Sex Trafficking

Why Wasn't Subway's Jared Fogle Charged With Human Trafficking?

The new federal sex trafficking law makes very clear that anyone paying for sex with a teen is guilty of the crime of human trafficking.

|

aa1970/Flickr

Under the new Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act (JVTA), passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in May, anyone who solicits or engages in prostitution with a person under age 18 is subject to federal sex-trafficking charges. In fact, one of the main reasons for the new law, according to supporters, was to make absolutely clear that sex buyers should be treated similarly to those who use force or coercion to compel commercial sex. So why wasn't former Subway spokesman Jared Fogle booked on federal sex trafficking charges? 

In addition to Fogle's alleged child-porn collection, he is accused of traveling to New York City on two occassions to pay for sex with 16- and 17-year-old girls. Whether these girls were forced into the sexual activity is irrelevant as far as federal law is concerned; the JVTA makes very clear that anyone paying for sex with a teen is a) guilty of the crime of human trafficking, and b) required to pay $5,000 into a domestic trafficking victim's fund, which will be used to cover the cost of future anti-trafficking efforts. 

Critics of the JVTA pointed out that many people charged with human trafficking are not big-time criminal kingpins but petty pimps and others unlikely to be able to afford the $5,000 fee, which comes in addition to any other court-ordered fees and penalties. Fogle is certainly one mark for which this wouldn't be a worry.

But the feds didn't even attempt to book Fogle on sex trafficking charges, instead charging him with "traveling to engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor," in addition to receipt of child pornography. (He is expected to plead guilty to both charges, in a deal that will likely net him between five and 12.5 years in prison.) Not even the media have been throwing around the words "sex trafficking" in conjunction to Jared, though they seldom miss an opportunity to work the phrase into coverage of consensual sex work of any kind. 

Perhaps the reason for the public's lack of linking Fogle to sex trafficking is that this—paying to have sex with ostensibly willing 17-year-old women—isn't what we think of when we think about sex trafficking. But it's exactly the kind of thing that federal and state sex-trafficking laws indict. Rightly or wrongly, this is what we are talking about, legally, when we talk about sex trafficking. 

Now, as someone opposed to both the overfederalizaiton of crimes and the charging of "johns" as sex traffickers, I'm not arguing that the feds should have booked Jared on sex-trafficking charges. But it does seem strange, and perhaps hypocritical, that they did not. What a perfect opportunity this would have been to show off the vast reach of the new JVTA in a high-profile way! Whatever their reasons for sparing Fogle sex-trafficking charges, the Department of Justice hasn't been shy about using them more generally. Here are a few people the feds have gone after as sex-traffickers recently: 

  • Mariah Haughton, 18, a Michigan woman convicted of human trafficking for recruiting other teens into sex work (when she was 17 herself) and helping them post ads on Backpage.com. 
  • Jonathan Purnell, 28, a Michigan man who initially faced 13 counts of human trafficking for allowing friends to use his car to drive teen women to prostitution jobs. 
  • Anthony Lee Brown, 48, a Cincinnati man charged with sex trafficking for driving individuals from Ohio to Kentucky to engage in prostitution. 
  • Adrian Palmer, 49, a Pennsylania hotel security guard convicted of conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking for "providing protection and asssistance" to people, including some teens, engaged in prostitution at the hotel. 
  • Kanubhai Patel, 74, a Louisana motel owner convicted of sex trafficking for renting rooms to those he knew were engaged in prostitution.
  • Julie Haner, 19, an Oregon sex worker who drove her 17-year-old friend across state lines to work prostitution jobs with her. 

NEXT: Tumult in Greece: Tsipras to Resign, Call For Snap Elections

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. You forgot the scare quotes.

    1. Why Wasn’t Subway’s “Jared” Fogle “Charged” With “Human” Trafficking?

      1. “Un”CivilServant

        1. No, “R”BS, that’s not the right place. It’s UnCivil”Servant”.

              1. “Un”forgiven was “awe”some

                1. He shoulda “armed” himself, if he is gonna decorate his “saloon” with my friend.

      2. Under this new federal sex trafficking law, any adult who offers money in exchange for sex with another adult is guilty of human sex trafficking. And subject to the 20 year minimum federal prison term and death penalty eligible. The statute does however exempt all federal state and local government workers from being charged with any type of sex crime. So, politicians, police, prosecutors, IRS, Judges, and all other government workers can now legally have sex with children, and avoid all criminal liability under both state and federal law. That’s our government crooks for you!! We deserve this corrupt, stupid, and hypocritical government; because we refuse to pay attention to what these jerks are doing to our country. I hope China and Russia pass us up on the world stage and become the two great powers of our time.

      3. He could have been charged under this law for having sex even with another adult. However, all government workers are exempt from this new law!!

        1. Is this actually true? What’s the name of the law? Not doubting your claim, but if this is for real then more people need to know about it.

          1. It was passed in the spring and signed by our racist president in June.

      4. For that matter, why wasn’t Jed’s Wary Fogle charged with subhuman trafficking?

        1. Its up to our racist president Obama. lol

    2. I think the scare quotes should be on “Subway”, because it’s scary? No…wait a second…that wouldn’t be right, would it, because Subway actually is scary. So I guess the scare quotes should be on “Human Trafficking”, because we should be scared of it, or something?

      1. because we should be scared of it, or something?

        Have you checked your attic for Human Traffickers? HAVE YOU!?!?!?!

        1. Of course not, the human traffickers rent out the storage shed.

          1. The human traffickers may be hiding under YOUR bed, you criminal accomplice, you! Have you checked LATELY?!?!?

      2. “sandwich”

    1. Even though I object to child porn laws, I for the life of me can’t understand how someone could be stupid enough to break them. There is so much legal porn available. And these guys always get caught and end up ruining their lives. All to jerk off over pictures.

      1. That’s why I only look at milf porn.

        1. That is probably a wise policy.

          1. Until you run into the crossover set where the younger partner is in the vorboten age range, then bam, five years in the slammer and a lifetime on the list.

            1. So GILF porn?

              1. No, no, Glyph – porn involving letters fornicating.

                1. F that…

            2. There is that.

        2. “I only look at milf porn.”

          PAWG OR GO HOME

          best acronym ever

          1. That link is NSFW. You need to put a trigger warning on it.

            1. It’s a thread about porn. what makes you think anything will be SFW unless expressly lavelled as such?

              1. It is about child porn. I would think people would not be linking to the subject, thought that is not child porn. Just pictures of semi naked fat women.

                1. “semi naked fat women”

                  AKA “The John Zone?”

                2. Just pictures of semi naked fat women.

                  I’m unclear here, are you complaining or thanking? Because that sounds like it’s ‘up your alley’, so to speak.

          2. *sits down and pays attention*

          3. Okay, some of those girls look borderline lipodystrophic.

        3. For a long time, I thought MILF meant “mother-in-law fucker”.

      2. I keep thinking of that horrible (but disturbingly funny) joke that Louis CK made about pedophilia. The only explanation for why people continue to engage in it in spite of the criminal charges and social stigma is that it must be “really good.” I don’t get the appeal either. Can’t these creeps just settle for getting off to young-looking 18-year-olds like a normal person?

        1. The only thing I can figure is that they keep getting younger and younger because the thrill slowly fades. You start out looking at college girls but after a while they are no more exciting than MILFs. So you move to “barely legal” and don’t stop.

          1. I still don’t get it, but I’m grateful that I don’t. My sexual exploits and fantasies are so typical and normal I never have to worry about them being exposed–beyond the embarrassment of them being so boring.

