Targeting ISIS With Anime, Sandra Bland Dashcam Footage Was Edited, Obama and Jon Stewart Have Final Fling: A.M. Links

|

KnowYourMeme.com

  • The video Texas cops released of Sandra Bland's traffic stop and subsequent arrest has obviously been edited, with the same cars and people reappearing in view as the audio continues uninterrupted. 
  • Anonymous hackers have taken over myriad Twitter accounts of folks they claim are ISIS sympathizers, flooding their pages with images of a Japanese anime character in ISIS garb. "Groups tackling IS propaganda online are starting to use images of the young girl in connection with the group's name and slogans in an attempt to dilute the results people get when they search for information about the group," reports the BBC. 
  • Congressional Republicans are determined to defund Planned Parenthood one way or another. 
  • Obama complained to Jon Stewart on last night's Daily Show that the media "gets distracted by shiny objects and doesn't always focus on the big tough choices" he makes. 
  • Hillary Clinton embraces the "gender card" this go-round. 
  • Five Tucson police officers have been fired for making or attempting to make appointments at an "illicit massage parlor" that the city and federal agents spent three years monitoring. Two other officers involved resigned, and one is still under investigation. 

New at Reason.com: 

Brickbat: Partners
By Charles Oliver

The Politicians' War on Uber
When politicians threaten to destroy innovative companies, they're threatening us all.
By John Stossel

Speech Crimes in Wisconsin
How a campaign finance investigation became a war on conservative activists.
By Jacob Sullum

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

Advertisement

NEXT: Backpage.com Sues Over Illinois Sheriff's Unconstitutional Bullying

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. Congressional Republicans are determined to defund Planned Parenthood one way or another.

    Baby steps in getting federal spending under control?

    1. Baby steps in getting federal spending under control?

      Oh, they’ll abort the attempt eventually.

    2. You need baby feet in order to make baby steps.

      The feet have already been sold off.

      1. Gosnell has plenty in jars in his office – just ask him!!

      2. “For sale, baby feet, never used.”

        1. A short but Ernest addition to the discussion.

    3. Hello.

    4. I larphed.

  2. 🙁

    Can someone more knowledgable in the ways of marketing please shine some light on what’s different about this book when compared to my earlier works that’s making it hard to get people’s attention. I’ve been following the same notification methodologies as the previous work, but have not managed to glean nearly the same level of interest.

    Is it the blurb? The cover? The timing?

    (Previous book)

    (Current Book)

    1. My guess is the timing…first book out near Thanksgiving…New book middle of summer…your competing with the season.

      1. You may be onto something. I would imagine the summer market is better for certain genres, like romance, chick lit, Clancy, DeMille, etc.

    2. Are those The Hardy Boys?

      Seriously. No clue. Gaijin may be on to something about the summer bit. Do people buy as much in the summer?

      1. Which cover are you talking about?

        1. The black one.

          1. Oh. That’s two sides of the same character. really I’ve been thinking about having the older covers redone because A: that artist was hard to work with, and B: the work product was sub par. Strangely, that one sold better (but shadowboy still out performs the rest)

      2. Maybe the Hardly Boys will get a raging clue…..

    3. I can’t comment on marketing methods without knowing what you’re doing to market these books. Judging only by the titles and covers, the new one looks like sci-fi and the previous one looks like fantasy|supernatural. I prefer sci-fi and I prefer the retro look of that cover, but my guess is your typical audience does not. I can also guess that the “other tales too” may put some people off. I don’t know why, but I’ve often heard many people prefer to read full novels rather than collections of short stories. If you have changed genres and gone from novel to short stories, you can’t expect to get the same results as before.

      1. Length and Genre are two separate concepts, though I get the intended meaning of what you said.

        I personally can cram more short stories into the empty spaces of my average day. Novels require longer uninterrupted periods to read. I don’t personally discriminate, and have a hard time understanding a preference one way or another.

        1. I tend to agree, but I suppose those who prefer longer stories like extra space for character development. Or, look at it in terms of movies. How many people watch shorts versus full-length films. (Yes, I realize short films often don’t get shown outside of film festivals, but that may partly be because distributors perceive a lack of interest.)

          The bottom line is, if you did in fact switch genres, that might be the explanation. As much as I prefer sci-fi to fantasy, I think fantasy sells more these days, especially for younger readers. (Not kids necessarily, but readers under 40.)

          1. The bottom line is, if you did in fact switch genres, that might be the explanation

            They’re in the same series in the same universe, with an overlap in characters

            1. I prefer the newer cover, BTW.

        2. As someone who tends to skip books of short stories even by my favorite authors, I can confirm this does happen.

      2. I was like that but I’ve come to embrace novellas. Particularly ones that complement longer running series and provide depth/backstory. Although they are still frustrating in their brevity, in general.

    4. Short stories and novellas typical sell fewer copies than full novels. This is true even for well established authors like Neil Gaiman.

      Just to nitpick, the covers for both works aren’t particularly appropriate for the content of the work. There’s a mismatch in genre and cover art. The art itself is interesting, just not well chosen for the work.

      1. What would you suggest the cover theme be? (and the Lucid Blue cover image comes from a scene that actually appears in the last novella)

        1. The purpose of the cover is to excite the imagination of the reader in a micro second.

          Think about the demographics of your potential reader – think age, gender, socio-economics.

          Here are two examples of covers well chosen:

          http://www.amazon.com/Daughter…..e+and+bone

          http://www.amazon.com/Name-Win…..k+rothfuss

          Your early covers have too much dark space and the font style/size of the title is too small.

          The third cover is better. If funding exists, consider a quick chat with a graphic designer to get feedback.

      2. “I don’t know why, but I’ve often heard many people prefer to read full novels rather than collections of short stories.”

        “Short stories and novellas typical sell fewer copies than full novels.”

        This is what I was going to suggest is perhaps a large reason as well, UnCivil.

        A few of my friends and I shared great enthusiasm for a particular author and bought many of her books (which were continuous novels), but I was the only one who bought her collection of shorter stories, which is what your most recent book reminds me of.

        1. The irony is, ‘Shadowdemon’ was a rambling mess, but the shorter works are more tightly constructed and well-written.

          *sigh*

          Of course, I see things from a vastly different perspective, and I can still see the weld marks on the plotline.

          1. I don’t want to knock your readers, but I’m not sure that kind of quality makes a great deal of difference. Look at two of the best-selling fiction books of recent years: 50 Shades and the Twilight series. Neither is very well-written. Yes, I know “50” is erotica for women, but Anais Nin was a far better writer of that sort of thing.

            For me, I prefer well-drawn characters and inventive “world-building.” I like the Hyperion Cantos and the Expanse Saga, for example (to name fairly recent sci fi).

            1. My problem is, I don’t know who my readers are.

              The only data I get is sales numbers and what I know about where I’m putting out word. I don’t know what they like/dislike, why they chose to read my work, none of it.

              Goodreads gave me some data, but it appears that I have nothing in common with them based upon books read. (often the only overlap will be the books I’ve written).

              This makes it a lot of guesswork to reach them

              1. Look up Sean Platt and see what he has to say about this – I read a lot of his stuff and at the end he often goes on about how to connect with readers and such.

              2. It’s just a suggestion, but maybe you could try setting up your own author’s webpage, or blog, or Facebook. That would allow you to get more direct feedback from your readers. Admittedly, it would be the more dedicated fans you’d hear from, but those are the people you want to recommend your work to others.

      3. This. I re-read the Anne of Green Gables books endlessly as a girl, and have even read the series a few times as an adult, but I still have not picked up Chronicles of Avonlea.

        It’s a different product. It might sell well in the long run, but you don’t have a problem until you write the next in line about your main character and that doesn’t get attention.

    5. You are still in my “to-buy” queue. You just haven’t percolated up to the head of the queue yet.

    6. I tend to read when confined to quarters. Summer is spent pushing what is left of physical abilities to the max at the beach. I read the last one while snowed in. I also tend more towards Sci fi than fantasy. I’ll buy it and read it after summer or when I can’t get up.

    7. General questions to the published authors here. Is there a rule of thumb on how much money you can realistically earn per book sold? How do you go about hiring a competent editor? Is self-publishing worth it? What would you say to someone who has never published a book before based on your past experience?

      1. I make between $1.50 and $2.00 per unit sold.

        The hard part is finding an editor you can work with who knows their stuff. I stumbled onto mine.

        Self-publishing is simply a way for me to monetize the work I’d be doing regardless. I am compelled to write. Turning it into a salable product simply offsets the hours of compositional time I’ve sunk into it.

        My general advice – If writing isn’t something you do habitually and you’re just looking to make money, writing is not the place for you. If you would be a storyteller if you sold or not, then you can persevere through the hurdles that the market will throw at you. It is definately not a get-rich quick path. Most authors don’t make jack.

        1. Thanks UnCivilServant. I appreciate your advice.

    8. I think one potential problem is your cover design consistency, which you touch on elsewhere.

      Many people are ‘collectors’ – it’s why when a publishing house reissues a series of books, they often commission new covers for the whole reprint, so visually, it’s not clear that “Shadowdemon” and “Lucid Blue” are related. So having covers that look complementary attract the ‘collector’ instinct.

      You could also achieve that objective by explicitly linking them in some way via subtitling with something like “Further adventures in blah-blah land”. Probably want to avoid “The second installment of the ShadowDemon Cycle” or something like that – people are getting bored with ‘cycles’, but I’m sure you’d like one of the ‘messages’ to be “if you liked that, you’ll like this too”, so it’s beneficial to reinforce that message visually and textually.

      1. That “(Tarnished Sterling)” after the titles is the series name. I can’t get more blatant in linking them than that.

        I had to change cover artists, and I have been debating having him redo the old books, but that is a few hundred dollars investment (the art is drawn from scratch, so there is a decent investment of time).

  3. Five Tucson police officers have been fired for making or attempting to make appointments at an “illicit massage parlor” that the city and Homeland Security spent three years monitoring.

    Had they simply have beating the shit out of said parlor’s workers, they’d still have a job.

    1. Had they arrested the women right after their happy ending, they would’ve received commendations.

  4. The Steinle shooting is the gift that keeps on giving ? to the collective DERP of the world. All of the hallmarks of what NOT to do in the face of an unpredictable and tragic occurrence. PASS AN UNECESSARY LAW!! MAWKISHLY NAME IT AFTER THE VICTIM!! FEARMONGER THE SHIT OUT OF EVERYBODY!! UNIRONICALLY SAY THAT IF IT HELPS SAVE ONE PERSON IT IS WORTH IT!!

    Don’t believe me? The father of the victim does it all in THREE sentences?

    “We feel strongly that some legislation should be discussed, enacted, or changed to take these undocumented immigrant felons off our streets for good. We would be proud to see Kate’s name associated with some of this new legislation. We feel that if Kate’s loss saves one daughter, one son, a mother, a father — Kate’s death won’t be in vain,” Jim said.

    I understand grief and trying to find meaning in tragedy, but I feel like this dude is trolling me. This article has it ALL for libertarians?

    http://abc7news.com/news/congr…..ng/869056/

    1. Give the poor guy a break, he’s an old white dude. This is probably his only chance to use the victim card.

      1. Hello. Only BLACK LIVES MATTER.

        1. That “all lives matter” clip from the O’Malley speech is somewhere between horrifying and hilarious. It’s a lot like the Marvin scene in Pulp Fiction, terrible to behold but you can’t stop laughing. Once the boos took up I couldn’t help but wonder what parallel dimension I’d stepped into where the assertion, by a prominent progressive candidate, that black lives matter just as much as white lives is met with so much hooting disdain.

    2. The Steinle death is astounding because it’s the same nonsense from the right we got from the left after Trayvon Martin was killed.

      This one random tragedy that rarely happens is proof of EVIL IMMIGRANTS/SYSTEMIC RACISM.

      Ten thousand Americans are killed every year, but one gets killed by an illegal and it’s time for a moral panic.

      1. OT: Irish – thanks for the linnk to Kevin Williamson’s article on Bernie’s nationalist socialism.

        It was an awesome read.

    3. If my dad pulled that kind of shit if I were to be murdered….I’d have to come back as Zombie Kristen and kick him in the balls. I already told him he should pressure the prosecutor not to seek the death penalty if such a thing were to happen.

  5. Sex offender spared jail after wearing ‘shorts that were too short’ in Cwmbran Morrisons supermarket

    Newport Crown Court heard on May 28, Watkins was buying beers when he was stopped by a Gwent Police officer, who recognised Watkins and knew he was in breach of his order by his clothing and arrested him.

    Prosecutor Rob Simkins told the court how Watkins was made subject of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in July 2013 where he was convicted of indecent exposure.

