Joe Biden's Friends Don't Want Him to Run, FBI Looks at Hillary Emails, Changes Have Come to Ferguson: A.M. Links

|

New at Reason: 

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

NEXT: Ron Paul: 'Unborn Black Lives Matter'

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. Joe Biden’s friends are like, sorry, bruh, but…

    He thinks he’s going to be drafted to run. Savior of the party.

    1. Hello.

      1. Hi.

    2. He will be if Hillary’s scandals keep getting publicized.

  2. Three in five black Americans say they’ve been treated unfairly by police.

    The other two are cops.

    1. But don’t let it be a black and a white one
      Cause they’ll slam ya down to the street top
      Black police showin out for the white cop

      1. The jury finds you guilty of being a redneck, white bread, chickenshit motherfucker.

        1. Judge Rudy Ray Moore presidin’.

        2. Red neck, White trash, and Blue collar.

            1. LOL! That’s such a stupid song. I love it for expertly describing the I-have-no-ambition-but-I’m-happy-with-it crowd.

    2. How about just three in five Americans?

      1. Exactly.

      2. Because #BlackLivesMatter, you racist!!11!!!

      3. you can’t have a narrative without the balkanization and tribalism.

      4. I can’t really answer that without knowing first what shade their skin is.

      5. Only 3 percent of whites say they have been treated unfairly by cops. Which seems kind of low. I’d guess that more whites manage to avoid interactions with police other than an occasional traffic stop or reporting some accident or minor crime.

        1. I guess they could also have a different definition of “treated unfairly”. One group might think being given a ticket for a traffic violation or minor crime is unfair, while the other may not.

        2. Exactly.

          Let’s just measure the ones who have been treated by the police.

          1. Why blacks have more contact with police is still an interesting question. But I would be interested to see what people who do interact with police think about their encounters as well.

            1. Agreed – surveying people whose po-po interactions are limited to D.A.R.E programs doesn’t count.

        3. I haven’t been treated “unfairly”, but I have been treated poorly. Apparentl, I don’t have any right to complain about this because cops treat almost every non-cop like shit, to varying degrees.

      6. These comments are hilarious. A common trope here by many commenters is that 90% of cops are sadistic, pepper-spraying, dog-shooting, baby mangling buffoons. But do they act racist? Nah, of course not.

        1. Actually that’s not it.

          We all know that there are racist cops, it is just that the racism of individual cops isn’t the problem. If the Police institutions were properly designed and managed and the police in them held accountable for their actions then an individual racist cop wouldn’t really have all that much ability to act on his racism and if he were unable to keep his racist motivations in check he would very quickly find himself out of a job or behind bars.

          We also reject the idea that the institution of policing is inherently racist as opposed to disproportionately effecting minorities because of their socio economic class (in other words cops beat on poor people and since minorities are disproportionately poor they take the brunt of that abuse, it has little to do with the color of their skin)

          1. This, exactly.

            The problem is that the shielding of bad cops and overall lack of consequences attracts many sadistic, bullying assholes to the job. They then beat down relatively powerless people and pets, many of whom happen to be minorities.

            Just cause sadistic cops are mean doesn’t make them stupid. They can usually restrain themselves around very wealthy, well-connected people and celebrities. That’s because they know even their union might have a hard time to extricate them from some situations.

        2. So are we supposed to simply take this three out of five thing at face value with absolutely no critical thinking whatsoever?

          I would be curious to know what percentage of blacks think that they’re treated unfairly by their teachers at school, by their bosses at work, etcetera etcetera etcetera. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a similar percentage.

          My experience is that people who have a chip on their shoulder, a bad attitude, and a permanent victim mentality tend to apply that philosophy across the board to everything in their life. Everything bad is always someone else’s fault, and never, ever their own.

          1. Agreed, Mike M.

        3. I think a lot of cops act racist. Not all who act racist are racist, though. But if you’re a sadistic, pepper-spraying, dog-shooting, baby mangling buffoon, you wanna go after middle-class white people who have access to lawyers and a quaint notion that public servants should actually serve the public or the black underclass that nobody gives a shit about, who know nobody gives a shit about them, who expect to be treated like shit? Low-hanging fruit. Robbers don’t rob rich people out of some special antipathy to the rich, they rob the rich because the rich have stuff worth stealing. Cops don’t necessarily pick on black people because they’re black, they pick on black people because they can get away with it.

          1. Ah, the Willie Sutton effect.

            1. Was Willie Sutton the child molestor who, given a choice between working at an old folks home or at an after-school daycare center, chose the job where he figured he would be more likely able to indulge his sick, twisted fantasies?

              1. Nah, the guy who was asked why he robbed banks, and answered “That’s where the money is”.

                Why do cops (seemingly) victimize poorly represented minorities? Because they can do so with relative impunity.

                1. Yes, I know who Sutton was – as you suggest, just as a bank robber goes where the money is and a child molester goes where the children are, a bully goes where the defenseless victims are.

  3. 80) I’ve been thinking lately about why there seems to be a near-universal need in humans to believe in religion, or lacking that, replacing religion with religion-like replacements: Communism, New Age crystals, or whatever. I’ve heard this explained as a byproduct of man’s ability to see patterns, and a tendency to see patterns even where none exists. I think that explanation works, but maybe goes even a little deeper.

    My theory is when somebody has a personal tragedy?loses a family member in an accident, for example?it’s almost impossible psychologically to say, “Oh, these things happen.” A person feeling loss is looking for an explanation: Why, why did this occur? And the explanation that often makes sense is God did to bring a person to heaven, or as punishment for a sin, or maybe just for his own inscrutable reasons we’ll understand later.

    It’s a clich? that people are not particularly religious until something horrific happened to them, and then they became dedicated church-goers. Yes, people see patterns, but very often, it’s tragedy that gives us a real *need* to see the pattern, even where it doesn’t exist.

    1. I’ve been thinking lately about why there seems to be a near-universal need in humans to believe in religion

      Mostly, I “believe” it is because humans can ask questions that we cannot answer (about life’s meaning, purpose, destiny, etc.). These religious beliefs all provide an answer. It may be an evolutionary benefit…or maybe it’s God inside of us (no SugarFree intended)

    2. I think there are a few causes:

      1. Most people do not like uncertainty. They’d rather have a doubtful answer than no answer.

      2. Most people desire to be a respected member of a group.

      3. Most people want to have some noble goal or purpose in life.

      Religions and some philosophies fit these needs. Even a person who lives comfortably will likely feel a need to join a religion.

      1. I pick #1 as the not.

        1. I walked right into that one.

      2. 1) seems the most likely. I never became very religious, and wasn’t raised to be that religious, but my cousin died after getting in a wreck with a drunk driver, and frankly, religion was a comfort at that point in time, since the timing of it was terrible. My cousin had been a drug addict, but was recovering, and turning his life around, and then bam, gone.

    3. But the world is neither just nor unjust
      It’s just us trying to feel that there’s some sense in it

      Trigger Warning: The Cure

    4. Asking unanswerable questions about asking unanswerable questions. Who do you think you are?

    5. Motivation will be unique to the individual. Similar events will have differing affects on different people. For myself, I was not brought up in a devout household. Attended a protestant denomination on occasion in early adulthood with future wife. We married and had a child that required hospitalization in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit and surgery at 5 days old. The condition he had was relatively minor and easily corrected with today’s technology. He has only very minor ongoing issues that he should become non-existent as he matures. Others born with this issue may have lifelong issues. My experience in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit makes me feel very fortunate. There were cases there that are unimaginable. Babies are born where there internal organs develop outside their abdominal cavity in-utero. There birth is done cesarean and significantly premature. The infants are kept in an incubator with their internal organs suspended in a bag and nurtured to the point where they are large and strong enough to undergo operation. There were multiple children in the NICU in this condition. My child was only there briefly, and I don’t know the final results of any particular case.

      1. Some would find the experience somehow affirming or strengthening of their faith. It has made me completely agnostic. I am unable to come to terms with the things I witnessed in the NICU and the things I heard in the Sunday sermons. Specifically:

        1) God knew you before you were born
        2) God is a loving God

        These assumptions about the nature of God are completely at odds with my experience in the NICU. I have come to believe that if there is a God, he is beyond our ability to comprehend and he has no concern as to our existence.

        Regarding those that don’t share my opinion about God, I find those that have faith, as long as they are not proselytizing, much preferable than the other sort.

        1. Regarding those that don’t share my opinion about God, I find those that have faith, as long as they are not proselytizing, much preferable than the other sort.

          That’s interesting! At times, I’m the opposite. I guess it has to do with expectations. I expect my christian cohort to actually give a shit about their faith, and when they don’t it’s highly disappointing to me. (I don’t mean this in reference to the proselytizing. I find most modern forms of proselytizing to be lazy, superficial, and downright rude). I find self-proclaimed christians who live entirely ignorant of the tenets of their supposed faith to be offensive, whereas I have no such feeling about the atheist/agnostic.

    6. I think the base issue is that people want to belong to a community. And religions (and quasi religions like environmentalism) tend to be strong communities.

      If you consider that communities are subject to the same “survival of the fittest” pressures as any other organism, then you can look at a lot of attributes as survival mechanisms. A community whose culture retains members will continue to grow. A culture that strictly defines “us” and “them” makes it less likely that the community will become indistinct and fade away or get assimilated (eaten) by a larger community.

      Look at a lot of historical religions and you see some common threads. Usually they have some apocalyptic message (“Follow us or [global warming/Doomsday/poverty] will damn you to misery”). Among those communities without an apocalyptic end game, you find that a history of persecution is the end-of-days scenario (“We are always under attack from outsiders. Stay with us or we will all be gone”). And then those communities use rituals as social signals to say you are one of “us” instead one of “them”.

      It isn’t that people have a need for apocalyptic endings. It’s that as the community grows, someone posits that ending, and it proves to strengthen the community. Community naturally selects for these traits, and the community of communities selects for communities with these cultural tendencies.

      1. As an aside, this is why Libertarians have a hard time of things. If you look at the libertarian community, you will periodically see the “doomsday” predictions- “We are going to become a police state. It’s 1984 right around the corner.” You also see signals to define us vs them “Slaver! TEAM RED! TEAM BLUE!”.

