A.M. Links: Dylann Roof Appears in Court, Riots in Greece, Hillary Clinton's Popularity Dropping Among Democrats

|

  • Facebook

    Charleston shooter Dylann Roof is expected to appear in court today.

  • Violent demonstrations broke out in Athens after the left-wing Greek government voted in favor of austerity measures.
  • George H.W. Bush is in stable condition after falling and breaking a bone in his neck.
  • "The first close-up views of Pluto show mountains made of ice and a surprisingly young, crater-free surface, scientists with NASA's New Horizons mission said on Wednesday."

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

NEXT: The Volunteer State

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. …Hillary Clinton’s popularity is dropping among Democrats.

    It will pick up when the GOP picks her opponent.

    1. Even Donkeys are tired of her ass. She’ll get nominated but won’t get enthusiastic support needed to win, unless the Heffalumps nom Bush or Trump or another socon.

      1. Who do you think they’re going to nominate? Paul? The establishment will dictate who gets the nod by driving money to the absolute worst possible choice and that will be some flavor of socon.

        1. So “Jeb’s the One!”

          Please kill me now.

        2. Walker is the most likely candidate. He’s passed a lot of popular legislation in his home state, so the voters like him, and he’s not a complete outsider like Paul so the party can tolerate him.

          1. Walker is perhaps the best candidate, given a matrix of policy prescriptions and electoral odds.

            Walker is nowhere near the likeliest to get the nomination.

            1. “To be clear, this conclusion ends the John Doe investigation because the special prosecutor’s legal theory is unsupported in either reason or law,” Gableman wrote. “Consequently, the investigation is closed. Consistent with our decision and the order entered by Reserve Judge (Gregory) Peterson, we order that the special prosecutor and the district attorneys involved in this investigation must cease all activities related to the investigation, return all property seized in the investigation from any individual or organization, and permanently destroy all copies of information and other materials obtained through the investigation. All unnamed movants are relieved of any duty to cooperate further with the investigation.”

              I love the “liberal” justice’s dissent:

              “The majority opinion adopts an unprecedented and faulty interpretation of Wisconsin’s campaign finance law and of the First Amendment,” she wrote. “In doing so, the majority opinion delivers a significant blow to Wisconsin’s campaign finance law and to its paramount objectives of ‘stimulating vigorous campaigns on a fair and equal basis’ and providing for ‘a better informed electorate.‘”

              So Fewer ads, less speech + Prosecutorial misconduct = Vigorous campaign on a fair and equal basis.

              1. It’s good that they stopped it, but it would have been better if they recommended bringing charges against the DAs for malicious prosecution.

              2. “The right people were getting it good and hard…so, therefore I petulantly dissent”

              3. Oh, so now everyone that’s been harassed by this prosecutor can tell their story. Not that it will make a difference.

        3. The establishment wants Bush or something like Bush. They don’t want a conservative or libertarian(-ish) candidate.

          1. And by ‘the establishment’ you mean ‘the voters’.

            Sad but true.

            1. The voters won’t get much say on it. The debates will forbid anyone who isn’t mainstream from participating, and the media will keep promoting the worst choices. By the time the primaries happen, there won’t be much “choice” left, and then once the primaries wrap up it’ll be all Team all the time.

        4. Christie, Kasich, or Paul would not be so con enough to rile up the masses of asses needed for the Hildebeast to win. But i have no idea who will be Red Team Leader. It’s a crazy year.

          1. I think you underestimate how villainous any Repuke can be made to appear with help from journalists and the GOP candidate himself.

            1. Not any. Jon Huntsman was a decent guy and the press liked him back in 2012. Unfortunately for him the greasy-ass GOP everyman voter did not like him.

              1. The press will like them up until they get the nod.

              2. The press liked John McCain during the Repub primaries, and turned like snakes during the primaries.

                1. This is why I support 100% the balkanization of the media after the rise of conservative news sites and blogs.

                  Let multiple versions of the truth be out there, and let everyone use his reason to figure out the truth, or, if he lacks a brain, get his own confirmation bias nicely reinforced.

                2. During the *general*.

              3. Wasn’t someone in the Huntsman campaign involved in posting a disgusting false flag video smearing the Ron Paul campaign?

              4. He sucked. Twenty to thirty years ago he would have fit in very nicely in the Democrat party. With its continual move leftward, he branded himself a “moderate” Republican. A moderate Republican is basically Socialist-lite. Socialist anything does not work.

            2. The media can do wonders, but those 3 will supply the least to work with and will provide many popular sound bites to counter the media. Maybe Walker as well.

        5. You can’t stop a Bush in the GOP. It is a long love affair with several chapters to write.

        6. It is cute that social consevatives are such bogeyman figures in your head that you think the GOP establishment favors them.

          1. ^This. GOP Establishment wants their candidate to be exactly one (small) step to the right of the Democrat candidate on every single issue.

      2. SnoKonez!!

    2. Hello.

      1. Hi.

      2. Don’t sound too groucho this morning.

    3. If you want this choice po-si-tion / you must have a crac-ker dis-po-si-tion

  2. Caitlyn Jenner received the Arthur Ashe Courage Award at last night’s ESPY Awards.

    Does she even play tennis?

    1. What’s an ESPY Award?

      1. Something you jump past quickly if you are channel-surfing.

      2. A medal given to NSA agents and chinese hackers.

        1. And to the nimble-fingered.

      3. It’s for the best cyber warfare. I think the OPM hackers got one this year.

      4. Useful publicity for a crass reality tv series marketing campaign

      5. It’s a faux awards show so that ESPN has live programming the one night/day of the year there is no live men’s sports to broadcast.

      6. Bill Cosby had a TV show eons ago with that other tennis bum.

    2. Nelson Mandela is a previous recipient of the award, so I guess it’s not just for athletes? Although, looking at the list, it’s mostly US sports figures who volunteered a lot.

      1. Mandela was actually a pretty accomplished boxer in his youth. That was decades before he got his ESPY, but still an athletic background.

        1. You need endurance and at least some decent upper body strength to do what Nelson Mandela did. And by that I mean the sport he played by filling tires with gasoline and making kidnapped white South Africans wear it like a ‘necklace’ before lighting it on fire. Or was that Morgan Freeman?

      2. I thought Mandela got it for his role with the SA soccer team depicted in that Eastwood film.

        1. Bend It Like Beckham?

    3. I don’t know about actually playing tennis, but he seems to have swapped a couple of balls for a lucrative racket.

      1. Wait a minute. There’s no councilman Les Wynan.

        Uh, I mean, I think no key body parts have actually been lost yet.

      2. I see what you did there.

    4. Ashe was a first class act. I really don’t think this award does his memory any favors.

      1. True DAT and a HALF!!!

        1. I also think that Ashe – were he alive today, god bless his memory – would eschew so much of the SJW identity politics and preach conservative life principles, like hard work, family, etc.

        1. “No Daddy, no! Not the books again!”

    5. Does she even play tennis?

      Without balls.

  3. 70) No doubt there are people in ghettoes or remote rural communities in the United States who are trapped in a cycle of poverty, or people who are poor due to genuine disability. But I think what most SJWs don’t get is that above that bottom level (maybe 10-15% of the population), there are a whole lot poor people who are that way by choice. I know this because of my step-brother. He had all the same opportunities I had, did reasonably well in school, was on the college track, and then he dropped out after his freshman year of college. Thought it was boring. He spent the next 10 years driving around Mexico, exploring, doing drugs, hanging out with fun people. For the past 5 years he’d been back in the US, married to a Mexican wife, pursuing his undergraduate degree, working as a waiter, living in a working-class neighborhood in Fayetteville, Arkansas. He’s poor, and probably always will be. I’m not judging! Completely the opposite–I think he’s done exactly what he’s wanted to do, and I often wonder if he didn’t choose the better, more interesting path. He’s had great experiences, lives a low-stress life, lots of free time. I think he represents a lot of people for whom money and status simply aren’t important. And I believe that is what the achievement-oriented coastal liberals do not understand.

    1. Shut the fuck up, Donnie

    2. They’re called slackers. And all those SJW’s would be slackers, too; if they didn’t have trust funds to pay for their lifestyle.

    3. At least he’s working and I presume providing for his family and not complaining.

    4. I live amongst achievement-oriented coastal liberals, have them in my family, and am dating one. Without exception, they know people like your step-brother, but think he’s the exception to the rule; that most low-income people are in that state through no fault of their own. Further, most of the liberals I know argue that your step-brother deserves “necessities” like health-care subsidies, food stamps, and a “livable” retirement income… if nothing else (wait for it), for the children.

      So, to a great degree, the role of personal choice in setting one’s path in life is irrelevant to many liberals. They believe that external forces are almost always more powerful in life than intrinsic drive.

      1. And they don’t seem to like it when you try to tell them that many, possibly most, people who are poor are poor because they constantly make stupid decisions about money.

        1. Au contraire, it’s a perfect opportunity to step in as wise and benevolent money managers, taking taxes and doling out benefits. It’s their principle defense of social security, because stupid people make dumb decisions about money.

          1. There is no limit to the number of bad arguments you can use to defend bad ideas. The left uses it’s rampant inconsistencies as a shield.

      2. I can’t stand when they use children as leverage. But what choice do we have when kids are involved? We’re in that position with a family member who can barely provide for my niece and nephew. My sister, her husband and I find ourselves in a position where we have to protect and set up the family assets in a way to provide for those kids.

        1. In my grandfathers time here in the mountains, people wouldn’t give a dime to support some deadbeats children; but, they were perfectly happy to support his widow and orphans.

          }:)

    5. This is true. There are a lot of people like that who would rather have the freedom that comes with not being tied to a career than more money. As long as they don’t expect their lifestyle to be subsidized by taxing others, I think it is a fine choice. And it goes to show that being poor (or what is considered poor in the US anyway) is not necessarily a miserable struggle. If you are not completely stupid with your money and don’t feel all entitled, the right kind of person can be perfectly happy on what is usually considered a low income.

      1. I really sympathize with that sort of lifestyle. I don’t want to spend one minute more than I have to sitting behind a desk, dying of heart disease or some other office-work-related ailment.

        The only difference between me and the “poor” who have the same inclination is that I fight through it in order to provide a materially comfortable life for myself and my wife. The instant that I get enough money saved up to where I’m comfortable living on the interest of my savings, I’m going home to do some light manual labor for a living. Maybe I’ll run a booth at the local farmer’s market or teach a class at the local private high school.

        Progressives don’t seem to understand that this isn’t a bad thing. Everything is a tradeoff, and sometimes people trade financial security for happiness. It doesn’t mean that anybody owes them anything.

    6. No doubt there are people in ghettoes or remote rural communities in the United States who are trapped in a cycle of poverty

      I live in the ghetto; no one is trapped.

  4. The first close-up views of Pluto show mountains made of ice and a surprisingly young, crater-free surface…

    Just like JLaw’s hacked photos.

    1. Link?

  5. Holy shit just saw the comments on the Richman article on the Iran deal. That was like an neutron-derp bomb or something. Fucking HIhn, Bo, AND Jackass all in the first four comments?!?!?

    Scawy.

    1. Hmmm, maybe the plan is to corral the trolls in the Richman threads.

      1. LMAO

        1. Flypaper strategy?

      2. corral the trolls in the Richman threads.

        And tie them all together (with Richman) and set em out on the ice floe?

    2. “It’s especially outrageous for Israel, which has aggressed against its neighbors, to stand in judgment of Iran.”

      Richman can suck Tony’s dick.

      1. Israel is basically Adam Lanza.

      2. Everything about international relations is outrageous.

        I’m not a huge Israel booster, but I do find the Israel haters pretty ridiculous. Yeah, they use their military a lot. What the hell are they supposed to do when people lob rockets at them and most of the surrounding countries take the view that they shouldn’t exist?

        1. I support Israel defending itself from the Islamist hordes but I am sick of them sponging off the US and begging for us to fight their wars for them.

          Fucking leaches like Bibi – he can eat shit.

        2. But Palestine, a state which exists nowhere but in name, possesses inviolable geographic integrity, and when Israel attempts to knock out the sites where those rockets are being launched, it’s undue aggression by Israel. I would have so much more respect for the Richmans of the world if they would make the argument that the geopolitical entity Israel should cede legitimacy to the conceptional entity Palestine.

          1. So you are against a two state solution? Just curious, what happens to all those people in the territories?

            1. I have no idea. But I don’t think most of those in favor of a two-state solution are, in any meaningful sense, and that includes anyone speaking on behalf of the Palestinians. Palestine as a quasi-state is a more useful tool for extracting concessions from Israel than Palestine the state.

              1. I’m a fan of groups having a right to self-determination. That was kind of the point of Zionism itself, y’know? In theory all the Palestinians are asking for is what the Zionists wanted and got: a land for a people and a people for a land. The irony is they don’t want to respect that that is what Israel is (and vice versa of course).

            2. Here you go Bo:

              http://www.israelhayom.com/sit…..p?id=13113

              1. In short, if the day were to come when Israel falls, Jordan, Egypt and many others would fall, too, and ?Westerners would be begging Iran for oil.?

                Hunh. Maybe that’s Brak’s plan with Iran, it’s a greenie move.

            3. So you are against a two state solution? Just curious, what happens to all those people in the territories?

              Jordan is Palestine. And you should ask the neighboring countries like Jordan, Syria, Egypt et al, who refuse to open their refugee camps or to allow their ‘Palestinian’ population to integrate into their host society despite their identical ethnic, linguistic, cultural and even geographic backgrounds. They’re steadfastly keeping them in generations of poverty and blame it on Jews so that they have an entire population ready to mobilize for violence. Those Arab countries surrounding Israel aren’t fighting for human rights or moral principles, at best you can say that they’re fighting for a prestigious scrap of territory but in truth they’re fighting to satiate a religious belief in conquest and ideological ownership of that particular territory. If all the Palestinians tomorrow moved away from the region, what other bargaining chips would the surrounding Arab world have to claim Israel other than irrational religious beliefs?

              1. They did try. It didn’t go so well. They quickly witnessed what an independent Palestine would look like.

                All that you say is conveniently overlooked.

                All on Israel. No responsibility for the Arab world.

    3. Are Iran threads the new abortion threads?

    4. I gave up. It’s a black hole of stupidity.

    5. Thank God I missed that. That must be like a giant internet black hole of stupidity. The entire rest of the internet saw its collective IQ increase as that thread sucked in an epic amount of stupid.

      1. That explains all the insightful comments on YouTube last night.

  6. Justice Kennedy: ‘Constitution is yours’
    Swing member of Supreme Court speaks in San Diego on controversial rulings, solitary confinement

    “I tell people the Constitution doesn’t belong to a bunch of judges, it’s yours,” Kennedy said. “We have to reflect on what these issues mean.”