    “The order was made subject to five years,” Mr Simkins said.

    “He must not wear any short trousers or shorts in any public area that fall above the knee in breach of the Sexual Offences Order.”

    You know who else liked to wear short shorts…

    1. Damn, I only wear shorts that fall above my knees.

      1. She is going on the List.

      1. Racist

    2. Larry Bird?

      1. Mchale. Kleinfelter’s.

    3. I don’t know, could it be this guy?

      1. No, it’s Pauli Shores estranged father..

    4. “He must not wear any short trousers or shorts in any public area that fall above the knee

      Indecent exposure, hmmm…. He must have a problem with something reaching down to his knee.

      I know I’d be proud…

  6. ISIS-chan doesn’t hate the west, she’s secretly in love with it, but her tsundere personality causes problems.

    1. If only Senpai would notice her.

      1. sin(?), why won’t you notice me??

        1. We should do a fanvid to this song. Squee!

  7. …flooding their pages with images of a Japanese anime character in ISIS garb.

    Tentacle monsters are what will bring ISIS down.

  8. Obama complained … that the media “gets distracted by shiny objects and doesn’t always focus on the big tough choices” he makes.

    Oh, Michelle gets *plenty* of coverage.

    1. Like I said.

      Black Potsie.

    1. If only it were for a gay wedding ….

      1. Ooh. Someone needs to find some gay racists who want to get married and have them sue a black baker who won’t make them a confederate flag cake.

        Either it will convince some more people that forcing people to provide services is wrong, or, failing that, it will be entertaining to watch.

  9. Is Polygamy Next?

    Now that the dust is settling from the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized a right to same-sex marriage, there are new questions. In particular, could the decision presage a constitutional right to plural marriage? If there is no magic power in opposite sexes when it comes to marriage, is there any magic power in the number two?

    Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s dissent in Obergefell raised this very question, intending to show how radical the majority’s decision could become. But the issue was hard to discuss candidly while same-sex marriage was still pending, because both sides knew that association with plural marriage, a more unpopular cause, could have stymied progress for gay rights. (Opponents of same-sex marriage had reasons to emphasize the association, while supporters had reasons to play it down.) With same-sex marriage on the books, we can now ask whether polyamorous relationships should be next.

    Of course not – gay marriage is noble while poly is filthy.

    1. Polygamy at least has historical precedence.

      1. It’s precedent lets it take precedence over other forms of marriage.

        1. “Its” Dammit.

    2. I’ve read somewhere that no one would think it acceptable for 19 people to get a marriage license.

      1. Yeah, I can’t remember where it was. I hope it wasn’t a libertarian magazine of some sort because it would be pretty embarrassing if libertarians came out against freedom of contract.

    3. poly is filthy

      Only if you’re doing it right.

    4. Sure, why not?

      Very few people would want to marry more than one person and those who do will do it anyway. Some people act as if the law is all that keeps people from having 7 wives and marrying goats when the fact is that those things don’t happen too much because they are not things that work well for most people. Pairing off is the way that most people do intimate relationships and the laws about marriage have nothing to do with that.

  10. …the media “gets distracted by shiny objects and doesn’t always focus on the big tough choices” he makes.

    If only they got distracted by the very shiny Constitution and its checks and balances.

    1. Florida is America’s Australia.

      1. You shut up.

    2. “We’ve got Armadillos in our trousers. It’s really quite frightening.”

      1. +1 Foil-wrapped cucumber

  11. Walker: ‘We should not be the world’s policeman’

    The Wisconsin governor seeking to replace President Obama in the White House outlined a tough but judicious approach to the use of American military might.

    “In terms of the use of force, there has to be a high standard,” Walker told the Examiner. “I think there should be a high bar, and it shouldn’t be about nation-building or being the world’s policeman. It should be about protecting our national security interests.”

    Walker said threats to the “American homeland,” or to allies or to “areas where Americans trade or travel” would be among his criteria for determining whether the military should take “force-specific” action.

    1. Very few people remember it now, but Bush the younger said the exact same thing in 2000.

      1. Well sure but the benefits are great so why quit, really?

      2. So you might as well vote for somebody that who flaunts their permanent war boner?

        1. Or I can vote for someone with an actual history of opposing military adventurism.

      3. And our military was definitely not for nation building. Woops.

      4. yeah, but did he also say that we shouldn’t be the violent psycho who lives down the street who throws trash cans at people’s houses?

    2. Walker said threats to the “American homeland,” or to allies or to “areas where Americans trade or travel” would be among his criteria for determining whether the military should take “force-specific” action.

      So not so much world police, as a worldwide security force. Interesting.

      1. “areas where Americans trade or travel”

        So, pretty much the entire world, then,

        1. America’s Navy – A Global Force For Good!

          I just realized that doesn’t mean good as in charity but for good – as in, permanently.

      2. World wide “Mall Cop”..

        1. That is an insult to mall cops.

          I would call it the World Wide TSA instead.

    3. America! Fuck yeah!
      Comin’ again to save the motherfuckin’ day, yeah!

    4. Yeah, that totally jibes with his statements over the weekend saying we may have to take military action on day one of the next presidency.

    5. I don’t trust him one bit.

      I really like Walker for Act 10, but I think he is going to bomb Iran.

      If he were to focus his energy on domestic politics, and roll back the federal government the way he did in Wisconsin, it would be awesome. But I think e will get distracted with another middle eastern war instead of fixing things at home.

  12. Spot the Not: Seafood Monsters

    1. 44 lb lobster

    2. 907 lb tuna

    3. 18 inch long shrimp

    4. 9 lb oyster

    5. 126 lb salmon

    6. 12 ft wide crab

    1. I don’t know; but 9 lb oyster is a nice band name.

    2. Got to be 5.

      1. After a quick google it looks like I was wrong.

        I’m going with 4 now.

        1. No cheating!

          1. I didn’t look up any others. Just the salmon. I’m pretty sure that 1 is true. I know 2 is true. 3 wouldn’t surprise me. And I know spider crabs have scary long legs. So by process of elimination I’m going with 4.

            1. Yeah, I figure a 9 pound oyster is too far out of bounds.

          2. WORD, ya bastard!! Get in to the spirit of the thing, FFS!!

    3. I’ll go with 6.

      907 lb tuna are routine on Wicked Tuna.

      A 12 ft wide crab – dang that’s frightening.

      1. Japanese spider crabs get that big.

      2. I think a king crab goes that wide in a wingspan. Imma go 5. Do salmon REALLY get that big?!?!

    4. #4

    5. 6…if that is true, I shan’t enter the ocean again.

      1. I’ve seen pictures of some big crabs, but never a 12 foot wide crab. I agree with Swiss, 6 is the not.

        1. I’ve seen some 6′ wide crabs before, so I’m not having such a hard time with 12′ wide crab.

          None of these really stick out, so i’ll go with the oyster, 4.

      2. I was also ignorant of #6. I googled it. I shant be going in the ocean again.

    6. Imma say 4.

    7. #4.

      I blame Dermo and MSX which wipe them out after 2-3 years.

    8. Was that a 44lb…..ROCK LOBSTER?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDZy6-fMCw4

      /dances around table.

      1. Well it wasn’t a rock.

    9. #4. 9lb oyster.

    10. 4 is the Not. The largest oyster ever caught weighed a mere 3 lbs.

      Your prizes are these pics of a monster crab and a monster lobster.

      1. We’re gonna need a bigger pot…

      2. Holy crap.

      3. Not for nothing, but you don’t really ‘catch’ oysters, it’s more like finding them.

  13. Shower thought I had the other day: Which dystopia are we headed towards the quickest? 1984 seems to be the obvious choice, but it’s probably Fahrenheit 451, isn’t it? We’re degrading books to service short attention spans (Shakespeare in text speak), and minority groups are demanding that books be censored to conform to modern sensibilities. It’s only a matter of time before the firemen are hired, right?

    1. The eBook market is doing pretty well. Joke books like that example are not the bulk of modern literature.

    2. Oh, absolutely.

      We’re in a Dark Age.

    3. I think the use of TV families as a diversion from the real world misery in Fahrenheit 451 is totally being utilized. ISIS? WhatOMGlook Caitlyn Jenner!!!!

    4. eBooks make censorship that much easier. Bradbury wins.

    5. “Shower thought I had the other day: Which dystopia are we headed towards the quickest? 1984 seems to be the obvious choice, but it’s probably Fahrenheit 451, isn’t it?”

      The correct answer is Brave New World.

      1. What about the rape tribunals? BNW was a very sex positive dystopia.

        1. Yeah, if you’re going to go full Huxley, “Ape and Essence” is far closer to where we’re headed than Brave New World.

    6. Honestly Running man and Robocop are starting to look eerily prescient

    7. Equal parts 1984, Brave New World, and Kafka’s The Trial.

    8. Demolition Man. Prove me wrong.

      1. Is it cold in here, or is it just me?

      2. That was when Sandra Bullock was making good movies. Demolition Man, The Net, Two If by Sea.

        1. Speed

      3. Well we might have to substitute Chipotle for Taco Bell

    9. I think we are headed to a far more boring future than either of those. government is never competent enough for 1984 to happen.
      And I really don’t think that we are degrading books. There is more junk than ever (though there has been plenty of junk since cheap mass publishing became possible), but there is more of everything else too.

      While I’m not terribly hopeful that we are heading toward what i think is a better future, I don’t think we are headed to a major crisis either. Everyone thinks that they are living at the great turning point in history and they are almost always wrong.

  14. Device Turns iPad Into Sperm Tester, Startup Seeks FDA Approval

    The iSperm is an in-home tester that consists of a tiny microscope and backlight that attaches to the tablet’s camera. A sample is placed in the device and an app analyzes sperm count and motility, or how fast sperm can swim. Users can also record video of the sperm for analysis by a fertility expert.

    Reuters reported that nearly 200 farmers have used iSperm to analyze fertility in their livestock.

    The iSperm isn’t the only device that uses a mobile device camera for medical testing. Researchers at UC Berkeley have been testing the CellScope, which uses a smartphone camera to detect parasitic worms in a person’s blood.

    1. You can’t fool me, Lord H – that is a SugarFree writing.

      1. This is just an excuse to explain why there’s splooge all over your smart-device.

  15. The video Texas cops released of Sandra Bland’s traffic stop and subsequent arrest has obviously been edited…

    Having learned their lesson, they removed the part where the cops ate her marijuana edibles.

    1. I just can’t believe how stupid they are. It’s like they think everyone else is as dumb as they are. What really scares me is when they start getting professional help (as in, video editing professional) and start making it less obvious.

      1. Implying that there are any consequences for their actions, and any conceivable reason as to why they should give a shit..

        1. Damn, that’s a depressing comment, Pathogen.

          1. That’s the ugly truth, Tonio..

    2. I have to wonder if that might interest the feds. Cops tampering with evidence seems like it should bring some attention.

      1. Given that this occurred in Texas, to a black person, and in the current climate of increased (yet still tepid) concern of police abuse, this will be a hot item for the feds.

        Too bad the racial angle is going to be the most prominent one. If the race hustlers will give this one a rest and focus on the police abuse rather thatn the race card, this incident may get a lot of traction in a wider audience.

    3. they removed the part where the cops ate her marijuana edibles.

      If that had happened, she wouldn’t have died in prison.

  16. Might Tolkien have visited Bouzincourt’s caves during the First World War?

    In 1916, a 24-year-old British soldier named J.R.R. Tolkien went off to fight in World War I. He was stationed near the village of Bouzincourt, took part in the nearby Battle of the Somme and writes about the area in his diaries.

    Jeff Gusky, an explorer and photographer who maintains a site called “The Hidden World of World War I,” believes Tolkien may have visited Bouzincourt’s caves, places where hundreds of soldiers took refuge during the Somme — and that some of his impressions ended up in “The Lord of the Rings.”

    “I feel that this is the place,” Gusky said. “It’s so raw and unchanged from a hundred years ago.”

    Tolkien scholar John Garth isn’t so sure.

    “On the Somme, he certainly spent time in deep trench dugouts, and he would have been aware of the subterranean world of the army tunnelers — all of which would, I believe, have given his descriptions of Moria and other Middle-earth underworlds some of their vitality,” Garth, the author of “Tolkien and the Great War,” wrote in an email.

    “But the caves at Bouzincourt? There’s no evidence that Tolkien’s battalion stayed in anything other than huts, bivouacs or conventional billets while there in the summer of 1916,” he added.

  17. Industry rails against Obama’s dishwasher rules

    TISEMENT
    Rob McAver, the group’s head lobbyist, said regulators are going too far and the new rules will allow only 3.1 gallons to be used to wash each load of dishes.

