal Jews are ‘critical of Israel’ in the same way that those of us who don’t like how the WOT is being conducted are ‘critical of America.’ They tend to be disproportionately focused and concerned on Israeli matters but they think this or that current policy is morally unworthy of Israel.

      2. Shhh! You’re harshing his wingnut buzz.

      3. Yes, but the claim to be so in the best interests of Israel. Tough love and all that.

    1. Stop wearing nothing but chaps.

  17. (Florida) Man Stole Operating Room Surgical Table

    Investigators allege that Lance Sayre, 52, entered Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater last Sunday afternoon and went to “the secured area of the Operating Room.”

    Once inside, Sayre “took custody of a Berchtold Operating Bed valued at $47,945.97” and wheeled it to the hospital’s loading dock, where he loaded the bed into the back of a white van.

    1. Oh, Florida Man, don’t never change!

    2. …Berchtold Operating Bed valued at $47,945.97…

      I blame Obamacare.

  18. I think True Detective should change its name to True Degenerate. And after the shoot out, True Degenerate with PTSD.

    Holy crap they’re laying it on thick with each character and their problems.

    1. Well, it’s better than the “Cops are perfect people and absolute heroes” narrative we generally get from cop shows.

      1. Yeah but it lacks are certain panache and nuance we saw in the first one.

        It feels like a pile on throwing in vices whenever it feels like.

    2. NO SPOILERS. But it’s noir.

      1. Bah. More like opulent charcoal.

  19. Trans fats make donuts and popcorn delicious. Soon they may be illegal.

    But will they be allowed to serve?

  20. Surgeons remove pitchfork from man’s brain

    “I was putting straw down for the cows when the pitchfork got tangled in one of the cow’s horns and then it shook its head,” Aleksey Startsev, 25, told CEN. “It all happened so fast I remember being shocked and shouting for help and I tried to open my eye but I couldn’t. I thought I’d lost it.”

    The 12-inch prong, which had snapped from the pitchfork, entered through his right eye and wedged itself in his brain. Four inches of the prong pierced into his head.

    An operation to remove the prong was successful and he will not have any long-term consequences, CEN reported. There are almost no visible signs of the accident.

    1. We need to ban pitchforks

    1. Cool gossip, bro.

    2. In Obama’s defense, his half-brother is the Neil Bush of the family.

      1. +1 Billy Beer

    3. Why not? Might as well take that last step towards full Newsmax in the commentariat.

  21. New York City has agreed to pay $5.9 million to the family of Eric Garner

    Be honest. Who among us would not let a cop throttle one of our family members for $5.9 mil?

    1. The cops can shoot my entire family for a fraction of that payout.

      1. With the exception of my dog.

      2. With the exception of my dog.

        1. You can get another dog. You can get another dog.

      3. The cops can shoot my entire family for a fraction of that payout.

        Show us where the family touched you.

        1. *instinctively grabs for wallet*

    2. Would it have to be an unhealthy ne’er-do-well?

    3. Can I pick the family member?

      1. That’s the whole point!

  22. Florida woman discovers she was shot days after incident

    According to My Fox Orlando, Heather Charlebois and her friends were sitting at Caf? DaVinci, in the city of DeLand, listening to music around 10:30 p.m. Saturday. Suddenly, there was a large pop and Charlebois felt a pain shoot up her right thigh. Figuring someone had accidentally set off a firecracker, the group left the venue. After four days of pain, however, Charlebois’ friends urged her to go to the hospital and have her wound checked out.

    “Everyone was telling me it looked like a bullet hole so they wanted me to go to the hospital, so I did,” she said.

    Doctors confirmed suspicions and found a .38 caliber bullet lodged in her thigh. Because the bullet was so close to her femoral artery, Charlebois was told that the bullet would remain where it was. Despite the pain she still feels, Charlebois is counting her blessings.

  23. The Boy Scouts of America will now allow gay adults to serve as scout leaders.

    But will cakes be provided?

    1. Trans fats make donuts and popcorn delicious. Soon they may be illegal.

      You have to look at the links as a whole, Fist.

      1. THERE WAS NO LINK IN THAT SENTENCE.

    2. …to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally gay/straight.

  24. Will they cave? Of course.

    Greek lawmakers split over bailout as vote looms

    Lawmakers from Greece’s ruling Syriza party and their allies were arguing behind closed doors on Tuesday about whether to back sweeping reforms the government must ram through parliament as it races to meet the terms of an unpopular bailout deal.

    Having staved off financial meltdown with a new agreement from Greece’s creditors, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras has less than 48 hours to smother dissent from hardliners and pass measures tougher than those rejected in a referendum days ago.

    Syriza and its junior coalition ally held separate meetings to prepare for parliament sittings to pass the laws, which include plans for tax hikes, pension reforms and tighter supervision of the government’s finances.

    1. This shit is gonna fall apart spectacularly.

      Is anybody else starting to see certain similarities to the runup to WWI?

  25. So, I have a dilemma.

    My daughter is 6. Just finished Kindergarten in a really good charter school. The other night, we were watching Batman : TAS (have to introduce her to good cartoons, after all). We got to talking about superheroes, and whether Batman could beat Superman, or whether Superman could beat Wonder Woman, and the like. After a while, I told her it was all silly, because “Superheroes aren’t real”.

    She said “Yes they are, there are heroes like police and firemen and ambulances” (hey, EMT is a hard concept for a kid to get). When I asked her where she heard that, she said that two of the kids she knew in Kindergarten had their police officer daddies at school for career day.

    On the one hand, that’s certainly something I want to get out of her head. On the other hand, I’m paranoid that if I do, she’ll say something about it in school and I’ll end up on the wrong side of a CPS investigation.

    What do?

    1. Nothing. Let her figure things out for herself.

    2. Make your daughter watch several hours of police brutality videos on Youtube is the only acceptable choice.

    3. “”Superheroes aren’t real”.”

      Phoenix Jones.

      1. HBOs “Superheroes” documentary is one of the most unintentionally funny things I have ever witnessed.

    4. Ask her if CPS people are superheroes?

    5. Show her videos of police shooting puppies. That’ll cure her.

      1. This is the only way.

    6. Just tell her that heroes are judged by what they do, not what uniform they wear.

      1. That’s actually a brilliant way to put it.

            1. I’ll be in my bunk. No homo. Well, maybe a little bit.

    7. Let her enjoy her childhood.

      But as she gets older tell her that simply wearing a uniform, a badge and a gun does not automatically make you a hero; it is what you do with the power and responsibility entrusted with you that makes a hero.

      1. Well, that is a large part of what superhero stories are about.

    8. Let young kids have their silly fantasies. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, hero cops, etc. Then when she’s older, and understands discretion, tell her the truth.

    9. What [to] do?

      Your first mistake is having kids.
      Your second mistake is asking sociopaths for advice.

      1. heh, “guys, how do I make sure she’s as bitter and paranoid as me?!” (kidding)

        1. (kidding)

          Your kidding has more than a kernel of truth. It’s at least half a bag.

          1. No, it’s a full bag. I can’t help it though. It’s this place that made me bitter and paranoid in the first place though.

            1. JB, please don’t feed the psychotically obsessed stalker. S/He will play nice for a while and then try to dox you at your workplace or hack your Facebook.

    10. Tell her that no matter what their job is, they’re still just people like anyone else. Some of them are good, some of them are bad. Some of them are honest, some of them are liars. And since you can’t tell the difference by looking at them, assume the worst and hope for the best.

      1. In other words: Nuke ’em all from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure.

    11. Unlike most of the other commenters, I told my son about the cynical side of things early on. I don’t know if it was the right thing to do or not. But at least if he fears them, something like this won’t happen.

      1. I told my daughter, then four years old, in front of her half-brother with a cop for a dad, “The policeman is not your friend.”

        1. Your ex-wife is fucking a cop? Now I understand the bitter, obsessive hostility.
          It’s nice that you’re passing along your neuroses to your kids. Looking forward to their repetitive cop-hate tales in a few years.

          1. So, now that you have figured out sarcasmic, you can move on to working on understanding your bitter, obsessive hostility towards.. everyone.

            1. So is this Tulpa? Did I accidentally engage its idiocy?

          2. Um, no. Her ex has since become a cop, since she left him for fear of his violent outbursts sending her to the hospital or worse.

    12. Do what I do when my kid makes such statements. Shove her head under a facet with running water and say, ‘what did you say?’

      Kidding.

      Usually, I just carefully make a quick or curt reply along the lines of ‘well, we all have the capacity to be heroes. It’s not the job or job description that necessarily make you one. There are good and bad people in all jobs.’

      Then I would seek the kids who made the comment and tell them and their families to stay away from my kid.

      Kidding.

      1. What Rufus would actual do:

        Then I would seek the kids who made the comment and tell them and their families to stay away from my kid. go to their house one night and infront of the kid beat the shit out of his Dad and tell the kid that if he ever says something like that again to anybody that I’ll come back and butt-fuck his father with his mom’s headless corpse on this lawn.

        1. I need to hide my true character better.

    13. As she gets older you will have plenty of opportunities to discuss the nature of authority and power, particularly as she hits the tweens. Don’t worry about it for right now.

      Worry more about the SJW crap they will inundate her with in high school and college. That’s far more difficult to combat.

    14. She’s six!

      Let it go.

      It’s OK for kids that age to believe that Santa Claus exists. Just remind her that bad people can put on policeman clothes just as easily as good people can.

    15. Just tell her that police and firemen aren’t heroes, they’re just normal people. You can tell her that police are trigger-happy baboons later.

  26. So many disappointed “libertarians” thumping their war boners to revive them after Obama’s nuke inspection deal with Iran.

    1. You should have seen the ‘oh why won’t you mean Reason writers stop bringing up Trump’ brigades here yesterday. Like I said then, they’re not even ostensibly libertarian-ish these days.

      1. get a room

        1. Far be it for two, count ’em two, people to appear on a libertarian website and mock saber rattlers! We can’t have it!

          And what’s all this focus on Donald Trump? Cosmos!

          1. GIT THEM TWO!

            THEY’RE ESCAPING THE GOP PLANTATION!

            1. Conservatives, like their liberal counterparts, like a safe, safe place, a place with no dissenting ideas that make them uncomfortable. That’s why they can’t brook anyone who shows up and disagrees with their conservative talking points here. Look how ape-crazy they get over it, they will say the person is ‘ruining the thread’ or ‘sh*tting all over it.’ Their party has been ruined, ruined by anyone disagreeing! They’re here for full on, unanimous patting on the back reaffirmation.