            1. Please share. Please share your most normal fantasy. I am fascinated.

              1. So Antilles gets home from work and his wife is all like “it’s time for our scheduled monthly missionary action” and he’s all like “ok”.

                The End

                1. But this time, the lights are on!

                  1. Fuck off, Pervert!!

                  1. “When its with me, girl, you only need two minutes
                    Because I’m so intense”

                2. This is too close for comfort. Not married, but I live with a girlfriend who is 23 years younger than me (and a former stripper) who walks around naked all the time and pressures me into sex the moment I get home from work. Following the path of least resistance I give in, but we only do the regular stuff you see in mainstream porn. She says she wants to try anal, but I’m seriously not interested. I often catch hell from my peers for admitting that last part. And I swear this is all 100% true.

                  1. She says she wants to try anal, but I’m seriously not interested

                    Relationships require compromise.

                    1. Sigh…I know. Eventually I’ll have to give in or else she may find someone else who will.

                  2. Um…

                    Antilles|8.20.15 @ 1:45PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                    I still don’t get it, but I’m grateful that I don’t. My sexual exploits and fantasies are so typical and normal I never have to worry about them being exposed–beyond the embarrassment of them being so boring.

                    Then:

                    Antilles|8.20.15 @ 2:50PM
                    Not married, but I live with a girlfriend who is 23 years younger than me (and a former stripper) who walks around naked all the time and pressures me into sex the moment I get home from work.

                    Your definition of normalcy is wildly different from my own.

                    Unless you just started dating this woman in the last hour.

                    1. We’ve been together for two years. However, I should explain that I met her right after getting out of a virtually sexless 20-year relationship. As a result, it takes very little to satisfy me sexually. I’m a simple man with simple desires and that suits me just fine.

                  3. Well, the hershey highway isn’t for everyone, but clearly there are other reasons she’s hanging around other than the hope you’ll decide to give anal a try.

                    The ‘regular stuff you see in mainstream porn’ certainly seems to be way more varied than it was when I was young in the 80’s, so there should be plenty of activities that fall within your comfort zone.

                    1. I’m 51, grew up on 70s and 80s porn, and to this day tend to avoid the extreme and gonzo stuff. I’m sure if I were younger and had been exposed to more extreme acts earlier I’d be more open-minded like her (she just turned 28).

                    2. So, what’s the secret to your success?

                      28’s normally a very good kind of vintage. In general, old enough to be somewhat worldly-wise, young enough to satisfy a 50+ y.o.’s vanity :/

                    3. My guess, truthfully, is that she really likes the size of it. She likes that it is big and she can get all she needs.

                      …his wallet, I mean.

                    4. …his wallet, I mean.

                      I would assume that too, but I’m totally broke. I have a decent job but live in an expensive part of California so I live paycheck to paycheck. I don’t know what she sees in me either, but I’m grateful for whatever it is.

                    5. So, what’s the secret to your success?

                      Luck and good timing. I happened to meet my Tina at the strip club she was working. She was 26, had some bad experiences with guys her age and had pledged to remain celibate until she fell in love with her dream man. The fact she’d grown up fatherless was probably another factor in my favor (me being an older, father-like figure). But she told me that no man had ever treated her as kindly and been as considerate as I was. I never pressured her for sex and it was her idea to finally do it. She says she loves me, wants to spend her life with me, and have my children. That’s why I try so hard to keep her happy, but sometimes she asks too much…

                    6. Oh wow, this is a Lifetime movie waiting to happen. Enjoy bankruptcy and prison. You are so fucked.

                  4. “She says she wants to try anal, but I’m seriously not interested.”

                    Tell her that it puts her at increased risk of anal cancer, that might help

                    1. I realize I’ll eventually have to give in. Just trying to mentally prepare…

                  5. She says she wants to try anal, but I’m seriously not interested.

                    Word. I recognize some people enjoy that crap, but I find it about as appealing as getting freaky on a gas station bathroom floor.

                    1. Yes! You are seriously the only one who has ever sided with me on this. There are so many parts of women’s bodies I love, so why would I have to go there? It’s literally the ‘shittiest’ part. I don’t look down on anyone who enjoys that, but allow me the freedom to say, “No, thanks.”

                    2. Good hygiene (as good as you can arrange), condoms, lube, a load of towels and a stiff drink first.

                      From some (not quite minimal) experience, the issue sometimes resolves itself. I know of a number of women who had, had, had to try it and found it to be ‘bleh’.

                      Their curiosity satisfied, it became a non-issue.

                    3. Damn return key.

                      You’re far from alone in not being into the ‘anal’ thing.

                      It has no appeal to me but I kinda looked on it that it was an itch that ‘pornified America’ demanded that they scratch, and as a zero-cost-to-me exercise, I thought I could tolerate it.

                    4. Yes, she’s never tried it and is curious. But my last (and only) anal experience was back in the early 80s with a black hooker in a Modesto almond grove late one night. It was her idea, but the whole experience and aftermath left a bad taste in my mouth (figuratively, not literally). Perhaps a more positive experience with my new lady could put that bad experience into perspective. We’ll see…

              2. A nice picnic lunch followed by an old fashioned.


                1. A nice picnic lunch followed by an old fashioned.

                  Muddled?

                  1. You best be only muddling the sugar. God help you if you put fruit in the glass.

                    1. You best be only muddling the sugar. God help you if you put fruit in the glass.

                      What?!? That’s the whole point of drinking an old fashion, to get your vitamins, otherwise I should just keep drinking from the bottle.

                    2. The whole point is to enjoy the sublime flavors of Angostura bitters as they interact with the bourbon.

                    3. The whole point is to enjoy the sublime flavors of Angostura bitters as they interact with the bourbon.

                      This reminds me, I don’t have a drink in my hand.

              3. Seriously? OK, my most common fantasy is getting a blowjob from an attractive and enthusiastic woman. That’s really all it takes to make me really, really happy.

                1. As fantasies go, there’s nothing particularly wrong with that, as long as she also makes you a sammich when you demand one.

                  Or steak, if it’s March 14th.

          2. No, some people are just wired wrong, like those who try to screw automobiles, park benches, or furries.

            1. Park benches…is that wrong?

              1. Depends. Certainly not benches made out of stone….

          3. I think taboo is part of it. Forbidden fruit and all.

            1. For teen girls sure. Actual pedophilia is definitely pathological.

              1. I was more thinking the 17 year old prostitute. Prepubescent is a whole different animal.

          4. Apparently for at least some it has to do with sexual trauma at the age of interest. Something about their sexuality gets stuck and they never recover. That’s at least for the ones who are interested in pre-pubescent children. Those interested in sixteen year olds are much more likely to be in just the situation you described.

            1. Many pedophiles were themselves molested as children. Although that’s never made much sense to me because why would they want to relive such a traumatic event, or inflict those feelings onto someone else? But it’s one of the most selfish crimes of all because the molester considers getting off to be more important than a young person’s life. I oppose the death penalty in most cases but would make an exception for child molesters because their actions cause so much long-lasting harm.

              1. Honestly, I’d be for simply letting them off all prison and punishment if they agree to be a eunuch. No libido, no temptation, and they can still be a productive member of society.

                1. Does that really work? I’ve heard stories that the eunuchs who used to guard harems not only still had desire for women but would get sexual with them. I could see something like castration as a condition of parole, but I’d prefer that most molesters be removed from society forever.