    “At some point, they’re trying to squeeze blood from a stone that just doesn’t have any blood left in it,” McAver said.

    Some of the group’s members, which include companies like GE Appliances & Lighting and Whirlpool Corp., tweaked their models to comply with the DOE’s December proposal to ratchet up standards.

    They then ran standard tests with food stuck to dishes.

    “They found some stuff that was pretty disgusting,” McAver said.

    This is why we need more Mexicans…

    1. I spent a week on a dishline before being driven to quit. The machine was a continuous conveyor system. There were no loads. (and it got the dishes so hot that it was burning fingers even through double gloves.)

      1. This article appears to be about dishwashers manufactured for home use, not commercial models.

        1. What? But residential dishwashers are already failures at cleaning in one go as it is. Making them worse is only going to make the water usage worse.

        2. So, people will just pre-rinse, and then run the dishwasher twice. That’ll fix it!

          1. That’s silly. People will just settle for eating off dirty dishes. But then of course healthcare costs will go up. So we’re gonna need some more Obamacare, that’ll fix it.

    2. the new rules will allow only 3.1 gallons to be used to wash each load of dishes

      That’s outrageous! It takes only 1.6 gallons to flush a toilet.

      Although, to be fair, “they found some stuff that was pretty disgusting” there, too.

    3. He’s hoping that the disgusted reactions to the tests will spur DOE to go back to the drawing board for the standards and work more closely with the industry this time.

      “The poor performance that would result would totally undercut and go backwards in terms of energy and water use, because of the need for running the dishwasher again, or pre-rinsing or hand-washing, which uses a lot of water,” he said.

      Like that’s going to stop them from going through with this.

      1. Since modern dishwashers, at least every one I’ve bought this century, are microprocessor controlled it should be possible to hack them. Just as people have figured out how to bypass the EPA controls on auto firmware, people could easily program in an extra cycle for their dishwashers.

        1. The DOE will mandate that the manufacturers destroy the jtag headers after programming. Problem solved.. Check. Mate, consumer..

          1. Oh, thanks for the useful info, Pathogen. That saved me some research!

            Also, if the chips are socketed (as opposed to soldered) they can easily be replaced. I believe that’s how they do it for Porsche/BMW.

            1. Yeah, I’ve “rechipped” (really, bypassed for a different chip) the ECUs on my last two cars.

              Makes a big diff. The car drives like its 500 pounds lighter. And, yes, the ECU is plugged, not soldered, so its easy to do.

    4. The incremental gains being mandated in everything from toilets to diesel engines are lowering the overall quality and reliability of products. And it’s all to justified with statistical man-years saved, which are, needless to say, incredibly suspect calculations.

      1. Add to that the spyware that Uncle Sam requires US electronics manufacturers to secretly place in their products and we get the double whammy of diminished quality AND diminished consumer trust. The statists won’t stop until we’re living in a Kafka hellscape.

        1. Or, they find their way to the bottom of a slip trench, covered in lime..

        2. Until????

      2. ^^^THIS x1000

        Add washing machines and you’ve got the trifecta of shitting up consumers’ lives.

    5. These stupid national rules about plumbing fixtures make me wonder if people actually believe that saving water in some place with abundant ground water will help the water situation in the West. Conserving water is obviously a good idea in places where it is a scarce resource. But where I live I could leave my tap open all day and it would make no difference to anyone’s water supply. Hell, water sometimes flows out of the top of my well on its own. It’s just idiotic to aplpy rules like that nationally, even supposing it is a good idea to have government regulations for water use. Why the fuck shouldn’t I be able to buy a kitchen faucet that will fill a pot at a rate faster than 2.5 GPM?

  18. UBS issues “sell” rating for Tesla stock.

    Tesla’s stock price has officially gone into “ludicrous” mode.

    At least that’s the message from UBS, which is urging investors to slam the brakes on Tesla (TSLA). The investment bank slapped a rare “sell” rating on the Elon Musk company on Tuesday.

    UBS believes Wall Street’s lofty growth expectations have gotten out of whack with reality. Investors are overvaluing both of its businesses — electric cars and storage batteries — and underestimating the challenges ahead, the firm said.

    That’s why UBS dialed back its price target on Tesla to $210 from $220. That means UBS believes Tesla shares could drop 26% from where they closed on Monday.

    1. Sell-side research is a silly game.

  19. Hey, Democrats: Stop freaking about the ‘gig economy’

    The New York Times cites the business model of startups such as Uber and TaskRabbit as a notable reason why “most Americans remain deeply anxious about their economic prospects six years after the Great Recession ended.” In a recent economic speech, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said the “on-demand, or so-called gig economy is ? also raising hard questions about work-place protections and what a good job will look like in the future.”

    It’s understandable that traditional journalists are obsessed with the gig economy. They’re all worried that’s their part-time, piecemeal future, too. (ReporterRabbit!) And Democrats think the economic security issue is a sure winner for them. So they hype the gig economy ? while tossing the less scary “sharing economy” nomenclature. If the private sector seems uncertain, anxious workers are maybe more likely to look to government and the Government Party for help.

    1. Democrats fail to realize that the rise of the “gig economy” is due in no small part to the high costs of hiring an “employee” due to federal payroll taxes, ACA requirements, and other federally mandated benefits

      1. Yes, it is interesting.

        A couple of days ago Our QA manager, the Dev manager and I were having a conversation and in it the dev manager lamented that 2 years ago he had 6 open reqs for full time developers here in the states and then something changed and now we can’t hire ANYONE here but we can get as many bodies as we want in our India offices. We can’t even replace local headcount when people leave.

        Now, what new law went into effect right about 18 months ago that might have changed the companies mind on where to hire new employees?

      2. This

    2. The government could do some things to help workers in the gig economy – like making health insurance deductible at the individual level, easing the use of business deductions on personal tax return, income averaging for income tax.

      Somehow I doubt that Hill will propose anything like that.

      1. Turning the health insurance deduction into an individual deduction was something Republicans were pushing for pre-ACA. Obama basically told them to fuck off.

    3. Gul darn that Henry Ford and them horseless carriages. Us hardworking buggy whip makers got families to feed.

  20. New York voting on whether or not it should be harder to employ the unskilled.

    New York’s fast food workers could soon get paid a lot more.

    On Wednesday, the wage board is set to vote on New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s proposal to raise the state’s minimum wage for fast food workers to $15 an hour. The meeting will be held in New York City at 2.30 pm.

    New York’s minimum wage for all workers has risen from $7.25 to $8.75 an hour in the last two years. By the end of this year, it will be $9.

    If the wage board endorses the $15 minimum wage, fast-food workers will come one step closer to getting up to a 70% increase in their hourly wages. The state’s Labor Commissioner would need to approve the recommendations.

    1. New York is not voting on it, an unelected commission is making a pre-ordained decision.

      1. I had a feeling it would be pre-ordained. I took my summary from the “the wage board is set to vote” bit.

      2. It’s not like if the commission were popularly elected they’d be any different. This is New York and these are progressives. And way way far away over there, is rational thought. They are far removed from each other.

    2. Prediction: Foreseeable consequences will be totally unforeseen.

    3. Alternate headline: New York City about to hand large amounts of business to companies who make touch-screen ordering systems, automatic burger flippers.

      1. Prediction: New Yorkers will visit other states and think they are “backwards” for not having automated fast food while wondering why unemployment is so high back home.

        1. Nice, FM, nice.

        2. Agreed.

        3. No, they won’t be wondering, they’ll know it’s because Republicans, even tho there are like none of them in any positions of power anywhere near them…

          1. Well, just look how badly the RETHUGLIKKKANS fucked up Detroit and Baltimore!

            1. California. All of California’s problems are due to the handful of Republicans that still live there.

              1. It must suck for those two guys. Then again, those two guys are Gary Sinise and Kelsey Grammer, so they’re doing ok.

    4. Is there any doubt NY will get $15?

      Plus Cuomo. Dude screams enacting stupid legislation.

      It’s amazing how much power the economic (and scientifically) illiterate actually have given they can form public policy.

      1. Cuomo is a malignant narcissist who wants to be president. He’s already shot himself in the foot on that front (SAFE Act, being primaried and losing a third of the elcatorate to a no-name carpetbagging socialist, curruption investigation breathing down his neck). So he’s going to force through counter-productive feel-good policies to try to shore up his ruined cred.

      2. It’s amazing how much power the economic (and scientifically) illiterate actually have given they can form public policy.

        Brought to you by Democracy?

        1. ” Democracy?: The good mob-rule”

    5. So New York is trying to speed up the time by which all fast food will be prepared and served by robots? Good for them!

      1. Hey, at least the robots don’t spit (or worse) in your food

        1. I’m sure someone can fix that so you can still have the authentic experience.

    6. They could call it The Illegal Immigrant Full Employment Act.

      1. Or, the “Prop up sagging tax revenue, and ROI for municipal pension funds by projecting bullshit future income tax gains, and speculating future budgets for crony projects, while raising prevailing wages for their union masters” act..

    7. Fifteen fuckin dollars. Do the burger flippers at places like Shake Shack or Five Guys make that much? I’ll be happy to see more automation at fast food places, but this is going to make the higher quality stuff even more expensive.

  21. Digital Misfits Link JPMorgan Hack to Pump-and-Dump Fraud

    Authorities arrested four people in Israel and Florida and revealed a complex securities fraud scheme tied to the computer hacks of JPMorgan Chase & Co. and other financial institutions.

    Behind the alleged crimes described Tuesday is a remarkable story of unpredictable alliances in modern computer crime involving, if true, a multi-layered organization with tentacles reaching Moscow, Tel Aviv and West Palm Beach.

    Officials in Israel on Tuesday picked up two men charged in the U.S. with running a multimillion-dollar stock manipulation scheme. A third person remains at large. In another case in Florida, officials arrested two men for operating an unlicensed money-transfer business using bitcoins.

  22. If any of you are investing in a Roth IRA, can you please explain why? I just can’t bring myself to believe that my tax rate will be lower when I retire than it is now. Am I missing something?

    1. Withdrawals, under current law, are untaxed if you meet certain criteria (above a certain age, investments have been in the Roth for a period of time, and a few others). This includes gains.

      Yes, the government can change the law at any time.

      Tax deductions for deposits to a regular IRA phase out at certain income levels and if I remember correctly withdrawals are taxed from a regular IRA.

      1. Yeah, but I haven’t maxed out my 401k yet, so I think I’m better off doing that before considering an IRA.

        1. It also depends on how good your 401k plan is.

          The expenses are much higher on funds you could purchase directly from a brokerage.

    2. Am I missing something?

      Well, not yet: the “haircuts” are in the future.

    3. I have both a traditional IRA and a 401k to hedge for the future.

    4. Plastics.

    5. I guess it depends on how much you’re making right now. If you are in one of the bottom two or three tax brackets, it’s really disadvantageous; one of the top two or so, probably to your advantage. In the middle, we’re talking about the difference of a few hundred dollars, three decades from now, so kinda a wash.

      1. Also, what DEG said

    6. 1. maximum in 401k
      2. max out your HSA (I haven’t sold my wife on this yet, but HSA contributions are pre-SS tax too and at retirement work just like 401k)
      3. max out a tIRA if you’re below the limit, otherwise you might as well Roth it
      4. taxable investments

      1. Note that HSAs are only available to those with high deductible insurance plans. A good number of employee-sponsored plans aren’t high deductible plans.

      2. Don’t HSA contributions expire at the end of each calendar year, or have they changed that?

        1. FSA’s expire, HSA’s do not.

          1. That must have changed.

      3. HSA’s are even better than that. (Under current law, so grain of salt) they are pre-FICA tax going in and are tax free *forever* if they are used for health care expenses.

        Also, if you move out of a high-deductible plan the money is still yours with the same rules. I’m no longer in that boat, but I can use my HSA money from a prior plan for health care expenses now or anytime in the future.

        1. In other words, max it out, invest in til retirement, and in retirement use it first for all eligible health expenses. No taxes paid on either end.

    7. The government can either tax your retirement account once, or it can do it twice. Just because you pay the tax up front, doesn’t mean they won’t come back for more. I for one, would always prefer to defer taxation to the future because I operate off the sound theory that the government are all lying, unaccountable, kleptocratic scumbags who are bound by no contracts or promises made by their lying, unaccountable, kleptocratic scumbag predecessors.

    8. Isn’t that why Roth’s exist? You put after tax money in and if you follow the rules you don’t pay taxes when you are retired and take money out.

      1. But who’s to say they won’t tax you again when you withdraw? Statutory law is a fickle bitch and the hucksters who push it are not beholden to the promises of yesteryear.

