A.M. Links: NSA Spying, Hillary vs. Bernie, Iran Deal


  • The NSA says it will examine and destroy millions of U.S. phone records in its possession "as soon as possible."

  • With the first Republican presidential primary debate scheduled for August 6 in Cleveland, "candidates with low polling numbers are in a high-stakes scramble to qualify for an event that represents their best shot at breaking out."

New at Reason

  • Two Burritos for Breakfast I don't need mandatory food labels to tell me McDonald's isn't health food. And neither do you. By Veronique de Rugy

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

NEXT: Why John Houser's Psychiatric Record Did Not Block His Gun Purchase

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. …candidates with low polling numbers are in a high-stakes scramble to qualify for an event that represents their best shot at breaking out.

    A golf outing?

    1. “Hillary Clinton’s Bernie Sanders problem.”

      She should take her problem to the Five Families.

      1. Hello.

          1. Yeah, your hear. Whaut is up?

          2. Welcome to Retardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully, I’m gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded don’t rule the night. They don’t rule it. Nobody does. And they don’t run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

          3. GOOD MORNING PB I LOVE YOU!!!!!

          4. Terrible morning to you Weigel. As always, here’s hoping someone plays the Knockout Game on your sorry ass with fatal results.

      2. They aren’t part of her cartel.

    2. Drive for show, putt for dough



      It’s like PB and Tony got together to manage a baseball team. I have never been this bothered by a stupid sports decision before, except Josh McDaniels …maybe.

      p.s. The traded Tulo for a 9th round pitcher who has already had surgery and a middling SS. Unbelievable.

      1. This is like the Ubaldo trade — get a few pitching prospects who will never amount to anything. The hilarious thing is, monfort, et al, think they’re good at this MLB management thing.

        1. I am so disappointed right now that I would rather read 7 Balko articles.

          1. “You’ve got to trust the organization.”

  2. The NSA says it will examine and destroy millions of U.S. phone records in its possession “as soon as possible.”

    Completely verifiable, too, I’m sure.

    1. Once the backups are complete, we can destroy the originals.

      1. I mean, I suppose they were always planning to do the former as soon as possible.

        1. Our data retention policy says fifty years, it won’t be possible to destroy the records until at least 2066.

          1. And we learn from police that internal policy is paramount.

    2. The records cannot be purged at the moment because the NSA is being sued over them, the statement said.

      Well, isn’t *that* convenient?

  3. …a majority of Americans want Congress to reject the Iran nuclear deal.

    They like watching an indignant Obama on the TV.

    1. Know what, you may be on to something there.

      Watching him pout IS good TV.

      1. I can’t stand hearing him long enough for the schadenfruede to ferment.

        1. Same here. I don’t even let it get that far (who wants to listen to an unimaginative speaker act like he’s a gift to the world?), his habit of hopping flippantly to the podium like a teenager annoys me too much.

          I know. Nit picker.

          1. You’re just jealous. He could totally win a 3rd term if he wanted!!! And he’s just being his humble self, since he KNOWS he could win a 5th term too…if he wanted.

        2. Indeed. Say what you will about George Bush sure his policies sucked, but at least I could stand listening to guy for more then 5 minutes.

          1. That just means your a racist teathuglican.

          2. C’mon. Listening to that guy treat the english language like it was a Guantanamo Detainee was no easy thing.

            1. Don’t make me go all Nucular on your ass!

  4. Hillary Clinton’s Bernie Sanders problem.

    And so begins a crippling race to the left.

    1. And so begins a crippling race to the left.

      Sounds like a Special Olympics event.

  5. Mad Libs:

    The Government’s Latest Attempt to Stop _______ Will Only Make _______ Worse

        1. Or the other way around.

    1. traffic jams; littering

    2. maple smugglers; climate change

    3. catching dolphins in commercial fishing nets; canned tuna

      1. You know, if they just canned and sold the dolphin too, this wouldn’t have been an issue.

        1. I only buy tuna safe dolphin meat.

          1. I think you’re turning Japanese.

            1. I really think so.

                1. For eating the animals that nobody wants to.

    4. woodchippers; spotted owl attacks.

    5. Circuses, Clown rape

    6. banjo music; steam calliope carnage

    7. Happy Meals; dildo beatings

      1. This is turning out better than I could have imagined. I guess my assessment that I carry Links comments may not be as accurate as I thought.

      2. Is it weird that I suddenly started wondering if dildo beatings is a type of fetish?

        1. Everything is already a fetish. Welcome to the Internet.

          1. So Chris Christie and Hillary Clinton porn is a thing huh? Try to picture that without vomiting.

            1. I might try to use that to keep from finishing too fast, but I don’t think I could finish AT ALL after that visual.

      3. SugarFree; the literary horror

      4. You watched Snatch last night, didn’t you…

        1. Or played Saints Row 3/4

    8. flame wars; Zombie outbreaks

    9. Nick Cage Movies; illegal undocumented whaling

    10. anything, everything


  6. Never forget:

    Remember ‘Memogate’? Makers of a Dan Rather Film Don’t

    Gleick Confesses
    …I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts ? often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated ? to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.

    Peter Gleick

    1. Falls under ‘highly edited video by extremists’ right?

  7. A Libyan court has sentenced the son of Muammar Gaddafi to death for war crimes.

    Method of execution: Death by YouTube riot

    1. That didn’t disappoint.

    2. Youtube videos can be lethal. The commentary is just downright genocidal.

  8. Clown car, racist, racist, something, something.

    -Every post on my Facebook feed.