                  1. Getting sexual with the women doesn’t mean much. Only one party has to be interested.

                    I thought the removal if done right would kill the libido, but I could be wrong. There has to be a medical way to suppress desire for sex, though. There are natural points in our lives where we don’t want it, so there has to be something that can be turned down or off to unnaturally create that state.

                    1. Three hours daily of the Rosie O’Donnel show?

                    2. The idea is to suppress sexuality, not cause homicidal rage.

                  2. Eunuchs made sure any heir produced was legitimate.

            2. In your early years (the exact time is not certain), your brain starts wiring itself for the preferred sexual partner and the preferred sexual situations. For probably the vast majority of people, typical social cues influence this process. However, sexual or even strongly intimate encounters at these ages can influence the process.

              Thus the old adages of daughters who marry someone like their father and sons who marry women like their mom. It is a very complex process, dependent on other variables including your emotional state at the time of certain stimuli or the stage in your development, hormone imbalances and more. Experiences with the babysitter, or with childhood friends playing doctor, etc can all influence this process.

          5. i figure their brains are broken and their sexual desire is misdirected. Almost like people who get off on weird shit like machines or stepping on kittens or something, but worse because there are human victims.

            Of course, a distinction should be made between pedophiles and people who are into young but sexually mature girls. The latter is quite natural, even if it is usually creepy and inappropriate in the modern world.

          6. Maybe, but I think it’s more likely crossover between affection & lust. Children are lovable. If they weren’t, we’d kill & eat them, rather than letting them get away with just short of murder. Well, it’s great when you can love whomever you fuck, right?

            Take a boy dog, for instance. When they’re really happy, they get erection of the penis. Happy is happy, it just runs all over. Not that hard to conflate everything that makes you happy if you’re not that sophisticated. So children make you happy, fucking makes you happy, why not put both together? Of course you have to ignore certain things in the process, but to some degree that goes on w most fucking or other human relationships.

          7. It’s actually perfectly normal, from an evolutionary standpoint.

            Eggs “at the peak of freshness” make better babies than eggs approaching their expiration date.

            Hence the old saying, “Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed.”

        2. I think it depends on whether you’re talking the “legal” definition of pedophilia (any one under 18) or the real definition of pedophilia (prepubescent). When my oldest daughter was 13, I used to write her real age on her stomach in sharpie when she went off with her friends. My husband thought this was to protect her. In fact, it was to protect the poor innocent men she might encounter who had no way to tell other than my warning, that this fully armed and operational female mating platform was in fact only 13 years old.

          1. This can’t be a real story, can it?

            1. Dude, still remember our 2004 trip to Scotland. Asked my then-13-year-old to hold my beer while I hit the loo. Dude come up within seconds – “Wanna dance”…..”I’m 13….” “OH!”….

              She was quite mature looking.

              Now, I WISH I’d thought to write her age on her belly with a Sharpie?, but she’s all 24 and married and has a kid, so….a little late.

            2. Relevant! and NSFW!!

              Apparently, a 13 tattoo doesn’t mean what I think it means.

            3. Sure it can be. The rest of the story is: As soon as the daughter walked out the door she converted the “3” to an “8”.

              1. That or a cheap, white cotton t-shirt with a 13 written on the back.

            4. Like me, my oldest got her first period at age 9. I know, seriously early bloomers, I just remembered how horny I was after four years of abstinence because age appropriate sex partners basically did not exist and girls who want to get laid will lie without a second thought to get what they want…
              It’s almost like Mother Nature cleverly engineered the species to want to get knocked up early and often.

              1. Back when the average life expectancy was only 35, teenagers were essentially middle-aged and ready to procreate. But that was then, this is now.

                1. The “Life expectancy of 35” statistics are fairly bunk for most of history because of the inclusion of infant mortality deaths in the mix. When controlled for infant mortality, it jumps substantially.

              2. Huh. I’m glad I don’t have children.

                1. We are all glad you don’t have children, FM.

              3. Where were you when I was 12?

                1. Other than being shy and put down one too many times, I would wholeheartedly agree! If I could have only run into those girls at the age of 12! Then looks meant too much! When I got older, some thought I was good looking! Including the thirty year old beauty queen that picked me at 52!

          2. That’s something I worry about with my little brother quickly approaching the past 18 point. He’s trusting and beating the girls off with a stick right now. The idea that pretty soon he could lose everything because someone else lied about their age is horrifying.

            1. When I was 22 I was at a college party talking to a girl, was really hitting it off, asked her if she went to school there, and got back the name of a local high school.

              I exited that conversation as quickly as I could, but there was absolutely no conceivable way that drunk Irish could have known the girl at a college party was not of legal age.

              It’s disturbingly easy to imagine someone getting in trouble for that after having sex with a girl after a college party without knowing her age and then having her parents find out and press charges.

              1. I was taking dual credit classes in high school. Realized one of the guys I went to class with was flirting with me. The look on his face was pretty priceless when I told him I was still in high school. Really though, he had no way of knowing I was underage. I was literally going to class with him.

                On the other side, my then six foot five little brother came up to visit me while I was in college. My friends wanted me to take him to our humans vs zombies party later that night. I had to explain to them that he had just turned fourteen a month ago.

                Between fourteen and twenty its really hard to guess ages. You’ll get most correct, but there are a ridiculous amount of outsiders going in either direction.

                1. My eye is frequently drawn to some lady who turns out to be under 18. At a HS football game, one of them was the band leader, whom I’d assumed to be a faculty adviser. She was a student. More recently someone I assumed to be the mother of one of the kids we were coaching was actually one of the kids.

              2. This exact thing happened to the son of one of my co-workers.

                As far as I could tell he is a smart, good kid. He had a bright future. His life is totally fucked up now.

                1. Punchline: It’s his boss’s high school daughter.

      3. Even though I object to child porn laws, I for the life of me can’t understand how someone could be stupid enough to break them. There is so much legal porn available.

        Most of the time because they’re pedophiles and aren’t attracted to older women.

        In Jared’s case because he’s retarded. The guy had sex with women who were legal aged, so all he had to was not go after the 16 year olds and he was in the clear.

        1. True pedophiles are not attracted to adults. But most of the people caught up in child porn stings are not that. And very few of them are a threat to anyone but themselves.

      4. We actually had a guy near me claim that he thought that child porn was only illegal if you paid for it. This is what he told the cops as they were arresting him.

        1. Not entirely unreasonable. Not paying means less incentive for others to produce (porn). It’s closer to neutral behavior. Of course if what’s seen as violation is not simply the production but the viewing of such material, that defense doesn’t work.

    2. I did a Heart Association walk with him about 10 years ago. He was fascinated by fire ants. I should have known he was a pervert. Anyone who displays anything but implacable hatred (or panic if being actively swarmed) is probably a pervert.

      1. Damn brazilians dumping their super bugs on us!
        *shakes fist in general direction of Brazil*

        1. What about those Killer Bees from South America??!!!

          Is there no pest the fucking South Ams won’t perpetrate on us??!

          1. THATS IT! I’M VOTING FOR TRUMP!

            SUPER WALL ACTIVATE!!!

  2. In other news, the Kansas City Royals won their 73rd game last night. Baseball nerds everywhere have a sad. The excuses given by the third rate jockstrap sniffing stat nerds as to why their beloved PACOTA system predicted the Royals would win 73 games all season are priceless.

    “Bottom line: I think we know that this system has a hard time with elite, highly leveraged bullpens, which the Royals have had; that it probably has a hard time with great defenses, which the Royals have; and that it has a hard time with any team that can outperform its raw stats for whatever reason, which the Royals have done.”

    Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/spor…..rylink=cpy

    The bottom line is our system can’t account for nearly half of the game. But we are totally geniuses. We know so much more than the people who have been playing the game for 125+ years.

    1. A long time ago, I used to post a lot at BleedCubbieBlue, the Cubs SBN site. There was always some stat nerd telling me to ignore my lying eyes.

      1. The entire thing is a great example of the value of collective wisdom. They had been playing baseball for over a hundred years before Bill James had his “Eureka Moment” that the point of baseball is to score as many runs as possible before you use your 27 outs. These clowns acted like they had some great insight that a hundred years of collective wisdom derived from actually playing the game didn’t. Ah, not so much.

        1. I don’t think Bill James ever suggested his system would be fool-proof, and if he did you’d be stupid to build a team entirely on that assumption. You’d also be stupid to ignore it as a useful analytical tool to help you build a team. The biggest problem with it is that it has been so widely adopted that the inefficiencies have been eliminated. Now the only thing that’s going to work is building a team from the ground up with a strong farm system.

          1. And a lot of its success were the result of the steroid era. The steroid era effectively made everyone a power hitter. Before steroids very few hitters hat more than 25 or 30 homeruns a year. During the steroid era nearly every good hitter did. If you have a lineup that consists of five or six hitters who will hit 25 or more homeruns, which a lot of teams did in the 1990s, it makes no sense to run. It also makes no sense to worry too much about defense, since so many balls are leaving the park anyway. You just get power hitters and guys who get on base and wait for the homeruns and big innings, which is all “moneyball” ever was. Take away the steroids and things like running and defense start to matter a lot more.

            1. Here is a good summary for the new metrics

              “The proper use of Big Data in baseball isn’t identifying macro trends and blithely dismissing strategies out of hand, but instead using it to influence the 5-10 games a year that come down to a game decision and seeing if the data can provide a competitive advantage or novel insight. With five teams making the playoffs in each league, the importance of even one game takes on additional significance, and it makes sense to see if time-honored strategies like base stealing actually translate into runs, and by extension wins.”

              1. And yet, the Royals break all of those rules, have a manager who seems to thrive on doing it, and are the defending American league champions and have the best record in the league.

                No one is that lucky. The system can’t account for them and their existence proves its invalidity.

                1. It is one fucking year. Luck can absolutely explain it.

                  1. Bullshit. An entire playoff run plus 162 games of the next year? That is not an outlier. You sound one of the global warming cultists. Its just weather!!

            2. During the steroid era, did the team with the most home runs during the regular season win the world series as well?

              1. There is more to baseball than offense. The teams that hit the most homeruns generally scored the most runs.

                1. The teams that hit the most homeruns generally scored the most runs.

                  That wasn’t my question. According to you, advanced stats are useless because of steroids. If that were the case, and only power mattered, then the team that hit the most home runs each year should have also won the world series during the steroid era, right? And if not, then other factors come into play.

                  1. If I remember correctly, there was a Cubs team in the 05-10 time frame that was close to the top of the NL in home runs and still managed one of the worst records in the NL.

                    1. Teams that are built on home runs generally run into a big problem in the playoffs. They end up facing the best handful of pitchers in the league, and stronger bull pens, than they did when hitting for all that power.

                    2. Restoras and RBS,

                      I didn’t say the system worked. I said the success it has was due to that. You guys are right, the “money ball’ teams generally didn’t win jack. The teams that won were the teams that had the same things the great teams of the past had, great pitching, good defense, and a lineup full of good hitters.

                    3. You’re trashing something that makes no logical sense to trash. The advanced stats are tools – nothing more, nothing less. You’d be stupid to ignore them and just as stupid to rely on them completely.

                    4. Yes restoras. They are tools. But a tool is only as good as it is effective. I have yet to see any evidence those things are effective.

                    5. Have you looked? Asked any managers or general managers? It seems you are just firing from the hip because of the Royals, and I presume the Astros and Mets as well.

                    6. Exactly. Bill James introduced a whole new way to observe and analyze stats and some of them are downright awesome.

                      And he did it in an entertaining way I might add.

                      Come on John. Stop being so Wilbonnish.

            3. And a lot of its success were the result of the steroid era.

              Can you actually quantify this?

        2. No they didn’t you jockstrap sniffing lover. The movement was created to learn how to build the most efficient team and to see if counting stats are the best way to determine player value.

          You just don’t want to actually read up on the new stats and metrics. They are actually useful. PECOTA is a prediction tool. Like many tools, it can stop working or malfunction.

          1. The movement was created to learn how to build the most efficient team and to see if counting stats are the best way to determine player value.

            And the system can’t account for half of the game. Moreover, there has never been any evidence the system works. We have over a hundred years of very detailed records of major league baseball. If the system is so great, you should be able to go back and feed the stats from all of those years into it and it should tell you which teams were the best without even looking at the statistics. I have never once seen anyone do that.

            1. How about figuring out the OBP is the most important hitting statistic? Or that a certain % of strikeouts are okay as long as you can hit the necessary amount of homeruns? Or that batting order matters? Or that bunting isn’t as effective as it is perceived?

              1. How about figuring out the OBP is the most important hitting statistic?

                How was that ever “figured out”? Is there a correlation between the teams with the best OBP and the number of runs scored? And is that correlation any stronger than the one with batting average or slugging percentage?

                Those are the kinds of statistical analysis that would sway me. I never see any of that. Instead, I get a lot of bullshit that is basically pulled out of people who have never played the game’s ass claiming why this or that stat is better.

                1. Do you not have the internet or Google? Or are you a bingman?

                  https://www.iwu.edu/economics/PPE13/houser.pdf (comes to the conclusion that OBP, Slugging, and Whip correlate the best to wins)

                  Also play with this

                  http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs…..rrelation/

                  1. It doesn’t come to the conclusion that slugging percentage matters. It comes to the conclusion that OBP and its defensive counterpart WHIP matters, which makes sense. You won’t get any argument from me that batting average isn’t the only statistic that matters and the more runners you get on base the better off you are.

                    That being said, you read too much into the numbers. OBP has the MOST correlation not the only correlation. Can you win a lot of games if you have nine guys who are really good at getting on base? Sure. But you can win a lot of games if you have nine guys who get a lot of hits too. You act like batting average has no correlation to winning. In fact that study shows it does. It just doesn’t have as much correlation.

                    You prove my point about how these things are oversold. Just because OPB is best correlated to winning doesn’t mean there are not other ways to win or that everyone who who builds a different kind of team is “stupid”.

            2. Also, bullpens and relievers are extremely volatile. Some relievers can be dominant one year then struggle the next.

              1. Also, bullpens and relievers are extremely volatile. Some relievers can be dominant one year then struggle the next.

                Of course. It is almost like there are factors that raw statistical measures cannot account for or something.

                1. It is almost like there are factors that raw statistical measures cannot account for or something.

                  I’m not sure anyone has suggested otherwise.

                  1. I remember reading about the conventional wisdom of advancing a runner via a bunt. It was discovered it was just a wasted out statistically speaking.

                    The best teams, I guess, combine sabermetrics with conventional methods in some variation.

                    John, OBP was an after thought until James pointed out its importance.

                    1. That is not true Rufus. Managers, Earl Weaver most famously, had always valued OBP and guys who got on base a lot.

                    2. Earl Weaver most famously, had always valued OBP and guys who got on base a lot

                      So, he was using a stat that others were ignoring to his advantage?

                    3. Restoras,

                      No. He was building successful teams using one method. There are others.