              That’s all well and good and normal I guess, but the question is, why would they pick a traditionally left libertarian magazine’s website’s comment section for their parties?

              1. That’s downright funny coming from Bo the Inquisitor – defender of the faith; SoConz Hunter.

              2. Conservatives, like their liberal counterparts, like a safe, safe place, a place with no dissenting ideas that make them uncomfortable. That’s why they can’t brook anyone who shows up and disagrees with their conservative talking points here.

                LOLOL Your act is so fucking transparent.

          2. I’m thankful we have the two of you fighting bravely against the three, count ’em three, people who defend Trump or severe immigration restrictions.

      2. Because not wanting every other article to be about the sideshow ‘campaign’ of Donald Trump means secret GOP sympathies?

        Or, perhaps many libertarians don’t think it’s actually news. The media loves the Trump storyline for a lot of reasons. Trump is using his campaign to whip people into a frenzy and get attention. That’s it. He’s not actually running for president.

        1. Sorry, that dog won’t hunt. We’re talking about a commentariat that never tires of multiple posts about nobody’s like Amanda Marcotte daily.

          The logic is impeccable. Trump’s an embarrassment to the GOP, that’s undeniable. So Team Players don’t want any focus on such an embarrassment.

          1. Funny, but the TEAM talk shows that I sometimes listen to while driving can’t stop talking about Trump.

            Stick to topics you understand. You know, like your mom’s basement.

          2. You heard it here first. If you have any upper limit on the amount of Donald Trump news you care to endure, you are not a libertarian.

            1. Like I said, I’d believe it a bit more if it weren’t the same line most GOP supporters who aren’t in Trump’s camp have been peddling in the face of rising coverage of him and if it weren’t from the same people who never tire of making fun of proggie pundits and such that have far, far less clout than Trump currently does.

              1. People mocking SJW’s in the comment sections and posting the links themselves is the exact same as Reason running article after article on him refuting his arguments, Bo.

                And no, Trump does not have clout. I doubt Trump even believes the shit Trump is saying. Trump wants idiots like you to pay attention to him.

                1. People mocking SJW’s in the comment sections and posting the links themselves is the exact same as Reason running article after article on him refuting his arguments, Bo.

                  Bo is too simple-minded retarded to grasp distinctions like that.

                2. and it’s working.

                3. “People mocking SJW’s in the comment sections and posting the links themselves is the exact same as Reason running article after article on him refuting his arguments”

                  What to you is distinguishing about that? I mean, it can’t be this line I’ve heard that Trump doesn’t ‘deserve’ or ‘warrant’ the time spent on him.

                  1. Easy. Trump isn’t going anywhere. He’s going to flare up and fall away once people get bored of him. His controversial opinions are shit, and he’s not going to make any headway at getting them into the GOP platform.

                    Marcotte and the SJW brigade, OTOH, ARE making headway. Rape tribunals at college is one example. They have influence over the entire academic sector. The inanities that they suggest are invariably 3-5 years from becoming reality through bureaucratic fiat.

                    1. Your argument is based on a conflation of a nobody like Marcotte with ‘the SJW brigade.’

        2. Yeah, my problem was that I didn’t want to read four fucking articles about his pretend campaign.

        3. The media loves the Trump storyline for a lot of reasons.

          The next 12-16 months are going to be even more spectacular than the six months of Palin seven years ago.

      3. I gotta say, this place gets more Fox News-like every day. Some people have stopped trying to pretend they’re libertarians. The mass self-outing after the recent Supreme Courtpocalypse was an eye-opener.

        1. It’s getting harder to deny every day. There used to at least be a feint toward being actual libertarians, but lately, nope.

          1. I haven’t seen RC Dean lately. Maybe he finally jumped off that ledge.

            1. This weekend he, along with some of the other usual suspects, was defending Trump’s comments re: Mexicans. By Monday they had switched their line to ‘it’s not that we’re defending Trump, we just don’t like the strong focus on him by the writers today, it’s that he doesn’t deserve so much attention.’ It was repeated chorus like by all the usual right leaners here. Pathetically transparent.

            2. RC Dean is a big Dubya fan from Texas.

              He has zero libertarian cred.

              1. OK, who is sockpuppeting shriek? That one was actually pretty funny.

              2. Pray tell us who is the epitome of a libertarian, Buttplug. Certainly it’s not you.

                Furthermore, who cares if every member of the Reason commentariat is a model libertarian? You? Bo? I certainly don’t. That would be as boring as watching as you and Bo jack each other off ideologically.

                1. That’s a nice attempt to dodge via strawman.

                  I don’t claim that there is One True Libertarian. Libertarians disagree over things, and it’s actually a good thing to have people, on the right and the left, who don’t even consider themselves to be libertarians but who sympathize with us on a variety of issues.

                  My point is that it’s very interesting that on the comments section of a website of a magazine that has traditionally been located on the left side of libertarianism that so many of the commenters are not just right-leaning libertarians, but so many are out and out admitted not libertarians and/or display such leanings by breaking with the writers on each and every hot button issue that divides conservatives/libertarians these days, and that it all seems to break to the right. That’s anomalous enough to be commented on.

                  But even if that were it I doubt I’d say so much about it. But it’s that these right-leaning regulars actually attack anything to the left of them, including the Reason writers, as the ones that are really false libertarians, the ‘cosmos’ or secret Democrats betraying Hayek and Mises for cocktail parties. THATS what I’m mocking.

                  1. Re: Bo,

                    That’s a nice attempt to dodge via strawman.

                    It’s not a strawman, Bo. Buttplug claimed that RC Dean “has zero libertarian cred” which is comparing Dean to some standard libertarian. Therefore, I asked him what the standard is that he uses.

                    You look for any perceived wrinkle in an argument to weave your ad hominems around because that’s often your only claim FTW.

                    1. You seemed to claim that I cared if every member of the Reason commentariat is a model libertarian, and I explained that’s a dodging simplification of my position.

                    2. I’m the one who mocks the LP Purity Test!

                      It’s a bitch! No one has ever scored 100%.

                  2. How is “breaking right” problematic when the line down the middle is far, far out in left-wing territory? Entitlement reform, federalism, maintaining even the barest trappings of a separation of powers, Constitutional limitations, border control, gun control, all of these are subjects once within the Overton window and now, given shifting partisan sentiments, are solidly right-wing fixations. You point to social justice issues as conservatives here outing themselves, except you ignore the flagrant anti-expression component of their activism. So add another peg in the “trending right-wing” box: free speech.

                    If this means libertarians, at least as evidenced by commenters on reason, are leaning right, so be it: the rest of the country is moving authoritarian left. I rather think we’re just tilting at windmills, since federal compulsion in all spheres of life seems to be the going preference.

                  3. I don’t claim that there is One True Libertarian. Libertarians disagree over things, and it’s actually a good thing to have people, on the right and the left, who don’t even consider themselves to be libertarians but who sympathize with us on a variety of issues.

                    Us! Isn’t that cute!

        1. Which one is the guy who always transforms into a bucket of water?

      4. People said the same shit about the constant barrage of Millennial articles. As people who like commenting, we don’t like splitting our attention between eight different articles saying roughly the same thing.

        1. This times one.

  27. Salon Trigger Warning:

    Let’s make the South stop lying: The right’s war on our history ? and truth ? must be defeated now

    As evidenced by Dylann Roof and millions who share his views if not his soul sickness, the right has been most effective and destructive in reweaving the history of the Confederacy. In a piece in the Washington Post this week, James Loewen describes the decades’ long work of Southern “historians'” to turn the Civil War from an insurrection mounted to defend human slavery into a ‘war between the states’ sparked in large part by an imperious federal government bent on robbing the South of its liberty.

    Loewen reminds us of how hard Civil War apologists work to shape our collective memory. Kentucky is a border state that never joined the confederacy; 90,000 Kentuckians volunteered for the Union army, nearly triple the number that fought for the rebellion. Today Kentucky has 2 Union monuments and 72 Confederate monuments. It may be that conservatives care more about the past or are more susceptible to nostalgia. But erecting all those monuments took effort. The right is willing to make it because, like Orwell, it sees the point of controlling the past.

    1. And throw some neo-Confederacy into the mix too. Why not?

      1. Oh shut the fuck up Bo, you idiot. This is an article complaining that the South has a bunch of Confederate monuments, most of which were erected like 100 years ago. So clearly the South’s unwillingness to destroy monuments in a Stalinist effort to eradicate history is proof of their ‘war on our history.’

        THAT’S Orwellian – arguing we should destroy monuments, which the left is already doing, and then claiming that your attempt to destroy pre-existing statues is based on your desire to preserve history.

        1. Oh shut the fuck up Bo, you idiot.

          You could have saved a lot of unnecessary typing by stopping right there.

        2. “monuments in a Stalinist effort to eradicate history”

          This is so unintentionally funny. So, for example, do you think the post-Soviet Republics who pulled down statutes and renamed things named after Stalin were being…Stalinist? lol

          1. LMAO

          2. I bet you think that is a perfectly apt analogy, don’t you?

            1. If you don’t think it is knock yourself out explaining why. I see two examples where people realized the monuments were put up in devotion to oppressive, slaver regimes, and decided they did not want to monumentalize those regimes.

                1. Your argument is: since Stalin destroyed monuments he didn’t like, destroying monuments to Stalin would be bad. Terrible.

                  1. No, my argument is that the “Stalinist” effort referred to Stalin himself destroying things like Russian Orthodox Churches, you fucking moron!

                    I hesitate to believe that you are actually this fucking obtuse. Read this slowly:

                    Nobody talked about tearing down communist monuments until you brought it up.

                    Irish compared tearing down the Confederate monuments to Stalin’s purge of iconography from the Russian Orthodox Church.

                    Once you understand those two points, you’ll understand why you look like a fucking idiot.

                    1. “Irish compared tearing down the Confederate monuments to Stalin’s purge of iconography from the Russian Orthodox Church.”

                      And I pointed out that eventually that story ended with people taking down statues and changing city names that honored Stalin. By your and Irish’s logic this ending was ‘Stalinist!’

                    2. Were those cities originally named after Stalin, or was that something done very recently in their history? You’re almost there.

          3. I would have had no problem if they’d left those statues up, no. They’re statues – they didn’t oppress anyone. There’s a statue of Lenin owned by some dude in Portland and I don’t whine about the Commie of the Northwest.

            Yes, arguing we should destroy monuments to the confederacy which are a century old is completely ridiculous.

            1. You like your monuments to slavery, I think we shouldn’t monumentalize such things. I guess we just disagree.

              1. “You like your monuments to slavery, I think we shouldn’t monumentalize such things. I guess we just disagree.”