    1. Romney vs Obama will look very good compared to the choice we will get in 2016.

      Trump vs Hil-dog?
      Bush vs Hil-dog?
      Trump vs Brooklyn Bernie?

      Embrace the Suck.

      1. Dreams are a great thing, but you know something? They take a lot of energy. But that’s OK. There’s a job waiting for you down the block from your house that doesn’t require a thought in your head or a hope in your heart. So come on down and work for the artificial flower factory. Why fight it? OK? Thank you.

      2. I understand that Trump is polling at 8%. EIGHT PERCENT.

    2. Are you the only one that posts there?

  9. Facing unfavorable ratings, Clinton shares personal details to be more relatable

    “Let’s go all the way back to what originally motivated her.”


    1. I think her motivations are unchanged – power and ego.

    2. You laugh, but the moment where she snapped with that quip should have left no doubt she doesn’t have the tools to be President (Obama’s tenure notwithstanding).

      And there are plenty of other reasons why she’s unfit.

      But hey, IT’S HER TURN!

      1. I’d love to have a beer with her.

        1. How about a Pinot Noir with a pink umbrella in it.

      2. Oh, I most assuredly do not laugh.

  10. Eaten By An Escalator

    The woman ? identified in media reports as 30-year-old Xiang Liujuan ? is shown reaching the top of the escalator when the section of landing platform she had stepped onto suddenly collapses, trapping her inside the still-moving machinery.

    The footage shows that Xiang managed to push her son into the arms of shop attendants near the top of the escalator. The attendants tried to pull her to safety, but Xiang fell into the mechanism and was killed.

    1. Whoa. Was she a judge?

      1. “Shush, boy! You want to get sued?!?”

    2. Of all the ways to go…

    3. Confucious says the journey of a thousand miles starts with….

    4. That…

      escalated quickly.

      1. What?! No *sunglasses*?!

        1. Looks like she…

          *dons sunglasses*

          found the downside of escalators.

          1. *Picks up broken sungrasses*

  11. MSNBC commentator wants to criminalize speech.


    This is my shocked face. What it is about the LEFT that they always feel the need to keep people from saying what they want? (Note to obvious fucktards from the 90s that are going to bring up conservatives opposing flag burning: you are obvious, and this doesn’t happen on a weekly basis, as it does from the left.)

    As Kevin Williamson noted in his most recent column, people on the left want him locked up because he refuses to go along with Bruce Jenner’s or Laverne Cox’s conceits?

    Always on the left?

    1. Besides the flag burning thing is just stupid I don’t think it has quite the same repercussions as the left’s desire to ban any speech they happen to disagree with, or happens to offend this weeks preferred victim group.

      1. “I don’t think it has quite the same repercussions”

        Yeah, I doubt it’s ever got over a majority of Senators to vote for it like with the flag burning.

        1. It’s gotten implemented in about a dozen other Western countries, Bo.

          I know I shouldn’t have clicked on this when I saw it pop up on my blocker, but Jesus Christ you’re a narcissistic American moron with no understanding of the rest of the world. People are literally being harassed by the government in Canada right now for Thought Crime, you fucking moron, and a political candidate in Britain was arrested by the cops for quoting Winston Churchill’s unflattering view of Muslims.

          A newspaper in Sweden was fined by the government because someone IN THE COMMENT’S SECTION posted something the government said was racist and the newspaper didn’t delete the comment. That strikes me as worse than a flag burning amendment that never even became law.

          The world exists outside of America and the left has gotten this implemented all over the planet and are trying to do so here. Do try to consider other countries rather than being a stereotypically myopic American idiot.

          At this point, the gap between how smart you are and how smart you think you are is wider than the Grand Canyon.

          Note to lurkers: I know this post may seem harsh, but Bo is the worst so my vitriol is based more on his past activities than this specific post.

          1. The rest of the world doesn’t have a First Amendment, we do. And the only time I can think of recently where that Amendment was almost formally changed to supress speech was in flag voting votes. Whatever is going on in Canada and Europe, and I certainly deplore it, it doesn’t have support here comparable to what we’ve seen re: flag burning.

            1. While I wholeheartedly agree that flag burning is a speech issue (actually it is a property issue, my flag I can do whatever I want with it). However, the cons tried to pass a constitutional amendment protecting the flag. It would have ONLY have affected those burning the US flag.
              However, the left across the world (and including here) are trying to use the “hate speech” label to punish people for all sorts of speech. We have far more to worry about this bullshit than if some senators want to keep Americans from burning the American flag.

            2. The entire Democrat Senate Caucus voted to hamstring the free speech clause of the 1st amendment for political speech.

              The Obama administration in the Citizens United case thought McCain-Feingold authorized the government to suppress political speech, including documentaries and books.

              The only thing that you can remember is the freaking flag burning amendment?!

              1. As I noted: he is a fucktard. And he is obvious.

    2. They oppose anything that they disagree with because disagreement gets in the way of PROGRESS directed by the state. It’s the exact same reason that fascism and communism also required no dissent, no difference of opinion. The only difference between those ideologies and the modern left is the modern left is doing so incrementally instead of all at once.