                    4. No, he wasn’t using OBP to his advantage or yes he was using OBP to his advantage. By your own admission he was using a stat that others ignored. If that is the case then he was applying “moneyball” principles to help build a winning team long before Billy Beane and the Oakland A’s .

                    5. Weaver was the exception not the rule.

                2. I never said there weren’t, but advanced metrics are trying to come up with a solution to it to make things more predictable and build better teams.

                3. This seems like a lot of hair splitting.

                  When I am counting tens at the vegas blackjack table, the count is low and the dealer has a three showing, I stay. A good amount of time, the dealer busts. Other times they beat my 14. The fact that they often beat me doesn’t change the fact that staying in those situations is the best bet.

                  Statistics and Correlation are about probability, and there is always a chance that even though the odds are on your side, your prediction will be wrong.

                  1. Yes overt. The problem is we don’t get to replay baseball seasons hundreds of times like we do blackjack. They are one time events that cannot be repeated. So what ends up happening is the the fact that statistics only give probability gives the stat nerds a perfect out and make their predictions non falsifiable. Nate Silver got a lot of flack for saying the Brazilians had a 70% chance of winning the World Cup last summer only to see them destroyed by the Germans. The little weasel just claimed “I only said they had a 70% chance of winning not that it was certain”. So Silver gets to claim he was right no matter what the result.

    2. PECOTA is a forecasting tool and that is pretty much it. It is extremely hard to forecast any player or team.

      Writing off all advanced metrics because one is flawed is idiotic. Old stats like RBIs, Wins, ERA, etc do not accurately depict how good a player actually is or how effective they will be the next season or relative to their peers.

      Let’s take FIP (Fielding Inpendent Pitching) and ERA. FIP is based on outcomes that do not involve defense; strikeouts, walks, hit by pitches, and home runs allowed. It is generally better than ERA since ERA can be influenced by the pitchers defense.

      You are probably in the same camp that like to see the fucking closer get a “save” even though that stat was invented by a sportswriter. It also completely changed how bullpens are used (for the worse). Now managers wait until the 9th inning to use their best pitcher instead of using him in the highest leverage situations.

      1. The people who run the system admit they can’t account for defense or quality bull pens. That is literally half of the game. It is like creating a system to predict stock prices and saying “our system can’t account for changes in government spending or downturns in the world economy”. The guy admits the system doesn’t work.

        And the advance statistics are wrong. If they were right, the Royals would suck rather than having the best record in the American league.

        1. “The advance statistics are wrong”

          Which one exactly? I’m not saying using PECOTA as a GM would be smart, but looking at different data and other metrics is smart because they have merit.

          If a player has a high rate of BABIP in one year, then you shouldn’t expect him to have it again.

          And you are lumping PECOTA in with advanced metrics. PECOTA uses advance metrics, but if they admit they can’t account for defense or quality bullpens then their system is flawed. It doesn’t mean the actual metrics is flawed.

          I want you to defend the stat of Wins to me. Why if a pitcher pitches 5 innings and gives up 10 runs can he get a win if his team keeps the lead for him? Also, why can you “lose” a no hitter if someone makes three errors in a row. What predictability does that stat have?

          1. If a player has a high rate of BABIP in one year, then you shouldn’t expect him to have it again.

            Not necessarily. You are assuming your conclusion that the stat is valid. This is classic stat speak. We pick a number that intuitively seems like it would reflect reality and then just assume it does and write off anything that doesn’t fit with the prediction as an “outlier”.

            And you are lumping PECOTA in with advanced metrics. PECOTA uses advance metrics, but if they admit they can’t account for defense or quality bullpens then their system is flawed. It doesn’t mean the actual metrics is flawed.

            Yes it does. If those statistics can’t be combined to show you a complete picture of who is the better player and the better team, they are effectively worthless. What do they mean if not “this player is better than another” and what does that mean if not “this team has better players and is therefore better than the other”? If they can’t do that, they are not telling you what they claim to.

            And I won’t defend the stat of wins to you. I am not saying every stat if valid. i am saying these are wildly oversold.

            1. They do provide that value. They just don’t do a great job at predicting wins. No stat does in baseball. What stats would you choose who is the better player and the better team?

              http://www.beyondtheboxscore.c…..as-a-place

              Luck is a major factor in baseball.

              Also, stop saying my stats are invalid without saying which ones you think are valid. Obviously you and the mighty Royals think some stats are valid or you just picked your team out of a hat.

              1. No stat is “valid” in any ultimate sense. Any individual stat is the result of a ton of factors individual to that player. To give you a simple example. Joe DiMaggio was according to everyone who ever say him play one of the great power hitters in baseball history. Yet, he never hit more than 46 homeruns in a year and finished his career with 368 total homeruns. The stats tell you that he wasn’t a great power hitter. What the stats don’t tell you is that he was a right handed hitter playing in old Yankee stadium where it was virtually impossible for him to pull the ball and hit a homerun and he missed four of his best years serving in World War II. The stats lie.

                That is a very simple example. But every stat potentially lies in some way. A guy’s hitting stats no matter how you measure them are a product of the lineup around him, the hitters he faces, the park he plays in, and a million other factors. Do stats have value? Sure they do. Even the much maligned “wins” has value. But they are only as good as the context they are put in. And by the time you put them in context and really look at a player, the advanced metrics are just as likely to lie to you as the old stats. They just lie to you in different ways and under different circumstances.

                1. Are you fucking retarded? You realize that “advanced” stats would smooth that out right? Advanced stats have ball park factors built into them. Check out Coors field.

                  1. Yes I realize all of that. What you don’t realize is that the people who create those metrics have very little evidence their efforts to smooth those things out accurately reflects reality. There is a difference between “accounting for” something and “accurately accounting for” something. It is the accuracy part where they get into trouble.

                2. So now no stat is valid. Interesting turn of events.

                  1. So now no stat is valid. Interesting turn of events.

                    Lets mix things up for the stat nerds. Install a sniper’s nest in the scoreboard. Every at-bat, the sniper rolls four dice. If the dice all come up different, he does nothing. If he gets a pair, he shoots the batter. If he gets three of a kind, he shoots the pitcher. If he gets four of a kind, he shoots the umpire. Two pair and he shoots the catcher.

                    If you want to be kind, he can fire tranq rounds. Or better yet, hallucinogen darts.

                    1. the sniper rolls four dice

                      How many sides on the dice? We talkin’ d4’s, d6’s, d8’s, d10’s, d12’s or d20’s?

                    2. Depends on the point in the season. Early games use large dice and you move down as the season wears on. During the championship we’re talking d4s.

                    3. “I’m in.” — Dock Ellis

        2. “The advance statistics are wrong”

          Which one exactly? I’m not saying using PECOTA as a GM would be smart, but looking at different data and other metrics is smart because they have merit.

          If a player has a high rate of BABIP in one year, then you shouldn’t expect him to have it again.

          And you are lumping PECOTA in with advanced metrics. PECOTA uses advance metrics, but if they admit they can’t account for defense or quality bullpens then their system is flawed. It doesn’t mean the actual metrics is flawed.

          I want you to defend the stat of Wins to me. Why if a pitcher pitches 5 innings and gives up 10 runs can he get a win if his team keeps the lead for him? Also, why can you “lose” a no hitter if someone makes three errors in a row. What predictability does that stat have?

      2. If the last 4 outs aren’t the highest leverage most of the tinme, your team probably won’t get enough wins on balance to have him pitch the sixth inning of three divisional games. Maybe in the wildcard slot.