                Holy fuck, you are a mendacious subliterate moron. I said there’s no reason to go out of your way to destroy statues that already exist, particularly when those statues are over 100 years old.

                Plus, I explicitly said I have no problem with Stalin statues being kept in place. Do you think that means I, a libertarian, “like my monuments to Stalin?”

                How does someone get as stupid as you, Bo? Did we really break you so much that you lost the capacity to think rationally and have now just become an even more annoying version of PB. Seriously, how much of a pussy do you have to be to throw a hissy fit over a century old statue?

                1. I never knew you were a secret communist infiltrator Irish. It must kill you to pretend to care about individual rights.

              2. And this is when I realized Bo isn’t merely confused, he’s arguing in bad faith. You couldn’t even let alone an argument against historical revisionism as just that, an argument against historical revisionism, a topic worthy of some debate. No, you’re compelled to allege some malice on the part of anyone who contends against the progressive purge.

              3. Um so Irish saying that monuments shouldn’t be destroyed is the same thing as saying he agrees with them. This is why people don’t like you, you don’t argue with an ounce of good faith.

                1. So saying that people who want to remove monuments want to ‘destroy’ them is not arguing in bad faith?

                  So saying that people who want to do what the post-Soviet regimes did, that is remove monuments to oppressive, tyrannical regimes, are ‘whining’ because the monuments were ‘in the past’ is not bad faith?

                  Ironically, I think your sudden realization of ‘bad faith’ entering this argument is itself in bad faith.

                  Now, about your attribution of ‘bad faith’ to me let me respond. The keeping of these monuments takes effort and expense. It’s the people who want to keep them that want to engage in an ongoing effort to monumentalize, the people who want them removed from public property want a one time, then completely over, effort. Both involve efforts in the now, so saying ‘oh, that was in the past’ is not something that shifts the justification over to the opponents. You either want to KEEP these monuments going, or TAKE them out. The reason behind the latter is, they are not something I believe should be monumentalized. So I ask, what’s the reason for the former position of continuing to monumentalize? If not some agreement with them, at least tacit, then what?

                  1. Oh, you mean privatize them? Absolutely. Privatize everything. I’m glad we see eye-to-eye.

                    1. Of course I have no problem with private property monumentalizing whatever it wants. But monuments and memorials on public property are honorings, and we should not honor tyrannical regimes and people. The reason is simple: because we don’t honor such things. This is what I meant by my comment about well if you’re ok with such monuments you must be ok honoring such things, because that is what they do. Monuments are by their nature continuous honorings, not snap chat photos.

                  2. “So saying that people who want to remove monuments want to ‘destroy’ them is not arguing in bad faith?”

                    What do you think they do to the monuments when they’re removed? If you remove a monument the plan is to destroy it. They’re synonyms in this case, you idiot.

                    “So saying that people who want to do what the post-Soviet regimes did, that is remove monuments to oppressive, tyrannical regimes, are ‘whining’ because the monuments were ‘in the past’ is not bad faith?”

                    There is a difference between people who ACTUALLY LIVED under an authoritarian government destroying statues and arguing we should go back and demolish monuments from 150 years ago. What’s the point?

                    “Now, about your attribution of ‘bad faith’ to me let me respond. The keeping of these monuments takes effort and expense. It’s the people who want to keep them that want to engage in an ongoing effort to monumentalize, the people who want them removed from public property want a one time, then completely over, effort.”

                    Cool, we can have this argument then if you’re going to stop calling me a supporter of slavery, you fucking retard. That’s the thing – you could make a rational argument and I could respond, but you’re a hyper-emotional child so you engage in petty shit slinging instead.

                    1. I also see you didn’t respond to the point about me not caring about people keeping Stalin statues. Does that mean I have given my ‘tacit approval’ to Joseph Stalin, Bo?

                      Do you realize how moronic this argument is? My point that there’s no reason to go out of your way to destroy statues GENERALLY means that I am not supporting Confederate monuments SPECIFICALLY. Therefore, by your logic, I must approve of everything since I have no problem with keeping any historical monument.

                      Man, it sure is weird that I’ve apparently given my tacit approval to every single cause throughout the entirety of history by your fuckheaded logic.

                    2. “Does that mean I have given my ‘tacit approval’ to Joseph Stalin, Bo?”

                      No, it means you support monuments to Stalin. I never said you support slavery, but that you support monuments to the same.

                    3. But that’s equally idiotic. I support maintaining historical monuments on the grounds that the destruction of same gives us nothing while keeping them allows for remembrance of the past.

                      So I support keeping historical monuments of all kinds. That means I support historical monuments, not that I support any specific type of monument.

                      BTW, a leftist in the Atlantic published an article supportive of keeping monuments based on the same logic, so I guess The Atlantic is a notoriously neo-confederate press organ.

                      And don’t give me this bullshit:

                      “I never said you support slavery, but that you support monuments to the same.”

                      What! All I said was that you “like your slave monuments!” Clearly I wasn’t trying to tar you by association as pro-slavery! I was just being ludicrously pedantic and specific in my word choice!

                    4. “I support maintaining historical monuments on the grounds that the destruction of same gives us nothing while keeping them allows for remembrance of the past.”

                      This is idiotic. These monuments were raised as loving tributes to the figures in them and their cause. They are continuing comments to that effect. They are not just markers of something that happened in the past.

                      “What! All I said was that you “like your slave monuments!” Clearly I wasn’t trying to tar you by association as pro-slavery! ”

                      Project what you like onto it, my point has been that you don’t seem to realize that the function of these monuments is to lovingly endorse the figures in them and their cause. They’re not roadside historical markers, and your attempt to strain to treat them as such I’m going to chalk up to your silly need to oppose anything that SJW’s happen to be for at the moment.

                    5. So you think the Confederate soldiers who died should be tossed down the memory hole?

                      You really are a disgusting prick – and I’m a Northerner.

                    6. “This is idiotic. These monuments were raised as loving tributes to the figures in them and their cause. They are continuing comments to that effect. They are not just markers of something that happened in the past.”

                      THAT DOESN’T MATTER. There is a statue of John Calvin, a theocratic murderer, in Geneva Switzerland. There is a statue of Oliver Cromwell at Westminster.

                      Neither of those statues should be destroyed. Geneva would be a poorer place without statues remembering that city’s long and storied past, even statues of some of its darker periods. And the fact that the Calvin statue went up initially because people liked Calvin has nothing to do with its importance today.

                      “They’re not roadside historical markers, and your attempt to strain to treat them as such I’m going to chalk up to your silly need to oppose anything that SJW’s happen to be for at the moment.”

                      I forgot SJWs oppose statues of Stalin. They talk about the issue all the time. Same with Cromwell. “Tear down the Cromwell statue,” SJWs are always saying.

                      I have repeatedly shown that I support historical monuments on principle, so your attempt to make my arguments specific to the Confederacy in order to put words in my mouth is yet another example of your laughable bad faith arguments.

                    7. “What do you think they do to the monuments when they’re removed? ”

                      Did they burn that Confederate flag in Columbia? No. The statues can be moved to private hands and property, goodness knows there are lots of Sons of the Confederacy types who would give them homes.

                      “There is a difference between people who ACTUALLY LIVED under an authoritarian government destroying statues and arguing we should go back and demolish monuments from 150 years ago. ”

                      So, again, for you a young Ukranian who wanted to remove a statue of Stalin in his hometown would be a ‘pussy whining about something that happened a hundred years ago?’ When’s the time limit on that?

                      “What’s the point?”

                      The point of a monument is to make a continuous statement, the point of removing it is to change the statement. In this case from ‘slavery was worth fighting for’ to ‘slavery was not worth fighting for.’ Let’s be clear, the options are: we can leave up continuing homages to fighting for slavery or we can take them down. Both decisions make a statement.

          4. This is so unintentionally funny. So, for example, do you think the post-Soviet Republics who pulled down statutes and renamed things named after Stalin were being…Stalinist? lol

            You are a fucking moron. Ever heard of Stalingrad you illiterate fuck???

            1. Er, Stalingrad helps my point.

              They changed the name of that city to honor the murderous scum Stalin in 1925. Let’s say Kruschev never changed it in 1961. Would Irish call a group of people who wanted to change the name to not reflect the honoring of a murderous madman “pussies throwing a hissy fit over a century old city name?” Would you join him in doing so?

          5. There are multiple Soviet monuments remaining in East Berlin – I wonder why they didn’t pull them all down after 1989. They must be secret hoping a return to being Russia’s bitch.

          6. This is so unintentionally funny. So, for example, do you think the post-Soviet Republics who pulled down statutes and renamed things named after Stalin were being…Stalinist? lol

            So you don’t know that they changed the names of things BACK to what they were before Stalin?

            Wow.

    2. The right is willing to make it because, like Orwell, it sees the point of controlling the past.

      The irony of what they are trying to say and the stupidity of this statement make it a real gem. They realize who Orwell was writing about, right? No, of course not.

      When did Kentucky last construct a Confederate monument, and what do current textbooks used in the South say about the Civil War? The public indoctrination centers already use the same shit as they do up North.

      Reaching back to historical schools of thought that left the mainstream over half a century ago to whip up kulturekampf today…

      1. Since you asked…

        http://www.houstonchronicle.co…..373928.php

        1. It’s funny you picked an article that requires sign up.

          Textbooks remain an important resource, but teachers rely on their training and judgment, said Steve Antley, a sixth-grade social studies teacher in Houston Independent School District, the state’s largest. The district is ordering state-approved social studies textbooks from the publishing company Pearson for middle school use but is no longer buying printed textbooks for its high schools, instead using online materials, spokeswoman Holly Huffman said.

          “I don’t think there’s really the danger that some agenda can be pushed into (the standards) and that’s somehow going to impact all the kids in Texas,” said Antley, who represents HISD educators as president of the Congress of Houston Teachers. “In the end, teachers are still making decisions about how to teach the course.”
          http://www.expressnews.com/new…..377518.php

          It’s a crisis, Bo! A fucking crisis! One district held a symbolic, but ultimately meaningless wrongthink vote over how to teach the Civil War!

          1. They’re approved at the state level genius, the Houston district opted out of that (partly). Nice attempt at handwaving evidence against your initial spiel though.

            1. And they all use textbooks produced by the same handful of publishers, you mendacious cunt.

              1. You: No one uses those kinds of textbooks lately!

                Me: Er, Texas.

                You: That’s one district!

                Me: Er, they’re approved at the state level.

                You: Arrrgh! Curse!