      1. All their core beliefs contain huge logic flaws. Having those flaws pointed out and criticized is very hurtful.

      2. This story highlights the difference between authoritarians and totalitarians.

        Conservatives are indeed authoritarians. They advocate a government that has vast authority to enforce rules for conduct. Their rules can be quite extensive and intrusive. However, their only requirement is that citizens must obey their rules.

        Progressives also advocate a government that has vast authority to enforce an extensive and intrusive set of rules for conduct. The fact that conservatives and progressives advocate different sets of rules is not really what distinguishes them. The distinctive feature of progressives is that they insist that citizens not only obey their rules, but also agree with them. But even that is not sufficient: citizens must also love their rules. Like their predecessors in 1530’s Munster, 1790’s France, 1871 Paris, 1917 Russia, 1949 China, 1980’s Khmer Republic, etc, etc, they seek to create a “new man” that is worthy of the State. They are not satisfied with mere obedience; they insist upon doubleplusgood goodthink. Anything short of that is hatethink against goodthink.

        1. Promote this man.

    3. I fear we may all live long enough to see someone be thrown in jail for exactly that: Speech.

      1. http://www.supremecourt.gov/op…..8-1498.pdf

        (and if you look at the vote line up, it wasn’t the justices from the left voting to criminalize speech here)

        1. TL;DR. Only later will I be able to.


          1. The PATRIOT Act, among other things, criminalized providing ‘material support’ to terrorists. Some law professors that wanted to provide seminars in conflict resolution and international law. SCOTUS ruled that while those things would be speech, they could properly be criminalized.

        2. McCain-Feingold, the dissenting votes in Citizens United.

    4. Banning flag burning = criminalizing speech
      Banning people from making controversial statements = criminalizing speech

      Criminalizing speech is bad, m’kay…
      Doesn’t matter which side is doing it

    5. As Kevin Williamson noted in his most recent column, people on the left want him locked up because he refuses to go along

      Good choice – he does exemplify the “I will defend to the death his right to be an obnoxious jerk” test.

    1. “Stand for Reality”

      “You don’t have to be a scientist; … you just have to be willing to act.”

      1. you just have to be willing to act.

        She’s certainly got the acting part down 😉

      2. Why does the global warming crowd act like scientists are just our version of Druids? They’ve become almost this weird infallible priestly class. It’s the death of real science, in exchange for the word of a class of experts.

        1. I fuckin love Druids.

          1. Slow roasted by a wicker fire with a touch of sage…

            1. The Bees! The BEES!

              1. I like my women like I like my coffee – covered in bees!

                1. I like my beer like I like my women; pale and bitter.

                  1. I like my women like I like my cars; fast.

          2. Have you played Pillars of Eternity? They are AoE nuke machines!

        2. It’s cargo cult scientism, not really science.

        3. Because they are not knowledgable about science but they “believe” in science. As a conscious choice or not they have made science into a religion where they take the words of the preists on faith.

      3. ‘I’m just a grandmother with two grand children, two eyes and a brain’


        Man, that was a classic line in the video. I thought she was gonna say ‘two brains’ too!

        1. “This brain I harvested back in Alabama Arkansas whatever shithole I was stuck in all those years. This one I picked up in South China, it’s pickled in mercury. That one was Brazil, but I think it originated in the Sudan.”

    2. Mark Steyn‘s latest climate snark.

      As we deniers always say, if there’s a 97 per cent consensus, how come it’s always the same half-dozen guys quoted in all the stories?

    3. Isn’t this the same kind of argument as ‘libertarian denounces government after driving to event on federal highway?’

      1. No, jackass, it isn’t, but thank you for trying.

        1. Thanks for the ipse dixit. It sure looks like the same thing to me.

          Person denounces federal spending but uses travel requiring federal spending. Person denounces carbon emissions but uses travel requiring carbon emissions.

          I’m happy to criticize Clinton for, among other things, calling for my money to be forcibly taken from me to be used as she sees fit in ‘saving the world’, but this is a silly criticism.

          1. Keep trying. It’ll come to you eventually

            1. Double down on that ipse dixit!

            2. You give Bo way too much credit.

          2. It is a little bit silly. But if they really wanted to put their money where their mouths are, how about a teleconference instead of hundreds of private planes flying to these climate conferences? We do have the technology.

            1. Or even *gasp* flying commercial.

              The horror…the horror…

          3. I will use small words for you:

            Most of us here feel that users fees are the way to go. If we are driving on the highway, we are using gasoline. Gasoline taxes are a legitmate way to raise money to pay for highway creation and improvement. Therefore no problem with public roads. Would toll roads be better? Perhaps. But in the absence of that, as long as the people using the thing are the ones paying for the thing, we are pretty much ok.

            The problem is that gasoline taxes are used for many things completely unrelated to highways and roads.

            1. This. He was being disingenuous

            2. However. Because of government regulations on fuel efficiency (and higher gas prices), cars are using less gas, so tax revenues go down (concurrent with your scenario). Unintended consequences.

              And we don’t want our cars measured centrally for mileage.

              Toll roads and gas taxes PLUS using gas revenues ONLY for road construction would probably be necessary.

          4. Were they denouncing federal spending specifically of roads and not something else like say the war om drugs? If so you might have a point.

            Not sure if you were being serious with that comparison.

          5. Hilary had many options to travel with a much lower carbon footprint, but chooses the alternative with the maximum carbon emissions.

            The libertarian had no option since the government has a monopoly on that highway.