    He compared the reaction to the same-sex marriage case to the unpopularity of his 1989 opinion in the flag-burning case, and how public opinion evolved over time.

    “Eighty senators went to the floor of the Senate to denounce the court,” he said. “President Bush took the week off and visited flag factories, but I noticed that after two or three months people began thinking about the issues.”

    He also noted the difference between the U.S. Constitution, and the word “constitution,” which he defined as “the sum total of manners and customs, the traditions of people.”

    “That’s the constitution most people look at when they look at the United States. They say, ‘What kind of people are these? How do they behave? What are their traditions and customs, their rules regarding the dignity they accord to their fellow citizens?’

    1. It’s mine? Wow. Do I like get to keep it in my house for a day or something?

      1. “Your” house. How quaint. I smell some economic development coming!

      2. Sort of like the Stanley Cup?

    2. But Justice K, do words have meaning or are we not a country of laws?

    3. … the word “constitution,” which he defined as “the sum total of manners and customs, the traditions of people.” “That’s the constitution most people look at when they look at the United States. They say, ‘What kind of people are these? How do they behave? What are their traditions and customs, their rules regarding the dignity they accord to their fellow citizens?

      Bullshit.

      1. Well, that is a definition of constitution. But not the one that Justices should be concerned with, really.

        1. And not the one that one in ten thousand people would give when asked about the constitution of the United States.

          “Rules regarding the dignity they accord to their fellow citizens”, indeed.

          1. Where does this idea come from that dignity is something that can be given to people by societies or governments? Dignity is about how a person carries himself through life, not about what material comforts he has.

            1. But I do look dignified in a top-hat and monocle.

    4. traditions, customs, manners, public opinion. what the fuck is he talking about? those subjective terms mean nothing because they mean every possible thing.

      this dipshit was the swing in Kelo.

    5. “I tell people the Constitution doesn’t belong to a bunch of judges, it’s yours,”

      Well, this is rich, especially coming from this justice.

      1. Yes, the guy who was the swing vote in Citizen’s United, Heller, MacDonald, Ricci, Lawrence, etc., who’s often called the most libertarian justice on the court. Your sample you focus on is too small.

          1. One that didn’t include a lot of cases, obviously.

    6. “And the more the big ‘C’ Constitution relates to the small ‘c’ constitution, the stronger a decision is. The stronger we are,” Kennedy said.

      OK, I can buy that. However, with the changing demographics of the US, and the fact that both Teams Blue and Red are fond of policies from the communalist playbook, aren’t the Court’s decisions doomed to becoming weaker with every passing generation?

  7. “The first close-up views of Pluto show mountains made of ice and a surprisingly young, crater-free surface, scientists with NASA’s New Horizons mission said on Wednesday.”

    Oh, Plutoful for spacious skies?

  8. I heard on the radio that Obama is going to prison this morning. Unfortunately it’s just to make a speech, then he’s leaving.

    1. Just Visiting

  9. Violent demonstrations broke out in Athens after the left-wing Greek government voted in favor of austerity measures.

    If you can’t trust your left-wing government to further fuck up a bad economy by giving out free shit no one can afford, who can you trust?

  10. Maryland Del. Ariana Kelly charged with indecent exposure, trespassing

    A charging document said Del. Ariana B. Kelly (D-Mongtomery) was dropping off her children at her ex-husband’s house, in the 5300 block of Alta Vista Road in Bethesda, when she became upset that his fiancee was inside the residence. Kelly and Barak Sanford were divorced in November, according to court records.

    Sanford told police that Kelly started ringing the doorbell and banging on the door and that he asked her to leave.

    According to the charging document, Sanford played a cellphone video for police that showed Kelly ringing the doorbell “numerous times,” exposing her breasts in the direction of Sanford’s cellphone camera and then “with one breast in each hand [shaking] them up and down.”

    1. Uhfff. I clicked and immediately regretted.

      1. It’s Rosie O-Donnell!

        1. She’s not that bad.

          1. She is not good. She is more like Melissa McCarthy after having a gastric bypass.

    2. wow that bitch is crazy. and she won a county-wide popularity contest? oh, in Montgomery. nevermind.

    3. Crusty would.

    4. Wasn’t this one discussed thoroughly yesterday?

      1. Yes, we established that was a good reference point in crazy/hot matrix.

        Both too crazy and not hot enough to ever stick it in.

    5. Note: she is the legislator from Bethesda.
      Bethesda is where many of our Top Men chose to live.
      This is who they chose to represent them.
      I applaud their choice.

      Shake those titties.

  11. “The first close-up views of Pluto show mountains made of ice and a surprisingly young, crater-free surface, scientists with NASA’s New Horizons mission said on Wednesday.”

    When will we have a 30-year rolling average temperature chart?

  12. Here’s why a giant balloon is dangling ten enormous boobs over Galway

    So? why all the boobs?

    The Skywhale’s official website describes them as “udders”. Piccinini has said that they reflect how whales are mammals and breast-feed their young.

    She also told the Canberra Times: “If it’s turned into something base or vulgar, it’s got nothing to do with the work ? it’s got everything to do with the viewer and what they bring to it.”

    Are people turning it into something base or vulgar?

    Yes.

    1. it has travelled all around the world

      and been shot *many* times.

    2. It cost taxpayers $300,000 and they don’t even get to keep it or set fire to it or anything

        1. I believe you mean “Oh the huge mammary!”

          1. can I get a narrowed gaze over here?

            1. I regret nothing.

  13. Charleston shooter Dylann Roof is expected to appear in court today.

    I’m looking forward to his Rolling Stone cover.

    1. I don’t know, this kid doesn’t have that terrorist chic look.

      1. And you can’t airbrush the crazy away either.

    2. He hates the wrong group, so don’t be disappointed when that photo doesn’t appear.

  14. Update on my Sig Sauer P226:

    So I went shooting last weekend and focused on keep my wrists locked – and I had no failure-to-feed jams. That’s good news, right?

    Questions for the shooters out there:
    1. Do you track of how many rounds you put through your guns?
    2. Do you recommend oil as a lubricant, or some kind of grease instead?

    1. 1. No

      2. Gun oil – very light coat rubbed on moving parts after a cleaning.

      1. I like gun butter.

        1. Make absolutely sure, if you clean with solvent or ‘gun scrubber’ that you put either oil or ‘gun butter’ on afterwards.

          I don’t know how far a Sig breaks down. I like ‘gun butter’ too, but it’s harder to get properly into some places. Oil can get everywhere, easily.

          I use butter on my revolver and my black-powder gun, but have an FNAR that has an enclosed trigger assembly (gun-smith work). I use scrubber and oil on that.

          1. Also, no more last round stoppages? Did you fix something, or use the other magazine?

            1. Thanks everyone.

              I didn’t have any issues with the last round in the magazine the last time I went shooting – but I was focusing on keeping my wrists locked. I only shot 45 rounds so I’ll have to see how it goes next time.

              When you break down a Sig (at least my P226) there are three parts, the slide, the barrel and the spring. I have been lightly lubricrating the slide rails, the spring, and the barrel with oil. Will keep you posted!

    2. Shoot as many as you want. Focus on form and B.R.A.S.S. every shot.
      Always clean gun after the range.

      That is all.

    3. 1. Not well. I try, but generally I’m satisfied with estimating to within a thousand rounds. For handguns, I don’t think it matters much.

      2. Depends on where it’s going. I use high-pressure moly grease on hammers, sears, and locking lugs, and oil on everything else. Some people use grease everywhere or oil everywhere, and that’s probably fine too.

    4. It’s excellent news – on the other hand, fixing limp-wristing is easy. It’s all the OTHER things that help you hit a target that are a challenge,

      1. Yes, I think it’s a good idea in general terms, although once you put a couple thousand down the pipe, it’s less relevant. Overall, you should find that a high quality gun runs smoother once you have put a fair number of rounds thru’ it.

      2. Both. The general rule is oil on rotating surfaces, oil on linear ones. And not too much. Overlubrication is very very common.

      1. Thanks, Igor!

      2. By now, everyone’s probably moved on, but what I meant to say was “Oil on rotating, grease on linear (like slides and camming surfaces)”

    5. Had a p226, liked it but the snap was a big problem. Hate to say this but you’ll be happier with a Glock or a Ruger.

  15. It’s fucking cold in the Northeast today.

    1. Yup. Felt like mid-September instead of mid-July. But that’s just weather, not climate.

      1. It’s only climate when it supports the alarmists’ theory

    2. Northeast of what? It’s 63 where I am, and that’s almost down to tolerable.

    3. Felt nice. No AC makes me happy.

    4. Yeah, 64 here in DC. Very nice

      1. So, no AC. DC?

        1. *,*

          *** gets coffee ***

        2. I salute you (presuming you are about to rock, that is).

          1. Who isn’t?

            1. If I had to guess, I would go with people who believe that rock’n’roll is either (1) noise pollution or (2) gonna die. But we all know it ain’t

              1. Hey hey, my my.

                1. You’ve got big balls to reference NY in AC/DC puns.

                  1. We’ve all got big balls.

                  2. Yeah, when I read that, I was thunderstruck

      2. yep it was awesome.

    5. 49 here in NE OH

      1. Where in NE OH was it 49??

        It’s only 40 minutes after your post and it’s 65 here in Mayfield Heights.

    6. It’s fucking cold in the Northeast today.

      In other words, it’s normal summer weather. It should not be fucking 90 degrees and 100% humidity every damn day.

      1. It’s beautiful in Jersey today. 80 degrees and sunny. I’m gonna sit by the pool this afternoon.

        1. 70s and dry here in NYC. Don’t worry, we’ll be back to 90s and humid by the weekend. Again.

  16. Ruling in (Canadian) Twitter harassment trial could have enormous fallout for free speech

    Indeed, Elliott’s chief sin appears to have been that he dared to disagree with the two young feminists and political activists.

    He and Guthrie, for instance, initially fell out over his refusal to endorse her plan to “sic the Internet” upon a young man in Northern Ontario who had invented a violent video game, where users could punch an image of a feminist video blogger named Anita Sarkeesian until the screen turned red.

    Guthrie Tweeted at the time that she wanted the inventor’s “hatred on the Internet to impact his real-life experience” and Tweeted to prospective employers to warn them off the young man and even sent the local newspaper in his town a link to the story about the game.

    Elliott disagreed with the tactic and Tweeted he thought the shaming “was every bit as vicious as the face-punch game”.

    1. Wow.

      First, Stephanie Guthrie can go fuck herself.

      Two, I can’t believe the court system is actually siding with thin-skinned asshole flakes like Guthrie. People like her can fling their verbal caca as they wish but the second they’re challenged, however innocuous, they take someone to court?

      Three, we’re fucked.

      1. Funny how you can take one look at Guthrie’s picture and predict with 100% accuracy what her politics are.

        There needs to be a categorization called “shitlib face.”

      2. Notice too how emotionally and physically weak these people are as well. When the Day of the Rope finally comes they’re going to end up huddling in the fetal position and hoping the tacticool police forces they have a love/hate relationship with possess enough testosterone to actually defend their dumb asses (see: Boston Marathon bombing).

        1. Day of the Rope?

          All it took was the “Day of the Nasty Tweets” to make em go fetal.

      3. Wait, are you allowed to say that without being dragged in front of a human rights tribunal at the ministry of free speech?

      4. They haven’t sided with her yet apparently. There’s hope, although how it even got this far is unbelievable.

      5. Remember, we are civilized, unlike those (shudder) Americans down south, so we understand freedom of speech is different from hate speech. It’s the Canadian way!
        And yes, he’s fucked. As are we all, come October.

    2. Based on the news article, which admittedly is a slender reed, it seems as though the Prosecution mailed it in. Still, the fact this case wa even brought is disturbing.

    3. Based on the news article, which admittedly is a slender reed, it seems as though the Prosecution mailed it in. Still, the fact this case wa even brought is disturbing.

    4. Yet Guthrie and Reilly didn’t behave as though they were remotely frightened or intimidated: They convened a meeting of friends to discuss how Elliott should be publicly shamed; they bombarded their followers with furious tweets and retweets about him (including a grotesque suggestion from someone pretending she was a 13-year-old that he was a pedophile); they could and did dish it out.

      That’s really close to libel. If anyone has a case, it’s Elliott.

    5. Okay, if I’ve got this right it’s SJWs attacking one another, yes?

      Elliot, Guthrie and Reilly merely disagreed over how to attack a non-SJW and two ganged up on one?

      Who cares then?

      1. Because this decision has now weaponized the “My feelings are hurt” defense so that you and me can be put in the crosshairs if we diss any Canadian SJWs. Or simply fail to agree with them apparently.

  17. Judge Alex Kozinski, after taking a break from shaming Kamala Harris into not prosecuting innocent people, publishes an article at the Volokh Conspiracy:

    Although we pretend otherwise, much of what we do in the law is guesswork. For example, we like to boast that our criminal justice system is heavily tilted in favor of criminal defendants because we’d rather that ten guilty men go free than an innocent man be convicted. There is reason to doubt it, because very few criminal defendants actually go free after trial.

    In fact, much of the so-called wisdom that has been handed down to us about the workings of the legal system, and the criminal process in particular, has been undermined by experience, legal scholarship and common sense. Here are just a few examples:

    He goes on to debunk 12 deeply held myths about our justice system. All will be familiar to Reasonoids, but it’s still a good article.

    1. His unibrow is epic.

      1. I kept trying to pluck his eyebrow.

    2. It is a sorry statement on the country thta Kozinski is not on the Supreme Court. Further, in a just world, Scalia would read that article and go shoot himself out of shame and guilt.

      1. He and Janice Rogers Brown should both be on it.

        1. Don’t forget Justice Willett! We could almost revive Lochner with that roster.

          1. I don’t really care to clerk for a judge because I have no interest in litigation, but I’d clerk for Justice Willett.

            The man just gets it

    3. And the Daubert standard is one of the least appreciated miscarriages of justice in the legal system. The Daubert case involved a bullshit personal injury suit against a tire company for defective manufacture. The Court adopted a “oh the plaintiffs should have a shot to put forth their “expert” theory to the judge and jury” standard that ended up being applied to criminal cases. So in the name of helping plaintiffs rip off corporations for their mishaps, we handed prosecutors the ability to send people to death row based on utter bullshit “scientific” evidence.

  18. Hurrah!

    The Senate inquiry I’ll be chairing ? to give it its full name, “into measures introduced to restrict personal choice ‘for the individual’s own good’ ” ? is not just concerned with e-cigarettes or tobacco.

    I want to engage in a serious and thoughtful examination of lockout laws and other restrictions on the service of alcohol, the cost of prosecuting recreational cannabis users, the effect mandatory helmet law has on cycling and the often demented arguments surrounding video game classification.