                1. The district is ordering state-approved social studies textbooks from the publishing company Pearson for middle school use but is no longer buying printed textbooks for its high schools, instead using online materials, spokeswoman Holly Huffman said.

                  What I said was the South uses the same textbooks as up North. And look at there – they are using Pearson textbooks. The controversy is over the district voting on how it wants teachers to teach the Civil War. Not Pearson produced textbooks approved by the state of Texas.

                  You lying cunt.

                  1. Wow, you really are both unread and incapable of logic.

                    First, you can commonly find in the news stories about how critics of the textbook publishing companies have long noted that a problem is that when Southern states push for these warped histories the publishers that supply the North too will just change all the books because it’s easier than losing the Southern market. You’re either unaware of this or incapable of seeing how it doesn’t feed your argument but mine (Southern pull to adopt these warped histories, far from being a ‘thing of the past’ as you wanted to pass it off as, is actually far reaching in its current influence).

                    Secondly, you can’t see how arguing that these warped histories are in books used by Northern schools is perfectly in line with the argument of the article writer and my point about it and undercuts yours (re-read the original article excerpted, part of his point is that Southern apologists have worked so hard that even non-Confederate states have monuments and textbooks to this warped history).

                    1. Bo provides link. Link shows Houston school district voted to change how it teaches the Civil War. Article not behind pay wall explicitly points out how the state curriculum did not change. Bo rants about how they are state approved text books. Link does not show what Bo is talking about.

                      Bo then makes a round of new assertions essentially moving the goalposts and once again does not provide evidence.

                      I have seen this all before. Oh, right! It’s how you always argue.

                      …so hard that even non-Confederate states have monuments and textbooks to this warped history.

                      …Yes. Kentucky. The god damn horror. Maybe Kentucky had reasons for staying in the Union beyond thinking the Federal cause was righteous, and that’s why they actually tried to stay neutral at first? And why a number of men from Kentucky did join the Confederacy throughout the war? Nah, it’s revisionist history man! They were completely pro-Union!

                    2. You’re not this dim, are you?

                      Texas approved the warped history friendly standards at the STATE LEVEL. Some of the districts, including Houston, are opting out in part. IT’S THE STATE OF TEXAS THAT APPROVED THE STANDARD.

                      “It is unclear how many students might actually learn the version of history represented in the new textbooks, approved last fall by the State Board of Education. Some districts have opted to pick books that are off the state’s approved list, taking advantage of a 2011 state law that gave districts more freedom in purchasing books. Most districts still buy books from the list, but some are beginning to look elsewhere.”

                      So you said ‘hey, no one’s adopting these kinds of textbooks now!’ and I’ve demonstrated that yes, yes they do, in fact one of the largest states in the country has officially done so.

                    3. I did misread my own link skimming through it. I could argue on about how the issue is still greatly exaggerated which parts of the article do, but I will just admit I was wrong on the overall point.

                    4. I give you nothing but credit for that admission. ‘Props.’

        2. I love how you routinely try to play it off as you are even down the middle when you side with loony, hyperbolic progressive narratives, and then provide evidence that inadvertently shows the exact opposite of what you want.

          1. It is called being a troll. Bo is worse than Tony. Tony is at least honest about who he is and what his views are. Tony is most certainly, silly, hateful and ignorant but he is at least honest. Bo is just as silly hateful and ignorant as Tony but doesn’t even have the integrity to be honest about it.

            1. “silly hateful and ignorant”

              The King of Projection has arrived!

              1. The more I read John’s commentary, the more I’m convinced that it’s genius-level performance art. I don’t hate the human race enough to believe that he’s serious. We’re not devolving as a species, I keep telling myself. We’re not!

                1. Blowhard,

                  When you are on the next step down on the devolutionary scale, you think you are on the top. This is why you can’t understand my posts and worry that we are devolving. Oh we are devolving alright. You are just part of it in a way you can never fully understand.

              2. Yes Bo, you are silly hateful and ignorant. Cytoxic is crazy. Tony is just kind of sad. Shreek is mentally ill in a way even Cytoxic isn’t. You in contrast are just profoundly stupid and simple minded.

                1. You’re an admitted conservative Republican, one that supported debacles like the second Iraq War/Nation Building Experiment, one that has stated that the government should be involved in marriage, should ban consenting adults from transactions if one of them wants to use the transaction to end their life, thinks the government should be involved in education, etc. I’m betting your disagreement comes more from that than anything about me.

                  1. I have never heard John say that the government should be involved in marriage. That’s a complete twisting of his arguments which I don’t even agree with. I’m pretty damn sure it’s the same on the other points you just mentioned because that’s what you do. I also know that’s not actually what John said on euthanasia.

                    1. No, he said it. You don’t see him denying it here, do you?

                    2. Bo,

                      You completely misunderstand my point. I didn’t say. You are just a mendacious idiot. You are too dishonest and stupid to understand my point. So I will not waste my time trying to explain it to you. Brochettaward and everyone else with an IQ above 90 understood my points. The fact that you are too stupid to as well is your problem not mine.

                    3. See?

                    4. Yes Bo the sentence “I did not say that and you totally misunderstand my point” is also above your level of comprehension.

                      I have come to conclusion that you and shreek are just sock puppets run by Weigel.

                    5. See?

          2. And then he claims everyone here is a Republican and he’s the only Truth Speaker even though the only difference between him and the Hit&Runpublicans; is the side of the political aisle they reflexively side with.

            Bo just wants people to stop siding with Republicans too much! Why can’t they constantly side with Democrats instead!

            1. Again with the looseness. If you can point out any praise for the Democrats from me I’d like to see it. The Democrat Party is working full time to make this nation have the full Greek experience. But there’s no problem with lunatics showing up here and aping their talking points, so of course you’ll hear less from me about that.

              1. If you can point out any praise for the Democrats from me I’d like to see it.

                If you can point out any instances of the Democrats supporting liberty I’d like to see it. Occasionally the Republicans give lip-service to economic liberty, and when they do they deserve recognition. Your Democrat Party is openly hostile to liberty in all forms, and deserves nothing but scorn.

                1. “Your Democrat Party”

                  In a response to a post where I said “The Democrat Party is working full time to make this nation have the full Greek experience. ”

                  Wow.

                  1. No more absurd than your claims that the commentariat here are nothing but Republican shills. Retard.

                  2. Bo,

                    Everyone knows you are a Democratic Troll. You need to invent a new sock puppet and start over.

                    1. You’re an admitted Republican conservative, more projection on your part.

                    2. You’re an admitted Republican conservative, more projection on your part.

                      Textbook ad hominem.

                    3. So you just noticed that fallacy exists when you think I used it. Say what you want about tribalism, I guess it’s at least an ethos!

                    4. You didn’t argue against his point, you argued against him as a person. Textbook ad hominem. Not that I’d expect a retard like you to understand such a simple distinction.

                    5. You don’t understand my reply, or what an ad hominen is. When someone is arguing that you are biased it’s not an ad hominen to reply that perhaps it is their bias which makes them perceive your positions as so.

                    6. You don’t understand my reply, or what an ad hominen is. When someone is arguing that you are biased it’s not an ad hominen to reply that perhaps it is their bias which makes them perceive your positions as so.

                      Except that you didn’t make that argument. You just stamped your feet and cried “tu quoque” as loud as your feeble lungs would let you.

                      Stop trying to impute meaning to your temper tantrums post-hoc. It just doesn’t work.

                    7. No, my comment referred to the fact that his perception was likely a projection of his own partisan tendencies. To a partisan, everyone else looks like a partisan.

              2. You don’t think Democrat policies take your country on a Greek trajectory?

                1. I think they do, that’s what I said. The Democrat Party is working full throttle to bring us to where Greece is at. They’ve already done this in several jurisdictions in this nation. There’s literally no Democrat party position I can think of that doesn’t include as part of it ‘let’s spend money on this’ in a way that’s unsustainable. Even in areas where I have some sympathy for them they ruin it in that way. ‘There shouldn’t be any abortion restrictions, and we should have ‘free’ contraception and abortions!’ ‘There shouldn’t be such a harsh WOD, instead we should have ‘free’ treatment!’ Etc.

                  1. Yet Obama and Bill Clinton passed legislation to lower the deficit and Bush/Cheney repeatedly ignored their deficit busting spending famously passing new entitlements and war bills that were unpaid for.

                    1. Ugh, I don’t find your partisan leanings anymore palatable.

      2. No they don’t about Orwell.

        It’s my understanding progs/leftists consider ‘1984’ to be a book about how the world would be under a right-wing/conservative world.

        They’re ignorance of history and penchant for revisionist nonsense knows no bounds.

        1. Their.

    3. The Civil War was mostly fought in the South. It’s understandable that their memories would be different from the North. The Union/US tends to (wisely) fight its wars on other people’s territory, so we/they afford to think of them in ideological good/evil terms. For the people (whether in Germany, Iraq, or Alabama) whose homelands are being destroyed, no matter how nasty their governments, things are a little more nuanced.

    4. I can’t stand the screeching at Salon, and this is of course typical attack the RWNJs. Of course the South can and should have monuments to their honored dead. Hell, Germany does for those who served in the various branches of the Wehrmacht. And rightly so. (They have also completely and utterly denounced Nazism. They even have an oath ceremony in the Bundeswehr on July 20 just in honor of the plot to try to kill Hitler.)
      I have a great deal of respect for men like Robert E. Lee and JEB Stuart. Lee himself hoped for the end of slavery.

      HOWEVER, I am myself a little sick and tired of hearing about how the South didn’t secede over slavery. That is just bs. Four items to consider:
      1. The “Cornerstone” speech by the CSA VP 1861
      2. SC, TX, MS, and GA all have statements of reasons for secession. In all 4 slavery is specifically stated as the, or one of the primary reasons.
      3. If it was about economic liberty, why didn’t ONE single free state vote to secede. Not one of them even remotely considered it. What, there weren’t any significant farmers in PA, or OH, or IL??
      4. The Missouri compromise, bleeding Kansas etc. were all ENTIRELY about territories becoming free vs. slave states. Not tariff proposals, not taxation arguments.

      1. I think saying that it wasn’t about slavery is as simple minded as saying it was only about slavery. Slavery was one component of a larger dynamic that led to secession.

      2. It’s fine to say that secession was mostly about slavery. The problem is saying that the Civil War was mostly about slavery, rather than the generic issue of secession. The South could have seceded because the North hated puppies, and the outcome would have been the same.

        1. “The problem is saying that the Civil War was mostly about slavery, rather than the generic issue of secession.”