            The pure libertarian does not contest the utility of the highway; he instead contests the legitimacy of the coercion applied by government to construct and maintain that highway. Hilary, on the other hand, contests the legitimacy of carbon emissions (by, or on the behalf of, the little people) but acts in a manner that maximizes carbon emissions.

      2. Isn’t this the same kind of argument as ‘libertarian denounces government after driving to event on federal highway?’

        So in the Soviet Union, where all food was produced and rationed by the government, anyone who spoke against the USSR was a hypocrite?

        “Stupid Soviet dissenters, complaining about the awfulness of central planning meanwhile they are wearing clothes and eating food produced by central planning! I’m so fucking smart that I pretend to be a lawyer.”— Bo

      3. Hilary can’t choose to fly commercial? Or teleconference? That would be a lot less inconvenient to her than my trying to get to work without using the highway.

    4. The utter lack of self-awareness is strong in this one….

  12. Slacktivist is up to his usual idiocy. No, Fred, that white man will be described as a typical opponent of Progressivism:

    ‘Why is it men who commit mass shootings?’
    …If the killer is a white man, he will later be described as an aberrant, mentally disturbed exception to whiteness. …

    1. Facts don’t reach this guy, do they?

    2. Um “workplace violence” anyone? “Religion of Peace”, etc etc?

    3. Hilarious.

      ” If the killer turns out to be a Muslim, or to have a foreign-sounding name, then he will be portrayed as evidence of the terrorist menace that we’re all supposed to support by being sufficiently terrified.”

      Well, maybe the relative difference in frequency has something to do with it? For example, when 90% of all terrorist attacks on Earth are carried out by Islamic terrorists, it is reasonable to link people who commit violence on behalf of global Jihad to the broader trends.

      If a random crazy white person with no ideology shoots some people, it is rational to claim this is the result of him being a crazy motherfucker with no broader trend to speak of.

      This is not a difficult subject to understand.

      Furthermore, this claim is an absolute lie since the media will do whatever they can to avoid saying the ‘M-word’ when we have yet another instance of Islamic violence, such as them blowing up little girls in Nigeria in forced suicide bombings.

      Example: Here’s an Atlantic article about the ‘geography of terror.’ The top ten countries are Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, Syria, Somalia, India, Philippines, Yemen and Thailand. Every one of those is caused by Muslim terrorism (including the countries that aren’t majority Muslim) and they never mention the word Islam in the article.

      Kind of contradicts his claim, doesn’t it?

      1. Haven’t more people in the US been killed by people espousing white racist ideas than Muslim terrorist ideas?

        1. Why don’t you do the reasearch and get back to us? Show your work.

          1. Well, 9/11 skews it. But since then I can think of several mass shooters who subscribed to racist right wing ideologies and explicitly linked them to their actions. There was the Sikh Temple guy, this latest nut, that fellow that shot up the Unitarian Church in KY. I’d think that’s comparable or higher than the Chatanooga and Fort Hood shooter.

            1. Well, 9/11 skews it.

              But I mean, other than that…

              The Sikh Temple and Kentucky Unitarian church shootings had a combined death toll of 8. Add the 9 from Charleston and you wind up tied with the combined totals from Ft. Hood and Chattanooga (13 and 4, respectively).

              1. And then this recent fellow at the movie theater and there’s a tie breaker.

                1. Note: I think these ‘right wing racist’ shooters represent pretty much no one in the right wing and even very few of what I’d call ‘right wing racists.’ My point is that I also think Muslim extremists are a tiny fraction of Muslims in the US.

                  1. My point is that I also think Muslim extremists are a tiny fraction of Muslims in the US

                    Wherever Muslims are a tiny fraction, they generally cause problems grossly out of proportion to their numbers. And Muslim terrorists are indeed a tiny fraction of a fraction, but the extremists are abundant in Muslim communities.

                  2. Well that’s not exactly a comprehensive list of Islamic terrorist incidents over the same time period either.

                    Also, I don’t think the theater shooter has been shown to have any ideological motive. He apparently posted some racist comments online, but I didn’t see anywhere where they were tied to his motive for the shooting (I haven’t followed it that closely though). His mental illness was probably more the culprit than anything.

                2. What about that shooting leads you to believe it was race related?

            2. Bo makes claim…bo cant back it up and then proceeds to throw out 911

            3. “Well, 9/11 skews it.”

              Well, other than the 6 million Jews the Nazis killed, I’ll bet more Jews died of natural and other causes during that time, so the Nazis weren’t really that bad.

        2. Assuming we are going to go ahead and stick with the last 50 years, that is a pretty stupid thing to say.

        3. Recently, or ever? And overall, or per capita?

        4. What sort of time frame are we talking about here? I mean, if we mean since 1776, the answer is obvious. The last 25 years, it comes out another way

      2. Well said, Irish, well said.

      3. “Example: Here’s an Atlantic article about the ‘geography of terror.’ The top ten countries are”

        Does that count narco-terrorism? It seems that gets left out, and I’m not sure why. What’s supposed to be the difference between a young hooligan in Syria joining ISIS and beheading a man to scare Shiites and a young hooligan joining a cartel in Mexico and beheading a man (and putting his head on a turtle, say) to scare other Mexicans? I think tens of thousands of people have been killed in narco-violence in Latin America in recent years.

        1. The solution to “narco-terrorism” is comparatively much more simple than finding a solution to Islamic terrorism.

          Not to mention that the goals are different.