        However, these tendencies are not strong. In fact they are undermined by the core beliefs of the libertarian. It is very difficult to describe the “us” in libertarianism because the defining characteristic (adherence to the NAP) is so passive. People visit this board with all sorts of religious and moral values, members of all sorts of other communities. And so the definition of “Us” becomes blurred such that a large number of arguments actually center on who is a GOP shill and who is practicing good libertarian practices. In a sense, Libertarianism as a weak community trying to fit in among a lot of strong ones.

        Looking at Ron Paul’s libertarian moments, you see that he bolstered the community strengths. Us could be defined easily by slapping a rEVOLution sticker on your car. You were the outsider taking on the GOP. You were saving people from the death of liberty. Sometimes a strong leadership team can create that stronger culture.

        The challenge with the elusive “takeover” of the GOP will be finding the Paradise vs Apocalypse scenario that effectively competes with the scenario peddled by Hawks about terrorists and red chinese coming to destroy us, for example.

    7. But Communism and Crystals don’t address the death issue. Some of the new age stuff does, like reincarnation or the White Light of Peace etc, but the religiosity is just as strong when it doesn’t offer a peaceful resting place for grandpa.

      I think sense of purpose and importance might be the true drivers. The death of someone close simply makes us look harder for that purpose in the patterns because we know we might die next and we don’t want to die un-fulfilled.

    8. At some point in everyone’s life they have a moment where they stare at eternity and find themselves staring back. Trying to discern why this is leads inexorably to religious type thoughts.

  4. Nudist cruise ship: What’s it like on a boat with 2,000 people not wearing clothes?

    Not that some of them weren’t almost nude before the cruise director gave the all clear. Many were in various states of undress, itching to toss their clothes aside. A skeletal man in his eighties wandered around the ship wearing only a fluorescent thong, his loose skin draped around his bones in cascades that looked like freckled frosting, and a gigantic, barrel-chested man ? he looked like he’d eaten an actual barrel ? lumbered around the lido deck on an industrial-strength cane, wearing only a loincloth. A few people soaked in Jacuzzis, surreptitiously slipping out of their swimsuits, while the less rebellious sat by the pool, looking somewhat forlorn, waiting for the green light. These were nudists, after all. And they had paid big bucks to frolic in the buff. When the all clear was sounded, they didn’t hesitate.

    There are rules for being a nudist. It’s not enough to drop your trousers and waggle your genitals in the sunshine. That might be fun ? or, depending where you are, get you arrested ? but it’s not nudism.

    1. The core problem with it is that it’s always the people who shouldn’t be unclothed who are the most enthusiastic about being so.

      1. But not much of a problem when they’re willing to seclude themselves to a cruise ship.

      2. I go to nude or nearly-nude resorts at least once a year. I’m in my 30s and in great shape, as is my wife. Some of the other people we party with are in great shape too, and some, as is the saying around those parts, are also in shape: round. And we all have a blast together with no judgement. In fact the only people who consistently look pissy are the ones sitting in small groups on the outskirts pointing fingers and curling their lips.

        I’d encourage you to loosen up and not be so afraid of human bodies that won’t be gracing the cover of Playboy. We’re all just meat sacks passing through, and being naked on the sun or in the ocean is one of life’s great joys, not reserved for the 10’s alone.

        1. I know a guy who is one of those nudists you would prefer not to see naked – but that’s pretty much why he prefers to be nude. It’s naked or wearing a muumuu or being chafed and pinched and constricted in places you would rather not be chafed and pinched and constricted. And trust me, there are acres of such places on this guy.

    2. Short answer: gross.

      1. *throws off robe*
        Ah. Brisk.

        1. *narrows gaze in a direction AWAY from Florida Man*

          1. Get a look at his 24″ pythons, brother sister!

    3. But enough about the latest Reason cruise…

  5. Chelsea Clinton steps into the spotlight ? on her own terms

    Today, the woman who could become America’s only two-time first daughter has decided: If the spotlight must always shine on her, she might as well use it in her favor.

    She isn’t quite a celebrity. Or a philanthropist. Or a politician, though let’s not rule that out. Now serving as vice chair of her family’s foundation, she has reinvented herself as a champion of uncontroversial causes, her life an endless string of grand entrances, polite speeches, photo-ops ? after which she retreats to her eight-figure Manhattan condominium, expecting the media and the public to preserve the boundaries she has cherished since childhood. Polished, practiced and private, Chelsea Clinton is the closest thing America has to a princess.

    1. “She isn’t quite a celebrity. Or a philanthropist. Or a politician,”

      Or has ever held a real job.

        1. My favorite part of the whole thing:

          In total, Clinton’s segments from the past 2 years and seven months lasted just shy of 58 minutes.3

          You can’t say she had a no show job.

          1. Segments for the Today show are so hard!

          2. Sounds like every job these Clintons have had….

    2. She isn’t quite a celebrity. Or a philanthropist. Or a politician

      floor wax or dessert topping!

    3. Or a politician, though let’s not rule that out.

      Let’s do.

      1. Chelsea Clinton 2036. And 2040. And 2044. And 2048…

        1. Chelsea Clinton 2052: It’s her turn!

    4. She isn’t quite a celebrity. Or a philanthropist. Or a politician,

      or useful.

      1. or pretty.

    5. Polished, practiced and private, Chelsea Clinton is the closest thing America has to a princess.

      The exact sort of people (or perhaps even the exact people) who would think of Mezvinsky as a princess are the people who disparage the British royals.

    6. “Chelsea Clinton is the closest thing America has to a princess.”

      Gag.

      1. Caroline Kennedy, ya know, like, has a sad.

    7. vice chair of her family’s foundation

      So she’s a crook, then?

      1. The thing about that is if she was conservative all we’d hear was how she has a cushiony job not doing much given to her by her parents.

      2. So she’s a crook, then?

        Well, it is the family business.

    8. The best propaganda is that which is subtle and not so glaring.

      This gets an ‘F’ for being so obvious.

      1. Unless it’s a false flag operation, because it did a pretty good job of making the vein on my forehead throb.

  6. Joe Biden’s friends are like, sorry, bruh, but…

    Dammit, he HAS to run. Any entertainment factor for next year disappears without him. A Biden vs. Trump campaign would be the most entertaining thing to happen to this country in years, until whoever wins destroys it.

    1. BIDEN/TRUMP 2016

      “C’mon, you know you want it.”

    2. Agreed. “Diamond Joe” Biden may not be the candidate America wants, or needs, or can afford, but goddammit, he’s the candidate America deserves.

      1. “Stand up so everyone can see ya! God love ya!”

    3. Biden may be a goof-gaffe ball but he’s INFINITELY more likable and authentic by the uber-unauthentic and unlikeable Hillary.

      1. I don’t know about the “authentic” bit- but his charismatic lies certainly SEEM authentic.

        I just remember the VP debates when Ryan trotted out a bunch of facts about the dire straights of our entitlement programs. He and Ryan went back and forth with Biden running out of facts. Finally, he just looked at the camera and turned his charisma meter up to 11, saying essentially “Look people, are you going to believe these silly numbers this guy is spouting, or are you going to believe me when I say they are evil jerks come to kick grandma out of the house?”

        At that moment I knew it was all over.

    4. Biden/Sanders vs Trump/Christie.

      Just imagine the lulz.

  7. The FBI is looking into Hillary Clinton’s email server.

    It sounds like it won’t take them much to hack in.

    1. The one set of emails the government doesn’t already have access to, I guess.

      1. I maintain that the NSA has a full set of all the email traffic in and out of that server.

        If they don’t, they should all be fired.

        If they do, they should turn it over to the FBI and Congress.

        1. If they don’t, they should all be fired.

          If they do, they should all be fired.

  8. Spot the Not: war manuals

    1. The Art of War

    2. Concerning Military Matters

    3. The Science of War

    4. On Guerilla Warfare

    5. On War

    6. The Science of Victory

    1. Trick question? Is “The Art of War” really a ‘war manual’ in that sense?

    2. Seriously? You put Clauswitz and Sun Tsu on your list? Why not add “Infantry Attacks”?

      1. Why not add “Infantry Attacks”?

        What about Mars Attacks?

        1. You mean “War of the Worlds”.

          “Infantry Attacks” was the name of Rommel’s published book (he never finished his book on armored warfare due to a bad case of death)

          1. Unexpected assisted suicide is a real problem and its sufferers deserve our sympathy and support.

          2. Mars Attacks was a movie and a series of bubblegum cards:

            link

          3. In Patton (which as we all know is gospel truth), George C. Scott is reading Rommel’s The Tank in Attack every night before bed.

      2. Seriously? You put Clauswitz and Sun Tsu on your list? Why not add “Infantry Attacks”?

        It felt wrong to omit the classics.

    3. I remember on a 9/11 documentary, some Col or Gen claiming “fog of war” as his own (he said “What I’ll call ‘the fog of war'”, as if he made it up on the spot).

    4. The Not is 3, although there is a real book written recently that has a similar title. The rest in war are from Sun Tzu, Vegetius, Mao Zedong, Clausewitz, and Suvorov. I like the title of Suvorov’s book the best.

    5. None of these are really ‘manuals’ but all of them are treatises on warfare and conflict.

      #1 Sun Tzu is probably the one that would be the worst actual manual, because it is more philisophical grand strategy, and less tactical application than the others.

      1. Exactly. Add to that the fact that the “war” theories it described were ultimately ineffective when confronted with the western methods of waging war. Lots of interesting stuff about politics, deception and surprise- which pretty much defined Eastern warfare into the modern era, but which was ineffective except in very specific instances. Eastern warfare brought us Pearl Harbor, but in the end it could not stop compete with the West’s concentration on logistics, set piece battles, attrition and tactics.

  9. Can you guess what Bill Clinton endorses Obama doing behind Michelle’s back?

    Does Kobe also endorse it?

    1. Hitler? The answer’s “Hitler”, isn’t it?

    2. Can you guess what Bill Clinton endorses Obama doing behind Michelle’s back?
      .
      Michelle?

      1. Fours?

    3. Happy birthday, @POTUS! Hopefully when @FLOTUS isn’t looking you can have some cake. #44turns54

      I think Bill is more into pie.