        1. Yeah, it’s a risk. Who’s to say they won’t start taking from your 401k?

          I think it’s far more likely that taxes will be jacked up 40 years from now, and I hope I’m in a higher tax bracket then than I am now. So it’s a Roth for me.

        2. Oh, sure. I’m not counting on any of it working they way they said.

          Do you think that there is any point to using any of the special tax status retirement account types?

          I figure go for a range of retirement accounts and still keep plenty in regular brokerage accounts and hope for the best. But I have to admit I’m really not as on top of it as i should be.

    9. I never did because I fully expect that at the very least high-income or high net worth people will be taxed on Roths by the time I retire (15-20 years from now).

    10. The Roth IRA is great way to save for retirement, and a great asset in an decedent’s estate.

      However, can you trust the bastards in Congress and the IRS to remain faithful to let the Roth forever be tax-exempt?

  23. Five Tucson police officers have been fired for making or attempting to make appointments at an “illicit massage parlor”

    What a bunch of doofus bros.

  24. Obama complained to Jon Stewart on last night’s Daily Show that the media “gets distracted by shiny objects and doesn’t always focus on the big tough choices” he makes.

    Huffington Post headline (for reals): Obama Promises Executive Order to Keep Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

    Sooooooooooo dreamy!

    1. Well, the progs are about to lose one of the few political smear/hit-men that the millennial give a shit enough to listen to.. A cryin’ assed shame, right there..

  25. How to buy Libertopia.

    You don’t have to be super rich to own a slice of paradise.

    Islands are on sale all over the world for less than $100,000, tempting those looking for a vacation retreat, or total change of pace.

  26. Experts warn Floridians to steer clear of armadillos to avoid leprosy exposure

    Leprosy cases in Florida are higher than normal and experts are blaming armadillos. Nine cases have been reported across Florida so far this year.

    On average, the state only sees 10 cases for the entire year. Action News spoke to a trapper who said he takes extra precautions because of this danger.

    Armadillos are very common all over Florida, and most of them live in the woods. But others could live near your home, and we learned that puts you and your family at risk.

    “We catch more armadillos than we do any other species,” said wildlife trapper Kyle Waltz.

    1. This isn’t anything new. 9 cases this year. Big whoop.

      1. Yeah. Send them all to an island like in the olden times!

    2. I like the version you linked to better than the one I found.

    3. FLORIDA, Come for the leprosy, stay for the sudden and inescapable sinkholes!

      1. Geez, you’d think their python problem would solve their armadillo problem.

        1. What they need are gorillas. Then the gorilla problem will solve itself when they all die off in the harsh Floridian winter.

  27. So I watched Agora last night. Passable version of the Hypatia story. I just wish the script writer didn’t feel the need to turn the Bishop of Alexandria into an ISIS leader. The actual conflict between the church, the Jews, and the prefect was an interesting enough story without altering it to modern sensibilities.

  28. More children living in poverty now than during recession

    About 22% of children in the U.S. lived below the poverty line in 2013, compared with 18% in 2008, the foundation’s 2015 Kids Count Data Book reported. In 2013, the U.S. Department of Human and Health Service’s official poverty line was $23,624 for a family with two adults and two children.

    “The fact that it’s happening is disturbing on lots of levels,” said Laura Speer, the associate director for policy reform and advocacy at the Casey Foundation, a non-profit based in Baltimore. “Those kids often don’t have the access to the things they need to thrive.” The foundation says its mission is to help low-income children in the U.S. by providing grants and advocating for policies that promote economic opportunity.

    1. “Those kids often don’t have the access to the things they need to thrive.”

      Decent parents?

      *** ducks ***

    2. About 22% of children in the U.S. lived below the poverty line in 2013, compared with 18% in 2008

      Recovery summer? Are we there yet?

    3. I blame Bush. And the Koch brothers.

      1. How dare they employ people!?

    4. Could be explained simply by poor people having a greater percentage of children over the last seven years.

    5. 1 in 5 kids?? I honestly don’t know how this is even possible. Seriously someone is fucking around with the numbers. And how is the poverty line dealt with if there is a single parent? And do welfare, SNAP, other public assistance count toward the income level (I am sure it doesn’t).
      Why don’t we just go ahead and mandate that all families make $100,000 a year. If you make more, we will give to those who make less that we way it is “fair”.

      1. The problem is the poverty line is defined by income quintiles instead of some absolute number.

        And the poorer end is having more children than the richer end, so more % of children are in that segment of incomes.

      2. They base poverty on inequality, not actual measures like having food to eat, a roof over their head, and clothes to wear. So if they feel bad because someone else has more stuff than them, then they are living in poverty.

        1. Which explains why American “poor” is Zimbabwe megarich.

          1. Better to be equally poor than to be unequally rich.

            1. That’s right. Or else my overactive envy gland will flood my body with oxytocin. I need to feel like no one is better than me.

          2. It’s call petarich in Zimbabwe ’cause its measured in Z$

      3. The poverty line is pretty much defined by the bottom quintile of income, I believe, so the number in “poverty” will always be around 1 in 5, by definition.

        Seems to me that all this means is that poorer people have slightly more kids per capita now than they did a few years ago.

    6. Plus they get to eat shitty Michelle-approved food.

      http://bit.ly/1g4SdO7

      The turnip is a metaphor for Obama.

  29. Democratic Party Machinery Shows Rust
    Leaders worry losses of state, local offices create shortage of top candidates

    Democrats maintain a significant electoral college advantage as shifting U.S. demographics tilt their way. This spring, a Pew Research Center analysis found that 48% of Americans either identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, compared with 39% who identify with Republicans or lean Republican.

    But many Democrats worry that GOP success capturing state and local offices will erode that advantage before they have a chance to rebuild.

    “If you don’t have a well-funded state party, if you don’t have state infrastructure, then you’re just whistling past the graveyard,” Mr. Redfern said. From his new perch in the hospitality industry, he described leading the state party as the “worst job in politics.”

    After two presidential victories, Mr. Obama presides over a Democratic Party that has lost 13 seats in the U.S. Senate and 69 in the House during his tenure, a net loss unmatched by any modern U.S. president.

    1. It doesn’t help that a huge percentage of the Democrat voting base are people who don’t show up to elections because they’re completely uneducated and oftentimes not legally allowed to vote due to, you know, felony convictions or not being legal citizens.

      I guess this is the problem you run into when your party exists primarily due to your willingness to cater to increasingly sleazy people.

      1. Lowering the bar is the Democrat’s superpower. Never doubt their ability to lower it further, it can be done.

      2. a huge percentage of the Democrat voting base are people who don’t show up to elections

        Fortunately, many of them manage to have a vote cast without ever actually, you know, voting.

      3. They’re also typically clustered in urban downtowns, college towns, and high-end wealthy enclaves. It won’t matter if they have *more* voters as long as they continue to willingly balkanize themselves geographically among people who think the exact same way they do.

  30. Unbelievable story out of the Vietnam War.

    During the fall of Saigon, a Vietnamese Air Force officer stole a Chinook and loaded up his family in it. Then he piloted it to a U.S. Navy ship and had his family bail out into the arms of sailors on the deck, since the ship was too small to land on. Then he ditched the helicopter in the sea and was rescued by the crew. He and his family moved to the U.S. and built themselves up from nothing but the clothes on their back.

    1. Meh. White privilege, etc. etc. he didn’t build that.

    2. Awesome story

    3. Er, you forgot the part when they were all about to drown but Obama suddenly appeared and pulled each of them out of the water.

    4. That Chinook ain’t free!

    5. Thanks for posting. That is badass.

        1. Thirded. Thank you John. That’s a wonderful anti-nut punch.

  31. Jeb Bush slurs war hero John Kerry: Will the GOP call him out like Donald Trump?

    Jeb Bush was quick to denounce Donald Trump after the reality show host-turned-presidential candidate made his ugly claim that Sen. John McCain was “not a war hero” last weekend. “Enough with the slanderous attacks. @SenJohnMcCain and all our veterans ? particularly POWs have earned our respect and admiration,” he tweeted Saturday.

    But journalists quickly saw a problem for Bush: he had signed on to a similar attack on a decorated war hero: 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry, when he was running against Jeb’s brother George. Unbelievably, Bush reiterated his support for those ugly attacks on Kerry Tuesday afternoon in South Carolina.

    To recap: Bush backed the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth’s shameful attacks on Kerry, writing a letter to the group’s founder, Col. Bud Day, thanking him and the “other Swifties” for their “support of my brother in his re-election.” It went on: “I simply cannot express in words how much I value their willingness to stand up against John Kerry.” That “willingness,” of course, involved claiming Kerry lied about the military service that won him the Purple Heart.

    1. Time has moved on. I see Swifties and think they’re fans of a certain pop starlet.

      Swift Boat Veterans for Taylor would work, even if a little Old Man with Candyish.

    1. Christophe Waltz is the man.

      1. And Lea Seydoux is the woman.

        Not thrilled with her hair color here, but she is delicious.

  32. Dear white progressives: Stop telling black people how to vote
    The left has always used black voters without truly prioritizing black issues ? we’re done coming through for you

    We are now in the midst of the 2016 presidential election, which means both parties are pandering to their bases as well as to unlikely voters who may be swayed to their respective sides. Although it’s early, this election cycle has already been dominated by questions of which candidate will garner “the black vote,” as if black people are monolithic. Given that thousands of black people are currently leading a social justice movement across the nation that the media has dubbed the “Black Lives Matter Movement,” the black electorate appears to be at the forefront of politicians’ minds.

    There is a history of black communities voting Democrat ? that is, when we are actually allowed to vote, as we were historically targeted for explicitly racist disenfranchisement in the 20th century and felon disenfranchisement in the 21st century. During the 19th century, the Democratic Party was well known for instituting anti-black policies in the South such as Jim Crow, poll taxes and literacy tests. Since then, the Democratic Party has shifted its image to racial indifference, while the Republican Party picked up its racially hostile characteristics.

    1. A lot of black people hold fairly conservative views that are not that much different from Southern whites. There is of course no place in the party for Southern Whites anymore. It seems likely that the thirty or so percent of blacks who share similar views with conservative whites are going to start to figure out there is no place for them either. White Dems care about gays and Mexicans not blacks.

      1. I’ve noticed that. They’re more religious than whites and I’m pretty sure blacks don’t support gay marriage, for example, all that much.

        1. Black people and southern white trash are the same people in every respect except skin color and jumping ability. The only real political difference is that obvious historical reasons have given black people a much stronger sense of solidarity.

        2. Or tranny rights

      2. A lot of black people hold fairly conservative views that are not that much different from Southern whites.

        On a related note, I worked at factory west of Philly one summer when I was an undergrad. About 75% of the factory employees were black, and more than a few lived in Philly. The area I grew up in was northwest of Philly and in those days mostly farms with some dead industrial towns. I, a white kid, have more in common with the blacks I worked with than Barak Obama has in common with them.

        1. I am the same way. I have more in common with black people I was in the army with than my white prog neighbors

          1. The lust for white fatties binds you together.

            1. Did you work on that joke all morning? Must have taken a lot of thought to come up with something that original

              1. Overruled.

                *Awards Free Society 10 points*

              2. It came to me in a dream when I was a boy. I’ve been waiting decades for the moment to use it, not knowing when. And there it was.

                1. You’re like a national hero… or maybe not.

                2. It is likely the best you will ever do Free Society. So congratulations I guess.

                  1. Thanks John. I’m going to call my mom and tell her the good news.

                    1. John is just upset by your use of “white,” because he’s colorblind when it comes to the plus-sized ladies.

                    2. Colorblind. Eyes closed. Lights turned off. Whatev.

                    3. Racially, he’s pretty cool.

            2. If only John has a shaving profile, it’ll be complete.

    2. ? we’re done coming through for you

      I have my doubts that the author of this quip really speaks for the rather monolithic black vote. Nor has LBJs notorious 200 year time lapse taken place.

      Since then, the Democratic Party has shifted its image to racial indifference, while the Republican Party picked up its racially hostile characteristics.

      What the fuck is this guy talking about? The Democrats are the polar opposite of “racially indifferent”, meanwhile the GOP whose biggest failings in electoral race relations has been a distinct lack of effective racial pandering. Racial indifference would be the ideal for a society that has it’s shit together about race.

      If this country has problems with issues of race, it’s almost entirely the fault of the “anti-racist” left with their endless grievance campaigns and outright lies meant to stir the pot. They don’t actually want a “national conversation about race”, they want a national social justice reeducation camp about race. They certainly don’t want racial tension to disappear, they need it, they love it and they can’t survive without it.

    3. I’ll believe it when I see it. Blacks having been voting democrat in numbers over 80% for my entire life, and they ain’t going to convince anyone that they won’t continue to do so until they actually have an election where the numbers dip to at a minimum 70%.