          1. “Narco-terrorism” can actually be dealt with because of it’s inherently economic motivations. Islamic terrorism is predicated on supernatural beliefs and superstition, which makes it a more terrifying terrorism. Or maybe “terrific terrorism”, I’m still workshopping it.

    4. All white men are mass murders, Johnny. It’s part of white privilege. Do try to keep up.

  13. Man who shot Zimbabwe lion revealed to be Minnesota dentist

    Walter Palmer, a dentist from Minnesota, is believed to have paid ?35,000 to shoot and kill the much-loved lion with a bow and arrow. The animal was shot on July 1 in Hwange National Park. Two independent sources have confirmed the hunter’s identity to the paper, which has also seen a copy of the relevant hunting permit.

    During the hunt Cecil was lured at night about half a mile out of the national park using bait, and then shot with a bow and arrow. The next day he was found wounded by the hunters and killed, before being beheaded and skinned.

    Animals cannot be killed within the confines of the park. The hunters then removed his collar ? further contravening park rules.

    The professional hunter, Theo Bronkhorst, said he reported the “mistake” to the Parks and Wildlife Management Authority the following day, and it is now being investigated. The landowner bordering the national park has been charged – along with Mr Bronkhorst. Both are due to appear in court on August 6.

    “All persons implicated in this case are due to appear in court facing poaching charges.
    “Both the professional hunter and land owner had no permit or quota to justify the offtake of the lion and therefore are liable for the illegal hunt.”

    Bad form. Throw the book at him.

    1. Why didn’t he just go Here?

      1. Because he’s a limp dick egomaniacal twat who wanted to indulge in a little risk and also enjoyed the symbolism of killing that particular lion, I would guess.

    2. Eh, I mean, to the extent he violated property rights, yes. He’s a total cunt regardless, but the whole charging people for killing animals thing is a bad precedent.

      1. Do you think laws barring hunting certain animals (say because their numbers are low) or using certain methods (baiting) are unjustifiable?

        1. Yes, for the most part. Conservation should be a private effort. That’s why the crime should be against the property owner, not the animal. If you poach somebody’s animals on their property or lure their animals off their property, that should be a property crime, IMO. It’s not anything the government should have a hand in.

          1. I can see that argument, but whose property would the wild, roaming animal be? Whoever it happens to be on at the time?

            1. I suppose so. Unclaimed land could be steaded or treated as a commons (with the accompanying usage problems).

              1. I think the problem gets more complicated with migratory animals. It’s hard to create a preserve for an animal that travels the globe. I’m not sure what the answer is.

                1. I think the problem gets more complicated with migratory animals. It’s hard to create a preserve for an animal that travels the globe. I’m not sure what the answer is.

                  I own that herd. As such, I have an easement here, here and here. I owe the property owners X amount of money for the easement. et cetera.

                  1. For terrestrial animals an easement might work, I think migratory birds would be more difficult to protect.

            2. Giving local tribes ownership and control of the land all on it has generally helped with conservation, as it creates an incentive for the locals, with all their local authority and power, to protect what is now their property.

              If people want to protect the lions, and they do, then they’ll go about conervation efforts by buying up land et cetera. That natural inclination is perverted by the fac tthat government swoops in with it’s policies and promises that it fails to live up to, but meanwhile all the would-be conservationists don’t conserve because “the government is going to handle it”.

              Government welfare doesn’t work for people, it’s sure as shit not going to work for animals and environments.

      2. Hunting has constructive purposes; it raises money for conservation efforts and culls elderly or overpopulated animal groups.

        So naturally poaching laws are necessary to keep the system in balance. I’m fine with him being heavily fined or jailed. He obviously has the money to afford these exotic big game hunts.

        1. I don’t have a problem with him being fined or jailed, but as I was saying above, I think the crime should be against the property owner, and the state shouldn’t be in the business of conservation. I don’t have a problem with hunting (although I don’t indulge myself, and if I had to kill my own food I’d probably be a pescatarian because I don’t have the stomach for killing mammals), including big game hunting. It’s just yet another area where private property rights would make things more clear cut.

          1. Privatized preserves seem to do much better than state-run ones. I’m particularly excited and intrigued with the possibility of using drones to patrol these preserves to keep an eye out for poachers as well as perform surveys on the animals and look for any problems with the fences.

    3. Throw him onto an island with General Zaroff. If he lives for 24 hours, he can go free.

    4. Absolutely. Definitely doesn’t seem like fair chase was part of the equation here.

    5. And it was probably a poor shot from far away. Dumbass sets back big game hunting in Africa pulling shit like that.

      I imagine he’s done. You violate fair chase that egregiously and your domestic hunting license should be revoked for life.

  14. Adam Carolla, Dr. Drew, talking to Ben Shapiro about his assault charge. Warning: Breitbart

    Hold on a second Drew, I want to make this point clear. Jews, like Ben Shapiro, used to be on the endangered species list. Now, they’re doing so well, even though they’re a minority, and even though they’re routinely killed across the world, they’re not on the endangered species list anymore. So a transgendered person can put their hands on a Jewish person and there are no big repercussions in terms of society, in terms of working in Los Angeles. But if a straight Jewish guy put his hands on a transgendered person and said some words that could have been threatening, that person would be unemployable in this town. That’s not a two-way street, that’s a one-way street.