          Secession was the mechanism by which the South hoped to defend slavery. Perhaps the Union brought the hammer down on the South more for the sin of secession than for slavery, that seems about right in some sense, but that wouldn’t make the South or honoring them any more justified, it would just mean the Union was not glorious.

    5. It’s almost as if Loewen never heard of the Nullification Crisis, the Tariff of Abominations, or any of the other non-slavery-related issues that defined the sectional tensions that ultimately led to the Civil War.

      Yes, slavery was the primary dynamic that ultimately led to secession, but it wasn’t the only one–and it was largely the massive rivalry between Jackson and Calhoun over matters completely unrelated to slavery that established the concept of “states’ rights” as a political lever to begin with.

    6. Conservatives?

      Democrats put up those monuments, son. Democrats.

      It’s their flag, their cause, and their problem

  28. UN says the worldwide AIDS epidemic could be over by 2030

    In announcing the good news from the latest global HIV/AIDS report that the virus is being beaten back faster than expected, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday made a remarkable pronouncement that would have been unthinkable 15 years ago. He said he believes that ending the epidemic in 2030 was not just ambitious but realistic.

    The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) said that new HIV infections had fallen by 35 percent and AIDS-related deaths by 41 percent since 2000. Moreover, the world has met its goal of getting 15 million people in life-saving HIV treatment nine months ahead of schedule, officials said.

    “The world has delivered on halting and reversing the AIDS epidemic,” Ban said. “Now we must commit to ending the AIDS epidemic.”

    The report offered a number of other numerical touchpoints that showed incredible progress: Estimates show that by 2014 85 countries had less than 50 new HIV infections among children. In 2015, Cuba became the first country to have eliminated mother-to-child transmission of the virus.

    As fast as new infections fell, AIDS-related deaths plummeted at an even faster rate. That change only began in 2005.

  29. Salon Trigger Warning:

    Scott Walker’s white man problem: His narrow appeal is his Achilles heel

    So let’s say he does it ? Walker runs hard to the right and fends off challenges from Cruz/Huckabee/Carson, and then he knocks down Jeb Bush as the establishment favorite and goes on to win the Republican nomination. Suddenly it’s Scott Walker versus (if polls hold) Hillary Clinton for the presidency. Should that happen, Walker will likely run up hard against the GOP’s ongoing demographic problems.

    Writing in National Journal last week, Charlie Cook and David Wasserman shared the results of the demographic analyses they conducted looking ahead at the 2016 election:

    First, the good news for Democrats: If the electorate evolves in sync with the Census Bureau’s estimates of the adult citizen population (admittedly, a big if), the white share of the electorate would drop from 72 percent in 2012 to 70 percent in 2016; the African-American share would remain stable at 13 percent; the Latino portion would grow from 10 percent to 11 percent; and the Asian/other segment would increase from 5 percent to 6 percent. If the 2012 election had been held with that breakdown (keeping all other variables stable), President Obama would have won by 5.4 percentage points rather than by his actual 3.85-point margin.

    1. Democrats continue to pretend that the ‘Obama coalition’ will show up for an old white women with the charisma of their grandmother.

      1. President Obama would have won by 5.4 percentage points rather than by his actual 3.85-point margin.

        Because a two percentage drop in the number of white people nationwide means a corresponding drop in the number of white voters and increase in non-white voters. Who can argue with math like that?

        1. It also assume that the next democrat will get the same share of the white vote as Obama.

          Which is delusional for several reasons.
          1st; Democrats share of the white vote has been in long term decline for decades, and there is no reason to believe that decline will reverse in 2016.

          2nd; Many white voters voted for Obama because he was the 1st viable black president.

          3rd; Obama is the most skillful democrat politician of the last fifty years. No reason to believe that the democrats will have an equal in our lifetime.

      2. You think Obama is charismatic?

        The handlers create that effect behind the ‘turn out and make history’ stuff. Overlook that to your peril.

        1. Obama was a young black Congressmen who actually had some credibility and could pass himself as a centrist Democrat a time when the nation was sick of Republicans after 8 years of Bush. People knew little to nothing about him. Obama comes off as likable to many.

          I will continue to overlook Hillary. If she makes it to the general, she stands no chance. She cannot hide forever, and people dislike the woman the more they are exposed to her.

          1. Hillary has no chance in a two way race because her negatives are so high they prevent her from ever reaching 50%. Her only chance is in a three way race where a Perot like figure divides the right.

            1. Didn’t John admit to predicting a Romney victory the night before the election in 2012?

              1. John is 0-history in his predictions.

                He also PROMISED us that Obama would start a war with Syria.

                1. How is that Democratic control of the Senate working out for you Shreek? And how is it being totally out of power in all but a few very blue states?

                2. Re: Buttplug,

                  He also PROMISED us that Obama would start a war with Syria.

                  There’s still time left in his second term. And, unless you purposely avoid the news, you know that Obama is currently bombing both Iraqi and Syrian territory. It’s also clear that he wants–rather badly–to bomb ISIS to hell wherever it is. Which includes Syria. Unless you consider Assad to be the ultimate, legitimate leader of Syria, then bombing rebels of any stripe in Syria is tantamount to attacking Syria because we don’t know who, or what coalition, will eventually prevail.

              2. And I seem to recall being right about both 2010 and 2014. I remember you and your fellow sock puppet Shreek claiming there was no way the Republicans would take the Senate. How is that working out for you?

                Don’t let facts and logic stand in the way of your trolling. And can you now just admit you are rooting for Hillary? If not, why do you feel the need to cheer lead and engage in your usual ad hominem against anyone who doesn’t think she is inevitable?

                Your act is so tired Bo.

                1. “I remember you and your fellow sock puppet Shreek claiming there was no way the Republicans would take the Senate. ”

                  I wasn’t commenting here anytime near 2010. You’re unhinged.

                  1. “I remember you and your fellow sock puppet Shreek claiming there was no way the Republicans would take the Senate. “

                    I wasn’t commenting here anytime near 2010. You’re unhinged.

                    The Senate changed in 2014. Nice try.

                2. You’re a liar.

                  I said repeatedly whichever team won the tossup state of North Carolina would win the Senate.

            2. ” Her only chance is in a three way race where a Perot like figure divides the right.”
              Sigh. Considering how bad the GOP is at choosing front-runners that seems more than likely.

              1. I think so too lap. The only thing that makes me think perhaps not is that it is such a bitch to get on the ballots. Perot walked into and took over United We Stand, which had been building an organization and getting ready to get on the ballots for over a year before he declared. To my knowledge no such organization exists for a Bloomberg or Trump to walk into. And it is starting to get very late to build one.

                A third party race would be a disaster for the country.

          2. It’s not that you don’t have a few good points, it’s just that I think you’re failing to realize that Hillary can play the same ‘turn out and make history’ card Obama’s team played, and that is a mighty powerful card in a Presidential election.

            1. No she can’t and won’t. There is a reason she was passed up in 2008, whatever you want to say about Hillary she is a known quantity, people either hate her or love her, that model doesn’t exactly inspire new voters to her fold because everyone already has an opinion of her.

              1. Turnout in 2016 will be historically low.

              2. Hillary Clinton is the kind of person that would make me think about voting for Scott Walker, and if you know how I feel about that empty suit that should tell you something. But I’m not going to fall for the foolishness of conservatives like John who were celebrating the Romney victory the night before the election in 2012 and underestimate her. Obama is not that talented at much, but his team turned people out in 08 with the ‘come make history’ kind of pitch that really appeals to voters who don’t usually turn out. Hillary can and will do the same thing. Yes, Obama beat Hillary, but both were pulling record numbers of votes and crowds. We forget that at our peril.

                1. There are only three candidates I would even consider voting for Paul, Walker and Cruz(if only for the lols) if neither of those guys is on top of the ticket I won’t vote for president it’s that simple. If it came down to Webb vs Bush I would even consider voting for Webb because I really can’t abide by another Bush if only because of my disdain for dynasties.

                  1. I would take Webb over Bush. But no way does Webb get the nomination. Webb winning would hopefully signal and end to the Democratic Party being insane. Webb paired with a Republican Congress might actually get a few things done.

                    Again, I can’t see Webb winning the nomination.

                    1. Wait a minute, John. You can’t advocate voting for a Democrat because you’re the rightest of the rightist commentariat. You’re gonna blow Bo’s mind.

                  2. I’d vote for Webb over quite a few GOP candidates. I won’t vote for Walker, he’s an empty suit who will pander to the most vocal GOP constituency. Did you see his announcement speech? Essentially it hit every GOP base: we need to ratchet up defense spending, we need to take the fight to the Islamo-fascists, we need to make sure our veterans have plenty of goodies. That guy is only for small government when and where he thinks it sticks it to the Other Team, otherwise he’s Santa Clause.

                    Rand is ideal, of course. I’ve grown to like Cruz more than I did in the past.

                    1. I’d vote for Webb over quite a few GOP candidates.

                      Bo prefers a Democrat to Republicans. Couldn’t have seen that coming. Now tell us Dave, I mean Bo, which Republicans do you prefer to any Democrats?

                    2. You can’t read, can you?

                      “Rand is ideal, of course.”

                2. “We forget that at our peril.”

                  Who is this “We”, Kemosabe?

        2. You think Obama is charismatic?

          Of course, I don’t know how anyone can deny that.

          It doesn’t work on me personally, but there is no denying that it works on a majority of people in the country.

          A lot of people on both sides want to believe that his cultic celebrity is the result of the media. While there is some truth to that, the corollary that the media can do the same with someone – even anyone else is just flat out wrong.

          Look at popular culture. Yes some no account hacks wind up as stars thanx to the entertainment-marketing complex. But most don’t, which is why the no account stars can command the premiums that they do.

          1. But are they responding to some charisma of his or, I hate to use this tired phrase, are they just engaging in ‘social signaling’ that they support the First Black President?

            1. Probably some of each.

              Neither is automatically transferable to another politician.

              1. I fear ‘isn’t it time for a woman’ will have at least some of the traction of ‘vote for the first black president.’

    2. So he appeals to 70% of the electorate?

      1. That article is overall pretty good but the author towards the end can’t help but put in the “they just hate women” BS. Some of it is hilarious.

        Paula Pierce said that history proves that male dislike for Clinton does not come from a good place. “So it was the lesser of two evils. A white woman over an African-American,” she said of Clinton’s 2008 late spring surge. “We need more women. We’ve got way too much testosterone flying around.

        It couldn’t be that anything has changed since 2008 and the Democratic Party has dropped all pretense of being centrists or caring about anyone who isn’t a woman or minority. No. It is just that those mean men hate women.

        1. You just hate the “‘they just hate women’ BS”.

        2. How about: Anyone who seriously states “You don’t want Hillary to be President. Therefore you hate women.” should be disqualified from voting.