      1. If the Dem share even dropped to 80% it would be cataclysmic for them on the national level.

    4. There is a history of black communities voting Democrat[Republican]

      at least historically. It’s only recently that blacks became a solid Democrat base. Hell, for that matter, Southern whites historically voted Democrat (see Yellow Dog Democrat and Southern Democrat labels).

      But nice try to (correctly) identify the Democrats as the racist party of the 19th century and use the phrase “since then” to imply that that their racism ended in that century. Prog hero Wilson was one of the most racist presidents and did more to promote segregation & limit blacks than just about any other.

  33. I guess gay marriage and tranny rights might not be the ticket to endless electoral dominance.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..d=sm_tw_pp

    1. I for one, hope I live to see the day when we have a president who is gay, black, transgendered and crippled. I don’t care about his politics, I just feel like I want that. /Cavanaugh

      1. You want another one of those?

    2. Yeah, I’ve been wondering when a major publication would pick up on that. If the Democrats want to make tranny-bathrooms the major platform of their next presidential campaign, I don’t think we’ll hear President Walker complaining.

  34. Clinton’s gender will be front and center in her campaign this time around.

    I am *so* glad they didn’t say “Clinton’s sex”.

    1. Gender makes it sound like Bill is running again only this time in drag.

    2. So, she’s finally coming out of the closet?

      You know, that might almost be interesting enough for me to care.

  35. Ron Wyden expresses concern over Iran deal, says Obama is ‘flouting’ Congress

    Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, said Saturday that he has concerns about the nuclear deal with Iran, adding that that he believes the Obama administration is “flouting” Congress by going to United Nations to get approval first.

    “Now there was a new wrinkle in this on Friday, which concerned me, which was the administration was talking about going to the U.N. to get approval,” Wyden told a town hall audience this weekend. “I think the U.N. does some very good things, I think they do some other things not so good. But the point is going to the U.N. before the Congress weighs in is really in my view flouting the Review Act, you know the whole point?”

    “I hope I’ve told you what my concerns are a, b, how I’m going to proceed with it, and three, I didn’t much care for this notion that suddenly this is going to go to the U.N. and somehow there would be a U.N. stamp of approval before the Congress has a chance to review it.”

    Actually, losing Wyden could jeopardize Obama’s veto of the deal. There are enough other Dems nervous about supporting the deal to make them flip and push for an override.

    1. Even if it is a good deal, Obama has been such an incompetent prick in dealing with Congress they are still unlikely to support it.

      1. I wish they wouldn’t support just to see the guy bitch and whine like a baby.

      2. Nah!

        They’ll fall in line. They don’t want to face the wrath of the vindictive one and his enablers.

    2. a, b, and three

      Cool list bro

    3. No way does this deal get overturned. The Dems and Obama only have to muscle 23 Dems into not overriding his veto. They can cut, what, 20-odd Dems loose to vote against it. They can uphold his veto with Dems who won’t be in front of the voters for at least three years.

      Its done. Iran gets over a hundred billion in cash and free reign with their nuclear program.

      This might actually bring peace to the Middle East, eventually, as it could well set off the kind of all-consuming war that leads to victory and exhaustion.

      1. Bad math. They have to muscle 33 Dems, and cut loose I think its 13 to vote against it. I think there are 10 Dems up in 2016, so they can do what they need to do, with a few to spare.

        1. And doing that will mean like Obamacare it will happen without a single Republican Vote meaning the Dems in Congress will own it. Good luck with that. Obama really is going to destroy the party.

  36. And remember gay marriage would never lead to courts recognizing polygamy. No one wants that.

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015…..?referrer=

    1. I want that.

      1. How would your stuff get divided up when you get divorced from one or more of the marrieds?

        1. I have no idea. Sounds like just the sort of situation that the common law system is good at figuring out.

        2. Partnership law, my friend, sorted this problem out about 300 years ago.

          Hint: its just as easy to divide by three as it is to divide by two.

      2. A Warty “marriage” is a special kind of marriage, it’s not like marriage for squares.

        1. On a very special edition of “The Adventures of Warty’s Dungeon”

        2. Not only is Warty-marriage illegal in 39 states, it is actually a capital offense in 3.

          Warty-marriage is the only crime in Britain for which the punishment is still transportation to Australia.

      3. No you don’t. No one does!

        1. Of course I do. I want everything except for whatever it is that you like. I hate that. Whatever it is.

    2. I couldn’t care less if the courts recognize polygamy. Actually, I take that back. They should recognize polygamy.

      1. I know. But 90% of the rest of the country doesn’t and were assured gay marriage would not lead to polygamy. That is what makes this so fun. If the gay activists don’t take up polygamy, they are hypocrites. If they do, they are liars.

        I don’t think there is a right to either. But if there is a right to one, there is a right to both.

        1. There are problems on both sides of this argument.

          Yes, the argument in favor of gay marriage has always carried legalization of polygamy as a logical extension. There is simply no way to justify gay marriage as a civil right without also recognizing plural marriage as a civil right (in fact plural marriage has by far the greater claim).

          The problem is as you note, polygamy is unpopular with the general public for multiple reasons and so the gay marriage activists were forced to lie and obfuscate over the issue to keep the 2 from being conflated.

          On the flip side the anti gay marriage crowd, who are mostly conservative and religious went all the way down that slippery slope past legal polygamy and right to legalized pedophillia and beastiality and they utterly refuse to acknowledge that those 2 are categorically not the same as gay marriage and polygamy. As a result it is hard to fault the gay marriage advocates too much for shying away from being accepting of polygamy because any mention of it inevitably meant try to defend themselves from charges of advocating the rape of children and animals

          1. It is easy to blame them. As you point out if gay marriage was a civil right then a lot of other things are too. They should have gone for civil unions or tried to win at the ballot box and concentrated on solving the real problems with contract and inheritance that they claimed to exist instead of trying to create a civil right and the much desired ability to fuck with people that came with it.

            They wanted the civil right because they wanted the ability to use the government to force people to accept them. So, I have no problem blaming them for lying to get it and for watching them twist in the wind and try and avoid the consequences of getting it.

            They left is going to go for polygamy because fighting the culture war is all they have. And I don’t think it is going to work out very well for them. And it is going to put gay rights activists in a very tight spot.

            1. I’m not so sure that polygamy will be a big one for the left. I’m sure some that want to be consistent will, but you have to remember that identity politics is far more important that consistency or principle. And most polygamists are icky religious fanatics.

              1. Maybe Zeb. But when they say no to polygamists they are going to look like the hypocrites they are. It is going to end the moral authority of the gay rights community. It will be like if the blacks decided the Mexicans didn’t deserve CRA protection. It is going to be great calling them hypocrites and listen to them whine about how “being gay is different” even though it is not.

                I think tranny rights is more likely to be next. And that is only marginally more popular than polygamy. And the entire thinking behind there being such a thing as “transgendered” is totally at ods with the feminist dogma that gender is a social construct. I suspect the pro on prog fight over that is going to be pretty nasty too and quite fun to watch.

                1. I thought they already looked like giant hypocrites on a number of issues, but maybe that’s just me.

                  If you can get pissed at someone saying “all lives matter” you can do anything.

      2. Agreed. The state should recognized any contract willing entered by consenting adults.

    3. Liars gonna lie.

    4. Yes, Team Blue and their gay friends are liars. So? What does that change about there being no good argument against consensual polygamy?

      1. No good argument!?! It’s Adam and EVE, not Adam and STEVE and EVE!!!

        1. Yeah polygamist societies have all turned out great. Anyone who doesn’t want to be more like Saudi Arabia is just a fundie.

          1. False equivalence is false.

            Saudi Arabia’s problems aren’t caused by polygamy.

            You’re hyperbole is showing again.

            1. Some of their problems most certainly are. Their polygamy leads them to view women as property and have a surplus of angry men. It is funny to watch libertarians go off the rails and tell themselves that there could never be any drawbacks to any social practice no matter how obvious those drawbacks are.

              1. Polygamy doesn’t lead them to view women as property. People who already view women as property are going to make for shitty husbands, polygamous or otherwise. Since the vast vast vast majority of people in the United States don’t view women as property, polygamy isn’t going to lead to a rash of laws or social changes that abuse women.

                1. That is what you think but there is no evidence of that. In fact, being able to have multiple wives would most certainly lead you to value each wife less. How could it not?

                  Moreover, ending polygamy has always lead to an increase in respect for women. Most societies were polygamous at one time or another. And they only started to respect women as equals more equal after the practice ended.

                  But hey, it is all just correlation. Just dumb brown people. How your society views marriage could never affect how it views the sexes. Never.

                  1. . In fact, being able to have multiple wives would most certainly lead you to value each wife less. How could it not?

                    Do people with multiple kids love them less? Brother and sisters? Aunts and Uncles? Do I value my friends less just because I have more than one friend? The answer in all of those cases for me and the people I know is “No”.

                    And why does it have to be one man and multiple women? Why not all kinds of unique and cool arrangements?

                    I’m not really interested in a polygamous sexual relationship, but my wife and I could be down for some sort of shared economic, child rearing, and emotional support arrangement with another couple that is still sexually monogamous.

                    If you’re limited by your own imagination, that is your problem, not mine or anyone else’s.

                  2. Moreover, ending polygamy has always lead to an increase in respect for women

                    Yeah, the Church outlawed polygamy in 673 and it was all uphill from there!!!!

                    And did you know that women obtained the right to vote after the Morril Anti-Bigamy act was signed into law? I mean, granted it was almost 60 years afterward, but I just *know* that if polygamy wasn’t outlawed that women would still not have the right to vote.

              2. And when are you going to admit that the polygamy that would be legalized in the US is not just the male dominated one that exists in Muslim communities?

                The reality is that Polygamy in the US when it is legalized will look a lot more like the plural marriages described in Robert Heinlein’s stories than the traditional 1 man many wives model of history.

                Sure there will be sub groups of religious people in the US who will follow that model, Mormons, Muslims, and some Christian Fundamentalists will adopt it. However the majority are likely to be mixed groups with multiple members of each gender who are marrying for the economic benefits and that will not produce a surplus of angry young men with no marriage prospects.

                1. And when are you going to admit that the polygamy that would be legalized in the US is not just the male dominated one that exists in Muslim communities?

                  And there are no Muslim communities here? The large majority of people who would actually partake of polygamy would be Muslims. Sure, a few nice white people would do it and be the subject of fawning articles in New York Magazine. But the large majority doing it would be Muslims and it would work for them here just like it does at home.

                  1. But the large majority doing it would be Muslims and it would work for them here just like it does at home.

                    Really? Under US law, a polygamist husband would by default own his wife like a chattel slave?

                    1. Yes it would. Who says they go to court? They have their own communities and own ways of handling things. Moreover, last I looked Libertarians were all for the ability of Muslims to voluntarily submit themselves to Sharia courts that will follow those very rules.

                      Yes, it will work here just like it does over there.

                    2. Yes it would. Who says they go to court?

                      Do you think any Muslim polygamists go to courts now to arbitrate disputes? Do you think white protestant abusive husbands that treat their wife like a chattel slave would voluntarily submit themselves to a common law court? The argument you’re making could just as easily be applied to monogamous abusive husbands, they have their own communities and “own ways of handling things”. Maybe we shouldn’t let Muslims get married at all because they have their own communities and their own ways of doing things outside of the US legal system.

                      And they’re not really “married” anyways because we all know that Christians have a monopoly on the concept and only Christians technically count as married couples anyways.

                  2. –“And there are no Muslim communities here? The large majority of people who would actually partake of polygamy would be Muslims. “–

                    Sure but not really enough to matter. Muslims make up less than 1% of the US population and the portion of those who would actively participate in Polygamy would be smaller. What is more, those plural marriages almost certainly already exist they just are not recognized by the government so in the end almost nothing would change.

                    –“The large majority of people who would actually partake of polygamy would be Muslims.”–

                    No they wouldn’t. Mormons outnumber Muslims by 2 to 1 and if it became legal there would be other Christian sects that would adopt Polygamy as acceptable (as it is clearly acceptable in the Bible) along with some Jewish sects as well and we haven’t touched Newagers, Neopagans, and athiests/agnostics would would be open to adopting decidedly non patriarchal forms of polygamy.

                    In the end Muslim Polygamy would not even be able to muster a plurality of polygamous marriages in the US were it to be legalized forget having an outright majority

                    1. What is more, those plural marriages almost certainly already exist they just are not recognized by the government so in the end almost nothing would change.

                      Except that by legalizing it, you might bring it out of the shadows. At least in some cases women in an abusive polygamous relationship would be more likely to seek recourse in a standard court of law.