    1. Excellent. Odds of positive results?

    2. I notice a glaring omission of the FDA

  19. Boyfriend stabbed lover with a fork, covered her in hot sauce and tried to bake her in the OVEN because she didn’t visit him at work

    Castellanos allegedly poured ranch dressing and hot sauce on the woman and tried to wrestle her into the oven, forcing her legs inside.

    But he then changed his mind and decided instead to boil water so he could try to scald her with it.

    Castellanos also stamped on the woman’s dog and tried to kick it as it cowered beneath a table, authorities said.

    The woman was eventually able to escape her attacker by ducking into the bathroom, locking the door and calling 911 from a hidden cellphone.

    1. You know who else put people in ovens?

        1. Damn you…

      1. Hansel and Gretel?

      2. At the risk of derailing this, are “buns” considered “people”?

      3. Climate change deniers, amirite?

      4. The muffin man, who lives on Drury Lane?

    2. Hot sauce? Shouldn’t he have used a dry rub first?

  20. “Caitlyn Jenner received the Arthur Ashe Courage Award at last night’s ESPY Awards.”

    Playboy next?

    1. I saw a report that said she claims to have fallen in love with another woman who is also transsexual.

      Isn’t that courageous?

      1. So that old joke is true!?!!??!

        “I’m a lesbian trapped in a man’s body.”

      2. Isn’t that courageous?

        Did you mean “contagious”?

  21. As Jade Helm 15 Military Exercise Begins, Texans Keep Watch ‘Just in Case’

    On the orders of Gov. Greg Abbott, the Texas State Guard will monitor Jade Helm 15 from Camp Mabry in Austin, the state capital. So will at least one national group of unofficial monitors and protesters that calls itself Counter Jade Helm. It plans to have teams of volunteers follow Army vehicles and post their locations on its website.

    Dr. Campbell and others said much of the paranoia over Jade Helm 15 was the outgrowth of the anti-Obama sentiment that is widespread in Texas. Residents supported the governor’s decision to have the state monitor the military’s activities. “I think there’s an overall distrust of the government now,” Dr. Campbell said. “If we had a government that we felt had our backs, I don’t think anybody would give it the time of day.”

    Training exercises off base involving role-playing are not new. But the size and scope of Jade Helm 15 make it unusual.

    1. OBAMA IS COMIN’ TO GIT OUR GUNS!

      1. If there wasn’t vocal pushback, is there any doubt he would?

        Get real pal.

    2. I think I need to retire in West Texas. They seem like my people. I love the sign by that guy’s door.

  22. Police searching for cobra in Texas teen’s death

    Authorities are looking for a monocled cobra in connection to the death of a Temple man this week.

    Austin Police said in a release Wednesday that they believe Grant Thompson, 18, owned a monocled cobra, but they have not been able to locate it.

    Thompson was found unresponsive Tuesday night in his vehicle in a Lowe’s parking in Austin. He was transported to St. David’s Round Rock Medical Center where he later died.

    1. Fucking 1%er cobra. Probably had a top hat, too

      1. And an army of orphans to polish his monocle and work his mines…

  23. “Caitlyn Jenner received the Arthur Ashe Courage Award at last night’s ESPY Awards.”

    More like ESPN gave itself an award for being tolerant.

    She was already in the public eye. I’m not sure being who you are is necessarily courageous.

    Sure, she’s part of a group that has been historically discriminated against, but then so are a lot of minorities. What are they doing to do–start giving people courageousness awards for being a minority?

    Somewhere out there is a veteran who competed at something despite some horrific injuries and trauma.

    1. Yeah, that was just ESPN patting itself on the back for how open-minded they are.

    2. She fucked Kris Jenner. Courageous enough?

    3. Yeah, it took no courage for Jenner to do that, it’s not like the result didn’t include quite a bit of mockery. Of course in the not too distant past Jenner would have been locked up in an asylum or prison for following her path. So, nothing to see here, it’s just like giving an award to someone for being Irish.

      1. Jenner is far from the first person to undergo that transition or to suffer ridicule for doing so. The fact that it was done as publicly as it was just reinforces most people’s perception that the whole Kardasian family is just about getting attention. If Bruce wants to become Caitlyn, that’s her choice. I honestly could not care less.

        1. He is a circus freak making money from a reality show. Good for him. It is a free country. But it is ridiculous to call him courageous and give him an award named for courage named after a guy who fought segregation and is usually reserved for people fighting terminal diseases.

          Speaking of reality shows, some day TLC will find that 600 pound woman with 19 children who is married to a transsexual midget and will after broadcasting six seasons of the resulting reality show stop broadcasting because it will no longer have anywhere to go.

          1. There’s a lot of John’s out there calling him a circus freak for what he did, but what he did was, of course, not courageous.

            1. It is not courageous to be a circus freak, especially when being so involves publicity and a big pay check. You only think it is courageous because you are an idiot who thinks anyone you like should be able to demand everyone’s acceptance.

            2. Personally, I take greater umbrage with John’s assertion that it is a free country. That is patently false.

            3. That said, having people question your decisions on the Twitter while demanding constant media attention and reaping big pay checks fall well short of my criteria for “courageous.”

      2. “So, nothing to see here, it’s just like giving an award to someone for being Irish.”

        That isn’t what I said.

        I said it was ESPN giving itself an award for being tolerant.

        1. Or they were recognizing everything I said in my original reply to you.

          1. Recognizing that he’s Irish?

            Recognizing that he’s been mocked?

            Who’s publicly mocking Jenner, by the way?

            Seems to me that the world has been pretty damn supportive.

      3. Leave it to you to only reach a correct conclusion with passable logic when trying to be sarcastic.

      4. Do you not get that this–

        “Of course in the not too distant past Jenner would have been locked up in an asylum or prison for following her path”

        is the crux of why this is being questioned?

        “In the Past”. Past. Jenner did this AFTER the pioneers did it. AFTER the danger was out of it.

    4. She/he has been part of that “historically discriminated against” group for about five minutes. His entire life before that was as a gold-medal winning (literally!) white guy in the Bel-air country-club set. How much fucking bravery does that take?

    5. I had heard on the local radio (ESPN affiliate) yesterday afternoon that Jenner’s people had demanded the award as condition of giving ABC the interview a few weeks back.

    6. Actually, the rumor is that Jenner cut a deal with Disney (which owns both ABC and ESPN) that he’d give the interview with Diane Sawyer if he received the Arthur Ashe award post-transition at the ESPYs. ESPN of course is a massive SJW social signaling network at this point so they were all on board with it, but if the rumor is true the award was basically a form of payola.

      1. That rumor is entirely plausible. ESPN is now a playground of the Social Justice Warriors. I don’t think they needed much prodding to accept his demand. I also don’t think they did it on their own, especially when it involved dissing the woman basketball player who died of cancer.

        1. No, they probably did not need much prodding, but if it is true they took a huge crap on their award’s credibility.

          But then again, they were part of people who told LeBron James that “The Decision” was a great idea and then spent the next few years petulantly whining that that got him hated.

      2. Once again reinforcing that anything the Kardashian clan does is more for the attention than anything else

      3. Who the fuck watches the ESPY’s?

        And ESPN has a little too much moralizing for my taste.

        1. One of my roomates, from what little I saw it is an entire show of saccharine Olympic coverage human interest type stories with nominal ties to sports.

    7. Sure, she’s part of a group that has been historically discriminated against

      Since when have the perpetraters of fraud been historically discriminated against? This is all bullshit.

  24. So a co-worker and I were discussing this El Chapo escape. I am of the opinion that he should not be brought back to prison. He should be pushing up daisies. Some people really are too dangerous to be allowed to live because they have proven, time and again, that they will massacre anyone who stands in their way. There is no prison in the world he can go where he will not be able to blackmail or threaten personnel at the prison to help him escape. He will only escape and murder more people.

    This is also the problem with Batman and other superheroes that prefer to keep super villains alive to “face justice.” They get out and cause more violence and destruction.

    Now I understand that whoever is found to have killed him will likely get to watch his/her whole family being slaughtered in retaliation. That’s why whoever kills him should anonymously inform the police of where to find the body of El Chapo and whoever is escorting him.

    1. There was a Superman episode where he snapped and started lobotomizing all the super-villains. It made perfect sense – then they had to make him become a fascist dictator in a parallel universe.

      1. Red Son is the name of the graphic novel and animated comic. It’s a very good read.

        But he didn’t just go after super-villains. He went after average criminals and political opponents with lobotomies.

        1. That was when I lost interest. It was obvious the writers couldn’t just let him solve the problem of supervillians without creating a worse problem.

          1. He was put in charge, though. He saw problems and decided on solutions without knowing all of the issues surrounding it. He required complete cooperation, which was why nearly all the world fell to his ways with the US eventually being the only hold out. Lex Luthor, while still being a jerk and a murder, was the hero in the story. He stopped the most powerful being in the world with just 1 sentence.

            1. Lex Luthor, while still being a jerk and a murder, was the hero in the story. He stopped the most powerful being in the world with just 1 sentence.

              Millennials.txt.

              “This man’s simple response to a murderous dictator will restore your faith in humanity!!”

          2. And for some reason they felt the need to slander Milton Friedman .

            By 2001 Lex ran for, and won, the American presidency, with Jimmy Olsen as his running-mate. He succeeded a President Friedman, whose misrule resulted in food riots and tanks on New York’s First Avenue. Using his scientific expertise, massive economic capital and dictatorial powers, he returns prosperity to his country, overcoming the secession that had sundered the United States fifteen years beforehand.

            Progressive utopia.

            1. They must have been referring to Thomas Friedman. *snicker*

        2. No, Red Son was where he fell to earth in Stalinist Russia and became a Soviet Superman. You’re thinking of something else.

          1. But he did lobotomize people and became a fascist dictator. Perhaps there are more stories about Superman doing that.

            1. That’s Injustice, right?

              1. No, but it is a precursor,

        3. Wasn’t that the Mark Millar run on the character? I thought that was about Russian Superman or something

          1. Alternate universe that where Kal lands in Russia instead of Kansas plus a twist about his origins at the end.

            1. That’s what I thought. I haven’t gotten around to reading it. Is it worth checking out?

              Millar tends to be either a pretty inconsistent writer who relies a little too heavily on cynicism and shock value. It worked in Ultimates, and Ultimate X-Men had some great moments. But then you get crap like Civil War (which was, IMO, actually a good idea terribly executed).

        4. You’re wrong Matrix.

          Red Son was a horrible read.

          Bad story-telling, plot holes, gimmick-filled ending, infantile understanding of the Cold War and politics and economics etc.

          This is the comic where Lex Luthor is able to balance the budget because he came up with a mathematical formula. Apparently maths can stop people from voting for pork.

      2. Considering most superhero’s morals, it makes sense that they’d become fascists if they let themselves do more than disaster relief and turning criminals over to cops. Remember most nights of the week Batman is beating up drug dealers not the Joker.

        1. Or going after rock music.

        2. That was a major theme in Watchmen

    2. “This is also the problem with Batman and other superheroes that prefer to keep super villains alive to “face justice.” They get out and cause more violence and destruction.”

      One of the problems with comparing the El Chapo situation to how Batman treats the Rogues Gallery is that El Chapo is real and Batman only exists in the world of make believe.

      Having made that distinction, it’s also important to remember that the Suicide Squad has been around since forever. Thank God for that, too, because Batman’s super villains are way more interesting than Batman. Smart of them to make the next Batman movie, basically, sans Batman.

    3. Erm, the original Bat-Man was a vigilante and had no mercy.

      I want that Bat-Man back.

      1. The readership with pays DC for a half dozen titles a month (plus merc) doesn’t.

        Their dollars speak louder than your words (even if DC will ignore their actual words because DC is run by a Moron)

        1. Yeah, but that gave us Harley Quinn, too, and she’s the coolest thing that could have happened in that universe.

      2. The problem with Batman is that when he’s shown dropping a guy from a roof to break his ankle’s it’s always assumed and depicted as the guy being dropped is 100% guilty and deserving of it. They should do a few issues where he thinks he has the right scumbag but he really just crippled an innocent guy.

    4. That is the start of the rift between Batman and Superman in the “Injustice” series after the Joker commits an atrocity against Metropolis and Lois Lane.

      It gets worse from there as Superman decides “never again”.

      1. Having watched the trailer for BM vs SM yesterday, it looks like they’re reversing that.

        I also suspect that BM is being egged on/secretly aided by Lex Luthor.

    5. I am of the opinion that he should not be brought back to prison. He should be pushing up daisies.

      Yes, after all, he ran an organization that supplied people with something they wanted to buy, through a black market created by the folks who wanted him jailed.

      Makes sense to me.

      1. I don’t care about the drugs aspect. It’s the killing a lot of innocent people that I have a problem with. Fuck the guy. He should not be breathing anymore.

        1. Black markets are like that. Thank your overlords.

  25. Who’s to Blame for America’s Met Coal Bust? For One, the Aussies

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..he-aussies

    Strong US Dollar, Aussies destroy US metallurgical coal biz.

    1. Yes, the collapse of demand in China making the cost of raw materials go down is such a terrible problem.

      If only we could somehow destroy the value of the dollar as well, then maybe everything would be okay.

      1. According to the chart in the article Chinese demand is still higher than in any year 2002-2012.

        1. From your own article:

          “As with other commodities, China has played a huge role in met coal’s recent boom and bust. After several years of explosive growth, China cut imports of met coal in 2013 and again this year, by 34 percent through May, according to The Steel Index.”

          Demand for coal in China has been dropping. Australia’s economy is largely devoted to raw materials and especially mining–and that is why the value of Australia’s currency has been dropping. People trade into it so they can buy raw materials. When the demand for those raw materials goes down, so does the demand for Australia’s currency.

          In your own link–read the chart entitled, “The booming [Chinese] economy couldn’t get enough of the steel making ingredient–until recently”

          Your understanding of basic economics is so deplorable, you can’t even understand what you read. And what you’re reading is written at an 8th grade reading level.

          Meanwhile, you don’t seem to understand what low raw materials prices means for the U.S. economy.

          Listening to you talk about how the economy works is like listening to a creationist talk about evolution. Go read a book about economic for dummies sometime, and stop embarrassing yourself and the rest of us with your ignorance.

          1. Seconded, Ken.

          2. You’re full of shit. Walter and Alpha bought while Chinese demand was lower than it is this year.

            The USD is blamed for 20% of the demand drop.

            For one, the U.S. dollar has surged against the Australian dollar since last summer, meaning that, while greenback-denominated met coal prices have plunged, the pain hasn’t been nearly as bad for Aussie producers who have lower mining costs.

            That’s sent U.S. exports way down — 20 percent as of May, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Meantime, Australian producers are shipping even more met coal this year than last.

            Hey, that is the market at work, pal. We have an awesome currency.

            Let’s check gold today??

            Down again! Five year lows!