        1. That is nonsense. If it is the 7th inning and my team is up 2-1 and the bases are loaded with no outs, then I want my best pitcher on the mound because at that point that is the highest leverage situation in the game. The game could be won or lost right there.

          1. Read the whole post. If the tipping point in close games routinely comes before the middle of the 8th, you have systemic problems. Yes, probably three times a year the situation will come up in the 5th, 6th, or 7th inning. If it comes up 16 times, your team is short on pitching or hitting. The Oakland A’s have lost a ridiculous number of one run games their net scoring is way positive even though they are well back in their division. I don’t think holding out their best reliever is their problem. What happens when you end up leading 2-1 with 2 on and 1 out in the 9th and your best pitcher is now 40 potches into a relief appearence? Where is your leverage?

            1. I see what you meant now. Still, my reasoning is fine. I’m not saying do it every time because like you said, if that is the case a lot, then your team has problems.

      3. It also completely changed how bullpens are used (for the worse). Now managers wait until the 9th inning to use their best pitcher instead of using him in the highest leverage situations.

        Because all of those managers are just “stupid”. It couldn’t be that there are other factors to the game that statistics can’t account for or anything, Nope. They are just dumb.

        It is no surprise to anyone who has ever played the game and understands the limits of statistics that they can’t account for great defense and for base running. A great defense has all sorts of second order effects that can’t be accounted for statistically. First and foremost is the mental effect it has on pitchers. Pitchers who have confidence in their defense play more relaxed and throw more strikes, because they are less afraid of a ball being put into play. That in turn affects other things like pitch counts and the number of innings a starter can go and stress on the bull pen. A pitcher who throws strikes has effects on the hitters. The threat of running changes the way pitchers pitch and how defenses are aligned. None of those things and about a thousand other subtle things are captured by these metrics. The managers are not as stupid as the nerds think and the nerds are not as smart as they think they are.

        1. It doesn’t have to be that all the managers are “stupid” and may be they are doing what everyone else is doing, so they don’t look stupid if it fails. If they do what everyone else is doing and it fails, then it’s not his problem. It could be risk aversion.

        2. Before the save was “discovered” bullpens worked completely differently. You used your best pitcher to put out fires.

          Also, I think the manager actually affects like 4-5 games a year, but in tight races those games matter a lot. Using your closer the right way, pinch hitting at the right time, lineup construction, etc are all things that go into that and advanced metrics help with those decisions.

          You are basing your thesis on one team’s success in one particular year and saying that advanced metrics don’t matter.

          Things like WAR do take fielding and defense into account. It is what makes Mike Trout better than Miguel Cabrera. It is what made us figure out that striking out a little more to hit for more power is okay. (too many k’s is of course problematic).

          Why don’t you actually read the stuff on Beyond the Box Score and try to understand some of the metrics?

          1. Sometimes John is the very definition of conservative (not necessarily the political definition), and seems to apply in this case as well. He’ll never give it any study or thought, no matter how interesting.

          2. Things like WAR do take fielding and defense into account.

            I hate that statistic. They take it into account but not very well. It says that Trout is better than Cabrera but what does “better” mean? It means he scores higher on our stat. That is nice but it tells me nothing about why your stat is the “better measure”. The entire thing is based on assumptions pulled out of people’s asses. No one every does any real work to determine if these things are better. They just use some intuitive sounding logic to come up with a calculation and start calculating never bothering to really see if their logic matches up to reality.

            It not that these things are “wrong”. It is that their value is vastly oversold. The entire idea that you can say this player is better than if he were replaced by an average player is ridiculous. It is totally not falsifiable. We will never know. There is no way to tell if that number reflects reality, yet the stat nerds assume it does.

            1. The stat nerds are constantly improving their stats. It takes more and more data.

              You dumbasses don’t seem to get that and you don’t want to try to use any of the stats available to understand the game more.

              1. It is not that I don’t want to use them. It is that I understand that any statistic is as likely as not not to reflect reality. The game is too complex with too many variables for any statistic to be as definitive as these people claim.

        3. How do you explain Joe Maddon? He took some young and low payroll teams with TB and turned them into great teams year after year.

          1. I explain it by saying it is a young man’s game. There have always been young teams who have done well. You ever hear of the Wiz Kids? And the low payroll doesn’t mean anything. Baseball is set up to under pay younger players. Having a low payroll just means the players are likely young. No one ever said young players couldn’t be good or great players.

            1. See: Carlos Correa and the Houston Astros. Young guys and cast-offs mostly. But they will probably make the playoffs, and might have enough pitching to go the distance. Although KC ate their lunch in head-to-head series, so I expect them to exit before the ALCS.

            2. I’m convinced that the only thing you can read is comments at Reason and not any literature on advanced metrics.

              1. No. I read plenty. I just don’t believe everything I read. And it is funny as hell you trot out the Rays as proof these things work yet write off the Royals as “being lucky”. Again, you sound like those other great abusers of statistics the AGW cult.

                These things don’t reflect reality to the extent you claim they do.

    3. Must be something in the water in Kansas. St. Louis has won, what, 80 games?

      1. You mean Missouri, right, cause KC is in MO.

        1. Well, there is also a KC in KS, but we don’t talk about them if we don’t have to.

    4. that it has a hard time with any team that can outperform its raw stats for whatever reason, which the Royals have done.”

      This is funny. It’s like a shrug in word form.

      ?\_(?)_/?

      ^ Stat nerds when their numbers don’t match reality.

      1. I love it. The system can’t account for when its wrong. Yeah, no kidding. No system can. But that doesn’t make it any more right.

      2. ” Stat nerds when their numbers don’t match reality.”

        This is just anecdotal, but the biggest baseball stat nerds I’ve known were all idiot savants and progs.

        1. My brother being one of them, his emotional irrationality over sports when we were growing up sort of turned me off to it.

          1. Agreed. Baseball is for pedophiles.

            1. Are you being anecdotal too? If so you keep strange company

              1. He likes going to little league games.

        2. Well, it was the original progressives that though you could build a better society with policies based on statistics.

          1. yes. And my position on this issue is not “conservative” as it is libertarian. I am arguing for the collective wisdom of the crowd and practical wisdom over the wisdom of technocrats. Stat nerds are nothing but technocrats and they can no more manage a baseball team than they can an economy.

            1. Your position is conservative in that you are trying to rely on “the old ways” or “the traditional ways” instead of embracing something new and different, not because it is new and different, but because it could be interesting and helpful.

              Nothing devised by humans will ever be perfect, including advanced baseball stats, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be helpful.

              1. I never said they couldn’t be. I said they are being oversold and are often unhelpful. The value of any statistic if limited by the context.

    5. Fuck you, John.

      Fuck you for starting a baseball thred about the fucking royals in a perfectly disrespectable thread about sex and violence. I’m from KC and I am so sick of hearing about them. Can we please get back to dispicable subjects?

      /continuesmumbling

      1. Hey look, the Dow is down 300pts!

      2. I apologize. Your regularly scheduled program of pot, Mexicans, and ass sex will now continue.

      3. So, are the Chiefs gonna be worth a shit this year?

        1. Well, I don’t care. I don’t follow any of our local teams and I don’t care about them. However, the safe answer is “Nope.” That seems to be the consensus around the office.

      4. Jesus… I was just bored out of my mind in a meeting and now baseball.

    6. Sabermetrics fail for the same reason keynesianism fails, they try to objectify something that is inherently subjective. And dear God it’s even worse when they try to do it with football.