  10. People Freaked Out by Caitlyn Jenner Expressing Conservative Views on Her Show

    Something happened on the second episode of Caitlyn Jenner’s reality-TV show that has some people really freaked out: She expressed conservative political views about welfare.

    During Sunday’s episode of I Am Cait, a documentary series covering Jenner’s transition from a man to a woman, Jenner and a few of her new transgender friends were discussing social programs when she said something super controversial:

    “A lot of times, they can make more not working, with social programs, than they actually can with an entry-level job.”

    Jenny Boylan, co-chair of GLAAD, then jumped in and said, “I’d say the great majority of people who are getting help are getting help because they need help.”

    1. How would they know? No one watched it.

      1. My sister and her gay friend did.

        1. It was a joke about the poor ratings and the plummet in ratings for the second episode.

    2. “A lot of times, they can make more not working, with social programs, than they actually can with an entry-level job.”

      How is this statement of fact, a conservative or even a controversial point of view? It’s a verifiable claim.

      1. “I’d say the great majority of people who are getting help are getting help because they need help.”

        This is an opinion.

        1. also It’s irrelevant that the majority of people are “getting help because they need help” all Jenner said was that they did better than someone with an entry level job.

          1. Duh. Incentives don’t matter. Unless they are sin taxes or solar power subsidies.

        2. You know, there are a couple of kids in my house I’m trying to teach the difference between ‘need’ and ‘want’. If you look at what the positive rights crowd calls entitlements and add up the cost of everything everybody needs – everybody needs and is entitled to more than the average household income. When the ‘needs’ of the needy exceeds the Gross National Product, it’s hard to see how what is logically and physically and mathematically impossible to supply can possibly be a need. It’s a want. We all want to be above average.

      2. So? Reality is negotiable; goodthink isn’t.

      3. Because feelz and burying your lefty head in the sand to avoid uncomfortable truths. And really, anyone who is an advocate for large government programs must either be a recipient of largess, woefully uninformed, deliberately ignorant, or actively evil.

        1. Worse: ENABLERS.

        2. anyone who is an advocate for large government programs must either be a recipient of largess, woefully uninformed, deliberately ignorant, or actively evil
          .
          You’re describing the government workforce. The biggest advocates for large government programs are the employees of large government programs. You wanna knock out poverty in one fell swoop? Send poor people a check. It would be cheaper than administering all the various programs we have now, but it takes one machine to spit out checks and it takes thousands of the over-educated, comfortably middle-class ‘gainfully employed’ to administer poverty programs. You think the Dems support more spending on government programs because they care so much about the less-fortunate? They care about paychecks and they care about votes.

      4. It doesn’t fit the progressive narrative, and so it doesn’t matter if it’s factual or not.

      5. It’s remarkable that coming out as a non-leftist is a braver act than coming out as a tranny.

    3. The politically correct outrage machine has been redlining over Jenner’s failure to follow the orthodoxy for a while.

    4. Seriously, they’re “freaked out” by someone having a different opinion? It was already known that Jenner was a Republican.

      1. But does he self-identify as a Democrat?

    5. Holy shit *IRONY ALERT, DANGEROUS LEVELS OF HYPOCRISY AND IRONY INCOMING*

      Not wanting people to get dependent on welfare may seem like a pretty standard point of view, but you wouldn’t know it from the reaction on the show: All of the women shaking their heads to the tune of ominous music.

      “Living in the bubble is an impediment to understanding other people,” Boylan continued. “If Cait’s going to be a spokesperson for our community, this is something she’s going to have to understand.”

      Why are you living in a bubble, Cait, when everyone knows that a much more cosmopolitan way of going through life would be to mindlessly agree with everyone in your social circle? You know – that way you wouldn’t be in a bubble or anything.

      1. ESPN wants to take back her award.

      2. Does she even want to be spokesperson for all transgender people?

        Being reality tv, it’s probably all fake anyway.

    6. “I’d say the great majority of people who are getting help are getting help because they need help.”

      Those are not mutually exclusive groups, Jen. That’s the point, welfare is often a seductive crutch.

      1. There are families who have been on welfare for generations. Those families have grown in numbers and dependence thanks to those welfare programs. It’s undeniable that if you measure “people in need” by whomever is on welfare, then welfare has created legions of “people in need”.

        1. Excellent point, well put. The great majority of people getting help need help because they’re getting help.

  11. Spot the Not: battle cries

    1. Long live the emperor!

    2. War cry!

    3. Whoever utters “God is the ultimate truth” will be happy!

    4. God is great!

    5. To the battle we ride!

    6. It is a good day to die!

    1. Isn’t #6 the Klingon war cry? Or is it okay if it’s fictional? Um, I guess I pick #3 then, because it’s really unwieldy.

      1. Could be an awkward translation though.

        But i’ll go with #3 as well.

      2. They’re translations.

        “Tenno Heika Banzai” and “Allahu Akbar” being #1 and #4, so it might be less clunky in the original language.

        1. Admiral Ackbar?

        2. “Isst meine Schei?e!!” Oh wait a sec. Thats the German porno cry.

          1. +zwei Madchen, eine Tasse

          2. Iss is the correct form of the imperative for that phrase. And you forgot an umlaut. Now go write it a 1,000 times.

            /3 years of high school German

          3. You say that like it’s wrong. 😉

        3. “Vive L’Empereur!” from the Napoleonic Wars, too.

      3. All the real battle cries are from history. The Not is a song lyric.

        1. “To battle we ride”. Sounds like a Manowar song.

        2. Fictional, but I ran across an awesome battle cry in a novel recently (can’t remember which one):

          “Your death comes.”

          It made a nice companion for another saying in the book: “Death comes for us all.”

    2. Spoon!

    3. 6. It is fictional.

    4. 5 is the Not. That is from the Manowar song Battle Hymn.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQGQab3lToM

      1 was used by WW2 Japanese and Napoleon’s troops.

      2 is Ancient Greek and is the basis for Xena’s battle cry in Xena: Warrior Princess

      3 is the Sikh battle cry: Bolay So Nihal, Sat Sri Akal!

      4 is the Islamic battle cry.

      6 was the cry of Lakota warrior Low Dog at the Battle of the Little Horn. It was later used in Star Trek as the Klingon battle cry. The Lakota phrase Hoka hey is often mistranslated as “it is a good day to die” but it really means “let’s go” or “let’s do it”. This is because Low Dog said “Hoka hey! It is a good day to die! Follow me!”

      1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alala

        Alala, (Ancient Greek: ?????; “battle-cry” or “war-cry”), was the goddess/personification/daemon of the war cry in Greek mythology. Her name means loud cry, esp. war-cry, from the onomatopoeic Greek word ????? [alal?],[1]

        Throughout the Xena: Warrior Princess franchise, the series protagonist, Xena, often utilized the signature war cry, “Alalaes”. Her cry was an alternate writing for “Alale” (or “Alala”), who in Greek mythology was the female personification of the war cry.[5]

    5. My favorite was always William Inglis’ “Die hard, 57th! Die hard!” at Albuera,.

      Problem is, around here, *someone* would interpret it as a rallying cry for autoasphyxiative carnal suicide.

    6. 6 is from the movie Little Big Man.

  12. Cato calls bullshit on John Kasich’s cutting-spending claims.

    Did he at least reduce the rate of increase? Because that counts as cutting!

  13. Judges are being asked to sentence offenders based not only on the crimes they’ve committed but also potential future crimes.

    Are you sure this isn’t just product placement for Fox’s fall television schedule to offset the costs of running government?

  14. Islamic State Circulates Sex Slave Price List

    The list shows the group’s view of the value of those it captures and surfaced some eight months ago, though its authenticity came under question. Bangura, who is the UN special envoy on sexual violence in conflict and was also in Jordan and Turkey, said she has verified that the document came from Islamic State and reflects real transactions.

    “The girls get peddled like barrels of petrol,” she said in an interview last week in New York. “One girl can be sold and bought by five or six different men. Sometimes these fighters sell the girls back to their families for thousands of dollars of ransom.”

    For Islamic State fighters, the prices in Iraqi dinars for boys and girls aged 1 to 9 are equal to about $165, Bangura said. Prices for adolescent girls are $124 and it’s less for women over 20.

    1. How about the Irish girls? Are they extra? The Vikings seemed to think highly of them.

    2. Reason number 237 why the entire Islamic world should be nuked into a giant sheet of glass. They are literally the worst civilization that has ever spawned on Earth. If I was a Martian and the first Earthlings I encounter were these guys I would just immediately start exterminating everything on Earth.

      1. I dunno, the Aztecs, Mayans and the Carribe were pretty bad. As bad as the Spanish were at the time the Aztecs made them look like saints. When the foundation f your civilization is cannibalism, extermination is in order.

        1. But…Natives….GOOD…PEACE…Give them back their land!

          1. In all seriousness, I have little problem with civilizations finding their spot within larger civilizations (except for the racist Indian reserves), but in the case of Islam I would submit they did have a period of advancement for a time. With that, it’s not entirely out of the realm of their abilities to rekindle it.

            But first they alone have to quell the fanatics within their ranks. Unless, this is a feature and not a bug of Islam.

            1. but in the case of Islam I would submit they did have a period of advancement for a time. With that, it’s not entirely out of the realm of their abilities to rekindle it.

              And their periods of cultural, scientific and economic growth were periods characterized by relatively weak religious authorities and the innovative muslims for their part were pushing the envelope and acting in ways that offended the sensibilities of their fanatical and pious countrymen. The advancements in the “Islamic Golden Age” happened despite Islam, not because of it.

              But first they alone have to quell the fanatics within their ranks. Unless, this is a feature and not a bug of Islam.

              Feature. The fanatics in their ranks usually range between about 50% and 90% of the population in Muslim majority countries, with very few notable exceptions.

              1. The periods where ANY civilization advances are characterized by relatively weak religion.

              2. Let’s not forget that some of the advances credited to Islam’s golden age were actually things that came from either conquest, or from their slave/subjugated peoples.

                1. It’s a helluva boon to conquer, arguably, the most advanced society in the world (the Eastern Roman Empire) and take for yourself all of it’s centuries of built up human capital, knowledge, institutions and even some culture. Of course there were “good ole days” for the Islamists. But their systems of law and custom naturally produced diminishing returns as time went on.