            1. I take it back.

              Listening to you talk about how the economy works is far worse than listening to a creationist talk about evolution.

              You don’t understand what’s written at your own link. You don’t understand what I wrote. And you don’t understand why your last comment is a ridiculous response to what I wrote.

              You’re an ignoramus.

              Go pick up an introductory economics book somewhere and read it.

              Just because you have no idea what you’re talking about doesn’t mean other people don’t know what they’re talking about. Stop humiliating yourself already!

              1. Yet Aussie exports are at an all-time high, you moron. Obviously you blaming plunging demand in China was dead wrong.

                You lost when you resorted to ad hominem attacks.

                Admit it – you don’t know what you are talking about.

              2. It won’t work Ken…years of people heaping 8% more proof of its own idiocy on it haven’t helped. Ignore it, eventually it will go away.

              3. You don’t understand what’s written at your own link. You don’t understand what I wrote. And you don’t understand why your last comment is a ridiculous response to what I wrote.

                IT’S NOT SENTIENT!

                What will it take for you guys to notice the obvious?!?

                Why do you guys keep arguing with it?!? Do you argue with a cockroach?

                1. He may not be sentient, but he’s also a special kind of stupid.

                  It’s a kind of stupid that knows just enough to get it completely wrong.

                  I thought it was being willfully obtuse, but really it doesn’t understand what it reads.

                  I suppose that just goes to show that it really isn’t sentient.

                  It has no real comprehension of what it reads or what it’s saying.

          3. He only reads 8% of the articles he posts.

  26. British Open update: Tiger Woods is tied with 65 year old Tom Watson at +4 on easy St. Andrews course.

    Rookie sensation Jordan Spieth two shots off the lead at -5.

    Tiger Woods, a 5 year slow-motion train wreck.

    1. He is playing with Jason Dufner who is recently divorced. Some tabloid said Tiger was banging Amanda Dufner and Lindsay Vonn caught them – who broke up with Tiger about the same time.

    2. Also, it’s the middle of the afternoon in the middle of July and it’s freaking freezing there, even by U.K. standards. Many of the players are wearing heavy sweatshirts, and a few of the commentators have said “it feels like winter”.

      How’s that global warming working out for everyone again?

        1. Umm, look at the fucking players Weigel, you scumbag.

        2. Also, you’re a fucking liar as always. 14C = 57F.

      1. WEATHER!! NOT CLIMATE!!! BURN THE DENIER!!! JAIL HIM THEN BURN HIM!!!

      2. It is Scotland, the wearher is always the primary hazard at the British Open.

        1. “Naturally.”

          “And you are aware that you may. . . anticipate. . . ice storms as late in the year as August?”

          “The Royal Qwghlm Meteorological Station’s reports, as a body of work, don’t leave a heck of a lot to the imagination.”

          1. Sure, but Qwghlmians regard Scotland as basically a tropical paradise, and would probably vacation there if they’d ever forgiven the Scots for the bear incident.

      3. But July 1st was THE HOTTEST DAY IN JULY IN RECORDED HISTORY! UK MELTED!

  27. Is kale making people sick?: The dark side of everyone’s favorite superfood

    A California-based researcher has been detecting unusually high levels of heavy metals in the leafy green

    A restaurant I ate at last year served frozen kale as a garnish on ice-cream. So it fucks up dessert too

    1. “Sometimes even the possibility of Lyme Disease.”

      I stopped right there.

    2. There’s no such thing as a ‘superfood’.

      1. You missed the Kryptonian Carrot Mini-series, didn’t you?

    3. and there’s arsenic in rice. all we need is broccoli and cauliflower to test for e.coli and the children of this country can rejoice!

    4. Kale is a garnish.

      It’s there to show you what you would have to eat if your ancwstors hadn’t been smart enough to start chewing on carrion.

  28. Wipe the Confederacy out now: Southern haters have a sick new lie designed to hold onto Confederate flags, memorials

    The exploitation and oppression of blacks, Native Americans, women and successive waves of persecuted immigrants were every bit as foundational to establishing the United States as the lofty rhetoric of our forefathers, or the clever strategies of military and political leaders, or the valor of those who took up arms. By focusing on the role of the “great men” who perpetrated or perpetuated these atrocities while overlooking the crimes themselves?this is indeed whitewashing history. We should not complain about “cultural cleansing” while remaining silent about ethnic cleansing.

    Retain monuments to Confederates, slaveholders and segregationists?provided they are prominently identified as such on site, exploring the wide gap between their espoused ideals and their actions. Reappropriate landmarks celebrating the Confederacy: present them as cautionary tales about the horrors of viewing others as subhuman; memorialize victims of these ideologies rather than their oppressors.

    1. Only if we modify Union memorials to note that they fought to destroy States’ Rights and Federalism.

      1. Organized bus tours following the path of Sherman’s March through Georgia and the Carolina’s.

          1. Yes, and you can make your own Sherman Bowties!

      2. And do the same for the Confederate memorials, right? Neither side liked states’ rights or federalism.

      3. And do the same for the Confederate memorials, right? Neither side liked states’ rights or federalism.

        1. ^^ This.

          As much as people complain that the Civil War was really about States Rights, the Confederacy was a horrible example. The passed all sorts of national laws that subordinated people’s freedom and their property rights. Strangely, almost every one of these laws was solely dedicated to keeping the slave owners comfortable.

      4. Only if we modify Union memorials to note that they fought to destroy States’ Rights and Federalism

        As long as we make it plain that the ‘state’s rights’ they were fighting for were the ‘rights’ that let them use humans as farm animals.

    2. I actually broadly agree. Keep the monuments and talk about what they mean to American history.

      I’m waiting for Bo to show up and explain to me that Salon is now pro-slavery monument for arguing we should keep them.

      1. Jesus, now it is EVERY DAY that the left is calling for silencing free speech. Wonder what it is about that freedom of expression that the left hates so much.

        I’ll be waiting for a TARD from the 80s to tell me how the right is against flag-burning. Yeah, that is equivalent.

        1. It’s not about ‘free speech’ when you’re talking about who should be memorialized on public lands. If the left starts calling for confederate homages on private property to be removed I’m with you, but on public property that’s different.

          1. Why not just erase all history that we find even MARGINALLY objectionable?

            I also like how you have jumped in line with acceptable prog-think, Bo-rg. You had no problem with your state flying that flag until it became a thought crime. Now you have embraced the warm glow of double-plusgoodthink…

            1. We’re not talking about ‘erasing history.’ Should a historical marker noting a Civil War battle not be on the side of the road or at the park? No. What’s being objected to are homages to the Confederacy placed on public lands and/or maintained by the public.

              1. What’s being objected to are homages to the Confederacy placed on public lands and/or maintained by the public.

                Which are mainly emotion-driven arguments. There are plenty of places in the world that memorialize and celebrate slave-holding societies. All the leftist twats blooing about this are the same folks that were chimping out when ISIS destroyed the remnants of civilizations that were notorious for carting the people they conquered into slavery, and take pictures of themselves next to the Flavian Amphitheatre on their trips to Rome.

                Fuck them and their arguments.

                1. There might be a difference between monuments of people who served a nation that existed for centuries and practiced, among other things, slavery, and one existed briefly and was formed primarily in the defense of slavery.

                  1. There might be a difference between monuments of people who served a nation that existed for centuries and practiced, among other things, slavery, and one existed briefly and was formed primarily in the defense of slavery

                    That’s what’s known as a “distinction without a difference,” so no, your (historically illiterate) argument doesn’t apply. When they celebrate the destruction of historical monuments dedicated to other slave-holding societies I’ll at least give them credit for consistency, even if it is intellectually retarded. As it is, they’re both hypocrites AND retards.

            2. Why not just erase all history that we find even MARGINALLY objectionable?

              1984 is an instruction manual for these people.

              1. That’s ridiculous. I don’t know anyone who opposes public land homages to the Confederacy who would oppose, say, a statue of Lee that depicted him approving of his army ‘confiscating’ blacks back into slavery. They’re not for erasing history, most would welcome more monuments to the tyranny and oppression that was the Confederacy. They just oppose monuments paying homage to the Confederacy.

        2. Isn’t he just saying we should keep the monuments and talk about the bad aspects of the Confederacy? How is that silencing free speech?

          It is hilarious that the guy’s name is Musa al-Gharbi and he is apparently a Muslim. The reason I bring this up is because I could just as easily say every Koran should start with an explication of all of Mohammad’s many crimes and sins, since, after all, we should ‘prominently identify’ Mohammad as the slaving, murderous rapist he was.

          There’s an awfully big log in this guy’s eye when he’s pecking at sawdust in someone else’s. Plus, he wrote an article about how cartel’s are worse than ISIS (debatable – ISIS probably kills more people annually than the cartels, they’ve just been around less long) and concluded Western concerns about ISIS are based on Islamophobia. So we desperately need to talk about slave owners 150 years ago, but don’t you dare talk shit about ISIS, Islamophobe!

      2. Irish seems to think these monuments are just historical markers on the side of the road rather than what they are: loving homages to the Confederate figures and the cause they fought for. He’s got no problem with that continuing homage being carried out.

        1. “Loving” homages, or FUCKING HISTORICAL MARKERS? Jesus H Christ, you just want to get rid of history. You know what, I have an idea: Let’s pretend like the people who violently opposed the civil rights movement were NOT the ones who actually raised that flag over the state capital (and changed the flag to a confederate batttle flag in other states) and lets pretend that all those evil fucks that opposed the civil rights act are not the shrillest screaming about the flag now. Let’s pretend like all those evil fucks just “switched sides” and became Republicans.

          Oh, wait. That’s what you already do/

          1. Bo’s a moron who doesn’t understand context. The fact that statues were initially put up to honor these people doesn’t mean we have to accept that interpretation ourselves. We can say “those were put up by people who liked the Confederacy, I don’t like the Confederacy, but as an adult, I am capable of understanding that I don’t need to adopt the position of the people who put up this statue and can appreciate it as a historical marker.”

            Bo also still hasn’t given me his position on John Calvin statues in Geneva (who was a murderous fundamentalist) or the Oliver Cromwell statue outside Westminster (who basically committed anti-Irish genocide and formed a military dictatorship).

            There’s a Genghis Khan statue in Mongolia which makes him look larger than life and awesome. He was a mass murdering rapist. For some reason Bo hasn’t advocated its demolition. He seems awfully selective in his spluttering, mindless outrage.

            1. And don’t even get me started on the Vlad the Impaler statue in Bucharest! Surely that’s Islamophobic given his treatment of Ottoman soldiers.

              1. What about all the Mao, Stalin and Lenin statues around the world? Are those good because they were just a little over-zealous in their left-wing lunacy?

                1. No. But if for example Russia had decided to leave them up as a way of getting the remaining communists to accept the new government, I would not demand that they tear them down.

                  1. John, is your opinion of us Southerners so low that you think removing these statutes NOW will result in us organizing secession conventions?

                2. “What about all the Mao, Stalin and Lenin statues around the world?”

                  In the former Soviet nations those are rightfully being pulled down all the time. Those silly SJW’s over there don’t want to keep paying homage to the murderous tyrants that oppressed their people, silly SJWs! Why are they erasing history?

                  1. Awesome, so what are we going to do about all the statues and monuments of those asshole slave owners Washington and Jefferson?

                    1. I’ve covered this here Restoras, you could at least read before tossing this nonsense out.

                    2. I don’t see anywhere on this thread where you have discussed Washington and Jefferson statues and how statues of men who owned slaves is ok, whereas statues of men who fought for slavery is not ok.

                    3. Read the part about the Founding and the part about Churchill and abstract a little. Sheesh.

                    4. I did read that part. It still doesn’t square. You’re ok with statues of actual slave owners because they did some good things too…but you’re not ok with statues of people that fought for the right to own slaves because they were all bad? It doesn’t make a lot of sense, especially since you said on other threads that slavery is the worst thing in the world, and also that Jefferson and the other slave owning founders do not warrant lionization because they owned slaves.

                    5. A monument to Thomas Jefferson is probably a monument to his writing the Declaration of Independence, etc. A monument to Jefferson Davis is clearly a monument to his service in the Confederacy. Here’s how you know: if Davis had played no role in the Civil War would his monument be there? No. If Jefferson had not owned slaved would his monument be there? Of course.

                  2. You still haven’t explained to me what you plan on doing with the Remembrance Wall in Geneva which depicts John Calvin. Do you want to destroy it with dynamite, or would bulldozers suffice?

                    1. Apparently, John Calvin is ok because he did some good things too.

                3. A lot of those Lenin statues were actually subtle fuck-yous from the artist to the State. I saw one in a small town over there where Mr. Ulyanov is pointing off as if toward a bright future on the horizon, but if you look in that direction he’s actually pointing at the local jail.

              2. What about Churchill? Most consider him a hero of WWII but his position on the India question was awful, not to mention the rest of the ME.

                We’d need to travel the world destroying nearly every monument, building, or work of art if we used Bo’s concept of evil symbolism.

                Let’s fire-bomb the Sistine Chapel because Catholic popes committed genocide in South America.

                Bo, you are a child with a child-like level of understanding.

                1. “What about Churchill? Most consider him a hero of WWII but his position on the India question was awful, not to mention the rest of the ME.”

                  More mental gymnastics. Churchill was a guy who did bad and good things. The Confederacy was formed and lived briefly for one cause: slavery.

                  1. And no Confederate soldier every acted bravely?

                    Lee was just a fucking asshole?

                  2. “More mental gymnastics. Churchill was a guy who did bad and good things. The Confederacy was formed and lived briefly for one cause: slavery.”

                    And Robert E. Lee was not a man who did good and bad things? Lee was instrumental in reconciling the North with the South, which seems like a pretty good thing to me, since it helped stop a potential guerrilla war from developing.

                    You’re the one engaged in mental gymnastics because you’re desperately trying to explain how statues of bad people outside the Confederacy are somehow okay. You seem to think that because the Confederate cause was a bad one, not a single person involved could have been a good person in other aspects of their lives.

                    So you’re stupid and don’t know history and are engaging in ludicrous attempts to justify your prejudices. That’s all.

                    1. I think when a person’s primary claim to fame was their service to an inherently evil cause then they lose the right to have homage paid to them for other tertiary things they did that might be good. According to you, it’d be OK to have a Mussolini statue in Italy because he did some good things too. But there are no Mussolini statues on public property in Italy, not ones paying homage to him that’s for sure, because the people there understand that Mussolini’s fascism in Italy was a bad thing, and they understand that is that despite Mussolini making trains run on time (or whatever).

                    2. “But there are no Mussolini statues on public property in Italy, not ones paying homage to him that’s for sure”

                      There’s a Calvin statue in Geneva. A Cromwell statue in Britain. A Vlad the Impaler statue in Bucharest. A Genghis Khan statue in Mongolia. An Attila the Hun statue in Budapest. A Peron statue in Argentina.