      1. Exactly. I can’t understand why any Libertarian would buy into such crap.

        1. For the same reason people keep up with sport stats in general, it gives them the feeling of special/insider knowledge. Look at the way coaches and scouts generally evaluate players. There’s very few stats involved. The reason is that a lot of the things that makes a player good or bad are subjective.

  3. “providing protection and asssistance”

    Well, *that* should certainly be a crime.

  4. Lost in all this are his aides, someone should check on them.

    1. Professional aises are always in demand, they’ll land on their feet.

      1. What, nobody can give the obligatory South Park reference with the AIDS/Aides mixup? I cant access YouTube, but surely someone can.

    1. Screw you. If pumpkin flavored anything is wrong, i don’t want to be right.

      1. ” If pumpkin flavored anything is wrong, i don’t want to be right.”

        This explains a lot.

        I like coffee that tastes like coffee. I feel like i’m in the minority sometimes, especially in hotels and airports. either its so horrible that its an insult, or its “flavored” to cover up their coffee-crime.

        1. +1 pound of light roasted blue mountain Jamaican.

          1. Ha! I picked blue mountain before I clicked on your link. I have a friend who brings me back some whenever she visits her family.

            1. In 1992, I had a cup of blue mountain coffee in Montego Bay, Jamaica, at a cheap restaurant on the seashore called “Marguerites“, that forever changed my attitude about what “good coffee” was supposed to be

              (*interestingly – that place is now a ‘big deal’, 5-star dining joint; when i was there it was basically a shack overlooking the water that served fresh fish and had good coffee)

              I’ve had some kona that was almost as good, but i’ve never gotten anything in the US that wasn’t “Blended” in some way that reduced the raw impact of how unbelievable the pure shit is. Its like heroin. Its so much better than regular coffee its indescribable. Everyone else is faking it and failing miserably.

        2. It explains I have better taste than you. I am not sure that is a “lot” but it is something.

          1. Now that’s funny.

      2. It’s not even pumpkin flavored, is it? I thought it was cinnamon and nutmeg flavored. Not that I’d want one in any case. Gilmore is right, just plain quality coffee is the best.

        1. Yeah, it’s like a hot liquid pumpkin pie.

        2. This year Starbucks and Panera are apparently tweaking the recipes to include real pumpkin
          http://news.yahoo.com/starbuck…..55814.html

          1. I did hear that. But pumpkin is bland, boring squash (I’m not a huge squash lover, so others may disagree) and probably won’t add much.

    2. Dammit, summer is over already?

    3. Real pumpkin is delicious if it’s from proper food pumpkins, not the shitty tasteless commercial Halloween ones. Get yourself little patch of pumpkins, harvest in the fall, and prep them for winter. You got delicious pumpkin for the next four horrible months.

      /My rejected letter to Northern Ontario Living.

      1. Why do all the locations in Canada sound like place names from Narnia or something?

        “Ontario?” Yeah, okay Aslan, enough of your kooky world of fantasy and adventure.

        1. It’s because names are the only fanciful thing they could get.

        2. “One must cross over the great Winterwind Mountains and go through the Canyon Tomb of Ublick to enter the mythical land of Ontario, the land of the Ice Queen Wynne.”

          One of the most hilarious moments for me in Deadwood is when they ask where Seth Bullock’s originally from and he says, in the most badass, Clint Eastwood way: “Ontario.” Because I immediately think of this.

          1. Damn you! Now I’m going to have that in my head for weeks. Just for that I’d trade you Bobby Jimby, but I can’t be bothered trying to find ‘Caaa..naaa…daaaa/Now we are twenty million…’

        3. Manitou
          Minitonas
          Neepawa

          And that is just in Manitoba.

          1. Yeah, we really like to use old native names up here.

            I still have zero excuses for Newfoundland and Labrador’s ‘Dildo’ or ‘Conception Bay’ though.

            1. Sex names happen here too. See Climax, NC or Dicktown, NJ

              1. There is also a Climax, MI. And – of course- Hell, MI.

                and the hard to find Covert Township

        4. lol

          When i worked for the british, they seemed to always find American “place names” hilariously bizarre.

          “Massachusetts”? “Connecticut”? “Minnesota”? Indian words that sound goofy to them.

          I generally replied by making fun of their formulaic anglo-saxon constructions, a la “East Herefordshireislingtonsex”

          1. Pronounced “Hamton”

            1. I lol’d.

          2. I like that Oxford is literally where they used to ford oxen and Cambridge is where there was a bridge over the River Cam.

            1. Regina used to be known as ‘Pile of Bones’ because they were next to a mass buffalo grave. I really wish they hadn’t changed the name.

              1. And, of course, there’s http://www.history.alberta.ca/headsmashedin/
                Can’t beat that (heh…)

          3. I think Australia takes home the prize for goofiest names in the Anglosphere.

            Humpybong. Borroloola. Woolloomooloo. You can’t make this stuff up.

            1. You left out “Coober Pety” (White man in a hole), the opal capital of the world.

              1. Coober Pedy

                Also: Kyogle, Coraki, Nhulunbuy, Gayndah, Goondiwindi, etc.

          4. Wales wins. They are a nation of nametrolls. Llanfairpwllgwyngyllg ogerychwyrndrobwll-llantysiliogogogoch* is a place. Luckily, they shorten it to Llanfairpwllgwyngyll.

            On the island of Anglesey. Whch, I think, is Welsh for “The Angles can’t fuckin’ say shit.”

            I love the Welsh.

            * I had to throw in an extra space because I can’t post a word more than 50 characters. It is a place name more than 50 characters.

        5. Also Irish, you’re looking to get to Sarnia? That’s easy, just hop over the bridge at Windsor and go North.

          1. Wrong–take 94 north. I’m heading that way tomorrow.

            1. Construction around PH and on the Blue Water bridge.

    4. I read about one of the English colonies in the northeast having famine. When they arrived the sailors took all of their shit to sell to the spanish but let them have pumpkin seeds. They spent an entire year living on nothing but pumpkin. After that the ones who survived never touched pumpkin again for the rest of their lives.

      1. The English colonialists were just awful. Millions and millions of people starved to death due to famines in British controlled India and they’ve had 0 famines since British rule ended.

        That’s one reason I can’t stand Dinesh D’Souza’s apologias for British colonialism. How can a conservative support an extractive economic system that was basically communist in certain respects and resulted in the exact sort of mass death and famine that conservatives are always criticizing the Soviet Union for.

        1. How can a conservative support an extractive economic system that was basically communist in certain respects and resulted in the exact sort of mass death and famine that conservatives are always criticizing the Soviet Union for.

          Because it brought brown people into communion with the Anglican church. Duh!

        2. In spite of all of their talk of ‘free englishmen’ England was one of the most militarized nations on earth. They are the ones who invented the goose-step.

          Two illustrations

          A friend of mine was in Iraq. He and his buddies got drunk one night and accidentally climbed over the wall into the English compound instead of their own. They had the living shit beaten out of them. His words: “Those guys are fucking animals”

          A fellow I used to work with who had was in the Dunkirk evacuation told me about his schooling. After middle school they all had Enfields issued to them. They carried them everywhere they went and every day at school they spent an hour practicing with them. They had to lay on the ground hit a 12 inch target at 100 meters and make all of their brass land in a 12 circle. If anyone is curious about that particular technique I will describe it on request.

            1. I can’t adequately describe how much I hate reading English text speak/internet shit talk.

        3. And, at least two of those famines were exacerbated ed by the British refusing to release food from warehouses b/c it needed to be shipped back to Britain to keep the price of bread down.