        2. But at least the Aztecs, Mayans, and Carribe had the decency to all die from small pox.

      2. You know who else started exterminating people?

        1. *Sigh*

          He’s baiting.

          1. Or is he ‘bating

        2. a deranged Orkin worker?

        3. Vincent D’Onofrio in Men in Black?

        4. Slobodan Milosevic?

          1. Mao or his buddy Stalin?

    3. “For Islamic State fighters, the prices in Iraqi dinars for boys and girls aged 1 to 9 are equal to about $165, Bangura said. Prices for adolescent girls are $124 and it’s less for women over 20.”

      Uh…there appears to be something very odd going on with this pricing. I guess Islamic State fanatics have really decided to take after Mohammad’s example and all be pedophiles.

      1. That’s what makes me question the list. Most people aren’t attracted to people until they’ve hit puberty.

        1. To be a cold-hearted economist for a second, if most of them prefer at least adolscent-aged slaves that pricing could still make sense (*hurl*) if the supply of the really young kids is much lower.

          I feel dirty. I’m gonna throw up now.

          1. You saw what I did there…

  15. Trump: Harvard students ‘fraudsters and liars’

    “The students who perpetrated this are fraudsters and liars, but frankly it was a waste of only a few minutes,” Donald Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks told The Hill.

    Trump was tricked by members of The Harvard Lampoon masquerading as Harvard Crimson staffers into a photo op, under the guise that he was being endorsed by the paper.

    In reality, the endorsement was part of an ongoing prank war between the Lampoon and the Crimson.

    “Mr. Trump attended the great Wharton School of Finance,” Hicks added, “a school that has more important things to do.”

    1. I stand behind Trump in his war against Harvard.

      1. I stand behind Trump in his war against Harvard.

        Are you doing it behind his back then? Bill Clinton approves.

        1. I will forcefully back Trump as he bends forward to wage war on Harvard.

    2. Trump: Harvard students ‘fraudsters and liars’

      Sabrina Rubin-Erdely disagrees. They are “rapists”.

  16. This is the song that nevvvvvvver ennnnnds…

    We should probably back as much defunding as we can, whatever their supposed reasons.

  17. HitchBOT video shows attack; tech sector rallies around little visitor

    The video was posted by Jesse Wellens, the Philadelphian who said he found the robot while driving around early Saturday. He said he held on to the robot for a couple of hours, then dropped it off on a bench on Second Street at Elfreth’s Alley between 4:30 and 5 a.m.

    The footage shows a man kicking hitchBOT on the bench around 5:45 a.m., according to a date tag on the video. The assailant is wearing a No. 12 Eagles jersey, the number worn by Randall Cunningham.

    eww… the Eagles? (insert Hotel California joke here)

    1. The video turned out to be a hoax.

      1. ah well.

      2. should have known, it confirmed all of my biases.

    2. In the next decade, as HitchBOTs proliferate and, inevitably, turn on us – it will be the drunken, violent, slack-jawed Philadelphians that will protect us. They’ll teach us to us to fight, to storm the wire of the camps, to smash those metal motherfuckers into junk.

      1. The first time I visited Philadelphia there was a garbage strike, with mountains of trash visible (and smellable) from the highway as my dad drive me out to where he was living in the suburbs.

        The first time I ever took my wife to Philadelphia, we got into town around 11PM. I took a wrong turn and as I was turning around in an alleyway, a rat weighing about 15 lbs. jumped across our hood. Then, as I drove around the state capitol, a homeless man walked up to our car and leered in our window.

        The robots don’t stand a chance.

        1. FYI, the state capital is in Harrisburg.

          1. Like he said, he got lost.

        2. The first time I visited Philadelphia there was a garbage strike, with mountains of trash visible (and smellable) from the highway as my dad drive me out to where he was living in the suburbs.

          You sure there was a garbage strike? Piles of trash that size can form at any time in Philly. It’s called “Filthy-delphia” for a reason.

      2. You need Philadelphians on that wall!

    3. We can rebuild it. Make it better, stronger, faster.

    4. AVENGE ME!

      -hitchBOT

    5. Is it wrong that I find the story of hitchbot’s demise hilarious? I’m mean it travels across Canada, across Europe without any problems, and then it get to the United States, and it barely makes it 50 miles. If only someone would have planted a Gadsen flag on it’s shattered remains.

      1. It would be wrong to not find that hilarious.

  18. Toronto man charged with war memorial ‘fornicating’ mischief

    Police alleged the 22-year-old had climbed the Sparks Street monument at about 11:30 p.m. Sunday and, according to passersby, “began fornicating the statue.” Witnesses noticed that he was wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the phrase “I Need a Drink.”

    The man was arrested at the scene after bystanders called police.

    The monument honours the country’s war dead and holds the remains of the Unknown Soldier, returned to Canada from France in 2000.

    One passerby, Michael Smith, described the young man’s behaviour as “extremely offensive given what the memorial stands for.”

    1. Why does this type of thing keep happening in Canada?

      Nothing of the sort would ever happen here and we certainly have just as many drunken idiots.

      1. *Florida nods and points in agreement*

      2. Is This Man Face-Fucking a Lincoln Memorial?

        Never, ever count out the U. S. of A.

        1. America! FUCK YEAH!

        2. hmmm

          it appears that This Man might actually be Canadian and face-fucking a statue of Alexander Graham Bell statue in front of the Bell Telephone of Canada Building in Brantford, Ontario

          So again Canadians and their libidinous desires for bronze and marble.

          1. Those sneaky bastards!

            1. They’re just looking for a hard man. Which, I’m told, are good to find.

              Or is that a good man is hard to find? Whatever.

      3. Dude.

        America has 10 times the population.

        I’m sure you have your fair share.

        1. Nope. Right now we’ve got two Canadians fucking statues and zero Americans.

          1. D’oh!

            1. The statue fucking gap?

            2. STEVE SMITH ON IT. ALL STEVE SMITH NEED IS HOLE.

        2. To be sure we assuredly have more than 10x the number of drunken dumb fucks

          And there have to be desecrations of memorials of varying sorts happening across our fair land in cities and towns every year.

          Just not at our national memorials.

    2. Why didn’t the passerbys beat his ass?

      1. Too much like a 3-way.

  19. Woman, 35, who was filmed ‘threatening man with a gun during road rage dispute’ is arrested after being identified on social media

    Rachel Ferguson, 35, was arrested on Friday for allegedly threatening a man with a gun in a restaurant parking lot last Monday
    A passenger in the alleged victim’s car filmed Ferguson and after posting the photos of her on Facebook was able to identify her as a suspect
    A woman recognized Ferguson on Facebook and went to the police who arrested her and released her on $10,000 bond

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..media.html
    Silly woman. Only cops are allowed to do that.

    1. “…a road rage incident in Walker, Louisiana then fled the scene …”

      Livingston parish is one giant trailer park.

  20. The FBI is looking into Hillary Clinton’s email server.

    To be perfectly clear, as proggie commenters and such like, THIS is not a criminal investigation.
    The FBI only does workplace misbehavior investigations.

  21. A little makeup and paint will make a girl what she jolly well ain’t:

    Groom sues bride for not looking pretty without make-up

    The groom, who is seeking $20,000 damages, told court in the capital Algiers that he was shocked when he got up in the next morning and found that his wife looked so different, that he could not recognise her.

    Newspapers in the North African Arab country said the groom swore in court that he even mistook his wife for a “thief who came to steal his apartment”.

    “The groom told the judge that he could not recognise his wife after she washed the make-up off her face.

  22. Keep your eyes on the road! This year’s Miss Bum Bum hopefuls kick off the competition with a stroll through the streets of Sao Paulo stopping traffic on their way

    Competitors include a Kourtney Kardashian lookalike, a former porn star and a DJ best known for her huge breasts
    The ladies were out on the streets promoting the competition’s online voting stage to see who will be in the final
    Only 15 of the finest contestants will be voted into the final, which will be held in November 2015

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..c-way.html
    I… like.. big…

    1. From the article:

      Popular: The Miss Bum Bum competition is now in its fifth edition and remains a highly competitive and respected contest

      Just like the daily mail.

  23. iPhone owners really DO blindly love anything Apple do! Fans are tricked into thinking Android is the new iOS9… and instantly rave about how it beats everything before it

    The two Dutch pranksters first installed Android software on an iPhone
    They then approached people on the street claiming it was the new iOS9
    Many of those they spoke to waxed lyrical about the supposed ‘upgrade’
    Others pledged to download it and even claimed it was better than iOS8

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..ts-it.html

    1. haha! f’in sheep.

    2. I’m amazed by Android’s ability to run on such crap hardware.

      1. I’m amazed that people pay top dollar for Apple’s overly proprietary hardware and software.

    3. Every version Apple makes is worse than the last. They are a dying company. They literally fuck everything they touch

      1. I like my iPhone, though it’s my first smart phone and I don’t have anything to compare it to.

        1. I still like mine but every time the OS upgrades it gets worse and less functional.

          1. Isn’t that part of their whole business model? Why would you buy the new model if the software updates make the old one better?

          2. What is less functional now than before?

      2. Literally, huh?

        1. Yes every version is less functional than the last

        2. Stop being so literal.

      3. Yeah, not that Jobs is gone the company is run by suits. They are toast.

        1. Jobs would have ‘sploded the company sooner or later strictly due to his amazing ego. He was a tyrant who had been kicked out twice.

    4. I stopped buying Apple after first my ipod ran out of battery in less than a year, then the second-hand iphone I got from my boss broke its ringer within a month and I missed some important phone calls.

      Never looked back after getting my Galaxy.

      1. My next smart phone will not be an Apple. Haven’t decided what yet, except that it will not be an Apple. I will have to decide fairly soon though. This old used 4s is having serious battery issues. But other than that I do like it. It’s just that Apples are overpriced when new, and I want something new. So it won’t be an Apple.

        1. Which carrier do you use? If it’s a GSM like AT&T or T-Mobile, you have a ton of choices.

          1. I use Consumer Cellular. I believe they piggyback on AT&T.

            1. Yep, apparently either AT&T or T-Mobile. If you don’t mind paying a decent amount upfront for a phone, my personal favorites for under $300 are the Asus Zenfone 2, and the 2015 Moto G 16GB (because only the 16GB version has 2GB of ram). But those are quite large, and both Android.