                      And many more. Many, many more. And I wouldn’t throw a hissy fit if I saw the Cromwell statue on the grounds that he murdered my ancestors.

                    3. I’d certainly be for taking down a publicly maintained Vlad or Peron statute. Why continue to pay homage to such persons?

                      You remind me of a person I know that wears a Che t-shirt. He called attention to it one day and I told him ‘that guy was a ruthless murderer and supporter of tyranny.’ He said ‘I don’t care about the bad things he did, he did good things and that’s what I’m supporting with this shirt.’ If he just though really, really hard about only the good things, then that was the message of the shirt, see?

                      So, Irish, if your neighborhood were thinking about putting a Che statute up on public land and then maintaining it publicly, your vote would be yes, right? After all, even though the statue would depict him gloriously you’d just be reminded about how evil the guy was.

                    4. No answer here either Irish? Hmm.

                    5. Only Bo could be such an idiot that he makes me defend the Confederacy.

                    6. At least you acknowledge you’re defending the Confederacy. That’s a start.

            2. Bo is most certainly a moron. What those statues also are is a vital part of the national compromise that ended the civil war. The people of the South could have refused to accept the result of the war and continued the war through guerrilla tactics. Indeed, this is exactly what a lot of Southern leaders, including Jefferson Davis advocated. Had they done this, it would have been over the long run a worse disaster than the war itself. The country avoided this fate by allowing the south to honor its dead and consider their fight, if not their cause a noble one.

              Bo because he is both completely ignorant of the history involved and a hateful moron doesn’t understand that tearing those statues down is going back on a compromise that saved the country. We don’t want to refight the civil war. Let people have their statues and flags and “lost cause” myths. It is better they have that then taking up arms for a new cause.

              1. So according to John these are homages to the Confederacy and their cause, but the idea that they were put up to appease the die-hards to that cause who wanted to keep it going is reason for retaining them. Wow.

                1. Yes they are. And only simple minded idiots like you give a shit. Do yourself a favor and understand that not everything is perfect and people are going to wake up everyday and believe and honor things you don’t like. It is called tolerance. Stop deriving your entire identity from endlessly trying to bully and change people you find objectionable.

                  1. Yes John, we must tolerate hard core devotees to the cause of slavery, and by tolerance I mean erect monuments to their cause on public lands and maintain them with public funds! lol

                    1. Yes because the alternative is living in a world where any view that the mob decides is no longer accepted is run out of the public square.

                      Moreover, you can’t forget history. The fact is those people lived and are admired by a good number of people. If that fact bothers you, tearing down the statue isn’t going to make it go away. If you think it is wrong to honor these people, the answer is not to tear down the statue and give the people who do a legitimate grievance. The answer is to call them out as wrong.

                      I am totally unsympathetic to the Southern cause and think the lionization of it appalling. No one on this board argues as consistently and forcefully as I do for the evils of the Southern cause. Yes, the people who defend it are airbrushing history. The answer to that is to wipe off the airbrush not try and erase the history entirely.

            3. Irish the post-modernist is the funniest thing today!

              You see, Irish now concedes they’re not just some historical marker of a historic event. They were loving declarations of homage to what was seen as a grand and good cause, the cause of the Confederacy. These statements were set into stones (literally ‘monumentalized’) to be continuous statement of such, but that’s fine because when we look at them, despite the words chiseled on them fawning over the cause, despite the grandiouse depictions of the figures, we will all be thinking ‘those people served a rotten cause, and this is a reminder to that!’).

              The mental gymnastics of some ostensible libertarians to defend homages to slavery itself are a testament to, I suspect, the power of the worst forms of tribalism

              1. Bo, you do get that time passes and events take place, right?

                That what is considered true and valuable changes with human experience?

                Whatever the intent of those who built those monuments really only matters in historical context because a modern Southerner is applying a very different meaning, a meaning that contextualizes the full experience of ‘The South’ over the last 150 years. Grow the fuck up.

                1. Do you live in the South? If you did and you took the time to actually take a good look at these monuments you’d see that they are not just neutral markers, they are cast to depict the figure as very noble, and to pay homage to their service to the Confederacy. That’s why most depictions of Lee are not depictions of him doing awful things, but noble looking things; not depictions of him in historical capacities unrelated to his service in the Confederacy, but depictions of him in that capacity. Worse, most have inscriptions that leave no doubt what the monument is a monument too.

                  You and Irish seem to oppose even changing those inscriptions to acknowledge the less than noble historical aspects of their service because we are all going to walk around and despite the obvious message conveighed by the casting and inscriptions we’re all supposed to be thinking ‘ah, that noble looking fellow did some bad things, I’m thinking about that right now!’ It’s borderline ludicrous.

                  1. Bo doesn’t like some people in the South and their attitudes toward the Confederacy, therefore remove art.

                    1. Alas, I do think slavery is a bad thing and homages to it on public lands bad things, so I would remove art on public lands that does that. The horror.

                  2. Bo,

                    I have lived all over the South. And if you were anything but a partisan mindlessly repeating the cause de Jour, you would understand that taking those statues down is a senseless act of provocation and insult to people. The people who honor the lost cause myth are largely wrong about history. They are however large in number and the belief gives people an acceptable way to express regional pride and come to terms with history. Take that away from them and they will find other ways to do that that you won’t like very much.

                    Go ahead you ignorant totalitarian asshole and tell every white person who isn’t sufficiently guilty and ashamed of being Southern they have no place in society. See how that works out for you. You and people like you problem is you are so in love with stomping on the faces of your enemies and have been allowed to do it so long you have no idea that those enemies might stand up and stomp back.

                    A month ago no one gave a shit about this. And liberals like you were happy to embrace the Southern flag back when the South was voting Democrat. You only care now because you were told to care and because endlessly dividing people and stomping on those you don’t like is all you people know. It is all you have left. All you have to offer is social signalling and making war on whoever has been designated as the enemy today. You might want to pull your head out of your ass and realize what a fool’s errand that is.

                    1. I’m starting to think there is something to the Bo is a Tulpa sockpuppet hypothesis.

                      “I don’t like it ? it should be banned” is one of Tulpa’s primary axioms, right after “Authority must be fellated.”

                    2. When it’s pointed out that no one is talking about banning these displays but removing them from public lands and maintenance for the hundredth time that suggests some huge disingenousness from those who keep tossing that line out.

                      Let me give you an example: I think the SCOTUS got it wrong in the confederate license plate case.

                    3. You’re just being a post-modernist, John. It’s a word Bo heard once, but doesn’t quite understand and is desperately trying to shoehorn into arguments to de-legitimize reasonable evidence that he is wrong.

                    4. You’re basically saying “these people were and are wrong in what they’re monumentalizing, but we better appease them or they will turn to worse things.” Thanks for taking up for us Southerners John, with supporters like you, who needs enemies?

                  3. You and Irish seem to oppose even changing those inscriptions to acknowledge the less than noble historical aspects of their service

                    Yeah, I know, it’s not like there’s these things called “books” or “documentaries” or “battlefields” to educate us on the philosophical foundation of the Confederacy! If we don’t change those inscriptions no one will ever know how awful it was!

              2. “Irish the post-modernist is the funniest thing today!

                You see, Irish now concedes they’re not just some historical marker of a historic event. They were loving declarations of homage to what was seen as a grand and good cause, the cause of the Confederacy. These statements were set into stones (literally ‘monumentalized’) to be continuous statement of such, but that’s fine because when we look at them, despite the words chiseled on them fawning over the cause, despite the grandiouse depictions of the figures, we will all be thinking ‘those people served a rotten cause, and this is a reminder to that!’).”

                You’re so fucking stupid it hurts my head. You’re going to make many judges commit public suicide when you get into your career.

                What I said is provably true and I never denied they were homages to Confederate soldiers. What I denied is that the initial reason they were erected is of any relevance to how we view them today. In the same way we can read Merchant of Venice without accepting the defamatory vision of Jews, we can look at a statue and not accept the vision of the person who erected it.

                This is basic logic. If you’re too much of a child to look at a statue of a bad person without dissolving into an soggy mass of weeping impotence, that’s on you, Worst Arguing Attorney of All Time.

                1. The statue depicts the figure in full Confederate regalia and as glorious, the inscription says it’s a monument to his service in a noble cause, but it’s ok because when modern day Irish is passing by he’s going to be thinking, thinking *really hard*, ‘that guy was supporting something evil’, so that’s really what that statue is saying.

                  This is tear inducingly funny.

                  1. It’s funny because Irish reminds me of that famous post-modernist essay by Stanley Fish about how maybe Faulkner’s A Rose for Emily is really about repressed transgender Eskimo fantasies, because that’s what the reader might be thinking about when they happen to be reading it.

                    Your Merchant of Venice example is actually instructive. Of course one can say upon reading it ‘this is a great work despite the anti-Semitism in it’ but that’s not what you’re arguing, you’re arguing that somehow the work ceases to have anti-Semitism in it because when you read it you’re thinking something else.

                    Now let’s say someone cast a statue of Shylock. He cast it in a time and place where there was no doubt that it’s intent was to depict Shylock as a masterfully evil anti-Semitic stereotype. Big hook nose, leering bloodthirsty eyes, knife in hand leaning for the pound of flesh. The inscription also made it clear that the artist was hoping to invoke this nasty stereotype in viewers. Now let’s say they put this statue in a public park, a park that eventually is in a largely Jewish neighborhood. The people in the neighborhood want to tear it down.

                    Irish shows up and says ‘what is wrong with you weepy SJWs? Sure, this was intended to depict an awful thing, but when I or you today read Merchant of Venice today I get the sense of Shylock’s ultimate humanity peeking out from those admittedly stereotyped characteristics, so that’s really what this statue is about, let’s leave it up!’

                    1. “Irish shows up and says ‘what is wrong with you weepy SJWs? Sure, this was intended to depict an awful thing, but when I or you today read Merchant of Venice today I get the sense of Shylock’s ultimate humanity peeking out from those admittedly stereotyped characteristics, so that’s really what this statue is about, let’s leave it up!'”

                      Bo, your projection is astounding. You keep putting words in my mouth. This has nothing to do with SJWs – I don’t care about their position on this subject. Doesn’t matter to me at all and I have not mentioned them. You’re just too dumb to argue any subject on the merits (which should make you a wondrous attorney, BTW) so you attack me on something I never said.

                      I have said I support keeping Calvin statues and Lenin statues and Cromwell statues on historical grounds and SJWs are not attacking any of those statues. As a result, my argument is entirely unrelated to whatever is getting SJW nitwits’ panties all bunched up lately.

                      You’re actually the one who is basing this entirely on SJWs because you didn’t care about this subject at all until it became a subject that they were pushing. Suddenly the progs began arguing in favor of something, and immediately it became important to you, even though you never expressed any opinion on this before.

                      Doesn’t that make it sound like you’re the reflexive partisan, not me?

                    2. Sorry, your arguments are so absurd I do think it’s this reflexive ‘the SJW’s are all weepy about this, therefore I find fault.’

                      And I’ll note you still didn’t answer my direct question.

                    3. And you still haven’t answered my questions about Calvin and Genghis Khan and Vlad the Impaler. Blow ’em all up?

                      And if it were reflexive SJW hate, I would not simultaneously have no problem with all sorts of other historical statues of murderers. That proves you’re wrong, but you won’t admit it because you’re a gibbering moron.

                    4. You reeled off a list of statues and I answered referring to some of them. You’re really dodging my question for the fourth time now by saying ‘you haven’t answered my entire list!!!!’ Wow.

                      I’ll put the question to you again, fifth time the charm?

                  2. “The statue depicts the figure in full Confederate regalia and as glorious, the inscription says it’s a monument to his service in a noble cause, but it’s ok because when modern day Irish is passing by he’s going to be thinking, thinking *really hard*, ‘that guy was supporting something evil’, so that’s really what that statue is saying.”

                    There are great works of art that are outright, abjectly racist or offensive to someone. Since I am an adult and not a child, I can look at such things and comprehend that I am under no obligation to accept the artist’s opinion, particularly when we are hundreds of years removed from the event.

                    That’s not ‘tear inducingly funny,’ it’s a basic result of maturity.

                    I don’t understand your mental block on this subject. I’m beginning to think you are actually Tulpa (which would be a long con) or are completely autistic. Is there something wrong with your mind, Bo, because normal people don’t behave like you do.

                    1. You totally dodged my question.

                      I’m not opposed to such a Shylock statue if it was a great work of art in a museum. I’d think any museum worth it’s salt would talk about how the work embodies these stereotypes but that it’s a great work of art because of the form and such.

                      I asked you if you’d support that same statue in the public park maintained by public funds and if you’d oppose the people in the nearby Jewish neighborhood moving to have it removed. Can you answer?

                    2. I didn’t dodge your question because I was responding to a different post and didn’t see your question until just now. And re: question dodging you still haven’t explained to me how you feverishly want to blow up Genghis Khan statues because they might offend the Chinese, so you yourself seem to have some selectivity issues when it comes to your Righteous Outrage.

                      As to your question, the statues we’re talking about do not say “FUCK BLACK PEOPLE YAY SLAVERY.” Here’s the inscription on the Appamatox statue in Alexandria:

                      “The unarmed Confederate soldier standing in
                      the intersection of Washington and Prince
                      Streets marks the location where units from
                      Alexandria left to join the Confederate Army
                      on May 24, 1861. The soldier is facing the
                      battlefields to the South where his comrades
                      fell during the War Between the States. The
                      names of those Alexandrians who died in service
                      for the Confederacy are inscribed on the base
                      of the statue. The title of the sculpture is
                      “Appomattox” by M. Casper Buberl.”

                      It’s honoring war dead. Explain to me how this is offensive to anyone. The poor southerners who made up the Confederate Army (the vast majority of whom did not own slaves) were just as much victims of the war as anyone else. They were victimized by their own political class. Honoring them is not evil or offensive, no matter how much you may wish to pretend otherwise.

                      This is hardly the same as a hook nosed Jew.

                    3. You dodged the question for the third time. I will ask it again, and when you answer we can talk about whether the analogy to Confederate monuments is apt. Would you support the Shylock statue? Would you oppose the neighborhood moving to remove it?

                    4. I really wouldn’t care. Shylock statues are not like Civil War commemorations in that they do not have the same historical importance. I do think I’d tell the people that it’s just a reflection of a different time and shouldn’t be taken seriously, but I don’t think it’s as important. I’d probably oppose its destruction, though this is such a ridiculous instance which is so unlikely to occur that it’s absurd to compare it to a statue honoring some poor kid from Tennessee who got shot in the face by a sniper during a war he didn’t start.

                      I see you finally said you’d be okay destroying statues to Vlad the Impaler, which at least makes you consistent even if you’re a moron. Why should we destroy a statue to someone who lived 500 years ago? What harm is it causing? You seriously are such a child you think inanimate objects cause some sort of harm that does not exist.