          (Sorry about the punctuation.) *** gets coffee ***

          1. Agreed. I especially hate the implication that Hillary is representative of women.

            1. That is so insulting and dehumanizing to women. It is why the Republicans need to run Fiorina, at least a VP. She takes that bullshit and shoves it up their ass. Fiorina is like kryptonite to the bitter hags that form Hillary’s base of support.

    1. Except for some of the Eastern Europeans – a giant collection of douche-bags.

  30. ‘Contract the back of the throat as if to perform a whispery breath’ Gwyneth Paltrow teaches Goop readers how to YAWN correctly in bizarre new post

    more

    1. Contract the back of the throat as if to perform

      go on…

    2. Whether she’s claiming that water has feelings…

      wut?

  31. The Boy Scouts of America will now allow gay adults to serve as scout leaders.

    No doubt this news is being cheered by NAMBLA. But, typically, the gaystapo is not happy. Apparently scout troops can still pick straights as Scoutmasters if they wish, which is thoughtcrime of course.

    1. Take this shit over to Breitbart. They will appreciate your wit more.

      1. Oh no, it fits right in here. Look around. We need a little gaystapo with our anti-immigrant and Neo-Confederacy lines.

        1. Come on, Bo, every right-thinking Christian conservative knows in his heart that gay = pedophile, and if you don’t agree, then I will be blaming you personally and all the other proggies like you when the gay dictatorship I have been predicting with ever-increasing manic hysteria finally engulfs America and changes its name to the United Gay States of Sodom.

          1. It’s funny that people would suddenly start up at *that* comment. It fits in here snugly with what gets peddled lately. The gays are right there with the Mexicans and the Islamo-fascists in the trifecta of conservative anxiety attacks.

            1. You’ll be laughing from the other side of your anus when the Gayslamofascists come for you.

          2. Boy Scouts are too old to attract the interests of pedophiles, just saying.

    2. …Is this satire? Can’t tell.

      1. Probably.

      2. Poe’s Law.

    3. Excellent parody of a mouthbreather who’s shitting his pants over Homopocalypse.

      1. Yes, I have this weird notion that private organizations ought to be able choose their members. But I’ve been informed that this is “not libertarian”.

        1. So you do think that homos are child molesters then?

        2. Isn’t that what happened here?

        3. How does one thing connect to another?

          No cracks about buttsex, please.

        4. Yes, I have this weird notion that private organizations ought to be able choose their members. But I’ve been informed that this is “not libertarian”.

          Then maybe you should just say that instead of bitching about NAMBLA and the “gaystoppo” as if they have anything to do with scouting.

          This may shock you, but gay men are into…men, not children. Unless you feel that as a hetero dude you shouldn’t be trusted to not molest a bunch of Girl Scouts.

          1. Unless you feel that as a hetero dude you shouldn’t be trusted to not molest a bunch of Girl Scouts

            /tries to look innocent

          2. What the fuck is it about dudes sucking dudes’ cocks that makes the almost-libertarian Republican types we’re cursed with here lose their minds so completely? They’re completely off the deep end now.

            1. The self-outing is breathtaking. The signs were always there, but it took the Supreme Court to flush them out into the open. That, or it really is the Gaypocalypse.

            2. OK, I’ll admit to stroking it over Heather Has Two Mommies.

          3. Actually, would you trust male scout masters on a camping trip with a bunch of Girl Scouts?
            It really isn’t a “gay” thing, but rather try not to put scout masters who have a sexual attraction to the gender that they are in charge of.

    4. Gay activists are indeed saying that this change doesn’t go far enough. Apparently one cannot comment on this is a sarcastic way.

      1. Well, one should not use words like Gaystapo and argue that gay people are basically closet pedophiles.

    5. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      Oh, Jesus. I love how every once in a while someone here who is normally reasonable goes totally around the bend about DEM QUEERS.

      Clearly all those children are about to get raped.

      1. Serious question, what does the science say about the propensity of openly gay men for pederasty versus men who are outwardly at least straight? I would be curious to know. I could see it going either way. My guess is that it depends on the ages of the boys. For per-adolescents I bet gays are less likely or certainly no more likely to molest them. True pedophilia is such an outlier sexual preference that the person’s public taste in sexual partner says nothing one way or another. With adolescent boys, I would imagine gay men are much more likely since you don’t have to be a pedophile to find adolescents sexually attractive.

        Think about it, who is more likely to get it on with a troop of 13 to 15 year old girls, straight adult women or straight men? The men of course. Same logic applies here.

        1. Well, I know that Jesse gets hit on all the time by homo-jailbait boys all the time and wants nothing to do with them. I believe he’s had to begin checking IDs. There’s no reason at all to believe that homos are any more likely to rape children than straights.

          1. IT is not that every gay guy is going to do it anymore than every straight guy is going for jail bait girls. The real sickos are not interested in the adolescents. And the straight guys are not either. The only people who would be are women and gay men.

            Most of the the Priest cases were teenage boys getting it on with gay priests. If I were running an organization for adolescents I would be very careful to keep those who might find them sexually attractive separate from them. Sadly it is the day and age we live in.

        2. Think about it, who is more likely to get it on with a troop of 13 to 15 year old girls, straight adult women or straight men? The men of course. Same logic applies here.

          Straight women aren’t into other women so of course they wouldn’t. Younger lesbian women (18-20) would certainly be as likely to get it on with sexually attractive and willing underage girls 15-17 as younger hetero men would, probably even more given the smaller pool they have to work with.

        3. It’s about the power and trust relationship. Pedos are attracted to those positions which allow them to become surrogate parents to the children.

          It isn’t a gay or straight issue. It’s about exploiting the child’s (and parent’s) naivete. There have been plenty of heterosexual youth counselors that have been caught screwing teenagers.

          1. Yes Lee. Kids don’t get molested by strangers in parks. They get molested by people they know.

          2. It’s about the power and trust relationship. Pedos are attracted to those positions which allow them to become surrogate parents to the children.

            Same argument floats around about politics. Power attracts those who abuse it.

        4. True pedophilia is such an outlier sexual preference that the person’s public taste in sexual partner says nothing one way or another.

          I’m pretty sure that a pedophiles sexual preference is for underage children.

          The fear of parents is of the seemingly asexual weirdos that aren’t married and never have adult sexual relationships. In times past those people were lumped in with gays because gays were mostly in the closet.

          Having been involved with the scouts when my kids were younger, i find it extremely weird that any normal man would want to be involved with the organization except for the fact that he has kids in it. YMMV.

          1. I’m pretty sure that a pedophiles sexual preference is for underage children.

            Yes, perhaps you missed the adjective “public” before sexual preference. That was my entire point, you can’t tell them by how they act publicly.

            Having been involved with the scouts when my kids were younger, i find it extremely weird that any normal man would want to be involved with the organization except for the fact that he has kids in it

            And that is a sad statement on our society. We have sexualized everything to the point that no one in the community can take any interest in children without being labeled by people like you as a “weirdo”. There was a time in this country when older people could be mentors to children and children could learn and interact with adults besides their parents and teachers. Now that time is gone and we are much poorer for it.

          2. And one other thing. My wife and I don’t have kids and might never have them. I would love to do something with kids since I might never have them. I, however, would never dream of doing anything like volunteering to lead a scout troop because people like you would immediately assume I am some kind of weirdo looking to ass fuck children.

            Thanks for making the world a better place Zaytsev.

            1. Get back to me when you’ve actually dealt with a bunch of pre pubescent boys for years instead of imagined how cool it will be.

              1. Nice to hear you are a loving parent as well. Do your children know you hate them?

                1. My children are great.

                  It the fuckwads that aren’t even their friends that I don’t need in my life.

              2. Done. Three years in to Cub Scouts as a den leader, at least another six to go (assuming the other two boys decide to be scouts). I see my role as being mostly a facilitator. I can show your kid how to camp, I’ve got all the gear anyone would need, but why the fuck wouldn’t you want to?

                The ‘alone in the secluded woods’ thing is a concern, but there are rules against that. More relevantly, 99% of our events have 20-40% adult/parent attendance and are in a quasi-public place. So it’s less camping alone with a den leader and more open (adults and kids alike) outdoors club.

                The oldest boy takes archery with a volunteer through the park district and does a children and teens running club organized through the local HS by a teacher in the Summers. If I were independently wealthy tomorrow, you’d better believe I’d do something similar. If I weren’t doing it with Scouts, I’d be doing similar stuff with the Park District. I know there are Dads out there that aren’t exactly dying to teach their kids to fish (I would loathe running club). The ones who refuse to let their kids learn to fish (or shoot, handle knives, climb trees, throw rocks, start fires, turn a wrench, etc.) because they are scared their kids will be raped are the projecting weirdos.

                The saddest part is, the overwhelmingly unimaginable majority time, they aren’t actually protecting them from any sort of raping and, sometimes, they force them to sing in the church choir.

            2. I, however, would never dream of doing anything like volunteering to lead a scout troop because people like you would immediately assume I am some kind of weirdo looking to ass fuck children.

              When I was single, I coached youth soccer for a year. It really wasn’t like that. Granted, this was a largely hispanic area, so the “soccer mom” dynamic was there, but it was generally a good time.

              OTOH, I doubt there’s many other opportunities like that one. It was the first year of the soccer league and they were hurting for coaches, so they reached out to me.

              1. wasn’t* there

      2. It’s a problem of exponential growth. The more TEAM RED mouthbreathers we have, the more friendly this place is to TEAM RED mouthbreathers, the more TEAM RED mouthbreathers we get, and the more social pressure there is to TEAM RED mouthbreathe. Now maybe we can solve the problem like the Aussies did when they gave their nuisance rabbits some hideous disease, but that might be a violation of the NAP.

        1. But if you let the TEAM RED mouthbreathers mouth breathe into each other’s mouths, they will give themselves some sort of hideous disease. So no violation of NAP there.

          I say let ’em, mouthbreathe!

          1. MBRIDS. Genius. Let’s get the CIA to work!

          2. But if you let the TEAM RED mouthbreathers mouth breathe into each other’s mouths

            Our very own gay pron!

        2. It is not a Team issue. It is a leave people the fuck alone issue. The Boy Scouts didn’t allow gays. Okay, so the usual suspects went on a crusade to make them do so. So now they have and the people who objected to it have formed their own group that continues to not allow gays. That should be the end of it. Everyone got what they wanted right? Except that it won’t be the end of it. Give it a few years and let the alternative scout organization achieve any success and the usual suspects will be out in force demanding they let gays in as well.