              1. I want something I can put in the front pocket of my pants.

        2. Dear god once you have a back button you’ll wonder how you ever lived without it

          1. But it’s a whole other button! That’s too confusing.

          2. In Socialist Utopia, nobody needs more than one button.

      2. I prefer Apple. 2/3 of my sisters are android users and I can’t figure out why. I currently have a 5c (it came in eggshell blue, so how could I say no?) and have had no problems with it (other than an occasional limited storage space, which I get around by backing up the pictures on it).

        1. My entire extended family are basically iPhone users because a cousin is an app developer, regularly attends WWDC, and also (and key to it) started repairing iPhones in 2009, when he was 12. He’s literally paying for his first two years of college from repairing iPhones, and the developers he does work for are paying him a fantastic amount of money (for a teenager) to work on their stuff.

          1. I have heard from a friend – who has both types of devices – that apps are developed for Apple first.

            1. Well, iOS came first so that is probably why. Also, developing for it is considerable easier than Adroid. Last time I looked at the Android tools it was so broken I couldn’t even set it up.

  24. Has Bishopville’s ‘lizard man’ returned? New video surfaces in case

    The fabled Bishopville swamp creature known as Lizard Man appears to have surfaced again Sunday afternoon.

    Sarah, a Sumter woman who says she went to church with a friend Sunday morning, stepped out of the sanctuary to see the Lizard Man running along the tree line.

    So she did what anyone else would do — took a picture with her phone.

    “My hand to God, I am not making this up,” she wrote in an email to the ABC News 4 newsroom. “So excited!”

    She says they were just a mile or so from Scape Ore Swamp, the site of a similar spotting of what may also be the Lizard Man in May.

    1. Now we know where Mr. Lizard dwells/lurks.

    2. Oh, that costume! It’s hilariously bad!

  25. The FBI is looking into Hillary Clinton’s email server.

    An investigation only to prove her innocence of course

  26. The hideous truth about Donald Trump: Why the “Trump Surge” is here to stay ? even if his campaign isn’t
    The forces animating the Donald’s soaring popularity are omnipresent: The deep-seated anxieties of white America

    However, if the Republican primary were today, Donald Trump would most likely emerge the winner. Polls suggest that people appreciate Trump’s form of “truth telling,” plus the fact that he isn’t a Washington insider. However, let me be less generous and less polite in my own assessment of the man:

    Donald Trump makes clear that he primarily cares about capitalism, about wealth, and about power. While I view his particular performance of right-wing politics and white masculinity as buffoonish, he seems to offer comfort to those on the right who are deeply invested in returning the country’s leadership to someone who looks and thinks like them. What’s interesting, then, is that Trump’s billionaire status likely indicates that he has little in common with the everyday citizen. But his brash and unapologetic political incorrectness bespeaks comfort, a seeming return to normalcy for those Americans who believe that progress and change are happening too fast.

    TW: Salon

    1. deeply invested in returning the country’s leadership to someone who looks and thinks like them.

      All opposition to Obama is racism. Fact.

      Trump’s billionaire status likely indicates that he has little in common with the everyday citizen.

      Yes, in the sense that he’s a self-made man and the common democrat is an utter waste of life.

      1. Trump’s billionaire status likely indicates that he has little in common with the everyday citizen.

        As opposed to Hillary, grand dame of the Clinta Nostra crime family, who hasn’t driven her own car in twenty-something years. Now there’s a real everyday common woman for you!

      2. I thought Trump inherited his real estate empire? He’s a fantastically gifted spokesman and self-promoter, but he really was born on second base.

  27. Three in five black Americans say they’ve been treated unfairly by police.

    That figure seems a little low for a demographic so remarkably in tune with groupthink. Could 3 in 5 whites attest to being treated unfairly by police too? They’re police, they treat people unfairly as a part of their daily existence.

  28. The indefensible Hiroshima revisionism that haunts America to this day
    Seventy years ago this week we vaporized 250,000 civilians, and yet still view the bombings as an act of mercy

    Here we are, 70 years after the nuclear obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I’m wondering if we’ve come even one step closer to a moral reckoning with our status as the world’s only country to use atomic weapons to slaughter human beings. Will an American president ever offer a formal apology? Will our country ever regret the dropping of “Little Boy” and “Fat Man,” those two bombs that burned hotter than the sun? Will it absorb the way they instantly vaporized thousands of victims, incinerated tens of thousands more, and created unimaginably powerful shockwaves and firestorms that ravaged everything for miles beyond ground zero? Will it finally come to grips with the “black rain” that spread radiation and killed even more people ? slowly and painfully ? leading in the end to a death toll for the two cities conservatively estimated at more than 250,000?

    Given the last seven decades of perpetual militarization and nuclear “modernization” in this country, the answer may seem like an obvious no.

    TW: Salon

    1. The United States burned twice as many people firebombing the shit out if Tokyo and other major Japanese cities.

      There was absolutely no endgame for Japan that did not involve slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians with bombings of one kind or another.

      1. The conservative casualty estimates for Operation Downfall were in the millions.

        1. A less politically feasible plan was simply blockading Japan, bombing it continuously and letting the population starve into 1946.

          Again, how many hundreds of thousands would have died that way? Not to mention the risk of the Soviets attempting to grab Hokkaido island, which Stalin might well have attempted if the war had dragged on into 1946 and was still given free reign to attack Japan.

          Imagine a post war Japan that has one island communist.

          1. The strategic planners at the time (who did not know about the bomb when doing their analysis) were concerned that the allies would be less able to stick together during a protracted blockade and that the Japanese would be willing and able to weather it. Of all the options at that point, the bombings still inflicted the least suffering and carried the lowest death toll all around.

          2. You don’t even need to blockade the country. Completely take away it’s ability to make war outside its borders, which we could have done without an invasion. The war will end on its own.

            1. The war will end and then 30 years later some nationalist kook will convince the Japs that they only lost because *insert bogeyman* stabbed the Empire in the back.

              That’s exactly what happened in 1918 with Germany. They lost, but they lost in a way that left room for the Nazis to convinced the population they were betrayed by the Jews.

              Utterly destroying Nazi Germany in 1945 made it clear that this time they lost because of their leaders, not from some Fifth Columnist conspiracy.

              Japan, a suicidal death cult, needed to be dealt with in the same way.

              1. Meh, that’s speculation. Japan wasn’t Germany.

                All you can do is deal with the (then) here and now. Take away it’s ability to make war through bombing any military facility back to the stone age (and yes, that will have civilian casualties, but not that’s not bombing entire cities). Isolate the country on the geopolitical front. Send humanitarian aid.

                It would take longer, but it’s a moral solution to ending a war.

                1. Weren’t the factories that manufacture military materiel located in cities, like Hiroshima and Nagasaki? There weren’t really large plants located out in suburbs away from population centers in WWII, because the factories at that time needed large populations close by to work in them.

                  1. Weren’t the factories that manufacture military materiel located in cities, like Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

                    The factories and civilians working in them were legitimate targets, not the entire city.

                    And yes, there will be collateral civilian deaths from bombing those factories, but far fewer than nuking a city.

              2. That’s exactly what happened in 1918 with Germany. They lost, but they lost in a way that left room for the Nazis to convinced the population they were betrayed by the Jews.

                Utterly destroying Nazi Germany in 1945 made it clear that this time they lost because of their leaders, not from some Fifth Columnist conspiracy.

                The reason the Nazis came to power was because the Germans weren’t sufficiently disgraced and destroyed? Are you fucking joking? This little thing called the Treaty of Versailles did disgrace and did destroy the remnants of Germany and that’s precisely why the Nazis did come to power.

                As numerous observers, military officers and peace negotiators at the time attested, that treaty would sow the seeds of the next war. One allied general claimed that the Treaty of Versailles was not a peace treaty, but a 20 year armistice. (twenty years being how long it takes to grow a new generation of cannon fodder). That general’s prediction was only off by a few months.

                1. But FS, their will to fight wasn’t broken. The Treaty of Versailles was viewed as a disgrace by lots of Germans because they didn’t lose the war militarily, and the terms of the surrender were (in retrospect) unduly harsh.

                  1. they didn’t lose the war militarily,

                    They did actually. They lost the war strategically. The fact that Germany proper was not utterly ravaged on a scale that France had seen notwithstanding. The Germans took their ravaging after the war in any case, then their national pride was wounded by seizing territory and yes the other terms of surrender were unduly harsh, placing the whole blame for the war upon the Germans.

                    I’d venture to say that the if the Americans hadn’t joined in at the end phase of the war, the Germans would have lost anyways but would have had enough clout at the negotiating table that the Treaty of Versailles would have been much more balanced, and the Nazis would have had their stepping stone to power.

                    1. A fair point, FS. Although, before the entrance of the US into the war, the German army had begun changing its tactics in an effort to break the stalemate and were succeeding, to a degree. I’m not saying they could have won outright but as you pointed out, would have had more bargaining strength and would not have had the harsh terms of surrender forced on them.

                      So, really, without direct US involvement in the land war the Nazis wouldn’t have come to power…

                    2. So, really, without direct US involvement in the land war the Nazis wouldn’t have come to power…

                      This is why it’s so ironic when people cite “stopping Nazism” as an argument in favor of liberal interventionism. But hey, we all know that the US “isolationist” hesitation to join the war was a great moral sin or something.

                    3. Psychologically, there was no real warfighting on German soil, so they never felt like they had been defeated militarily. They had defeated Russia, and had nearly beaten France the year before. Then, allofasudden, surrender and disgrace. . . .

                      The “stab in the back” was widely believed in Germany. And laid the groundwork for Nazism and WWII.

                      You will note that unconditional surrender did not lay any the groundwork for WWIII.

                    4. You will note that unconditional surrender did not lay any the groundwork for WWIII.

                      You will note that their unconditional surrender wasn’t met with another Treaty of Versailles. The treatment of Germany after WWI and WWII were vastly different. Morgenthau-types had their way after WWI but not after WWII.