                      Fuck your feelings Bo and fuck the feelings of everyone who is so emotional they can’t shrug off a statue they find offensive. It’s pathetic and you should stop pretending your ridiculous emotionalism is some sort of righteous moral cause.

                    5. That’s an interestingly ambivalent first paragraph. You seem to acknowledge that some statues and monuments can be problematic (but I think sensing some tension with principles you’ve already stated you’re being awful cautious about these mere inanimate objects), but you think that’s distinguishable from what we’re talking about. Regarding that, I do think that some monuments are less problematic than others. Honoring an unknown or common soldier because they were a big part of that communitie’s loss is one thing. I’m talking more about honoring the leaders and policymakers of the cause.

                      “Why should we destroy a statue to someone who lived 500 years ago?”

                      Why should we keep it up and maintain it? See, you’d like to pose this as ‘you’re a silly SJW because of your feelings about an inanimate object.’ But your side has feelings about these inanimate objects too, feeling so strong you think they are worthy of being displayed in perpetuity.

                      You remind me of this guy I know who had this wacked out radical free love cousin who made fun of him for wearing his wedding ring and the guy replied ‘what kind of guy cares about a piece of jewelry so much that he’d tell someone they should take it off.’ I think the cousin was pretty silly, but this was an equally silly answer to him, because it’s not like this guy didn’t care about the ring, if he didn’t care about it either he wouldn’t have worn it all the time so faithfully.

                    6. I don’t understand your mental block on this subject.

                      I think part of it, and maybe all of it, is people like Bo believe that inanimate objects like flags, guns, statues, etc. are capable of turning otherwise rational, logical people into some kind of raving lunatic. Since we don’t want any of that in a good, progressive society we have to get rid of those things as they are distractions from making a good, progressive society.

                    7. Please, Restoras. I’m not the one so in love with an inanimate object I want to install it on public property and use public funds to maintain it forever.

                    8. Then why so much outrage? Aren’t there much bigger problems and issues to face than this? It really just smacks of an SJW that’s had his/her sensibilities offended.

                    9. Again, why so much devotion? Aren’t their bigger problems and issues to face than this? It just really smacks of a neo-Confederate tribalist that wants his/her sensibilities to remain monumentalized.

                    10. I agree with you, I just don’t care to expend as much energy on it as the SJWs seem to.

          2. I was in Richmond, VA recently. Those statues on Monument Ave are just historical markers, not loving, grand homages to Confederate generals and their cause, sure! I mean, when you say things like this I have to wonder, have you never been South to see what we’re talking about, or are you being disengenuous?

            1. Because Bo doesn’t like the attitudes and beliefs of some we should destroy art.

              You truly are full on moron, Bo.

              1. Who said destroy it? Removed. Stop being disingenuous.

                1. Bo, really?

                  Remove art because it offends modern sensibilities?

                  You have no understanding of the purpose of art do you?

                  Orwell would bitch slap you.

                  1. I don’t think the public should have to pay for piss-Christ or for Monument Avenue.

                    And again, it’s a step removed from just offending sensibilities. These monuments were meant to monumentalize a cause that everyone at least says they now reject. Monuments are continuous statements, but even though everyone now says they disagree with the statement being made by these, we’re supposed to leave them up. Why should we do that? The reasons given here so far have been ludicrous (Irish’s is my favorite: ‘because even though those were concedely statements of support for that cause, when we today look at them we will be thinking something else, thinking it really hard!’).

                2. Also, What about the Sistine Chapel, Bo.

                  There’s no question the Church was involved in genocide, why not remove all their symbols?

                  Because most Europeans can contextualize history, Bo, unlike you.

                  1. Do you think the Sistine Chapel in its design is meant to or in any way conveys to a reasonable person looking at it the message ‘the Church engaging in genocide is a-OK?’

                    But you’d have to be silly not to look at the monuments and the inscriptions on them and not say ‘this was meant to endorse the cause of the Confederacy.’

                    1. But you’d have to be silly not to look at the monuments and the inscriptions on them and not say ‘this was meant to endorse the cause of the Confederacy.’

                      Who could look at the Sistine Chapel and not know it was created to memorialize the power of the church and all it’s activities?

                      You being intentionally obtuse.

                    2. Mrs Stuthers,

                      Give Bo time and opportunity and he will want that torn down too.

                    3. Bo is about 5 minutes away from full blown fascist.

                      “Everything in the public square must reflect the glorious sensibilities of the New Man.”

                      No, dipshit (Bo). Our history – all history – is incredibly messy. It is a brutal lesson in human fallibility and should be on constant display so we can reflex and adjust.

                    4. “It is a brutal lesson in human fallibility and should be on constant display so we can reflex and adjust.”

                      Again, we’re not talking historical markers by the side of the road, we’re talking about monuments to the glorious cause of the Confederacy.

                    5. But the Catholic Church has in its many centuries done many good things and some bad things. I don’t equate the Catholic Church with the Confederacy, do you?

                    6. I don’t equate the Catholic Church with the Confederacy, do you?

                      Well, your judgement is the only one that counts, right?

                      There maybe some Protestants, Muslims or native tribes who disagree.

                      You’re whole point that the Confederacy never did a good thing is an incredibly idiotic standard. Any number of people could make the same argument about any number of people/movements/tribes/religions. It is a matter of interpretation. Better not to attempt to erase history least we find ourselves on the wrong side of it.

                    7. I’m not saying it never did a good thing, I’m saying that, unlike the Catholic Church or the United States, it was primarily about defending slavery.

                    8. Well, you’ve convinced me. Since it was primarily instead of marginally about slavery.Your interpretation makes all the difference.

                      You’re engaging in an infantile morality play. Grow the fuck up.

                    9. When you’re deciding what a symbol is a symbol of, the difference between primary and marginal is kind of important.

                      As for growing up, I’d say that you might want to outgrow your fetish for monuments and tradition.

                    10. Do you think the Sistine Chapel in its design is meant to or in any way conveys to a reasonable person looking at it the message ‘the Church engaging in genocide is a-OK?’

                      I think you have actually hit on something here, Bo.

                      Most people who look at monuments to the Confederacy don’t look at it as “I think a nation comprised solely as a mechanism for prolonging slavery is a good thing”. Instead they have all sorts of rationalizations about what the Confederacy was doing (Lost Cause, States Rights, etc). They also see the Confederacy as a union of their ancestors who got absolutely trampled by an industrial neighbor that invaded their lands.

                      Do facts disagree with this view? Of course. Facts are Facts. And the fact is that the Church was a rather oppressive regime that held many people under a theocratic boot for hundreds of years. And yet people ignore those facts and look at the monuments to the Church, seeing something else.

                      Both modern interpretations are at odds with historical context, yet for some reason you think that people’s current imagining of the Confederacy is invalid while views of the Church- similarly ignorant of history- ought to get a pass.

                    11. I went to the Civil War Museum in Atlanta and this southern city (burned by Sherman) seemed absolutely capable of honoring their heritage while acknowledging the significant evils inherent in the Confederacy. They had monuments and portraits of Confederate figures, and they had plenty of explanation of how those people helped perpetuate an evil regime.

                      Why is it such a moral imperative that people all over the country tell people they will never meet how to view their history? This should be handled at a local level. If I were living in a town where this was an issue, I would side with those who wanted to keep the monument up. I am a huge history buff, and the value of such monuments is not only in who they portray, but the role the monument played in that region’s history. It is not just that Lee was significant, but that each monument was significant itself in helping a broken people heal. That process- vital and flawed as it was- is relevant to anyone who wants to understand our nation’s history.

                      I would also propose augmenting the site with additional information. I recently saw a compilation of old Looney Toons dvds. It was fronted by Whoopie Goldberg who basically said “You are about to see cartoons that show a lot of racist stuff. It was wrong then, and it is wrong today. But we are preserving them as a document of where we came from.” Why can’t localities do the same thing? They don’t need to erase or ignore history. They need to expand on it.

    3. “Most Confederate monuments were established after the Civil War?not during or before. ”

      And? So what?

      Isn’t that how it usually unfolds?

      1. How does one establish a monument “before” – WTF?!

        1. Exactly what I was thinking!!
          “Well, there MIGHT be a war and we PROBABLY won’t win, so I better get started on this monument to our defeat before the declaration of hostilities…”
          / toothless southern hillbilly

          This is how progs reason : “Most Confederate monuments were established after the Civil War?not during or before !!!!!!!!!”

          1. I think you’re being a bit obtuse. What they are getting at is that the monuments were established as part of the ‘Lost Cause’ revisionism trying to whitewash the Confederacy’s aims and goals.

            1. Yeah, those goals have really been whitewashed. Though not as well as your proggie buddies whitewashing their historical opposition to civil rights, equal protection under the law, eugenics for minorities and race-targeted abortion.

              Not as well as that has been whitewashed.

              Sorry for the obtuseness…

              1. I’m certainly a proponent of people learning more about such Progressive outrages that are swept under the rug.

            2. Then they should write better.

              And they’re always trying to ‘get’ at something else when called on their nonsense.

    4. “he exploitation and oppression of blacks, Native Americans, women and successive waves of persecuted immigrants were every bit as foundational to establishing the United States ”

      This is ridiculous and shows the mental gymnastics some people will go to in order to defend homages to slavery.

      The Founding was not principally about oppressing blacks, Native Americans, women, etc. They didn’t sit down and say ‘we really would like a nation that oppresses these groups, let’s start one!’ The Confederacy on the other hand was the result of a group saying ‘our institution of slavery is threatened, we need to secede to protect it.’

      1. It was memorializing a generation that was more than decimated by the war. It is possible to do that without glorifying slavery.

        The self-righteous black and white morality here is rather off-putting. This is from someone who thinks the Confedetate apologists are foolish to deny that the Southern governments seceded to protect slavery. The soldiets who fought the war were patriots defending their nation’s sovereignty.

        1. They were defending their nation’s sovereignty to practice slavery.

          People had choices back then. Thousands of Southerners refused to side with the Confederacy. A person who sides with their nation when it does something evil may be a patriot, but he’s also a scoundrel, and homage should not be paid to that.

          1. Thete wss also the sleight problem of the invading army so many were defending their homes. What motivated the soldier on the line is more complex then your simplistic formulation would have it.

    5. Reappropriate landmarks celebrating the Confederacy: present them as cautionary tales about the horrors of viewing others as subhuman; memorialize victims of these ideologies rather than their oppressors.

      Yes, and right next to that let’s do the same thing with monuments of Islam and pictures of Muhammed. *falls off chair laughing*

      1. ..,And Margaret Sanger.

  29. What the Planned Parenthood hoax really proves: Right-wing extremists have no qualms about destroying peoples’ lives
    Thanks to one deceptively edited video, the conservative movement is in full-on attack mode (again)

    It turns out, Nucatola wasn’t discussing the illegal black market sale of fetal organs, but instead the perfectly legal donation of the organs to biomedical research laboratories that use the organs to help save lives. The price range of the organs described by Nucatola is, in reality, the reimbursed expenses accrued in the delivery of the specimens. (Which makes sense: $30 to $100 is hilariously below the going rate for human organs.) Furthermore, the video was produced by an anti-choice pop-up outfit called the Center for Medical Progress, which not only claimed that this one video required three years of research, but which also has ties to known video fraudster James O’Keefe.

    Yet as rapidly as the video was resoundingly debunked as a fraud, it wasn’t fast enough to catch up with the zealous haste of the lies.

    1. Hoax? Do they actually believe what they spew, or are they willing to accept any lie for the team?

      1. Yeah, “hoax” isn’t really the word. “Misleading propaganda” is probably a better fit.

        1. What was misleading about it? Though I do agree that it had a propaganda purpose for the right. But not all propaganda is false. It may be true, but becomes propaganda when it is made well known.

    2. “They didn’t sell the organs, they gave them away- so it’s all good”

      1. They gave them away, but got reimbursed for expenses they didn’t incur.

        1. Yeah. They most likely did profit. The reimbursement – the cost of storing and shipping = profit.

          Also, she was explaining how the doctors altered their technique to make sure certain organs were harvested whole.

          Because the topic is so disturbing PP has been dishonest about this process and they should be held to account and offer full disclosure to their patients.

    3. “Right-wing extremists have no qualms about destroying peoples’ lives”

      Unlike those gracious and considerate progs, who would never do something like force a local pizza joint to close because they won’t cater imaginary gay pizza weddings

    4. Perhaps I keep using this quote incorrectly, but from the video:

      I think for affiliates, at the end of the day, they’re a non-profit, they just don’t want to?they want to break even. And if they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they’re happy to do that.

      1. The thing is, that is how organ and tissue donation works. There is nothing new here. It’s still just down to whether you think abortion is horrible and immoral or not.

    5. I thought real libertarians were for organ selling?

      I know I am.

      Why waste a good body part that would be tossed aside?

      1. I’m in favor of selling your organs.
        For only a little more than the expense of course, I’m not greedy or anything.

        1. Would they come at an 8% discount?

      2. I LOVE YOU PB!!!!!!1!!!1!!111!

      3. Great, so I can sell your organs without your permission? Let me start making some phone calls.

        1. The mother/owner volunteered them.

          1. There’s some debate about that distinction in the libertarian community, in case your bowling-ball sharp observational skills hadn’t picked up on it…

            1. Can the parents not volunteer their dead child’s organs? I mean something like a 5 or 10 year old child, not an aborted one.

          2. How can one human own another?

            1. Because Kinfederit monuments haven’t been taken down.

              /Bo

          3. I’m sure your mother would be glad to sign the consent form. Here, I’ll ask her. *rolls her over and pulls ball gag out of her mouth “Would you sign this consent form to make your son donate his organs so he can actually contribute to society?” PB’s Mom- “I already did, now 50 shades of grey me some more.”

    6. The projection is strong with this one.

  30. Great comment regarding Greece:

    Excessive how? If you’re crying to me that you’re dying of hunger, but want to keep that gold watch your grandfather gave you, you’re not dying of hunger, but of greed, and I’d have zero sympathy. Moreover, the loss is voluntary. The Greeks can say “nope” and leave the whole ill-conceived project right away. It will be better for them in the long run. The problem for them is that then they’ll get REAL austerity right away ? of the “we don’t have foreign currency to import drugs and fuel” kind. And of the “semi-reasonable governments get replaced by populists who hyperinflate” kind. What Greeks is living through is cognitive dissonance ? they cannot wrap their minds around some facts, for example:
    ? that the Keynesian long run, in which we’re supposed to be all dead has arrived, but they are not dead, just dead broke;
    ? that they are much poorer that they thought they were;
    ? that it is their own politicians’ fault ? once they hang a few of those on lampposts, they may get a little sympathy from me;
    ? that the fact that they’re poor and suffering does not make it incumbent on anyone to give them (any more) money, especially since they have demonstrated repeatedly that the money they continue borrowing is not bridge financing until they reach a sustainable state;

    1. ? that you cannot have a Northern-European-style welfare state without paying taxes as Northern Europeans do (mind you, I’d rather have neither, but you can’t have one without the other indefinitely ? cue Herb Stein);
      ? that when you elect populist Marxists, you may not exactly get what you were promised.