          And of course, it is never the SJWs who are expected to form their own groups. No, they are always allowed to take over and bully the existing groups and force everyone else to start over. Even that would be okay if it wasn’t inevitable that they eventually go after the new groups.

          The problem isn’t letting gays into the Boy Scouts. The problem is a group of people in this society who cannot tolerate anyone who doesn’t conform.

          1. The Boy Scouts didn’t allow gays, the people who wanted them to allow gays nagged them relentlessly, now they do allow gays. I don’t have a problem with any part of that process.

            1. Okay, what about when they start nagging the alternative group? You know they will. Is there any point where we finally agree to disagree and leave each other the fuck alone? You say you hate the culture war so much. Okay, then why are you not bothered by the people who endlessly and aggressively fight it?

              Why is the solution to forever nag and bully the other side rather than just form your own organizations that work the way you want them to?

              1. Okay, then why are you not bothered by the people who endlessly and aggressively fight it?

                Oh, I am.

                Why is the solution to forever nag and bully the other side rather than just form your own organizations that work the way you want them to?

                I’m on record as being against public accommodation laws. Beyond that, I don’t care what people say to each other. For example, I don’t have any fundamental problem, beyond being annoyed, with the fact that H&R has become 90% KULTURE WAR fighting.

                1. , I don’t have any fundamental problem, beyond being annoyed, with the fact that H&R has become 90% KULTURE WAR fighting.

                  so that means you are both for and against abortion, doesn’t it? OMG!

                2. I’m on record as being against public accommodation laws. Beyond that, I don’t care what people say to each other. For example, I don’t have any fundamental problem, beyond being annoyed, with the fact that H&R has become 90% KULTURE WAR fighting.

                  *applause*

          2. So the government forced the BSA to allow gays? What was the legislation number? I’d like to look it up.

            1. Exactly. Social pressure, shunning, nagging, insulting – these things are annoying, but without any kind of coercion, there’s no real moral problem.

              1. pretty much. If some fucking judge didn’t force this onto them, than I really don’t see the problem.

              2. So you have no problem with Hit n Run being overrun by neo confederate red-wing mouthbreathers.

                Great, so STFU and get back to your faggy book larnin’.

                1. You replied to the wrong post, you idiot. I hope you’re smart enough to be embarrassed by how stupid you are.

                  1. Warty, the second sentence is awesome sauce! Great line – and I am hereby declaring that I am going to use it in the future.

                  2. Nah, you’re head is just so far up your own ass that you can’t see the parallel.

                    Don’t worry though, you will when us SoConz ruin this playpen for you.

            2. Kristen,

              Not every evil in the world involves government force. Libertarians sometimes seem as obsessed with government as Progs. Just because the government didn’t do it, doesn’t make it a good thing or impossible for it to be objectionable.

              1. John, first, Warty’s line, “I hope you’re smart enough to be embarrassed by how stupid you are” is an all time H & R classic.

                Second, where do you stand on Kenny Stabler (RIP) and the HOF?

                1. Mike,

                  That is a great line. I regret not saying it myself. Hats off to Warty.

                  I have always thought Stabler should be in the HOF. His numbers only look small because the league is so much more pass happy now than then. His numbers are nearly identical to Bob Griese’s. Sure Griese has one more Super Bowl ring but Griese didn’t play half of the undefeated season. Stabler was one of the top five quarterbacks of the decade. I don’t see how he isn’t an HOFer.

                  1. John: “I wish I’d said that”
                    Warty: “You will, John, you will”.

                  2. Agreed on Stabler. Last Friday night, I made my wife watch the Sea of Hands game with me on the NFL network. In the last 5 minutes, Stabler throws the 68 yard TD to Branch and then after Miami comes back and takes the lead, Stabler leads the Raiders on that last drive culminating in Clarence Davis’ catch.

                2. Glad you enjoyed.

          3. You really have gone off the deep end. Did the SJW’s cow the Boy Scout’s into doing what they wanted? maybe. But how do we know that this:

            Give it a few years and let the alternative scout organization achieve any success and the usual suspects will be out in force demanding they let gays in as well.

            Isn’t what happened?

            1. If this is something people feel so strongly about they will start there own club, anyway.

              1. And they did that. And when the prog mob comes for that club, what then? In a sense, they started their own club a long time ago, ti was called the Boy Scouts. And rather than start their own club, the Probs just bullied and took over the Boy Scouts. It is always everyone else who gets pushed out and has to start over never the Progs who are expected to form their own organizations. They get to take over every single existing one leaving everyone else to start over.

                Give it ten years and the Progs will be going after the new club and you guys will be on here cheering them on saying “it is just a private matter and we love gays anyway.”

    6. Alright, my comment was too cranky and I’m sorry. I’m just getting tired of how no concession to the progs is ever enough. It’s a sign that I need to take a vacation from political blogs.

  32. “New York City has agreed to pay $5.9 million to the family of Eric Garner, the man whose death at the hands of the NYPD was caught on video last year.”

    So the taxpayers are on the hook for the actions of pieces of garbage who choked a man for allegedly not paying the extortion rate.

    Those shopkeepers who informed the state that some rabble rouser no longer wants to be extorted, and who’s customers felt the same way, decided to complain because if they had to be extorted, then so does everyone else. They helped contribute to the death of an individual who met needs of other consumers who were engaging in voluntary transactions that respected the liberty of everyone. They too are pieces of garbage.

    The fight should be for the private production of security. No amount of reform will fix a violent coercive arm of the state that benefits from qualified immunity. There must be free choice when it comes to security, and those agents of the company, and the company itself will be held accountable for their actions. Good economic behavior will be rewarded, and bad behavior will be punished, instead of rewarding bad actions with continued employment.

    Sadly, folks are rioting, and destroying the businesses of typse who work hard, and there also are calls for the right “top men” to be put in charge this time, so that this time around it will work……with more funding too!

  33. Man dies in Spain after being gored by bull

    Spanish officials say a French citizen has died after being gored by a bull during a festival in a small town in eastern Spain.

    A statement from the town hall of Pedreguer says the 44-year-old man died shortly after 1 a.m. Tuesday.

    The town hall said the man, identified only by the iniitials L.O., had been standing with some friends when he was gored by one of the bulls.

    The incident occurred during a running of the bulls being held as part of the town’s summer festival.

    The death came as Spain’s most celebrated bull-running festival, San Fermin in Pamplona, came to an end Tuesday. Ten people were gored during the nine-day festival this year but nobody died.

    At least the bulls get to fight back against this shit.

    1. My brother ran and survived unharmed this year. Like many animals, these particularly hostile bulls would never survive humanity without bullfighting. They would be turned into steers and less hostile bulls would be bred to the cows. Especially now that cattle herds don’t experience any predation.

  34. Vigilantes play DARE with the confederate flag: New social media craze has activists ripping symbol down from homes and cars and posting the risky videos online

    The trend shows people running up to other people’s vehicles and properties and tearing down Confederate flags
    In what is supposedly the original video of the challenge, a man runs up to a house and rips the flag down from a pole and runs back to the car
    Challenge emerged after national debate over Confederate flag flying in a war memorial on South Carolina State Capitol grounds
    The flag has since been removed from the grounds of the statehouse

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

    1. “See?! The Confederate flag *does* cause people to get shot!”

    2. Countdown to castle doctrine kicking in….

    3. Makes me want to mount a Confederate flag over a swimming pool filled with alligators.

  35. Bella Thorne, 17, dresses to impress HERSELF as she snaps selfies wearing a bandage dress on the set of MTV’s Scream

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..cream.html
    Dang.

    1. I vote that Bella Thorne cannot be 17. She has to change her age to at least 19.

      1. She should identify as a 19 year old.

  36. Now, it’s illegal to be a punk rocker
    Belt with fake bullets leads to arrest in Boston

    http://mediaequalizer.com/bria…..unk-rocker
    Charges were dropped of course, but the process is the punishment.

  37. I’ve been working on my new house, prepping it before we move it.

    I hate it when people paint over the wall sockets. That is all.

    1. Well, they just do it to match the *windows*, DUH!

    2. My house was built in late 60’s. In the kitchen and foyer, whenever the old owners wanted a new floor, they just laid right over the old one.

      Tear our the old floor and install the new one properly.

      That is all.

      1. why are the ceilings getting shorter?

    3. People paint over the trim plates? That’s awful.

  38. Rambo ‘to fight Isis in Last Blood’, Sylvester Stallone claims

    http://www.independent.co.uk/a…..85923.html

    1. What will the inevitable sequel to Last Blood be called?

      1. One More Drop Painstakingly Squeezed Out?

        1. How dare you.

    2. Will the kid from Rambo III be the ISIS commander or is that too on the nose?

  39. Rand Paul introduces legislation to crack down on ‘sanctuary cities’

    Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has introduced new legislation that would crack down on “sanctuary” cities harboring criminal illegal immigrants.

    The 2016 Republican presidential contender announced last week a proposal that would require state and local law enforcement to notify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after the arrest of an illegal immigrant.

    The legislation, known as the Protecting American Citizens Together Act (PACT Act) would also require law enforcement to detain or transfer an illegal immigrant if requested to do so by ICE.

    The proposed legislation comes after a 32-year-old San Francisco woman was allegedly shot and killed by an illegal immigrant.

    Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, who has pleaded not guilty, was in the country illegally and had been released from jail months before the shooting, despite a federal immigration order asking local authorities to hold him.

    “Our nation now has whole cities and states who stand up and willingly defy federal immigration laws in order to protect illegal immigrants who have broken our nation’s laws,” Paul said. “This must end and it must end now.”

    I don’t see how you can be okay with cities and states telling the DEA to fuck off and not support doing the same to ICE.

    1. Ugh, come on Rand.

    2. This is unfortunate.

      As with VAWA, the tieing of police hands means that those in the U.S. illegally will essentially not have recourse to the courts and will make them more vulnerable to crime.

      It’s the reverse of the coin of the sanctuary city, where cops aren’t allowed to inform ICE at all.

      So in the first case, the illegal immigrant who is a peddler and causes no problems but gets arrested because he resembles a bank robber gets deported.

      In the second case, the illegal immigrant who is a danger to society is kept around despite a string of assaults.

      Rigid penalties, particularly tied to arrest – which can happen for all sorts of bullshit reasons – are a sure-fire way for the legal system to create injustice.

      1. In the second case, the illegal immigrant who is a danger to society is kept around despite a string of assaults.

        Assuming he is not wanted for a crime and has served his sentence for the crimes he has committed, by your standard he has every bit as much right to be here as the peddler and deporting him just as much as an injustice.