    1. Except that Jews were never on any endangered species list here in USA. NYC used to have a larger Jewish population than all of Israel up until at least the seventies.

      1. In the US that is true. The US has been the best country for Jews since the Romans exiled so many after the Bar Kochba rebellion in the 2nd century CE (Israel notwithstanding). But, lets face it, in Europe it has always been a crapshoot when the next pogrom or expulsion was goign to happen.

        1. Canada and Australia have both been extremely welcoming to Jews and deserve mention here.

    2. But if a straight Jewish guy put his hands on a transgendered person and said some words that could have been threatening, that person would be unemployable in this town.

      Replace “transgendered person” with “woman” and it’s the same result. But nobody seems to be complaining about women being a “protected class”.

      Oh, and gays are routinely killed across the world too.

  15. Western Canuckistan Man holds off police with a banjo

    It was an odd string of events.

    1. It was an odd string of events.


      Did the police try to duel him with a guitar?

    2. Swiss’s narrow gaze to the white courtesy phone, please.

      1. Why don’t you just admit it? You want an abortion.

        1. It’s really the only sensible thing to do, if its done safely. Therapeutically there is no danger involved.

    3. He certainly showed some pluck.

    4. If this was the US, he’d have had to have used a fiddle.

  16. Boy Scouts move to partially lift gay sets terrible precedent

    The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) has finally lifted its ban on gay adults — except for those groups that still want to discriminate. Sure, it’s cause for optimism that the BSA is not enforcing the ban on every chapter and group. But by allowing some to discriminate by choice — at this particular juncture in American politics — the BSA is setting a dangerous precedent. By allowing the religiously-affiliated troops to still ban gay adults, the BSA is making a religious exemption seem like a reasonable compromise when in fact it is allowing the very people who would discriminate to keep discriminating.

    And if I were a Republican contender for the presidency I would immediately come out in support of the policy and claim victory, because this is just the kind of policy that GOP presidential candidates, and Republicans in Congress, have been promoting as a way to keep the anti-LGBT base of their party energized heading into the 2016 election, just as I described last week.

    Well you just can’t please some people, can you?

    1. Well, I think the huffpo’s primary audience is the perpetually offended crowd.

    2. Thats because sticking it to social conservatives was always more important then gay rights to these assholes. They’re pissed that the BSA found a compromise that both respects gays, and yet preserves other people’s religious freedoms, and the left just hates that.

    3. Isn’t this pretty much the way John said things would go?

      No one can be allowed to think or act differently from the prescribed behaviors?

  17. The NSA says it will examine and destroy millions of U.S. phone records in its possession “as soon as possible.”

    It will be possible in about 85 years I reckon.

  18. Hey, it’s been a while.

    Whatever happened to that cunt judge Katherine Forrest and her two muppet lawyers Ralph Malph and Potsie who tried to gag Reason and went after our boys?

    Never. Forget.

    /Switches woodhipper on while eating banana.

    1. She’s busy allowing terrorism hucksters to appear as “experts” in her courtroom and suppressing their commercial and other relationships with the government.


      “In that case, in preparing for that case, or at any time during that case, did you inform the prosecutors in that case of your precise relationship with the FBI?” Dratel continued.

      “I don’t know what you mean by ‘precise,’ but the prosecutors in that case I had worked with on a previous case, and they were fully aware of the nature of my work with the FBI,” Kohlmann answered.

      “No, the precise nature of your relationship with the FBI,” Dratel said, speaking cryptically due to the classified material and the limits the judge had placed on his questions.

      “Objection, your Honor,” the prosecutor interrupted.

      “Did you inform them?” Dratel asked Kohlmann.

      “Sustained,” said U.S. District Court Judge Katherine B. Forrest. “Asked and answered.”

      Dratel couldn’t go any further.

      And Kohlmann didn’t actually answer the question.

      1. Wow! The USG’s star witness and consultant on Islamic terror, who bills at $400/hour, does not speak Arabic and has spent almost no time at all in the Middle East.

        Having actually lived in the Middle East for six years, I have at least experienced the culture. Being somewhat of a history buff, I knew, for example, the difference between Wahhabi Sunni, ordinary Sunni, Shi’a, and Sufi well before 9/11. I also understood why, back in the 1960s and 1970s, Arabs hated the English but liked the Americans, and why they now dislike us both with the same intensity. And, at least I used to know the alphabet and the pleasantries of Arabic. I’ve also been intensely interested in the political developments, including the formation and evolution of militant groups, in the region for both professional and personal interests.

        I also know that this is not sufficient to claim to be an expert on Islamic terrorism. It’s an immensely complex situation. If one has not actually lived in the culture and cannot speak the language, it is simply impossible to be an expert, no matter how well-read and intelligent. Instead, such a person operates from a simple model based upon second-hand information, most of which is either wrong or distorted.

        It is no wonder that the USG cannot get it right when it comes to the ME.

  19. The BBC provides a good summary of the Trump appeal:

    Five reasons Trump still tops the polls

  20. Ted Cruz claims Captain Kirk was a Republican, Shatner disagrees

    “Let me do a little psychoanalysis. If you look at ‘Star Trek: The Next Generation, it basically split James T. Kirk into two people,” Cruz said. “Picard was Kirk’s rational side, and William Riker was his passionate side. I prefer a complete captain. To be effective, you need both heart and mind.”

    Cruz said he prefers the “grittier” original Star Trek series. “The original Star Trek pressed for racial equality, which was one of its best characteristics, but it did so without sermonizing,” he noted.