      The sooner they accept the above, the sooner they might see light at the end of the tunnel, and start crawling toward it. They have been told what they need to do. They don’t want to. Fuck them.

      1. They have been told what they need to do. They don’t want to. Fuck them.

        Greece should just leave – but they won’t for some reason. I guess as long as they can live off of other people’s money, they will.

        I just wonder if some members of the Euro zone will get tired of it – and they will leave.

        1. I just wonder if some members of the Euro zone will get tired of it – and they will leave.

          Right now Germany is carrying the Euro zone on its shoulders. You know who else got tired of Europe placing an economic anchor on Germany?

      2. This is the problem.

        They were earning about $2500 a month on welfare/social assistance. Now they get about $500 after the austerity. They scream this is injustice but the real injustice was getting the $2500 in the first place which they weren’t entitled to. $500 probably reflects what they can afford in actuality.

        THAT’S the problem and all part of the enabling society we see in the ENTIRE West.

  31. Astronomers discover Jupiter-like planet around Sun-like yellow star 156 light years away

    Excited astronomers say that they have found a massive gas-giant world, almost a twin to our own Jupiter, orbiting a very Sun-like yellow star with the groovy cognomen HIP 11915 which lies some 186 lightyears away in the constellation Cetus.

    That doesn’t sound all that exciting: but it is, because it means – according to current theories of planetary formation – that HIP 11915 is likely to have smaller rocky planets closer in, much as our own Sun does. Such planets would be much more like Venus and Mars – or better still, Earth – than most known exoplanets are.

    “After two decades of hunting for exoplanets, we are finally beginning to see long-period gas giant planets similar to those in our own Solar System,” enthuses astroboffin Megan Bedell of Chicago uni, one of the discoverers of HIP 11915. “This discovery is, in every respect, an exciting sign that other solar systems may be out there waiting to be discovered.”

    Watch the Earth-sized planets be just a hair too close or too far from the star.

    1. One of the potential big new NASA missions (think a few decades down the road) is a big, 10-m class space telescope that could get direct imaging of nearby Earth-sized planets. Of course, for that you need nearby Earth-like planets. This sort of system might be a good candidate.

      At the same time, we still have a lot to learn about how different planetary systems form. No one expected to see hot Jupiters, but they are fairly common. The idea is they actually form farther out then migrate in towards their parent stars, but that process should toss out rocky planets. So I’m guessing the idea here is that a gas giant farther out would not have migrated and destroyed any potential rocky planets. But you still need the rocky planets in the first place.

      Anyway, not a slam dunk, but still cool. I strongly believe we’ll have indirect evidence for life in another planetary system within my lifetime (I’m 30).

      1. I just don’t understand the basis we have for declaring that a supposedly habitable planet is “evidence for life.” (Not pointing at you, but in general) As much as the fornicates with science crowd is on board with “habitable = life” sentiment, scientists have no clue what is required for a planet to be a biogenic environment. We have a sample set in the neighborhood of 50 planet-class objects (planets, planetoids, moons, etc.; all in our solar system) that we can reach a fairly confident conclusion on whether or not they contain life. Out of those 50, only Earth confidently contains life.

        As an example, Europa could be teeming with aquatic life. Europa could also be home to the most sterile body of water in the solar system. I have little doubt that we could toss a bacterial culture into the underground seas of Europa and have sea life in 100M years. I have much greater doubt that there is life down there right now.

    1. Is that blood or drool dripping out the corner of her mouth?

      1. Runny stool.

    2. “I’ll get you, my pretty!”

    3. via Drudge

    4. Wow, she’s creepier than I ever imagined.

    5. Jesus Christ. Guess i’ll be sleeping with the lights on tonight.

      1. With one eye open, gripping your pillow tight, amirite?

        1. “They all vote down here”

  32. Throughout my life the two most common conspiracy theories have been that the Israeli fifth column Jews secretly control the country or that the Saudi Royal Family does. Part of the fallout from the Iran deal, assuming Congress doesn’t kill it, is an end to any thought either of those things is true. Obama has actually managed to get the Arabs and the Israelis to agree on something; that he is an idiot.

    1. So it’s a Saudi / Israeli plot?

      1. Plot to do what? Commit national suicide?

        1. These things are supposed to make sense?

    2. OT

      I saw some reporters criticizing Major Garrett for his disrespectful questioning of Obama at yesterday’s press conference.

      WTF happened to the media in this country.

      1. They were not ready for a black liberal President. Everything they say is a lie. Their claim Republicans were not ready for a black President is no different. They are the ones who were not ready. They are too obsessed with the color of Obama’s skin to treat him like even the most friendly politician. They are so terrified of being called racists and so condescending towards black people they will literally do anything to avoid criticizing Obama or even appearing to be critical of him.

      2. Obama owned that fucking presser. He even pulled out of list of wingnut talking points not asked by the lamestream-media and answered those CT bullshit items.

        1. Yeah, my favorite part was when he said he wasn’t worried that Bashar al’Assad loves this deal. Because it’s not like Iran isn’t supporting that regime or anything. You know, the one that crossed Obama’s imaginary red line by using chemical weapons on children? But it wasn’t actually Obama’s red line, it was the WORLDZ!!!!

        2. aww…. you’re so cute when fellating your master.

          1. Wiping the jizz off his face afterward is his favorite part.

          2. I like diplomatic solutions over some warmongering conservative like Cheney or Bolton.

            Call me crazy for NAP advocacy!

            1. so he “owned” it – you sound like a 12yo girl.

              1. Be fair, that’s more like something a 15 year old boy would say when playing Call of Duty.

            2. That’s not why we call you crazy.

        3. He handled it like the smug, petulant punk he is.

      3. people just don’t respect the office like they used to.

        1. *wipes tear of nostalgia away*

          Oh, for the days of pictures of Bush with a Hitler moustache….

    3. “Part of the fallout from the Iran deal, assuming Congress doesn’t kill it, is an end to any thought either of those things is true.”

      Oh, you. Like the people who hate Jews will ever change their opinion based on logic.

      There are still people who think the Israelis convinced us to invade Iraq.

      1. Yes. I was not being entirely serious.

    4. Both the Saudis and the Israelis are linked to the Neocons in the public mindset. Big O is on the other side. That would make this foreign diplomacy as a proxy for domestic conflict.

  33. The mountains on Pluto are interesting. They would seem to point at something resembling tectonic activity at some point in Pluto’s past. That’s my first guess, anyway. Tidal heating from Charon? Not sure if that could be strong enough…

    1. Indications are that Pluto’s moons might have come from an impact, so there may have been residual heat from that event after surface cooling.

      1. Yup, that could do it.

    1. Why “uh-oh” and not “fuck yeah!”?

      1. Because this has all happened before…

      2. Dude, have you SEEN the Terminator?!?!

      3. “Uh-oh” because we are clearly approaching the Robocalypse

  34. Huffington Post figures out that Fair Trade boycotts are bullshit, misses the point entirely

    Listening to consumer advocacy campaigns, you’d think our only influence on the developing world was at the cash register. But our real leverage is with our policies, not our purchases. In the ’90s, the U.S. told Cambodia that to sell its clothes here, it had to open up every single garment factory to International Labor Organization inspections. Trade agreements require developing countries to establish huge intellectual-property inspection bodies to raid markets for bootleg Blu-rays. We just need to offer poor workers the same kinds of protection we give pharmaceutical patents.

    We are not going to shop ourselves into a better world. Advocating for boring stuff like complaint mechanisms and formalized labor contracts is nowhere near as satisfying as buying a pair of Fair Trade sandals or whatever. But that’s how the hard work of development actually gets done: Not by imploring people to buy better, but by giving them no other option. After all, that naked protest of Old Navy in the ’90s? Behind the 50 demonstrators, a line of 300 customers stretched

    They hate poor people.

    1. Not by imploring people to buy better, but by giving them no other option

      Do they realize that means fewer options for the people making the products? No, no they do not.

  35. The Wisconsin Supreme Court just smacked down the prosecutors in the Wisconsin “John Doe” investigation. Gabriel Malor has an excerpt from the decision posted on Twitter at 6:03 am, and it is brutal. The court is pissed.

    I’d link to it, but work blocks Twitter.

    1. To be clear, this conclusion ends the John Doe investigation because the special prosecutor’s legal theory is unsupported in either reason or law. Consequently, the investigation is closed. Consistent with our decision and the order entered by Reserve Judge Peterson, we order that the special prosecutor and the district attorneys involved in this investigation must cease all activities related to the investigation, return all property seized in the investigation from any individual or organization, and permanently destroy all copies of information and other materials obtained through the investigation. All Unnamed Movants are relieved of any duty to cooperate further with the investigation.

      The people behind this need to go to prison. And fuck the entire state run media establishment for not reporting this as the gigantic scandal and abuse of power that it is.

      1. Milwaukee media: the Wisconsin Supreme Court is supported by the Club for Growth so it’s a corrupt court issuing a corrupt decision.

        The Wisconsin Club for Growth is estimated to have spent $400,000 for Ziegler in 2007; $507,000 for Gableman in 2008; $520,000 for Prosser in 2011; and $350,000 for Roggensack in 2013.

        WMC spent an estimated $2.2 million for Ziegler; $1.8 million for Gableman; $1.1 million for Prosser; and $500,000 for Roggensack.

        In addition, Citizens for a Strong America ? a group funded entirely by the Wisconsin Club for Growth ? spent an estimated $985,000 to help Prosser. The spending estimates come from the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which tracks political spending.

        http://www.jsonline.com/news/s…..84501.html

        1. Yeah, so that makes it totally okay for a DA to launch a criminal prosecution in complete contravention of the 1st Amendment. Shorter Milwaukee Media, “government oppression of civil rights is totally okay as long as it targets the right people.”

          These people are fascists.

          1. It is the Wisconsin left, John. That goes without saying.

  36. In Honor of the Historic & Unprecedented & Very Important Iran treaty
    Spot the Not: Ayatollah Khomeini

    1. In the Islamic Republic the rights of the religious minorities are respectfully regarded.

    2. In Iran’s future Islamic system everyone can express their opinion, and the Islamic government will respond to logic with logic.

    3. In the Islamic government all people have complete freedom to have any kind of opinion.

    4. If one permits an infidel to continue in his role as a corrupter of the earth, the infidel’s moral suffering will be all the worse. If one kills the infidel, and this stops him from perpetrating his misdeeds, his death will be a blessing to him.

    5. The author of The Satanic Verses book which is against Islam, the Prophet and the Qu’ran, and all involved in its publication who were aware of its content, are sentenced to death. I call on all zealous Muslims to execute them wherever they find them, so that no one will dare to insult the Islamic sanctions. Whoever is killed on this path will be regarded as a martyr, God willing.

    6. In our domain we neither allow any Muslim to change his religion nor allow any other religion to propagate its faith.

    1. Imma go with 4.

      Also, congrats on getting a linguist slot in the army. Get them to specify – and guarantee – Arabic if you can. When I went to DLI, they tried to stick me with Farsi, but I had Chinese guaranteed in my contract so they were shit out of luck.

      But ENJOY DLI. Most beautiful post in the Army. Learn it. Live it. Love it.

      1. I still have to go to MEPS and take the ASVAB and DLAB, but I appreciate the thought. I’ve taken practice versions of both tests and they were easy. I am tempted to switch to Chinese since it is a more challenging language and probably opens doors other languages don’t career-wise. However, I feel that I can best fight the derp by studying Arabic or another Middle Eastern language. If it turns out they want me to study Russian or Portuguese, I’m fine with that too. I just like learning languages.

        1. Well, I like learning languages too. I am DLPT’d Chinese, Japanese, and Spanish. But the language MATTERS to me. For example, I have NO desire to learn Korean. Likewise, pashto. I think swahilli (as you have previously studied) would be cool, but I am not in a situation where it would be useful.

          Never underestimate the Army’s ability to give you exactly what you DON’T want.

          Also, Chinese is a level of masochism unlike any other language you could possibly study since you are from the West.

          1. Never underestimate the Army’s ability to give you exactly what you DON’T want.

            Are you in the J-1 at the Pentagon?!!!

          2. Chinese is a level of masochism unlike any other language you could possibly study since you are from the West

            I disagree somewhat. The writing is obviously a challenge but the language makes up for it by not making you memorize things like gender or declensions.

      2. I find my Arabic fading away….of course, I didn’t have Monterrey training, to be sure.

    2. I may repost this in the PM links. I like to see more bites before I reveal the Not.

      1. Yes, pls, have mercy on us West Coasters.

        And I’ll go with 5 – may have been someone else in Iranian govt.

  37. Americans Do Not Have the Right to Bear Any Arms

    Let’s start with an undeniable truth: In the United States, the people have the right to keep and bear arms. And let’s then acknowledge that the childish interpretation of that constitutional amendment?that Americans have the right to whatever accessory they can put on, in or over a gun for the sole purpose of making it more deadly?is a dangerous falsehood.

    There is, however, a simple solution, a common-sense compromise that will infuriate both sets of extremists in the gun debate, but would place the United States on a saner path:

    Ban accessories that serve no purpose other than to transform guns into weapons of mass slaughter, such as attachable drums that carry 100 rounds.

    Adopt rules that make it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to obtain firearms.

    Outlaw the public display of weapons.

    Allow the concealed carry of guns using the “shall issue” standard.

    Stop trying to ban scary-looking add-ons that primarily protect the shooter, but don’t make the gun more dangerous to others.

    Forget attacks on the “armor-piercing bullets.”

    Abandon efforts to outlaw “assault weapons”?a politically loaded phrase with a mishmash of meanings that pretty much amount to nothing.

    I didn’t realize Newsweek was still a thing.

    1. Outlaw the public display of weapons.

      The LEOs will never stand for it.

    2. Ban accessories that serve no purpose other than to transform guns into weapons of mass slaughter, such as attachable drums that carry 100 rounds.

      “No other purpose”?! What about shooting down trees?

      1. One summer at Boy Scout camp those of us that were working on our riflery merit badge were trying to cut the posts where we hung our targets in half – by the end of the week we succeeded. There was much rejoicing.

    3. Outlaw the public display of weapons.

      Some of his stuff makes sense. This, however, not so much. What does he think the weapons are going to do if displayed?

      1. Duh. They are magical, John, and cause otherwise sane and rational people to become mass-murdering lunatics. I can’t believe I have to tell you this.