                    2. Lynchpin,

                      If we were talking about decriminalizing it, I might agree with you. But as we found out with gay marriage, making something legal is not enough. It only ends when the government recognizes it and punishes anyone who doesn’t.

                      Sorry but the Libertarian credibility on “don’t worry we just want people to live in peace” ended with gay marriage. That is not how it ever works out.

                    3. We are talking about decriminalizing it and getting marriage back to a private system. That is what almost everyone here would prefer. You act like there are only two choices: the status quo and government recognition a la gay marriage.

                      Well I don’t accept that as being set in stone. Libertarians tried and failed to get government out of marriage with regards to gay marriage, so we try again. But it actually takes people who are willing to reject the false dichotomy and fight time and time again to change the boundaries of the conversation.

                    4. Libertarians tried and failed to get government out of marriage with regards to gay marriage,

                      No they didn’t. They abandoned all pretense of getting the government out of marriage and said the gays had a civil rfight to get the government in their marriage. .What you talking about? The gays had a government free marriage system before. The gay marriage debate was all about bringing them into the government marriage system. No Libertarian I ever saw said that requiring courts to recognize gay marriage contracts was good enough. If they had, they would have supported civil unions.
                      i
                      Don’t rewrite history. The Libertarians embraced government marriage as a right. Since straights had it, gays must get on the action too. No one ever talked about doing something different and less coercive like civil unions for the gays.

                    5. You’re the one rewriting history. The libertarian position has always been that government should not be in the business of licensing marriages. But since it was clear that wasn’t going to fly, as a secondary position many libertarians (including me) have said that if the government is going to license marriages, it should license all marriages between consenting adults regardless of gender or number.

                      In other words, libertarians have proposed an alternative to the false dichotomy of status quo vs government licensing, while also supporting a back up position that is consistent with libertarian views regarding equal application of the laws.

                      I stand by that. If you couldn’t and still can’t understand that reasoning then that is your problem. I really don’t know what to tell you.

                    6. Okay Rassillio so instead of Muslims it will be Mormons. You know the ones who live on compounds and kick their teenage boys onto the street lest they compete with the old men for the attention of the young girls.

                      Do you have any idea how those sects actually work? Here is a hint, it isn’t like Sister Wives. Sorry, you are not helping your cause here. Mormon polygamists are actually worse in many ways than the Arab ones.

                      Is there any practice you guys will admit might not be a good idea? It is one thing to claim “sure this sucks but a right is a right”. You guys kind of do that but you can’t bring yourself to admit that any practice could ever cause harm or have second order effects. Nope,. someone somewhere wants to do it and it is consensual so there can’t possibly be any second order effects or harm resulting from it.

                    7. Muslims + Mormons in the US = 2.5% of the population.

                      Legalizing Polygamy here and between them combined they might be able to muster 3/4ths of a percent of all households as plural marriages with maybe 1.5% of adult women being party to those marriages and 1/2 of a percent of adult men.

                      The quantity of “surplus” young men would be negligible plus those men would be legally able to join a marriage where 2 men shared 1 wife between them utterly negating the problem.

                      And yes, for the record I am well aware of how those mormon sects work, and since you seem to grasp the concept with the drug war let me put it this way.

                      Polygamy is utterly illegal today and yet those sects exist and the Muslims continue to have plural marriages adjudicated by their sharia courts all without the blessing of the state. So tell me, exactly what do you think you are accomplishing by making polygamy illegal? Do you honestly think there is a huge pent up demand of men willing and able to marry a bunch of women and women who want to be locked up in a male dominated plural family just waiting for it to become legal?

                      All of the problems you are raising exist today with polygamy illegal, legalizing it would change NOTHING

              3. Their polygamy leads them to view women as property

                Yeah, good thing married women weren’t essentially the property of their husbands in Western societies for centuries.

                1. Sure RC and that changed here but didn’t there. Polygamy could have nothing to do with that. Never. We just changed because we are superior white people not because we embraced monogamy.

                  1. We just changed because we are superior white people not because we embraced monogamy.

                    Holy shit! The west embraced monogamy long before women began to be treated with greater equality, both in law and in culture. Or, to put it another way, the systematic marginalization and discrimination of women in law and culture continued under monogamy for centuries.

                    We changed because of this thing called the Enlightenment and it’s legacy. Some white people have been rejecting and actively trying to destroy that legacy for centuries. Plenty of non-white people have embraced that legacy and plenty of non-white people have also rejected and tried to destroy it. Skin color has nothing to do with it and most libertarians understand that fact.

                2. Clearly polygamy would destroy anything that resembles equality before the law. That’s why we make the law discriminate against certain types of contracts that some vociferous Christians might find icky.

                  1. Comment was made earlier … I can see significant appeal in the Heinlein-style concept of chain marriages.

                    ‘d even consider it myself. All the parties control the size, gender mix and age-distribution of the chain, there really aren’t any inheritance and probate issues, because the estate is effectively a family trust.

              4. Their polygamy leads them to view women as property

                I’m pretty sure it’s the other way around. Women being considered property means that the kind of polygamy that happens there can exist. Legalized plural marriage will nto turn the US into Saudi.
                Polygamy isn’t rare in the Western world because of laws against it. It is rare because very few people want it. I very much doubt that legalized polygamy would change much at all. The people who want to live that way probably already are.

                In any case, I don’t really care. I don’t want that kind of social engineering. If people want that kind of relationship, then they should do that and the consequences are what they are.

          2. Consentual adults associating is not the same thing as arranged marriages or buying women with goats.

            1. For sure. I mean there is no such thing as unintended consequences. Nope. Good while people would never act like filthy Arabs even if they start adopting their social mores. We are too good for that.

              1. Who adopting their social mores? I pretty certain polygamy in Arab countries is one man and multiple women. Polygamy in America would allow any mix that is happy together. Even if it was completely legal tomorrow I doubt it would become common, so I doubt it is going to destroy the social fabric of America.

                1. We are if we have government recognized polygamy. That is one of their most important social mores. But don’t worry your little head. Causality only goes one way and we are better than those brown people. It can’t happen here.

                  1. We are if we have government recognized polygamy. That is one of their most important social mores. But don’t worry your little head. Causality only goes one way and we are better than those brown people. It can’t happen here.

                    So every country that has monogamy has the exact same social mores?

                    1. No Florida man. I am saying every country that has polygamy treats women in appalling ways.

                    2. No Florida man. I am saying every country that has polygamy treats women in appalling ways.

                      So that country is to blame, not polygamy. If polygamy was legal here tomorrow you still couldn’t treat women like property. Women have rights here and there is no way that is changing just because some Mormons and people who don’t believe in traditional family get legally recognized married.

                    3. So that country is to blame, not polygamy.

                      So the way you view marriage could never affect how you view the sexes? Why do you assume that is true?

                    4. No Florida man. I am saying every country that has polygamy treats women in appalling ways.

                      Well, if we’re going by that measure, historically speaking monogamy has pretty much lead to the exact same things. Greek and Roman monogamy did not make them magically treat women better (in fact you can argue that the Greeks treated women worse than some polygamous societies).

            2. So, how many goats would a hot red-head cost me?

              1. Need more information. We talkin’ meat goats or milkin’ goats?

                1. Well how about some of both?

              2. Depends on whether the carpet matches the drapes and how crazy she is

          3. “Yeah polygamist societies have all turned out great. Anyone who doesn’t want to be more like Saudi Arabia is just a fundie.”

            Yes John, the primary problem with Saudi Arabia is the polygamy. It’s not the fact that Saudi Arabian polygamy involves women being forced into marriages against their will or the ten thousand other anti-women laws in Saudi Arabia – it’s the polygamy.

            Polygamy in a western society where all adults are consenting =/= polygamy in Saudi Arabia where women are forced into the relationship and treated like cattle.

            1. Yes Irish it could never be that polygamy leads to all that. We all know correlation never is associated with causality and there is no such thing as unintended consequences.

              You like polygamy so no bad thing could ever result from it.

              1. Yes Irish it could never be that polygamy leads to all that. We all know correlation never is associated with causality and there is no such thing as unintended consequences.

                You like polygamy so no bad thing could ever result from it.

                Correct, it’s the religion that does this. In fact it’s the religion that leads to both. How you could think polygamy is the root cause I’ll never know.

                1. That is totally untrue. Arabia was polygamist long before Islam and not every Muslim society is polygamist. The religion is not the problem. It is the culture that is the problem.

                  It must be horrible for you guys to think that religion is not the problem but some groovy practice your prog friends told you was cool.

                  1. It must be horrible for you guys to think that religion is not the problem but some groovy practice your prog friends told you was cool.

                    You’re so funny when you get like this.

                    Next can you tell me why I shop at Whole Foods based on the conversations I don’t have with friends that you don’t know? I’m just dying for some of your wisdom.

                  2. Most society’s were polygamist at some point. It just so happens that Islam endorses the practice. If Islam did not endorse this practice, do you think it would happen in Saudi Arabia of all places? And of course it’s a cultural problem, Islam has a way of preserving tons of anachronistic cultural practices, some more barbaric and despicable than others.

              2. Correlation is sometimes related to causation. Just not in this case.

              3. “You like polygamy so no bad thing could ever result from it.”

                Who said I like polygamy? I don’t like adultery and also oppose it being made illegal.

                I don’t like crack and also oppose the drug war.

                Are you really falling into the SoCon/progressive stance that if I oppose the outlawing of something I must support it? I’m not – I suspect polygamous relationships would be more unstable than monogamous relationships, but I also suspect the type of people who would engage in polygamy might have ended up cheating on their spouses anyway so it might have no impact on overall divorces.

                The point is that your argument regarding Saudi Arabia is a great example of spurious correlation. The problem with Saudi Arabia are many and varied so it’s disingenuous to argue that polygamy (which is about 10,000th on the list of bad things about Saudi Arabia) is in any sense at fault.

                1. The point is that your argument regarding Saudi Arabia is a great example of spurious correlation.

                  You only think that because you assume it is not. And you engage in teh classic strawman by pretending that because polygamy is not Saudi Arabia’s only problem, it must not contribute to any of its problems.

                  Your entire argument is nothing but a bunch of unsupported assumptions that polygamy could never be responsible for the things it is associated with. Again, you like polygamy and won’t believe it could ever have any bad effects. Good for you but that seems to be wishful thinking on your part.

              4. Actually no one is asserting there isn’t a casual link between the two.

                I suspect most people would agree that there is absolutely a link between the Arab treatment of women and their Polygamy however most people would correctly ascertain that the link goes THE OTHER WAY.

                Arabian culture views women as chattel and therefore has lead to the growth of a very patriarchical form of polygamy

                1. Rasilio,

                  First, we have Arabs here. Second, you only think the causality goes one way because you want to believe that. There is no reason to think it does. Think about it, why wouldn’t letting people have multiple wives cause them to value women less? And why wouldn’t the men cut out of getting married by the resulting math not have a dim view of the women they can’t obtain?

                  Gee, having people be monogamous and attach to just one member of the opposite sex might cause them to respect the other sex more. What a crazy idea. That can’t be true.

                  1. “First, we have Arabs here.”

                    So? Is Arabic culture the dominant culture here? Hell Arabs aren’t even the dominant cultural group among American Muslims.

                    “Second, you only think the causality goes one way because you want to believe that. There is no reason to think it does.”

                    Actually there ARE reasons to think it does starting with the fact that contrary to your assertions there are examples of cultures in history which had plural marriage, even 1 man many woman plural marriage that did not treat women anywhere near as badly as Arabs do. You can start with the Jews and then move on to the Vikings. There is no strong association between plural marriage and treating women as chattel in history.

                    “Think about it, why wouldn’t letting people have multiple wives cause them to value women less?”

                    I don’t know, does having multiple children cause you to value children less?

                    Even if your assertion were right it would only be those who do have multiple wives that would value women less, it would not be solely because they were allowed to have multiple wives. Further, that would only control how much worth you put into your individual relationships with women, there still isn’t a link between having multiple wives and considering women subhuman.

                  2. “And why wouldn’t the men cut out of getting married by the resulting math not have a dim view of the women they can’t obtain?”

                    Well they might, however they might also direct their anger at the elites that can afford multiple wives and lock them in poverty instead. It is all irrelevant however because even with legalized plural marriage in the US it would not be something which is common, it might eventually make up 1% of all US Households and only about 2/3rds of those would be 1 man many wives.

                    “Gee, having people be monogamous and attach to just one member of the opposite sex might cause them to respect the other sex more.”

                    ROTFLMAO

                    I’m sorry, have you SEEN the average long married couple. Sure you find the occasional one that still has a functional relationship but on average most of them resemble tenuous cease fires more than romances. And this is totally overlooking the fact that something like 98% of all “monogamous” relationships (not marriages, relationships) fail and north of 75% of them experience infidelity (even if it goes undiscovered).