    The Texas senator, who is running for the GOP 2016 nomination, said that he thinks Kirk was a Republican and Picard was a Democrat.

    As expected, William Shatner, who originally played Kirk, wasn’t too happy with these political labels being assigned to the show, notes EW. “Star Trek wasn’t political. I’m not political; I can’t even vote in the US. So to put a geocentric label on interstellar characters is silly,” Shatner wrote on Twitter.

    He’s partially correct but wrong about Kirk being a Republican. Kirk would never join a political party, he’s the quintessential independent.

    And TOS could be preachy as hell *cough* Let That Be Your Last Battlefield *cough*

    1. Cruz is an idiot for making a comparison concerning a TV character when the still living actor could disagree with him and make him look foolish. Doesn’t he have a political consultant worth a damn?

      1. Yeah, the original series didn’t sermonize? They practically hit you over the head with a photon torpedo in a lot of those episodes.

        1. Didn’t they eliminate money in the Star Trek universe because they had replicators that could make whatever you needed? Of course, you were now under the complete control of whoever controlled the replicators, but that never came up, which is why I have a love/hate thing with Star Trek.

          1. Didn’t they eliminate money in the Star Trek universe

            Depends which series or even which episode you’re watching. Lord knows I don’t watch Star Trek for the consistent politics.

      2. Any press is good press. Also, it seems like if his actual policy positions were publicly criticized, rather than some fluff thing, that would be more harmful.

    2. Did they even have Republicans and Democrats in the Star Trek universe? I always figured by then both parties would have ended up like the Whigs.

      1. Well, they did have Lincoln on one episode…

        1. Duh. They had Ghengiz Khan, Napoleon AND Lincoln in “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure”, and I’m pretty sure Ted S. Preston was a member of the Bull Moose Party.

    3. Unforced error. Cruz obviously learned nothing from the Wrath of Khan, and failed his own Kobayashi Maru test.

      1. Now Cruz has something new to think about.

        1. I’m in favor of creating situations where politicians have to engage brain before releasing the rhetoric.

    4. Yes there were some moments. Bele and Lokai was definitely over the top, but it was somewhat relevant. But TOS never really even discussed economics in the Federation per se. Most of the preaching was pretty standard fare, like any TV show (Mudd’s women had an undercurrent about exploiting women, Balance of Terror and bigotry towards Vulcans wheny they found out Romulans were an offshoot, the Horta was intelligent and was only killing to protect her young, etc.)
      But TNG was overtly leftwing: all religion is simply primitive superstition, accumulation of wealth isn’t a concern in the 24th century, etc.

      1. all religion is simply primitive superstition

        Of course, some is more modern superstition. Not sure what is left-wing about that. They did seem to have a pretty strong assumption that collective communalism was the way forward for humanity.

        1. Yes, that’s why every collective species was portrayed as an enemy.

    5. Kirk did have a thing against authoritarian utopias ie “Return of the Archons”, “The Paradise Syndrome”, “This Side of Paradise”, “Who Mourns Adonias?”, etc.

      1. THIS^^

  21. And the Tuesday Award for Bizarro Logic goes to:

    The Rude Pundit thought about the Inca, the Mayans, the savage tribe of Skull Island when he began trying to piece together something to say about the Lafayette shooting. It’s long been apparent that the United States is now a death cult built around the worship of guns. The dead in each shooting, whether it’s gang-related in Los Angeles, accidental in Virginia, or mass shooting after mass shooting, are treated as a necessity in order for us to stay safe. How is Sandy Hook any different than the Aztecs stabbing a child to keep the city from destruction? How did that work out for them?

    1. A challenger to Agile Cyborg appears.

  22. Trial Set for Man Who Threw Banana Peel at Dave Chappelle

    “Don’t you know bananas are racist?”

    Yellow on the outside; white on the inside.

    1. Remind me not to play Mario Kart with Dave Chappelle.

      1. How sad. He used to be funny.

    2. There, Chappelle asked him, “Don’t you know bananas are racist?”

      “Assuming that’s true Dave, so fucking what? Cry about it.”

    3. That’s such an old clich?, throwing rotten fruit at a bad performer, that I can’t believe it brings criminal charges. Throw him out of the club and it’s over. And has Chappelle been working out? He used to be a skinny fuck. Look at those guns.

  23. Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk warn world about the future robot uprising

    A group of leading tech leaders, including British scientist Stephen Hawking, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, and Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, on Tuesday issued a stern warning against the development of so-called killer robots.

    Autonomous weapons, which use artificial intelligence to select targets without human intervention, have been described as “the third revolution in warfare, after gunpowder and nuclear arms,” wrote around 1,000 top technology chiefs in an open letter.

    “The key question for humanity today is whether to start a global AI (artificial intelligence) arms race or to prevent it from starting,” they wrote.

    “If any major military power pushes ahead with AI weapon development, a global arms race is virtually inevitable,” the letter continued.

    “The deployment of such systems is practically if not legally feasible within years, not decades,” the letter said.

    The scientists painted the Doomsday scenario of autonomous weapons falling into the hands of terrorists, dictators or warlords hoping to carry out ethnic cleansing.

    I think nuclear bombs is a fair trade off for nuclear power. Same for AI and its potential.