                      The semi-permanent division of Germany was political product of the Cold War, not a punitive measure. And to the contrary, East and West used Germany as staging ground to build up the prestige of their opposing ideologies. No eastern bloc country received so much economic assistance from the Soviets as the GDR, because the GDR was meant to be showcase of socialism. And the US for their part set about their own policies of “rehabilitation” instead of figuratively sowing the fields with salt which is what the Treaty of Versailles was meant to do.

                2. The reason the Nazis came to power was because the Germans weren’t sufficiently disgraced and destroyed? Are you fucking joking? This little thing called the Treaty of Versailles did disgrace and did destroy the remnants of Germany and that’s precisely why the Nazis did come to power.

                  Dude, that’s my point entirely.

                  In 1918 a political revolt overthrew the Kaiser, set up a republic and sued for peace with the Allies. They didn’t experience utter annihilation like they did in 1945.

                  As a result, right-wing nationalists were able to portray the government that signed the treaty as illegitimate, a plot hatched by Jews and communists to destroy the German Empire.

                  In 1945 all of Germany witnessed the destruction of Nazi government and the war ended with all of Germany overrun and the Soviets raping their way through Berlin. There was zero doubt about what happened and thus zero chance of it happening again, at least not for several generations.

                  1. In 1918 a political revolt overthrew the Kaiser, set up a republic and sued for peace with the Allies. They didn’t experience utter annihilation like they did in 1945.

                    Or more accurately, Germany’s defacto ruler, General Ludendorf, and his staff told the politicians that Germany is unable to win, its western front in retreat and, whether they stabilize it or not, their southern flank has been cracked wide open and Allies can march all the way to Berlin with nothing to stop them. So better make peace while you can.
                    As soon as the peace was made, those same generals started claiming they were not defeated, there were no Allied soldiers on an inch of German soil and they were betrayed by the politicians. Idiots in new Weimar government let the generals win the public opinion battle, and the myth spread, along with the “we were attacked, we didn’t want war” myth. Just like Versailles Treaty was “unprecedented” – except for the bit where French took the surrender terms inflicted on them by Bismarck in 1871 and applied them to Germany.

        2. Yep. I’m pretty sure I read that DoD had so many Purple Hearts minted in anticipation of the casualty rates of a US land invasion into Japan, that we are still using those medals today.

        3. The conservative casualty estimates for Operation Downfall were in the millions.

          Yes, and that’s just US casualties. Given the tenacity that the Japanese defense was mounting the closer the Allies got to the home islands, I suspect ending the war when we did saved several million Japanese lives as well.

      2. The only time innocents lost their lives during the second world war was during the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

        1. The only time innocents lost their lives during the second world war was during the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

          What now? Did you forget to add sarc tags?

          1. Sarc tags ruin the element of mystery; it is why most just ignore me.

            1. Oh, such mystique. Carry on.

      3. And those bombings were amoral as well.

        1. Agreed. It is worth noting that Curtis LeMay, who master planned the bombing of Japan, fully expected to be tried for war crimes if the US somehow lost the war.

          Eisenhower also expressed regret at the atomic bombings since in his opinion Japan would have surrendered under the weight of continued conventional bombing plus the threat of further Soviet attack.

          1. Eisenhower also expressed regret at the atomic bombings since in his opinion Japan would have surrendered under the weight of continued conventional bombing plus the threat of further Soviet attack.

            Stands to reason though, that the American political leadership was eager to incinerate men women and children with those bombs because it would mean they wouldn’t have to share occupied Japan with the Soviets.

      4. It would’ve been kinder to let those hundreds of thousands/millions of Japanese civilians starve to death. Duh.

    2. Why exactly hasn’t the US experienced any appreciable angst about Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

      Not really even among the left and certainly not on the center-left or center-right.

      1. Because it was such an obvious example of the horrors of war and there was no better option.

        1. Not targeting hundreds of thousands of civilians, and certainly at this stage of the war, was a better option. They could have dropped those bombs on militarily significant targets to demonstrate this new weapon. They could’ve wiped out the remnants of the Japanese navy or air force. And the mere threat that the bomb could find it’s way to Kyoto or Tokyo would have broken them, because as we’ve seen the Jap government didn’t desire it’s own annihilation.

          1. Kyoto was at the top of the target list, but one of the planning generals removed it because he’d honeymooned there and loved the city.

            1. I hadn’t heard that. Interesting. I read they rejected Kyoto because it was the ancient and symbolic capitol of Japan and it’s historical religious and cultural center. The thought was, “if we nuke Kyoto, it could strengthen Japanese resistance”

              Plus they wanted to preserve the reign of the emperor providing that they could use him to preserve peace after the war. But probably all of the above is true.

            1. Erm, those targets were selected for their strategic and military value..

              You do know that “strategic value” is a euphemism for “a lot of dead families”?

              1. Where did those goal posts move to?

                While in our sanitized modern world most people never grasped this or forget it, war is about first and foremost breaking the enemy’s will to fight. You do that by breaking shit and killing people, often in as brutally a way as possible, so they feel the fight is no longer worth it. Sanitized war only results in more war.

                Anyway, Hiroshima was a major army installation with a lot of command & control personnel.

                Nagasaki was a major IJN center, despite the fact that by then we had sunk practically every major Japanese military asset, and made for a very logical target.

                As was already pointed out, firebombing the families doesn’t seem to bother you as much, so I am left with the assumption that your problem again is just simply the use of nuclear weapons.

    3. I think this guy was on NPR the other day. He seemed convinced that the Japs would have surrendered any day if we allowed for the Empire to stay in place. He also believed the something like 900’000 casualties surmised if there was a land invasion was overblown.

      1. The Japanese were really eager to surrender land they had conquered to the US invaders, so it is logical that when US troops invaded their mainland they would have just given up.

      2. “He seemed convinced that the Japs would have surrendered any day if we allowed for the Empire to stay in place.”

        Which wasn’t an option because we needed to demolish the cult of personality around the Emperor so that the Japanese didn’t decide to do crazy shit again in 20 years.

        Seriously, look at the trajectory of Japan over time. Japan between 1850 and 1950 was bugfuck crazy, a total religious cult of death, and was constantly going to war. Since 1950, they’ve mostly made VCRs, video games, and other electronics while cranking out anime and cartoon pornography. Why do we not get credit for forcefully turning one of the most violent totalitarian countries on Earth into the lovable, porn-addled land that we know today?

        1. So.

          They’re bi-polar?

          1. Can you call it bi-polar when it’s induced by radiation?

        2. Which wasn’t an option because we needed to demolish the cult of personality around the Emperor so that the Japanese didn’t decide to do crazy shit again in 20 years.

          They let the Emperor stay. He admitted his mortality to the Jap public of his own accord I remember correctly.

          Why do we not get credit for forcefully turning one of the most violent totalitarian countries on Earth into the lovable, porn-addled land that we know today?

          Forceful in the sense that we defeated them in a war that had a particularly devastating effect on the Japanese psyche. But I’m willing to credit the Japanese themselves for turning their culture, philosophy and economy around. Just as I’m willing to credit the Germans for their Wirtschaftwunder after the war. And I credit them despite our court historians’ desire to paint government planners as the saviors of their societies and cultures.

          1. “But I’m willing to credit the Japanese themselves for turning their culture, philosophy and economy around.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming

            Japan’s modern economy is literally based on ideas they got from an engineer from Wyoming.

            “JUSE members had studied Shewhart’s techniques, and as part of Japan’s reconstruction efforts, they sought an expert to teach statistical control. From June?August 1950, Deming trained hundreds of engineers, managers, and scholars in statistical process control (SPC) and concepts of quality. He also conducted at least one session for top management (including top Japanese industrialists of the likes of Akio Morita, the cofounder of Sony Corp.)[17] Deming’s message to Japan’s chief executives was that improving quality would reduce expenses while increasing productivity and market share.[4] Perhaps the best known of these management lectures was delivered at the Mt. Hakone Conference Center in August 1950.

            A number of Japanese manufacturers applied his techniques widely and experienced heretofore unheard-of levels of quality and productivity. The improved quality combined with the lowered cost created new international demand for Japanese products.”

            1. Yeah but when has Japan ever really invented instead of innovated? All the same, the Japs got a tremendous boost after the war from a rather benevolent occupier that the US was, but you can’t centrally plan economic success. If you doubt that, then maybe you ought to give fascist, socialist and communist literature another read because you might find those systems more appealing than I assume you presently believe them to be.

            2. Maybe what Afghanistan and Iraq need to succeed is for the US to build them a few Solyndra plants.

              1. We just need to use the US Military to break a few more windows.

        3. It was NPR, I think they would commit seppuku before being caught suggesting America internationalism resulted an even the tiniest bit of a positive global externality.

    4. It wasn’t supposed to be an act of mercy for the Japanese. It was an act of mercy for the US troops who would have to invade. If any Japanese lives were saved (and they were) that was a bonus.

      1. The merciful incineration of children. God bless you.

        1. Because no Japanese children would have died in an invasion or blockade. We did it just for funsies.

          1. I don’t think an invasion or blockade directly targets non-combatants by necessity, unlike “strategic bombing” which is literally defined by that practice.

      2. And – of course – it was a message to the Soviets.

    5. The firebombing of Dresden was equally devastating and an even more civilian-centric target than Nagasaki. I think the atomic weapons could have had the same effect dropping them on military bases, an anchored fleet in Tokyo bay, et cetera.

      There would have still been plenty of fallout to kill civilians if the military brass wanted to satiate their blood lust for women and children, but there was no military objective in incinerating civilians like that. “Strategic bombing” of civilians, purely to kill civilians has the opposite effect that military strategists claim, instead of breaking the enemy’s will to fight, it galvanized them. And for understandable reasons. If I’m on the fence about continuing a war, then you kill my children, I’m not going to be on the fence about that war anymore, I’ll be eternally committed my enemy’s destruction.

      1. Someone should dig up Curtis LeMay, circa 1945, and have him debate the writer.

      2. “Strategic bombing” of civilians, purely to kill civilians has the opposite effect that military strategists claim, instead of breaking the enemy’s will to fight, it galvanized them. And for understandable reasons. If I’m on the fence about continuing a war, then you kill my children, I’m not going to be on the fence about that war anymore, I’ll be eternally committed my enemy’s destruction.

        Except that’s not what actually happened. What actually happened was that their will to fight was utterly broken.