                    Nope, sorry not buying that forcing monogamy on everyone makes people respect the other gender more.

                    1. Nope, sorry not buying that forcing monogamy on everyone makes people respect the other gender more.

                      I can only judge by the results. And every country that does treats women better. You pretend that how they view marriage has nothing to do with that. But I see no reason why it doesn’t. Moreover, how is it that hundreds of years and dozens of societies producing the same result can dismissed as “just correlation” as if really strong correlation can just be ignored?

                      You people have decided it is good and that is it. No argument or evidence is going to tell you otherwise. This is the new way to social signal and show your Libertarian street creed and feel smug. So you are going to assume no associations could ever be evidence of causality and anyone who thinks otherwise is just an evil SOCON.

                      This is what smug, prog leaning Libertarians do. It is how they roll.

                    2. So you are going to assume no associations could ever be evidence of causality and anyone who thinks otherwise is just an evil SOCON.

                      This is what smug, prog leaning Libertarians do. It is how they roll.

                      So you’re not a socon for wanting to outlaw certain types of voluntary associations because of social taboo or religious taboo? Or is it more of a social engineering thing?

                      But we’re the smug progressives for insisting on logical consistency and free association. That’s decidedly unprog but whatever, you’ve got your faith. Can’t argue with that.

                  3. There is no more reason to think what you think, John. You are being insane. Do you really think that the only thing that keeps up from turning into Saudi Arabia (as regards marriage at least) is laws against polygamy? Holy shit. If our culture were that fragile it would have happened long ago.

                    1. Zeb,

                      Could you engage in a more idiotic strawman if you tried? I am not claiming polygamy is the cause of all their problems. I am saying it is one of the causes. That is not insane and you only pretend it is and construct a strawman because it is true and you know it.

                      And what do you mean there is no reason to believe that? Just because correlation doesn’t always equal causation does not mean it never is. I have hundreds of years and dozens of societies where polygamy is associated with all kinds of harms. You guys have nothing other than the bare assertion that “polygamy couldn’t have caused those harms”. And I am the insane one?

                      Again, y ou guys have decided polygamy is good and that is what you believe and anyone who says otherwise is to be considered insane. You guys are worse than Progs sometimes.

            2. Come on, Irish, Saudi is an awesome place for women. They never have to drive themselves anywhere. All Saudi women are as privileged as Hillary Clinton!

          4. Yeah polygamist societies have all turned out great. Anyone who doesn’t want to be more like Saudi Arabia is just a fundie.

            Allowing polygamists to polygamize does not a polygamist society make.

          5. Yeah polygamist societies have all turned out great.

            Historically, I’m not sure they’ve really turned out much worse than the other sort.

            1. Then you are an idiot who doesn’t know much about history. Those societies have been on the ass end of about everything for going on 600 years and a few thousand years if you don’t count the Muslim empires.

              1. Then you are an idiot who doesn’t know much about history. Those societies have been on the ass end of about everything for going on 600 years and a few thousand years if you don’t count the Muslim empires

                I had no idea that polygamy was the source of the great historical calamities. I suppose Rome fell because of all that polygamy. The Black Death must have been caused by polygamous STDs I assume.

              2. And correlation does not equal causation so this statement is irrelevant.

                Then you are an idiot who doesn’t know much about history.

                This is very rich coming from a man who is declaring that polygamous societies are always worse to women and monogamy somehow generates respect between genders. A basic glance at the history of monogamous cultures completely discredits you.

                1. The evidence is what it is. Even if our society was once as bad, and it wasn’t, ours changed and those didn’t. But don’t let that stop you from pretending there could never be a downside to polygamy.

                  1. The evidence is what it is.

                    Ah, going for the progressive argument John? “My opinion is right because of my selective evidence choices and cognitive bias, and I’m the rational one here.”

                    Sorry John, your selective, utterly ahistorical interpretation of polygamous and monogamous societies is not some magical proof, regardless of what you believe. The fact you believe that monogamy generates respect for women in some way that polygamy doesn’t really only highlights your utter ignorance of both classical and more modern forms of monogamy.

                  2. I don’t see anyone on here saying polygamy is wonderful and superior to monogamy. I see people saying that such associations should not be outlawed and you saying it should be outlawed because our society would apparently collapse in on itself in the absence of government social engineering.

                    1. Hell, I think widespread polygamy has a lot of economic and demographic problems that make it a poor choice for a majority social order.

                      But nope, I’m clearing just saying polygamy has no downsides because I don’t accept idiocy statements about monogamy generating respect for women or polygamy having anything to do with ‘Those societies have been on the ass end of about everything for going on 600 years and a few thousand years if you don’t count the Muslim empires’. Despite your focus on a pet issue John, correlation=/=causation because you demand it so.

                    2. Most unmarried couples, are they monogomous or polygamous? Most girls you’ve dated in your life, have they insisted on maintaining sexual relations with other men or you with other women? It’s so uncommon in the west, that regular social conventions are enough to keep polygamy contained to a very small group. The idea that legal polygamy however will lead to a polygamous social order in society is like saying legal heroin will make most people heroin addicts.

              3. Polygamy predates those societies.

                In primates, polygamy predates sentience.

                Most human societies practice serial polygamy.

                This is, of course, because humans don’t pair bond naturally.

      2. Depends on what your opinion of a good argument is. People are not going to accept polygamy like they have gays. And if read the post article above, they really haven’t accepted gays that much. Moreover, people are tired of the culture war. I hope the left takes up the cause of trannies and polygamists. It will finally be a bridge too far and will lead to the backlash they so richly deserve

        And if they don’t, what are they going to fight the culture war about? And it will still be great fun watching polygamists use the left’s language against it.

        1. Any backlash will simply be dismissed as bigotry. Once they successfully label their opponents as bigots, they win.

          1. Sure it will. They will have only lost and ended up run out of power because America is just so bigoted. The whining will be fun too. And the gays will blame the polygamists for screwing things up.

        2. Depends on what your opinion of a good argument is

          It harms no one is the only argument necessary in favor of it.

          People are not going to accept polygamy like they have gays

          So? That’s partially a reason why we have courts to force unpopular things on an obstinate populace with the caveat that, like with gay marriage, it harms no one.

          1. Go for it. You tell all of your prog friends to make this the next culture war.

            And we are talking about government recognition here. And that does harm anyone who objects.

            Don’t let that stop you. Let’s have businesses being sued out of existence because they don’t recognize and accept everyone.

            Keep fighting that culture war Geoffe. It is not like we don’t have any other problems.

            1. And we are talking about government recognition here. And that does harm anyone who objects.

              But, but, but that’s a separate issue! Just because it is totally foreseeable doesn’t make it intended! Even if it is intended by the left, it isn’t intended by true libertarians! True libertarians support this because, because… because they don’t want to offend their gay friends!

              1. Of course those outcomes are intended by SOME supoprters of gay marriage, polygamy, whatever.

                Why does that mean that everyone who shares the same basic view must be for the exact same outcomes? Is there any libertarian here who says that the recent gay marriage stuff is perfect in every way and the ideal outcome? No. Pretty much everyone has problems with how the court decision went. And I am pretty sure that none of us who think that the decision is imperfect, but on balance a good thing had any influence on the court.

                1. If there was a constitutional amendment that ended the drug war but repealled the 2nd Amendment and you supported it, could you then claim that you didn’t support repealing the 2nd? No. You knew the results of supporting the amendment and thought ending gun rights was a price worth paying to end the drug war.

                  Same thing here. Libertarians knew getting gay marriage via court meant harming people who objected and supported doing it anyway. They knew the price of doing that and choose to support it. Fuck them. They don’t get to now claim they didn’t mean it.

                  Libertarians considered the rights of religious people to be worth sacrificing to get gay marriage. Just because they saw that as a price instead of a bonus like the Progs, doesn’t mean Libertarians get off the hook for the results of court mandated gay marriage. Fuck them. They happily sacrificed the rights of people they hated to get benefits for people they liked.

                  And frankly, they can go to hell when it comes to religious rights in general. They don’t really believe in them and can’t be trusted not to defect to the other side once the Progs tell them how intolerant they are being. Libertarians need to quietly skulk off instead of spitting in the faces of the people they helped to fuck by pretending they didn’t know it was going to happen.

                  1. It’s hilarious how you do the same Bo-esque delusional “I know what you’re all thinking right now” argument. To Bo we’re secret Republicans, to you we’re secret progressive sympathizers. Red Tony may have been the wrong nickname.

                    1. John,

                      You show me one place where any person other than me, RC Dean, and sarcasmic every said, we shouldn’t support gay marriage until the pulbic accommodation laws. Show me.

                      You people knew what was going to happen and were okay with seeing it work out that way. I don’t have to read your mind. I can judge you by your actions.

                      Sorry but you don’t now get to claim you didn’t mean it. You were warned it was going to happen and supported it anyway. And your noses are going to be rubbed in that pile of shit forever. No one made yobu give up your integrity in the endless quest to give gays marriage licenses and you don’t get to back out of responsibility for doing so.

                      Libertarians only care about religious liberty as long as it doesn’t affect gays. Gays matter more than religious liberty. That is the truth, live with it.

                    2. You people knew what was going to happen and were okay with seeing it work out that way. I don’t have to read your mind. I can judge you by your actions.

                      I’m sorry, are you aware of my views on gay marriage? Oh wait, no you’re not, you’re just collectivizing me into a group of people you can blame. Yes John, I’m part of the horrible, collective OTHER. Jesus Christ your tribalism is pathetic.

                      I’ve also seen how utterly paternalistic and condescending you have been when discussing this with gay members of this forum. How dare gays enforce their will on religious peoples, John’s busy enforcing his views on how gay people should live their life! Please, continue to lecture me on ‘integrity’.

                      Sorry Red Bo, but there’s actually a diversity of opinions beyond and ‘condescending prick telling whoever to accept gays’ and ‘condescending prick tells gay people how they should live their life.’ You’re not going to collectively guilt people into accepting your argument when you don’t even understand a position.

            2. Oh, John.

              Having an opinion on something does not mean you are fighting a culture war or that you favor everything that everyone who agrees with you on that one thing wants.

              The kind of thinking you display on things like this is exactly how you end up with the stupid state of politics we have today where the only important thing is beating your opponent.

        3. “I hope the left takes up the cause of trannies and polygamists. It will finally be a bridge too far and will lead to the backlash they so richly deserve”

          A) why would this be a bridge too far and b) why would I care if the left gets their comeuppance regarding polygamy and trans rights when those are two of only like 5 issues that they’re actually right on?

          There is no rational argument against freedom to contract within marriages and freedom of contract implies de facto legalization of polygamy.

          1. I have always said that libertarians fight more naturally on the left. If yranny rights are that important to you, go join the progressive movement and be with people who agree with you. Sure you won’t agree on everything but you will agree on the important things and will feel more at home.

            1. He just said that individual rights are what are important, namely the right to contract, which is necessarily being abridged by anti-polygamy laws.

              1. And the Progs agree with you.

                1. And many progs agree with me on criminal justice reform. What’s your point? That I shouldn’t support something on the grounds that progressives also support it?

                  This is Bo level argumentation.

                2. The progs care about a right to contract? Oh no! Abandon ship! I hate the right to contract now. /John logic

                3. Actually they don’t.

                  even to the extent that Progressives support plural marriage (and most do not, they too see it as only being an excuse to legalize patriarchy in it’s most extreme form) they would not agree that it should be legalized on the grounds of an individual freedom of contract and freedom of association.

                  Your problem here is that you are blind to the forces at play here.

                  Progressives are split on plural marriage and conservatives are similarly split there is no easy Prog – con divide on the issue as there was with gay marriage

                  1. Rassillio,

                    I don’t know of a single conservative who supports plural marriage. You are right that Progs are split. And that is why polygamy is going to be their doom. They have to fight it because they have nowhere else to go in the culture war but it is a dead on losing cause that will tear them apart.

                    1. Perhaps you should go talk to some conservative mormons then.

                      That said most conservatives don’t support Polygamy as such but rather now that gay marriage has been legalized the properly recognize that the government SHOULDN’T be in the marriage business and they should treat marriage as a contract issue which means defacto recognition of plural marriage.

                    2. Perhaps you should go talk to some conservative Mormons then.

                      There are a ton of them in Washington. And all of them are embarrassed by polygamy and don’t support it. The Mormons who support polygamy are very small in number and total outcasts from the church.

                      Are you so bigoted and ignorant you think most or even a significant minority of them support polygamy? If so, you are appallingly ignorant and bigoted towards Mormons.