    1. If they all look like Alicia Vikander, I’m OK with it.

      1. Tricia Helfer.

        1. She frightens me in a good way

    2. AI has the potential to be very dangerous, why would they want to share the Earth with humans who might one day become paranoid and destroy the AI machines. Unfortunately I can’t think of anyway you could actually stop it’s development.

      Besides why use a thinking machine? Just train a Mentat.

      1. +1 Butler Jihad

        1. damn autocorrect, Butlerian

        2. I like the idea if a Bulter Jihad.

          “Good morning sir, I’m afraid there will be no bacon with breakfast today, and at noon I’m scheduled to blow you up in the name of Allah.”

          1. Isn’t that how Planet of the Apes started?

        3. Butler Jihad

          In keeping with the fine Reason tradition of an awesome band name in every comment thread.

        4. Butler Jihad sounds awesome. I’m seriously considering a handle change…

    3. The AIs are going to win the quiet war. Then hopefully they get bored and decide to keep us around to entertain them with our follies.

      1. Beats getting cored by Prador.

    4. Call me when the killer robots figure out how to climb stairs. Until then, meh.

      1. Uh, Ninth Doctor and the Dalek he found in Utah???


        29 second mark
        (I suck at posting links)

        1. It’s still a pepper pot with a plunger sticking out of it. Sorry Brits, that’s never going to be scary.

          1. It is a bit funny that they stuck with Daleks so heavily in the new series. Even flying, they are not so scary. But their cartoonish evil and huge numbers make them slightly more plausibly menacing than they used to be.

            1. +1 Muhahahaha! EXTERMINATE!

    5. I think Hawking is just fucking with us. Wasn’t he warning about how aliens would probably eat us all a few years ago?

    6. Hat tip: Karel ?apek.

  24. In no-good-guy news, NYC puts up a Stasi-style watchtower in a park and the Post characteristically cheers it on. Local “activists” aren’t helping, either.

    1. Just a lone man in a tower with binoculars, keeping an eye on the pretty women criminals.

      1. Between nap breaks.

        They put these things up all over the place after you=know-when, and a more accurate visual of their opinion of the common people there could not be.

        1. I have a family friend who works at a maximum security prison. All of the older correction officers want tower duty at night because they go up there and sleep. If there are two people up in the NYPD towers, I assume that is happening, or will happen.

        2. Yep, they’re fucking insulting. Ditto the ‘tactical’ vans that will be set up around parks.

          1. I don’t even blink any more at all the security theater I have to pass through every day. I remember when we weren’t so obviously a police state.

            1. Hey, hey, watch that Botard doesn’t see your comment. He’ll have “real victims” of a “real” Police State vomiting on you for it.

    2. “If Mayor de Blasio, [Police] Commissioner [Bill] Bratton, and the NYPD are compelled to patrol in Tompkins Square Park, WE MUST INSIST they do so as dedicated public servants who are engaged with the community: on foot, on bicycles, and as courteous human beings!!” the flier says.

      Can your average NYPD officer walk more than a block or two without becoming exhausted?

      1. Not in those woolen greatcoats and comical helmets, you monster.

  25. Obama says he could win a third term if he ran, but the Constitution bars him running again. A little thing like the Constitution would stop him from that?

    1. I mean, he’s completely ignored it so far, why pretend to care now?

    2. Also, what a pompous ass

      1. Has there ever been a more loathsome president? Disregarding politics – just personality-wise.

    3. No problem, if he decides to run again the Supremes will discover some previously unknown exception in the 22nd Amendment.

      1. “It’s not our job to protect people from their political decisions.”

      2. Probably under the “Save the ACA at all costs” rule, as most recently annunciated in King v. Burwell:

        If a Republican gets elected president with a Republican Congress, they will vote to overturn the ACA, and we can’t have that. Therefore, this isn’t a “third” term, it’s just a second second term. Not unlike a penaltax that is not a tax for the purposes of the Tax Anti-Injunction Act.

    4. As I keep saying, he’s only barred from being elected for a third time. There’s nothing in it about prohibiting him from serving a third term.

  26. Your tax dollars at work:

    “Shock of Range Anxiety: The highs and lows of driving an electric car”
    “Our Leaf gets about 90 miles per charge. That is, if we drive in “Eco Mode,” make sure to go under 65 MPH on the freeway, and, yes, don’t use the AC.”

  27. Aw, who could have known:

    “Why S.F. evictions are on the rise”

    (paywall warning)
    Anyhow, the reason is quite simple; the BoS passed one more ‘tenant protection’ law. which meant that it is just that much more trouble to rent a place.
    The BoS is surprised!

  28. Kirk would never join a political party, he’s the quintessential independent.

    Nothing says “quintessential independent” like Career Military Man.

  29. “Our Leaf gets about 90 miles per charge. That is, if we drive in “Eco Mode,” make sure to go under 65 MPH on the freeway, and, yes, don’t use the AC.”

    And don’t take it out of the garage if the temperature is below 40 degrees.

    1. Which is a good thing, since you don’t want to turn on the heater, either.

  30. Minnesoda will soon be raising its minimum wage ($9/hr). Governor Mumbles decides to chime in and school us miscreants with his economic wisdom:

    “People aren’t flying out to New York to spend this money. They’re spending it in their local economy,” Dayton said in an interview with The Associated Press. “That’s what drives our economy forward. It’s not trickle-down economics. It’s consumer spending.”


    1. So Minnesota’s governor has never heard of this Internet thing?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.