        1. The government of Japan surrendered. The Japanese people didn’t rise up and demand an end to the war, as the “strategic bombers” claimed would happen. It didn’t happen to England and it didn’t happen to Germany when their civilians were targeted. All it did was ratchet up the stakes of the conflict, turning it into a total war. Those bombs would have had the same effect on the Japanese government’s mental calculus even if they weren’t used to kill innocent men, women and children.

          1. Those bombs would have had the same effect on the Japanese government’s mental calculus even if they weren’t used to kill innocent men, women and children.

            Speculation. And since virtually the entire populations of belligerents were mobilized for the war effort in WWII, your characterization of ‘innocent’ civilians is also arguable. At the very least, the civilians working to manufacture, transport and supply military materiel and other goods to support the armed forces were legitimate targets. And you couldn’t bomb military manufacturing facilities in WWII without bombing the cities they were located in.

            1. Not more speculative than saying only nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have ended the war abruptly. And in the case of the argument to the contrary, there is observable evidence of not one single government being toppled by it’s population being disheartened by strategic bombing campaigns.

              your characterization of ‘innocent’ civilians is also arguable.

              Now this is just fucking amazing. Tell me how little children are legitimate targets? Their mother? Their non-combatant fathers? This is some very twisted moral relativism you got there.

              At the very least, the civilians working to manufacture, transport and supply military materiel and other goods to support the armed forces were legitimate targets.

              At the very least all tax payers were legitimate targets too, right?

              And you couldn’t bomb military manufacturing facilities in WWII without bombing the cities they were located in.

              That’s not exactly what “strategic bombing” is. Yes they preferred to kill children located near war materials factories, but the primary target was certainly the civilian population.

              1. there is observable evidence of not one single government being toppled by it’s population being disheartened by strategic bombing campaigns.

                Slobodan Milosevic would probably disagree. We bombed military targets for ~60 days and made no advances in whatever ourr objective was notionally supposed to be. We shifted our campaign to civilian infrastructure and the Serbs capitulated in 14 days.

                the primary target was certainly the civilian population.

                1. That cut off my 2nd half:

                  Continued:

                  Bullshit! Tokyo and Kyoto would have both been better targets, by your reasoning, and were both removed from the target list because they were only civilian targets. (The fire-bombing of Tokyo was our greatest sin in WWII; more civilians died than in either of the two atomic blasts)

                  Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were significant ports and industrial centers with valid military strategic significance.

                  Also, the cost in human life that a ground invasion that involved Russian forces from the north would have been exponentially more costly in human life.

                  1. Bullshit! Tokyo and Kyoto would have both been better targets, by your reasoning, and were both removed from the target list because they were only civilian targets.

                    So by my reasoning that murdering civilians is a bad thing, murdering the populations Kyoto and Tokyo would be a good thing?

                    The fire-bombing of Tokyo was our greatest sin in WWII; more civilians died than in either of the two atomic blasts

                    Did I say anything to the contrary?

                    Also, the cost in human life that a ground invasion that involved Russian forces from the north would have been exponentially more costly in human life.

                    And the Japanese would certainly have been aware of that. And knowing that the Americans would use these bombs on their forces certainly would have played into their decision to capitulate. No amount of needlessly dead men, women and children equates to “valid military strategic significance.” But I can see how a moral relativist might think that.

    6. Weren’t more people killed in the fire bombings of Japan? Does it only matter because the type of weapon was atomic in this case? People are weird.

      1. Yes, they were. I don’t know why people who express outrage of death by nuclear fire are so reticent about death by regular fire. Maybe they are a bit animist – kinda like the whack jobs that think inanimate objects like guns are evil.

        1. ^^^^THIS^^^^

          War is supposed to eb brutal and ugly so we can get less of it. Sanitize it – like we have been doing since we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki – and you will get a lot more of it. I guess the big problem some people have is that a single weapon killed so man at once. Use up a lot of hardware and prolong the suffering, and they are OK with that shit.

      2. Think about the millions upon millions of human beings slaughtered between 1914 and 1945, and he has moral qualms about only one day? Generalized useless slaughter at the hands of government is apparently otherwise acceptable as long as atomic energy is not used.

    7. War is hell. What are you going to do?

      1. Yeah, it’s almost like it’s a bad idea to start an all-out war with a country that is more powerful than you.

  29. David Simon, will never love us

    Salon interview!

    How do you feel about its [The Wire] continued idolization, at this point?

    …The reason we did “Treme” was: A lot of people saw “The Wire” and thought it was an argument against the city. There was a libertarian notion that by showing bad governance, we were arguing against government. It’s a juvenile notion, to think that the solution for bad governance is no governance. And yet, that’s the temperament of people who watch “The Wire” and are of that political persuasion. For me, “The Wire” presumed, maybe naively, that nobody would be so obtuse as to think that it was an argument against self-governance and the city as the American future.

    1. For me, “The Wire” presumed, maybe naively, that nobody would be so obtuse as to think that it was an argument against self-governance and the city as the American future.

      American Progressives. Always ready to double down on what has already been repeatedly proven as a failure.

      Oh, that darned box. So hard to think outside of it.

      1. Shocking isn’t it?

        He superbly showed EXACTLY what ailed Baltimore and he still refuses to accept it.

        I don’t what’s in their brains. And I doubt people said ‘see, we have to destroy government’! Talk about a low blow in that direction. I think most of us had a fairly nuanced and enlightened view of what should could be done.

        But, I am willing to assert Democratic politics and social policies are poison.

        1. Seriously, I don’t know how someone can write Cuddy’s montage of trying to get a license to open a boxing school and also think that government can be reformed.

    2. Fuck David Simon. And for the record the Wire is completely overrated. It is not the greastest television show ever or even close. It is a crime drama just marginally more subtle than the West Wing. It was a less fun Hill Street Blues with T&A. That is it.

      1. It is properly rated.

        1. I think it is a great show. I was a little heartbroken when I found out David Simon is a complete twat. Oh well.

          1. Simon is known for being a total prick too.

            Here’s Simon bitching about people who Don’t Get His Art:

            If you want television to be a serious storytelling medium, you’re up against a lot of human dynamic that is arrayed against you. Not the least of which are people who arrived to “The Wire” late, planted their feet, and want to explain to everybody why it’s so cool. Glad to hear it. But you weren’t paying attention. You got led there at the end and generally speaking, you’re asserting for the wrong things.

            1. He also flipped a shit when Grantland had a reader poll about the best character in the Wire because they, I don’t know, were talking about the characters rather than The All Important Message. As a result, Grantland will no longer mention The Wire by name because of how unbelievably horribly David Simon reacted.

              With two weeks remaining in our condensed and partially mutilated 2011-12 NBA season, we’re juggling more plots, subplots and characters than a vintage episode of the show that we’re no longer allowed to mention on Grantland because David Simon is a condescending, humorless blowhard.

            2. We need to find someone who was in a coma from 2003-2008 and ask David why he’s shaming him for not having seen it.

        2. Only if you have never watched any other shows.

          1. What is John’s top 5 greatest tv shows?

            1. Quincy, St. Elsewhere, MacGyver, Banaceck, Saved By The Bell

              1. That is Nikki’s list. I am not old enough to remember those shows.

              2. I thought he mentioned ‘She’s the Sheriff’ was in his top five:

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsAZcf_O7Kg

                1. John is a big Saved By the Bell fan. His Reason password is “sbtb4lyfe”

                  1. If loving a teenage Elizabeth Berkley is wrong, I don’t want to be right.

              3. whoa there hoss, let’s not start out the day talking shit about Banacek

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4ReSTFDAHU

            2. Antique Roadhouse, House Hunters, Keeping up with the Kardashians, Star Trek Voyager and Mad Men

              1. Antiques Roadshow should have been on the list of Most Libertarian TV Shows.

            3. Murphy Brown, The Cleveland Show, Who’s The Boss, Call the Midwife, SNL (but only from 1998-2001)

              1. Where the fuck is Joanie Loves Chachi!

                1. John’s never seen it.

          2. Okay.

          3. Okay.

        3. No, John’s opinion is the correct one in all matters of aesthetic preference.

      2. I still haven’t gotten around to the wire, but I get very annoyed by the people who say that about Breaking Bad. The greatest television show ever would not bore me out of watching it during the first season.

        1. I stand corrected. Breaking Bad is the most overrated show ever. At least the wire was good. Breaking Bad just sucked.

          1. While I can’t say “worst show ever”, I do agree the show was terrible. I quit watching when I realized that the DEA officer had became the character I cared the most about.

          2. I had to keep watching but then I gave up when it was about the car wash, Walt (cured of cancer) just making money, and Mr. Fring.

            1. That’s a bummer. Because that lasted like 5 episodes and it was the “Calm before the Storm”.

              I liked Breaking Bad a lot, but only because it came full circle at the end. Like Fight Club, it was the last 10% that made the entire effort worthwhile.

              I had lots of problems with Breaking Bad- like the fact that 80% of the tension was caused by miscomunications as people hung up the phone out of rage rather than saying “No, this is what I really mean….Understand? Ok good.”

        2. I couldn’t get past the first episode.

          This Rob Lowe/Fred Savage sitcom coming this fall looks promising, though…

          1. You people are mentally ill.

            At least no one’s talking shit about Bojack, because then we’d have problems.

            1. I don’t know what’s going on here, The Wire and Breaking Bad being trashed?

              *lies down, chews on ice*

            2. Hello, other grownup. You know your business.

      3. The first couple seasons are pretty good. Season 4 is a masterpiece. Season 5 is so bad it’s almost unwatchable.

    3. It’s a juvenile notion, to think that the solution for bad governance is no governance.

      Oh, man… That strawman is toast!

      1. I wonder what point he was trying to make with Hamsterdam?

        1. Simon is clearly infected with the “if the right people were in charge” virus. Even the school could work in Simon’s universe if we just shoveled enough money into them.

          I mean, he was a Baltimore newpaperman on the crime beat and he writes TV shows about cops who seemingly have the only moral center in their universe. He must not have been a very observant reporter.