        Stand up for the rights of the felon in the same way you do for the peddler or admit that borders are morally legitimate.

        1. Assuming he is not wanted for a crime and has served his sentence for the crimes he has committed, by your standard he has every bit as much right to be here as the peddler and deporting him just as much as an injustice.

          Hey, I do believe deporting him is just as much an injustice. I’m framing my argument for the 99% of people who don’t agree with me.

    3. “Protecting American Citizens Together Act (PACT Act)”

      Do they come up with acronyms first and then invent words to fit them?

      1. It’s just a string of incredible coincidences.

    4. “I don’t see how you can be okay with cities and states telling the DEA to fuck off and not support doing the same to ICE.”

      Isn’t immigration policy something the feds are supposed to handle though, whereas drug policy is completely unconstitutional? The feds shouldn’t even have the power to ban drugs under the constitution, so I do think it’s different than immigration.

      1. Even if we’re happy letting states flip the bird to feds, which I don’t really mind, why did the city release the guy in the first place knowing his history? Keeping him on ice doesn’t necessarily mean turning him over to ICE.

        1. I assumed his history was much more violent than it actually is: they had, what, years-old pot charges and a string of deportations. And from that the sheriffs were supposed to have spied an inexplicable murderous glint in the guy’s eye. This really isn’t the slam-dunk anti-sanctuary case Trump et al. seem to think it is.

    5. “Our nation now has whole cities and states who stand up and willingly defy federal integration laws in order to protect illegal segregationists who have broken our nation’s laws,” Paul said. “This must end and it must end now.”

      Now do you understand?

  40. Woman allegedly attacked by group near U of C campus with kids in car

    http://abc7chicago.com/news/ab…..us/841913/

    “They were walking around both sides of the vehicle – in the front, in the back – and as they were walking across, they were hitting my car, using racial slurs and telling me that I didn’t belong in their neighborhood because I was white,” Pedersen said.

    It’s comforting to know that blacks can’t be racist.

    1. It’s comforting to know that blacks can’t be racist.

      Blacks don’t have the social, economic and political power of whites because of their historical disadvantages, I’m told. So by definition blacks cannot be racist. Whereas this woman was flaunting her white power all over the neighborhood like she owned the place, she was clearly a threat. Too powerful that woman.

  41. The NASA probe New Horizons has completed a historic flyby of Pluto.

    Think I might ignore politics today and just enjoy the science. NASA is supposed to be posting video on their website this evening.

    1. “Last Gas For 4 Light-Years”

    2. A sensible recommendation.

    3. I heard that there’s a communications check tonight, just to make sure everything is going as planned, then the data starts streaming tomorrow. It’ll be very cool to see up close pictures of a world nearly three billion miles away.

      I was just reading something about the probe exceeding (at one point, not now) 100,000 mph at one point. The Helios probes, launched towards the sun, got to 157,000 mph. Pretty impressive. Just 670,616,472 mph to go, then we can start really checking things out.

      1. You’re correct on the comm check – I just looked it up and it’s scheduled for 9pm EDT. I looked at the NASA website but it was not particularly helpful.

        1. Probably keeping some of the cards close to their chest, in case they have any issues retrieving the data. Oh, well, if the data doesn’t transmit, we can send another probe to overtake New Horizons and bring it back.

        2. Decent amount of updates and links on this twitter feed:

          https://twitter.com/elakdawalla

  42. Uber blogs about promoting “senior mobility” after Hillary attackes them in economic speech

    Hillary Clinton outlined her economic agenda today at the New School in Manhattan, and attacked Uber. The ridesharing service did not reply to Clinton directly, but the company did post a story on its blog about how the service helps “senior mobility.” Clinton, a grandmother, is 67 years old.

    Uber’s post is about June, an octogenarian who recently had to stop driving. Uber now fills that void.

    “For June ? a very independent person ? making the difficult decision to give up her own car after driving for over 60 years felt like “a huge setback.” Sprightly, active, and in her 80s, she was determined not to let transportation limitations deter her for long. After hearing about Uber from her grandchildren, June downloaded the app on her smartphone. Soon, she was riding all over Miami-Dade County, running errands, and visiting with family and friends ? all with Uber,” the blog post reads.

    Best response goes to Rand Paul:

    America shouldn’t take advice on the sharing economy from someone who has been driven around in a limo for 30 years.

    1. Damn. Direct hit.

    2. Well. I’m seeing how important Uber is to an economy at the moment. My brother, let’s just say he being an example of a life unfulfilled, has slowly realized he’s been on the wrong track all these years. Now that he finds himself pretty much unemployable despite talents and an education, needs to find stable income (aside from our aims to launch our building ‘plexes project for rental income) and has decided to give Uber a shot.

      For a guy who never worked an honest shift in his life, I think this is a good move and thank the stars companies like Uber exist to give people a shot and some breathing room.

      1. Oh. I forgot.

        So FUCK HILLARY that cunt.

  43. Yes, but has Voyager left the solar system yet?

    1. No, no it hasn’t. And it won’t for thousands of years. There are bodies orbiting the sun (the Oort Cloud) that extend out to more than a light year radius from the sun.

      I know you know this, but I felt the need for a periodic restatement of this truth.

      1. And when it does, the invading aliens will bring it back.

        1. EXCUSE US, HUMANS. YOU LEFT THIS IN OUR SPACE.

        2. Obviously, since Carl Sagan gave them turn-by-turn directions!

          1. I think he went too far suggesting that human is a “tasty treat.”

            1. I hear we’re kind greazy.

        3. I thought a a particularly dumb Klingon captain will use it for target practice?

  44. For you cycling/sports fans: Ivan Basso has testicular cancer. Watched his announcement with his team mate Contador by his side. Moving.

    1. Did he withdraw from the Tour? (BTW, no spoilers on today’s stage, please – watching it when I get home form work)

      I wonder if EPO is a large contributor.

      1. Yes, he withdrew:

        http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cycling/33509974

        Story from July 13 so no spoilers.

        1. Wow – what a shocker that must have been for him. Checking up on a crash injury and finding out you have cancer? Fuckin-a.

          Here’s Tom Green with some sage advice.

          1. I can’t rub my balls at work can I?

            1. Not if a genie emerges, no.

              1. So you call yours “Genie”, huh?

            2. Considering you work in a daycare, I’d at least try to do it surreptitiously.

    2. What’s the deal with cyclists and testicular cancer? Next you’re going to tell me they’re all doping and shit!

      1. Last time I rode a bike my nuts were sore as hell.

  45. “A nuclear deal with Iran has been struck.”

    WHERE ARE MY EFFING PISTACHIOS??

  46. What, no news from the Trump Front today, REASON?

    1. Bo was all over it upthread

      1. Bo, Tulpa, PB were all over it. They are made for eachother.

  47. I see Tulpa’s got a new handle.

    1. Oh, did someone already out the “Mr. Anderson” one he was running all weekend?

      1. I thought Bo was Tulpa?

  48. Oh Canada! The true north strong and free!

    The Ottawa chapter of Black Lives Matter is demanding an apology from Bluesfest organizers, and the festival says it’s reviewing its policy on appropriate apparel, after a photo of a concert-goer wearing Confederate flag shorts surfaced on Twitter.

    And holy fuck…

    Pate said the group also wants to make sure Lynyrd Skynyrd, an American rock band scheduled to play Tuesday night, does not incorporate the Confederate flag as a part of their show as they usually do.

    1. At least there is some decent comments:

      Nick Cameron ? a day ago
      Some idiots are offended by everything. Politically correct pandering to a bunch of infantile, lefty whiners is the wrong thing to do.

    2. Wow.

      That’s sickening.

      Never mind that Canada simply doesn’t have high murder rates; let alone one involving blacks.

      Everyone has lost their fucken, bloody minds.

      1. I would love if Skynyrd just said fuck em and cancelled the show tonight.

        1. I thought they were all dead and shit?

      2. Since when has signaling your moral and aesthetic superiority ever been about numbers? Or achieving anything worthwhile?

    3. “…concert-goer wearing Confederate flag shorts surfaced on Twitter.”

      The irony being that if the U.S. had succeeded in passing a flag desecration amendment, it could have been illegal to make a pair of shorts out of the American flag.

      1. The other irony is that the Progs had a cow over that. Yet, if it had passed, it likely would have enabled Progs to now ban the dreaded confederate flag.

        I look at this shit as acts of desperation. They know they have nothing to offer the country and are looking at being totally out of power when Obama leaves. All they have left is race baiting bullshit. Even that, however, is running short on supply. They are so desperate to race bait they are reduced to bitching about the Confederate Flag. That is not a sign of strength or confidence.

  49. Take the Political Coordinates test and see where you fall. Are you a true Libertarian like PB or Bo?
    http://www.celebritytypes.com/…..s/test.php

    I fall near Milton Friedman:
    http://www.celebritytypes.com/…..ef=Default

    Individuals in this quadrant seek to uphold liberty as the primary political good in all respects. They tend to see themselves as staunch supporters of both personal and economic freedom and are deeply skeptical of collective plans and goals, stressing instead the principle of voluntary association and the individual’s capacity to make his own judgments. They typically see less of a role for the state than individuals in the other three quadrants, believing instead in the spontaneous social order of the market.”

    1. The questions covered Mexicans and pot, but without a question on butt sex can it really be considered sound?

      ps Unca Milty is my homeboy, apparently

    2. Yep, over there with Uncle Milton.

    3. Ditto.

    1. That’s rather jolly

      1. We’re in a doom phase right now, apparently. I enjoyed the new Goatsnake too.

        1. Those vocals are a bit… jazzy. Unexpected and rather refreshing

  50. Jesus, this comment thread sucks.

    1. It is always a toxic stew of invective, vulgarity, and pot fueled Mexican ass sex. What did you expect?

      1. Ever go back and read any threads from the Golden Age of, say, 2006-2009? It’s amazing how much better this place was back then.

        1. Things went downhill after i left, eh?

        2. Yeah…this one went in the shitter faster than LoneDipshit could put up a fence. Or HERCULE could run for office. Or joe could step on a stool. Or Donderroooooo! could petition for 38 hours every day.

          ahhh the good old days.

      2. Well, that. But sometimes there’s at least a little bit of insight/entertainment before the troll brigade shows up.

        1. I agree. The best threads are the ones that don’t involve any partisan implications. There the trolls don’t show up.

    2. I fucking remember when breakin 100 comments was impressive.

      Or the days before evening LYNX.

      (I also remember 24/7, but we will try to memory hole that)
      and…
      you know who else I remember?

      rhymes with mucy fleigerbald.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.