      2. Yeah, the other proposals make sense, even if I disagree with a few of them. But this makes no sense. What would it accomplish? What is it intended to stop?

        And if it means that people can’t open carry, you can lose part of the deterrent effect. I’d rather some idiot criminal see that people are packing heat in a diner than not.

    4. via Charles Cooke twitter:

      The same Thomas Jefferson who couldn’t have imagined modern accessories owned a 22-shot magazine-fed repeating rifle

      http://www.thefederalistpapers…..-air-rifle

    5. If shall issue is universal, then why bother with the paperwork. Just let folks do it. No permit necessary.

    6. “Let’s start with an undeniable truth: In the United States, the people have the right to keep and bear arms. And let’s then acknowledge that the childish interpretation of that constitutional amendment?that Americans have the right to whatever accessory they can put on, in or over a gun for the sole purpose of making it more deadly?is a dangerous falsehood.”

      Weird, I didn’t know I could strap a grenade launcher to my gun.

      Learn something new every day.

      These people are so dishonest that it’s unbelievable. Virtually no murders in this country are committed by SCARY SCARY ASSAULT RIFLES, yet they continuously behave as if anyone who doesn’t want to outlaw such things has gallons of blood on their hands.

      “Ban accessories that serve no purpose other than to transform guns into weapons of mass slaughter, such as attachable drums that carry 100 rounds.”

      When’s the last time anyone in this country was murdered by someone using a 100 round drum?

      1. James Holmes used a 100-round drum magazine in the Aurora theater shooting. It jammed.

    7. Semi-OT. Not being much of a gun person, this may be a self-evidently stupid idea, but what if you encased the trigger in an enclosure where you needed to insert your index finger all the way down a tube, then hook it to actually reach the trigger?

      I’m thinking that if you size it for petite ladies, then small children basically can’t use the gun, since their fingers aren’t long enough.

  38. Americans Do Not Have the Right to Bear Any Arms

    Let’s start with an undeniable truth: In the United States, the people have the right to keep and bear arms. And let’s then acknowledge that the childish interpretation of that constitutional amendment?that Americans have the right to whatever accessory they can put on, in or over a gun for the sole purpose of making it more deadly?is a dangerous falsehood.

    There is, however, a simple solution, a common-sense compromise that will infuriate both sets of extremists in the gun debate, but would place the United States on a saner path:

    Ban accessories that serve no purpose other than to transform guns into weapons of mass slaughter, such as attachable drums that carry 100 rounds.

    Adopt rules that make it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to obtain firearms.

    Outlaw the public display of weapons.

    Allow the concealed carry of guns using the “shall issue” standard.

    Stop trying to ban scary-looking add-ons that primarily protect the shooter, but don’t make the gun more dangerous to others.

    Forget attacks on the “armor-piercing bullets.”

    Abandon efforts to outlaw “assault weapons”?a politically loaded phrase with a mishmash of meanings that pretty much amount to nothing.

    I didn’t realize Newsweek was still a thing.

    1. Have these people ever read the federalist papers?

    2. I recall that the CO theater shooter had a big drum mag. It quickly jammed and he switched to a shotgun.

      The more rounds you put in a mag, the more likely it is to jam or malfunction. I bought a 42 round mag for my Zastava for shiggles and I kept getting double feeds and double ejects.

      1. I approve your choice of the manufacturer – which model do you have?

    3. Outlaw the public display of weapons.

      What does that even mean? No open carry? No gun shows? No guns on TV?

      1. It means he doesn’t want anyone to scare him. If they do, he wants his friends the police to throw them in jail for making him feel bad.

    4. a common-sense compromise

      LOL.

    5. Adopt rules that make it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to obtain firearms.

      Like the rules that already exist?

    6. Stop trying to ban scary-looking add-ons that primarily protect the shooter, but don’t make the gun more dangerous to others.

      Forget attacks on the “armor-piercing bullets.”

      Abandon efforts to outlaw “assault weapons”?a politically loaded phrase with a mishmash of meanings that pretty much amount to nothing.

      Hey, they actually propose things that make sense. This automatically makes that article better than 99% of “We need gun control NOW!” articles.

  39. Elon Musk and Hollywood are Ready for Hillary, turn CA into biggest donor state

    Tesla’s Elon Musk, Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg, Dreamworks co-founder Steven Spielberg, and actor Leonardo DiCaprio are among the Silicon Valley and Hollywood stars making California the No. 1 state for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign fundraising last quarter.

    Clinton, the front-runner among five candidates seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination, raised $8.1 million in the largest U.S. state, 17 percent of the nearly $47 million she took in from contributors during the quarter that ended in June.

    The early support in California underscores the importance of the state to Democrats, who have long sought support from its wealthy entertainers and entrepreneurs. The list also included Dreamworks Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Katzenberg, one of the biggest Democratic donors.

    Creative Artists Agency ranked among the best places for Clinton to raise money during the period. More than 50 employees from the Los Angeles-based talent agency donated a total of more than $80,000. Other top California money sources included employees at Facebook and Google.

    “I’d like to see her as president,” Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, told Bloomberg Television in April. “And I’d like to see more women presidents all over the world.”

    1. But Shreek assures me that she is the tribune of the middle class.

      1. You’re an idiot. I don’t do “class” or care about it.

        At least the Peanuts that pay attention at least call me a crony capitalist.

        What is good for General Electric is good for America!

        1. LOLOLOL

          You are comedy gold shreek. Don’t ever change.

    2. “I’d like to see her as president,” Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, told Bloomberg Television in April. “And I’d like to see more women presidents all over the world.”

      I can think of few things shallower than voting for a candidate because of his or her gender.

      Consider this:

      I’d like to see him as president. And I’d like to see more male presidents all over the world.

      Anybody saying that would be rightly derided as the most primitive kind of male chauvinist. Switching penises to vaginas does not make Sandberg any less of a chauvinist.

      1. “If women ran the world, there’d be no more war.”

        There are people who actually believe this.

    3. Now.. now… not so fast.

      Picture a goatse with “Ready for Hillary” written below it.

  40. The partisan hacks at the New York Times concede defeat! (But readers still believe that the NYT is “fair and balanced”.

    Oh my: Ted Cruz’s book now at No. 7 on NYT bestseller list

  41. A new study finds that marijuana use has decreased among teenagers, while disapproval of the drug is up

    A study released on Monday found that despite an increased acceptance of marijuana at city and state levels, adolescent use of the drug ? as well as approval of it ? is down across the country.

    1. This is impossible. I was told that legalizing marijuana, even for medicinal purposes, would cause millions of young children to die as a result of overdosing on marijuanas.

    2. Just another confirmation that something is seriously wrong with young people. These kids don’t even get stoned anymore.

      1. The Baby Boomer hippies did it – even reason for me to avoid the stuff in my youth.

      2. Its the whole cocaine rats thing. We’ve got the internet and smart phones. We don’t get bored as often as you did as a kid, and when we do there are easier ways to entertain ourselves than drugs.

        1. But being stoned just makes those things better. Seriously, what the hell kind of nut can watch most TV sober?

          1. TV is for old people

            1. Young people still watch TV, they just do it via streaming services like netflix and such. Moreover, don’t tell me video games are not more fun while stoned or any other form of mindless entertainment.

              Not only are these kids generation retard, they don’t even know how to have a good time.

              1. I think it’s overrated myself, but I also think most video games are overrated.
                My drug of choice is caffeine, so I’ll be the first to admit I’m not an expert on having a good time.

                1. I’ve never been the buzz chasing type myself, but I do play a lot of multiplayer online FPS games, and I can tell you that inebriation does not enhance the experience.

                  1. Yeah, I can’t speak for most games. But I play strategy games from time to time and I agree that being under the influence doesn’t help. That’s partly why I dislike pot, I don’t like what it does to my mind and my natural state is relaxed so it doesn’t benefit me there either.

                    1. lap,

                      Pot is a Godsend for people like me who have really active and hyper minds. It basically shuts off the din in our heads and lets us be normal.

                      For a lot of people who are not like that, pot just makes them feel tired and confused. So I totally understand why you wouldn’t like it.

                    2. I think it might have different effects on different people, because I have never found pot to slow down my thinking so much as make it feel like I’m thinking in circles, like a mental treadmill.

                    3. and by “relaxed” I meant calm, not dense

      3. I posted here years ago that as soon as pot was legalized on any kind of wide scale teen use would probably decline as it became passe as a form of rebellion and angst. Stoner culture without the illegality is the difference between a speakeasy and your local dive bar. Well-dressed men and ladies clandestinely sneaking through secret entrances in the middle of the night to imbibe knowing that the feds could bust in any second is badass. A bunch of grey haired alcoholics exchanging slurred arguments about foreign vs domestic automobiles at 3 in the afternoon isn’t.

    1. Ah. Have they been slut-ignorant shamed by the left yet?

  42. It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant my fellow citizens are. I understand different political views even though I may not always agree but even the dumbest of us should understand and agree that influence peddling is not a good. In any other time the Clintons would taken to the town square and tarred and feathered then ran out of town. If she would sell you out for a million in donations to her so called charity think of the money coming her way if she becomes President.

    1. It’s influence-peddling when a conservative outfit in the cheese state spends a few million dollars promoting a candidate or policy.

      It’s not influence-peddling when a liberal candidate and her family accepts tens of millions from foreign regimes for “giving talks” at functions they host.

      Get it right.

    2. What about the Bushpigs? Lying us into a $2 trillion worthless war where 4500 Americans were sacrificed?

      Would you tar and feather them?

      1. BUUUUUUUU?oh, you get the point.

      2. Can’t you update your false equivalency, or at least change up once in awhile?

        I get that you hate GWB and the Iraq war, but when you use them in response to every. single. argument. you bore me even more than usual.

        1. Well, since you responded to it, and fed it the response it craves, it’s not going to change. The more you reward it with a response the more likely it is to slap down somebody else’s statement about Bush and Iraq. It’s the same thing as when ants farm aphids. The ants don’t know what they are doing. They just know that a series of actions produces the aphid secretions they crave.

      3. Way to not give a crap about the 1 million Afghans that were killed, Palin. Wow, typical self-centered American asshole. Go be a patriot somewhere else.

        Kappa.

  43. Newspeak is not just in fiction.

    Sandhya Somashekhar and Danielle Paquette of the Washington Post, who teamed up for sacred-cow defense duty, describe this as a conversation about “the costs associated with sharing that tissue with scientists.” Watching the video leaves it impossible to conclude anything other than that Somashekhar and Paquette are misleading the readers of the Washington Post with malice aforethought. Nucatola is in fact quite straightforward about what sort of business is being transacted and on what terms ? and about the necessary deception: “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as: ‘This clinic is selling tissue,'” she says. “In the Planned Parenthood world, they’re very, very sensitive to that.” Where you are negotiating prices for fetal lungs and livers while discussing how to avoid the perception that you are negotiating prices for fetal lungs and livers, you are engaged in a conspiracy to violate federal laws ? something that Washington Post reporters once gave a damn about. Richard Nixon wanted to burgle in a way that was not perceived as: “This president is a crook.” But he was a crook.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/…..ion-profit

  44. Esquire takes a shot a Rand and Reason too.

    1. Esquire and GQ are two of the most predicatably partisan rags out there. I used to just read them for the fashion and I had to stop – it was like mother jones with skinny jeans.

  45. The snippiness seems awfully high in the A.M. links today! Are you all PMSing?

    Anyhoo – I have a JS/jQuery project at work. I know the logic and all the “if-thens” that are required, I just don’t know how to express them out in jQuery. I already have a jQuery snippet that is working on a site, to which the new function will be appended (it has to do with a Submit button and counting the number of times it’s clicked and taking a specific action if it’s clicked X number of times). Does anyone know of any forums or discussions where totally green n00bs are accepted and embraced asking for jQuery help?

      1. I’ve found Stack Overflow can sometimes be very pompous and mean to dumb n00bs. But I’ll give it a whirl.

        1. “Computer science is hard!”

          JK

          I’m not a n00b but S.O. is IMHO the single-best source out there. And I have very very rarely seen any unfriendliness that wasn’t warranted.

      2. (though I do love how they give topic suggestions based on what you type into the Title field. Prevents some of us from making asses of ourselves if the answer is already there)

    1. e you all PMSing?

      Both Bo and BP are here. The shit up the place.

      1. Exactly that. Their entire purpose is to prevent reasoned discussion of any issue that either reflects poorly on Team Blue or concerns any current Team Blue culture war cause.

        1. And yet, even though you think that goal is despicable, you always oblige them*.

          * Disclaimer, Shriek, being a non-sentient creature doesn’t really have goals as we have them. It lacks the capacity to understand discourse.

          1. That is the dilemma. If you ignore them then their canned talking points go unchallenged. If you engage them, you allow them to screw up the board as they planned.

            There is no good answer.

          2. Bo’s purpose today is to convince us that Civil War monuments (i.e. art) on public land that may or may not glorify the Confederacy should be removed or sandblasted.

            So, censorship and destroying American history to make it reflect his own improved sensibilities.

            WTF? He’s a terribly little authoritarian and it’s difficult to that that shit stand.

          1. Hilarious!

    2. Try codeproject.com, I’ve found them to be helpful for those of us who code only occasionally.

    3. I had a pretty good Jennifer Lawrence joke right at the start and it was basically ignored so everyone here but me can go to hell.

      1. I WAS in hell when i read your joke!

  46. Re the Confederate flag – I am fascinated by the Civil War, but I know the political context here.

    The Democrats are sitting around worried that “we might lose votes…because frankly we suck. Moderates are tired of us, our base is unenthusiastic…

    “We need some way to direct attention away from our suckitude and mobilize our base against the Republicans…

    “Wait, this is great, a white racist just murdered nine black churchgoers in the South! I mean, it’s awful, but the important thing is to exploit the hell out of this.

    “So, should we go for gun-control again? No, that bit us in the ass last time.

    “Is there a way to connect this to contraception. No, probably not…too bad…

    “Wait, the killer liked the Confederate flag? Perfect – now we launch an anti-flag crusade and try to identify the Republicans with the Confederacy…this is perfect!

    “Wait, the Republicans are taking down the flag…they’re not playing their role properly, they’re supposed to go full-on Confederate so we can mobilize our base…it isn’t fair!

    “Well, back to the War on Women…”

    1. Yup. The problem is that the attention span of the typical low information voter they are trying to distract is pretty short. This entire thing will be forgotten by the opening Sunday of the NFL season. So they will have to think of a new distraction. The problem is they are running out of them. Obsessing about the confederate flag and statues is getting pretty close to the bottom of the barrel. It is doubtful it is distracting many low information voters and certainly not enough to outweigh the motivation it is giving to the GOP base. Whatever the next distraction is, it is likely to be even more pathetic and ridiculous.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.