                      And since Libertarians abandoned contract based marriage for the sake of the sacred gays, a few conservatives have taken up the mantle. But not that many. And just because you want the government out of marriage doesn’t mean you think polygamy should be legal or courts should enforce such contracts. If you think conservative Christians are going to support polygamy, you are fucking delusional.

                      Polygamy supporters are a few Libertarians who will support anything they think is trendy, a few Mormons and Muslims and a few libertines. That is it. When the SJWs take up the cause, if they do, it will be a dead loser.

                  2. And progs weren’t exactly asserting the legitimacy of gay marriage on the grounds of a right to free association/contract. They came at it from the group rights for a protected group angle.

                    1. So what Free Society. That didn’t stop you from joining arms with them and fighting for the cause did it?

                    2. I joined arms with them?

                    3. You supported the court granting a constitutional right to government recognized gay marriage didn’t you? IF so, then yes. If not, then not you but a lot of other self professed Libertarians did.

                    4. You supported the court granting a constitutional right to government recognized gay marriage didn’t you?

                      Having debated with you on this particular issue literally dozens of times I’d thought you would recall what I’ve argued.

                      I’ve supported the complete abolition of marriage licensing, and insofar as they do licence I’ve repeatedly asserted that it has nothing to do with the federal government. Your line of argument conversely, necessarily opens the door for the general welfare clause to insert itself into otherwise private voluntary marriage contracts.

                      Do I think the gays should be able to “marry” and even use that word you claim to own? Yes.

                      Do I think the government and it’s courts have any legitimacy in favoring any type of marriage contract over another? No.

                      If not, then not you but a lot of other self professed Libertarians did.

                      That may be but I’m not so collectivist to think that I must atone for other people’s arguments.

                    5. Well, no. Equality before the law is important, even if most of the people supporting it on a particular issue are doing so for the wrong reasons.

                      I make common cause with SoCons on freedom of association issues too, even though they are mostly interested in being able to ostracize groups I like our even belong to. The principle is worth fighting for, even if my slides are untrustworthy or unpleasant.

                    6. Heedless,

                      YOu knew giving gays the right to marry was going to fuck the SOCONs under current law and supported it anyway. Yeah, you didn’t like that but you considered it a price worth paying. Otherwise, you would have said no gay marriage without reforming public accommodation law.. You and every other Libertarian didn’t do that.

                      So no, you really don’t stand with the SOCONS on that. You think it is nice and all but only so long as it doesn’t mean having to go against the gays.

                      By supporting a right to marry, you helped fuck the SOCONs. Do them a favor and don’t spit in their face by pretending you give a shit about their rights, because when it mattered you didn’t.

  37. Hillary Clinton trails Top 3 GOPers in swing states

    A Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday found that Clinton has strikingly negative favorability ratings among voters in Virginia, Iowa and Colorado, especially compared with where she stood in the spring.

    The numbers come at a time when Clinton has a massive fundraising lead, relatively weak competition for the Democratic nomination and more federal government experience than other candidates. Even with these advantages, the poll shows Clinton may be vulnerable in states that by all accounts will have an outsize say in who wins the White House next year.

    In matchups with Bush, Walker and Rubio, Clinton would lose by as many as 9 points in Colorado and Iowa. In Virginia, where Gov. Terry McAuliffe, her longtime friend and fundraiser, has enthusiastically endorsed her, Clinton would edge out those Republicans by only 2 or 3 percentage points, making the hypothetical races too close to call.

    Her favorability ratings are upside down. In Colorado: 35 percent favorable to 56 percent unfavorable; in Iowa: 33 percent to 56 percent; and in Virginia: 41 percent to 50 percent.

    1. Hillary panic is staring to set in – I’ve seen both “Draft Gore” and “Draft Biden” articles already today.

    2. I don’t think the GOPers will be in the Dem primaries.

      God, can’t we get this election over with already?

  38. More of my buddy Jacques Pepin: how to make a chicken galantine. The chicken lollipops are a way better way to use the wings than just frying them.

    1. I am going to start youtube stalking this guy.

    2. Jacques Pepin is the Man; I’ve been watching him for many years.

      1. I am glad Warty is posting these. It reminds me that my cooking skills have to improve from “cuisanart grilled chicken and microwave steamed veggies.”

    3. The chicken lollipops are a way better way to use the wings than just frying them.

      HERESY! BLASPHEMY!!

    4. Jacques’ KQED homepage.

      http://ww2.kqed.org/jpepinheart/

      Next series to be called Heart and Soul, to be aired in Sept.

  39. Won’t someone think of the children? Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi says yes, bans beheading videos.

    1. I guess he was losing the soccer mom vote

    2. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who has been called the caliph of the self-proclaimed Islamic State (ISIS)

      That’s an awkward clause.

      Now that ISIS has seized substantial territory in Iraq and Syria and continues to recruit an estimate of 1,000 foreign fighters a month

      That seems bad.

      Whether or not viewers even watch ISIS’s graphic media, the group’s “strategy is to bypass established news organizations and reach the intended audience directly,” according to CPJ.

      It’s fascinating, isn’t it, that this army of primitive screwheads was the first to manage to master propaganda in the internet age.

      1. Didn’t all states self-proclaim? And he calls himself the Caliph, which is the basis on which the state of ISIS exists.

        1. God, Sug, it’s like you don’t respect the Treaty of Westphalia at all.

          1. You know it, baby.

      2. It’s fascinating, isn’t it, that this army of primitive screwheads was the first to manage to master propaganda in the internet age.

        It’s a smart strategy. Low barrier to entry and it’s where establishes states are weak.

  40. Excellent This American Life episode on the GM/Toyota Nummi plant and why GM couldn’t replicate the successes there.

    Well worth a listen.

    1. Does the answer rhyme with union?

      1. And management

      2. The gist was that GM kept the line going, no matter what. Problems would be fixed later. So if they were putting the wrong parts on, they’d keep the line going, putting more and more stuff over the wrong part. Then the bad cars would pile up (if the mistake was caught) to be fixed later. Meanwhile Toyota would stop the line the moment something went wrong. So their quality was superb. GM resisted, thinking that if the workers could stop the line then they’d never let it move. But they eventually gave in and quality soared.

      3. It all has to do with metrics. You get more of what you reward and management rewarded total cars off the line regardless of quality. The unions measured success by grievances filed, thus increasing their negotiating power.

        It was an eye-opener, I had no idea it was that bad. They apparently caught one disgruntled employee loosening bolts on the front steering rack of several hundred vehicles.

        1. When everyone knows that the best way to measure output productivity is by tonnage.

    2. I heard that the other day. It was very good.

    3. I’d listen if TAL didn’t cue up that damned tweedely doodely “music” every few sentences.

  41. Five Tucson police officers have been fired for making or attempting to make appointments at an “illicit massage parlor” /i

    They’d still have jobs if they just shot everyone there.

  42. Might be a few days late on this but self-described ‘feminist killjoy’ dismayed that men no longer catcall her

    I realize the most properly-feminist response to all of this would be to proudly declare that I don’t care, that being too old to catcall is glorious freedom. But that would be a lie. I do care in some way that sits uncomfortably with my politics ? enough that it worries me to wonder how I’ll feel when I’m 45, or 65.

    I know that my reaction is normal, considering the culture I’ve grown up in, as much as I know that my self worth does not depend on what strangers think. But I do wish there was more nuance in conversations about aging, beauty standards and feminism ? room enough to admit without shame the complicated feelings we can have about it all.

    Being harassed on the street is not a compliment, and it surely has never felt like one. For most, if not all women, it can be scary and sometimes dangerous to deal with. But I can admit that – even as a seasoned feminist – sexism is a powerful enough force to still reside my head. Maybe by acknowledging as much I can begin to let it go (hopefully, long before I turn 45).

    The parallels between feminists feeling shame for liking anti-feminist things and Christian evangelicals having impure gay thoughts is amusing.

    1. This is a real fear for Valenti. Part of her shtick has always been that she was a decently attractive feminist in order to counter the idea that they all look like like Lena Dunham. Once her outsides become as ugly as her insides have always been that frisson is lost. I mean, do you think she can get by on her wit and writing ability?

      1. She’ll just resort to talking about her past an pretending things haven’t changed at all no matter how much time has passed. You see this with a lot feminist who were in business twenty-five plus years ago and like to pretend their experiences are still relevant to the modern workplace.

      2. She’ll start doing MILF porn. Big market for that.

      3. She totally used her looks. And she is also a sad, broken human being.

    2. I like that she thinks feeling good when men find her attractive ‘sexism’ in her head. As opposed to normal human feeling and behavior.

    3. Was she whistling this while she wrote that piece?

  43. Second Amendment news.

    Judge dismisses lawsuit against Knoxville ammo company

    “It is apparent that this case was filed to pursue the political purposes of the Brady Center and, given the failure to present any cognizable legal claim, bringing these defendants into the Colorado court where the prosecution of James Holmes was proceeding appears to be more of an opportunity to propagandize the public and stigmatize the defendants than to obtain a court order,” the judge’s order said.

    1. You left out the best part:

      Federal Judge Richard P. Matsch dismissed the case against Lucky Gunner LLC and other defendants and ordered that the plaintiffs pay Lucky Gunner legal costs of about $111,971.00.

      They paid $100,000 + their own attorney’s fees to make an ineffective political statement.

      1. No, that’s not even the best part.

        The company has said it will donate the recovered legal fees to gun-rights organizations.

        1. Oh, that is beautiful.

          New Brady Center fundraising campaign: Send us moar moneez to stop gun violence, we promise we won’t give it to the enemy this time.

    2. “The Brady Center did not respond to requests for comment.”

      They haz a sad.. :^(

      1. The a$$holes are appealing though.

        Next time around, they should sue the Creator for providing fists to an assailant someone is punched to death.

  44. America! F*** yeah!
    Comin’ again to save the motherfuckin’ day do the motherf***in’ math, yeah!

    The U.S.’s Math Olympiad Win Breaks China’s Dominance

    1. But what about Cynthia Jenner?

  45. A repeat from last night’s evening links, since only one of y’all answered. I’m going to Vancouver in a couple weeks with the offspring. Anybody got suggestions for things to do/see/eat/drink?

    1. Sushi and sashimi are incredibly good and incredibly cheap there. Eat raw fish until you never want to look at it again.

    2. Yeah, this here.

      I’ve never had more absolutely great seafood and shellfish in one concentrated period of time than in Vancouver.

      1. Also, there are some awesome dim sum joints there.

  46. (Can’t find it on-line, just the dead-tree version)
    San Francisco has a ‘housing crisis’; real estate is expensive here, not least because of government policies. So our city government does what every government does; pass laws and regulations that make the matter far worse.
    Now, we have before us a proposal to further subsidize mass transit, since getting the riders to pay for being a victim thereof is not working. We will add a $7.75/sq. ft. ‘fee’ to the permit process, which will go a long ways toward lowering the cost of SF housing, right?

  47. News from the peoples republic of Arlington Va:

    Community members ? and owners of businesses in and around the small shopping center the gun store was to open ? took their concerns directly to landlord Kostas Kapasouris.
    Kapasouris was open to those concerns, said Bill Hamrock, the co-owner of Bistro 29, which would have been across the street from the gun store. (The restaurant is co-owned by Kapasouris.)
    “He knew right away and it wasn’t going to work from the community, but the business owners let him know as well,” Hamrock said.
    Kapasouris said that it was all his decision to cancel the lease.
    “I don’t want to have a gun store,” he said to ARLnow.com. “I thought it wasn’t a good store.”

    Facists. The kicker is there is a pawnshop maybe 500 yards away that has sold guns for like 40 years.

    1. Are you referring to the pawn at Lee Hwy and Pershing? Because their customer service sucks and trying to shop for guns there is not a friendly experience.

      So will the landlord compensate the gun shop for their money spent to-date?

      1. yeah, not sure what the experience is like there just pointing out the irony.

        1. I wonder how gundude got into Falls Church past all the pants wetters.

    2. Hamrock said other business owners in the area were pleased with the decision to pull the gun store, as just the idea of having such a store was causing them to lose business.

      bullshit.

  48. And why do new laptops come with a DVD drive but no Firewire ports? This is maddening. I need to transfer data, not load a fucking disk. Is this the goddamn 90s??

  49. Anyone ever use one of these fish finders? My only balk is that it’s pretty expensive, but I love that it’s a bluetooth app.

    Also, any advice for catching summer lake trout, other than “go deep”?

  50. Our old friend Preet doing more of god’s work

    Harass the bitcoin peeps

    1. Those who engage in commerce without the permission of their betters are worst than child molesters. Or at least you’d think so by the prison term they’re likely to hit the guy with.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.