    4. Treme was boring and sucked, so I presume that what Simon’s “good governance” means.

    5. So to prove that government can be OK, he did a story about… New Orleans?

      Treme was great, but the only time it portrayed government agents, it was showing a) overt cronyism (no doubt because of how evil commercial interests are) and b) that the entire police force is corrupt.

  30. Such a goofy picture, and yet no alt-text. Shame on you ENB!

    1. She is just trolling the commentariat today.

  31. Some local news:

    GRPD plans arrests after assault video released

    Ostapowicz said the victim told police he didn’t know anyone in the group and had not had prior contact with them.

    The victim, a 18-year-old white man, can be seen in the video walking by a group of black males and some females when one of the males in the group yells for someone to “sock” the victim.

    “It turns into that mob mentality,” Ostapowicz said. “He (the 18-year-old male) gets sucker punched, knocked down and, as you can see, several people start stomping on all different parts of his body. We’re very fortunate he didn’t get hurt worse than he was.”

    Ostapowicz said the victim suffered a concussion as well as some bruising, cuts and scrapes.

    1. My progressive acquaintances insist this sort of thing happens only in the diseased imaginations of racists.

  32. The riots worked! (HuffPo)

    If not for the arson that destroyed the Ferguson QuikTrip convenience store near where Michael Brown was killed, national and international media would never have descended into the small suburb, spotlighting the region’s systematic racial issues, said Rasheen Aldridge, who at 21 is the youngest member of the Ferguson Commission.

    Of course, with almost no riots those same media descended on Cleveland after the Tamir Rice shooting. And a similar spotlight was put on the Cleveland PD (no outcomes yet, however)

    PS Please stop linking to HuffPo without a trigger warning about the potential dangers to our mental health.

    1. And all it took was destroying 50% of everyone’s home values! They won’t recover for generations! Success!

  33. Has Andrew S. been around?

    1. He is using a new screen name…I think.

      1. Dammit, this is what I get for not checking back into the morning lynx. I am the man formerly known as Andrew S. Changed names after the woodchipper kerfluffle.

  34. http://thefederalist.com/2015/…..all-crazy/

    The latest issue of how being a Progressive makes you a horrible person

  35. I demand that the government buy me one of these.

    1. With a name like Swincar I want it to go in the water too.

  36. Health care hell in Venezuela.

    Another testament to the miracles of socialism: The health care crisis in Venezuela’s hospitals is comparable to what you might see in a war zone, according to a shocking new investigative report. The Times of London paints a horrifying picture of the country’s medical system: thousands of doctors fleeing the country; doctors pre-emptively performing mastectomies because they don’t have the chemotherapy drugs they would need to treat breast cancer; half of the country’s hospital beds being unusable; lack of spare parts for sensitive machines, leading to closed operating theaters.

    1. But they hav free health care and education. Don’t you understand?

      1. Between wonderful health care and those quality state run grocery stores, I have a hard time understanding why our progressive friends are not all emigrating to the paradise of Venezuela.

    2. Proggie: “La-la-la-la! I can’t hear you! Cuba commie single payer healthcare is the best in the world. Michael Moore proved it in sicko!”

      1. It’s especially amusing since Venezuela is one of the primary recipients of the brilliant medical slave labor doctors that Castro ships over in exchange for oil. How can their system not be awesome?

    3. Thing like this happen because Venezuela has abandoned socialism. People have actually told me that.

      1. It’s one or both of these things:

        1) Unfaithful and impure implementation of socialism.
        2) Kulaks! Wreckers! Hoarders!

      2. That’s the beauty of progressive thinking – words have fluid definitions, and progressive policies never fail.

        1. Sounds like a cult to me….

  37. The Teen Who Exposed a Professor’s Myth

    In short, those famous “No Irish Need Apply” signs?ones that proved Irish Americans faced explicit job discrimination in the 19th and 20th centuries? Professor Jensen came to the blockbuster conclusion that they never existed.

    The theory picked up traction over the last decade, but seemed to reach an unexpected fever pitch in the last few months. Explainer websites this year used it to highlight popular myths of persecution complexes that are, as Vox put it, “stand-ins for an entire narrative about how immigrants are treated in America.” That’s from the lede of an article printed in March called “‘No Irish Need Apply’: the fake sign at the heart of a real movement.”

    Here, of course, is the problem: After only couple of hours Googling it, Rebecca, a 14-year-old, had found out these signs had, in fact, existed all along. Not only in newspaper listings?in which they appeared in droves?but, after further research, in shop windows, too.

    “Just for the fun of it, I started to run a few quick searches on an online newspaper database that I found on Google,” she says. “I was really surprised when I started finding examples of NINA ads in old 19th-century newspapers pretty quickly.”

    1. And this is the professor who wrote this: Richard J. Jensen

      And the American “rabble” is stupid for not trusting educated experts?

      In 2002, University of Illinois-Chicago history professor Richard J. Jensen printed “No Irish Need Apply: A Myth of Victimization.” His abstract begins:

      “Irish Catholics in America have a vibrant memory of humiliating job discrimination, which featured omnipresent signs proclaiming ‘Help Wanted?No Irish Need Apply!’ No one has ever seen one of these NINA signs because they were extremely rare or nonexistent.”

      1. Hmm, Jensen’s actually a moderate conservative. I know him via a listserv.

    2. Irish lives don’t matter.

    3. Great story!

  38. IAMX has a new video out – and an autumn tour to support his new album:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k58LRJ3tIdg

  39. Saw this on Drudge:

    Jeb’s Guacamole bowl
    https://jeb2016.com/shop/lifestyle/guaca-bowle/

    1. So his slogan is Jeb!?. I’m surprised by its simplicity. Brilliant, really.

      1. Love the t-shirt that says “My dad is the greatest man I’ve ever known, and if you don’t think so we can step outside.”

        Funny stuff from a guy who’s assiduously avoiding using his last name. Though to be fair, I guess his sorry brother deserves the lion’s share of the blame for that.

  40. The word buttpussy will never not be funny.

    1. I know a guy who has small calves and who has been known to piss his bed, so this is fun.

  41. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Remain in Dead Heat in New Hampshire, Poll Shows

    The WMUR Granite State poll found that 42 percent of likely Democratic primary voters said they would vote for Mrs. Clinton, while 36 percent said they supported Mr. Sanders. The survey considers that gap to be a statistical tie, but it shows that Mr. Sanders continues to show strength after months of negative publicity about Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state.

    The poll also found that Mr. Sanders is the most popular Democratic candidate in the state in terms of favorability, with a rating of 59 percent. That tops Mrs. Clinton’s 54 percent.

    Other candidates, including Martin O’Malley, the former governor of Maryland, and Jim Webb, the former senator from Virginia, have gained little traction in Democratic polls so far; Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who is still mulling a run, was a distant third in the WMUR poll.

    Don’t know if I would call 6% a dead heat…

  42. Three in five black Americans say they’ve been treated unfairly by police.

    Three fifths? That’s some coincidence!

  43. Bad link on the sentencing item.

  44. Hillary Clinton’s mega-donors are also funding Jeb Bush!

    Racetrack owners, bankers, and chicken kings: Meet the ultra-rich bankrolling the Bush and Clinton dynasties. A special report by Vocativ and The Daily Beast.

    For some wealthy donors, it doesn’t matter who takes the White House in 2016?as long as the president’s name is Clinton or Bush.

    More than 60 ultra-rich Americans have contributed to both Jeb Bush’s and Hillary Clinton’s federal campaigns, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data by Vocativ and The Daily Beast. Seventeen of those contributors have gone one step further and opened their wallets to fund both Bush’s and Clinton’s 2016 ambitions.

    After all, why support just Hillary Clinton or just Jeb Bush when you can hedge your bets and donate to both? This seems to be the thinking of a group of powerful men and women?racetrack owners, bankers, media barons, chicken magnates, hedge funders (and their spouses). Some of them have net worths that can eclipse the GDPs of small countries.

    1. One weird trick avoids punitive post-election tax audits

  45. I have been treated unfairly by cops. And I am a middle aged cracker. Can I burn stuff down?

  46. I’ve been having fun playing progressive troll the last few days. There’s been an article circulating about why women are always so cold in office environments (cold as in temp, not attitude. Though I’m pretty cold both ways.)

    Anyhoo, I have been commenting how the women that do the dirty, thankless work like emptying trash and vacuuming and dusting appreciate the lowers temps because otherwise they’d be sweating. I love turning elitism back on itself.

    1. Make me a sammich, willya, honey?

      1. No prob

        *hands PC anchoies & mayo on Wonder Bread*

        It’s the only one I know how to make – enjoy!

        1. Mmmmmmm anchoies. Brings back fond memories…

  47. Three in five black Americans say they’ve been treated unfairly by police.

    So have I.

  48. “Three in five black Americans say they’ve been treated unfairly by police.”

    So was there like a compromise of some sort here?

  49. I need to unload for a minute: my central A/C has been broken for nearly three weeks. Since it is a common element, it is up to the condo management to fix it. I have called and called and called and called and emailed and emailed and emailed…you get the idea.

    So yesterday, rather than fixing my fucking central A/C, the maintenance man comes and sets up a portable A/C in my living room, which now blocks access to my balcony. I should also mention that I ALREADY HAVE A FUCKING PORTABLE AC. I want my motherfucking CENTRAL A/C/ fix.

    He plus the portable into an outlet that I haven’t used in several years, and it blows the fuse and trips the circuit breaker.

    I call the condo office to tell them I need my goddamn A/C fixed because now it’s hotter in my fucking house than it was before they put the shittin’ portable in there because the blow fuse shut down all my fans and the portable I have in the bedroom.

    So I get an email just now from the condo management saying they’d like to enter my unit to look at…..THE FUCKING ELECTRICAL OUTLET.

    A service I didn’t request takes a day. A service I have been calling about for weeks is STILL not done and they won’t tell me when it will be done.

    1. I’ll keep this story in mind next time some nitwit tells me that “buying is better than renting”.

      1. I’d say buying a house is probably better. I could have had a contractor out there within a day or two.

        Never buy a condo.

        (although I am fixing to cash out handsomely in about two years when the sale to the developer is finalized)

  50. RUN JOE RUN!

    New question on 2017 White House Political Appointee Security Clearance form: “Does your middle school daughter understand her obligation to be groped by POTUS during White House ceremonies in order to advance your career?”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.