      2. Awhile back, I ran the numbers of the ratio between calories and square footage needed to raise the crop/animal. Nothing beat potatoes and pork, but gourds were pretty respectable.

          1. Someone isn’t going to get an invite to enter my secret bunker when the SHTF.

            1. I plan on being one of the ones that people built bunkers against.

              1. You mean someone inoculated with FEV?

                1. I tried making some in the shed to jump start Armageddon, but all I kept getting was meth.
                  *shrug*

                2. Wait, does this mean that Heroic Mulatto is really building bunkers for bizarre sociological experiments? If so, can I request to be placed in one of the less moronic Vaults?

                  1. Vault 791 is recruiting – but you’d have to put up with me as overseer.

                    1. I’ll take the one where it’s just you and a box of puppets over 68 any day. Vault 21 is a pretty good deal, being a weird anarchist society run entirely by chance that somehow ended up completely fine.

                    2. Does someone have the list of known vaults handy, I’m having trouble remembering which is which.

                    3. Fallout Wiki

                      68’s the one where there’s only one woman for hundreds of men, and 21 is the one where everything is decided by gambling.

        1. That is exactly correct. Those are the most efficient means of producing carbs and protein.

          Nice thing about gourds (yellow squash for example) is that they contain enough of both so that you can live off of them alone if you have to. The problem is that they have off years when they don’t produce much or not at all.

          1. The other problem is that they’re fuckin gourds, cause yuck!

        2. Potatoes and pork… not a bad way to live. Perhaps the apocalypse won’t be so bad after all.

      3. I LOL at that Ken Burns show about Lewis & Clark’s expedition, and how they got so bored w salmon that they’d’ve preferred jerky!

        One thing I’ve never quite understood about that expedition that makes it seem like a scam to me: If they had guides, why did they need to go at all? People were there already, so couldn’t they put 2 & 2 together? Something gained by having individuals go all the way?

    5. Do we have pumpkin flavored sex toys yet? Because, if not, that shits gotta happen now.

  5. I assumed the reason he took the plea deal was to avoid a slew of harsher charges. Why else would someone admit to something that will turn them into a pariah and send them to a place where they’ll be tormented for at least 5 years?

    1. Yeah. Like almost every federal defendant, he was at the mercy of the judge and US attorney. We have no real justice or jury system in this country. We have a group of embowered fanatics who decide people’s fate based on whatever criteria they want.

      1. I’m sure the deal on the table was something like “If this goes to trial, we’re looking at a 400 year consecutive sentence, so to spare the victims…”

    2. Tormented? He will be lucky if he makes it a year.

      Turns out that a lot of guys in prison had pretty fucked up childhoods so a large percentage were molested as children themselves. This is why pedophiles rarely last long in prison.

      I won’t shed any tears.

      1. They solitary and special sections for pedophiles and cops that get sent to prison. If these guys die the prisons don’t get to keep charging the state for their upkeep.

        1. That works until it doesn’t. They place transvestite prisoners in those sections too. I recently read a news story where a male prisoner who dressed, as much as he could given the circumstances, like a woman was moved into a cell with a serial rapist thanks to a bureaucratic fuck-up. Things went swimmingly until the rapist invited a friend over, they smashed the teeth out of the trans prisoner and then proceeded to mouth and ass rape him for 5 hours. I had to double check to ensure this wasn’t just a summary of an episode of Oz.

          1. Reality is always a lot more fucked up than fiction.

          2. God, that’s fucking awful. Fuck, I wish there was a way to pick out the damn psychos and put them down for good, or at least a reasonable way to protect prisoners from other prisoners.

          3. How about the time a convicted sex offender pretended to be trans so he could gain access to women’s shelters and rape women who were there because they were fleeing abusive husbands?

            The first victim, a deaf and homeless woman from Quebec, checked into the Fred Victor shelter on Jan. 8, 2012. Hambrook had been staying there as “Jessica” since Dec. 23, 2011. She was soon terrorized by Hambrook’s unwanted advances.

            1. This is why I’m so skeptical of this whole trans movement–the potential for fraud is enormous.

              1. Yep. If I were in HS, I would totally self-identify as female. Most of my friends/frenemies assumed I was queer anyway, so I would have taken the chance to use the girls changing rooms for theater and stay in the girls rooms for band camp.

      2. Yes, between his fame and crimes he will be a prime target. And I have no sympathy for him either because he knew the risks but did it anyway.

  6. That first girl you list was arrested at 17 for sex-trafficking and was looking at 4-20 years.

    So 17 year olds can’t consent to prostitution, but locking them in a cage for 2 decades for helping other 17 year olds be prsotitutes is completely reasonable.

    1. It gets better than that.

      I was looking for the article about the actually-trafficked 13 year old runaway who was charged with prostitution. I first read about that on Maggie McNeill’s, but my Google-fu is weak. I’ll look again later.

      1. Perfect.

        The autostart video on a page with a story about underage prostitution is for sex lubricant.

        1. It should be noted that the adverts there are specific to the person’s browing history. It was about rum and life insurance for me.

          Just sayin’, Suthenboy. It may be you…

          1. It must be my browser history from clicking on links here. Yeah, thats what it is.

      2. Oh, that happens all the time. Teens in prostitution — who, remember, are legally all sex-traficked — are frequently still arrested and convicted on prostitution charges. The big thing in some states now is passing laws that will let them appeal the charges if they can prove they were trafficked.

        1. Wait — so, “We are going to throw you, a victim, in jail on false charges because it is easier than finding the truth. However, if you, a former victim of slavery, want to hire an attorney and go through a massive amount of bureaucracy we may decide to change the charges to something less horrible. Thanks for your time!”?

        2. The law assumes that they were trafficked (strict legal fiction), and then they are supposed to prove that they were trafficked?

    2. Sometimes you just have to subject a kid to prison rape to prevent them from being sexually exploited.

      It’s like you don’t know the first thing about raising kids.

      1. See if he does that shit again, hmm?

    3. This is why I hate the concept of trying someone as an adult. Minors are treated like second-class citizens until they commit a crime–and then suddenly they’re adults to be pummeled to the full extend of the law. For that reason the age of adulthood (and all the responsibilities that goes with it) should be much lower. Like 14.

      1. It would get kids out from under shitty parents faster too.

      2. Fourteen?

        I thought we were trying to infantilize our yung’uns for life these days. What happened to that?

        1. The idea of being tried as an adult at 14 is too traumatic for me, where’s my safe space?

          /31 year old

      3. There’s a reason bar and bat mitzvahs happen at age 13. “Teenager” as a quasi legal/moral state of not child and not adult is a very modern invention and quite harmful IMO.

        1. While Jewish law set the age of 13 as the age when parents were morally responsible for the actions of their children, it never meant that 13 was considered the age a person was fully an adult. Indeed, biblical Judaism set the age of 20 as the minimum age required for military service, for example.

  7. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.homejobs90.com

  8. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.homejobs90.com

  9. Baseball statistics?
    You people truly are degenerates.

    1. and it means a lot of scrolling. More porn talk pleeze!

    2. Of course it’s in the Jared the Pedo thread.

  10. Something I recently noticed – the number of H’n’R articles/entries.posts has declined…

    For example: it used to be that the AM links were quickly eclipsed by 3-4 posts. And then by mid-afternoon it was waaay down on the bottom.

    1. I noticed your links are down about 8%

    2. Maybe they’ll put some more posts up after PM links for those on us on West Coast? The whole thing where there’s links and then one post in the evening that just hoovers in all the off-topic posts.

    3. “the number of H’n’R articles/entries.posts has declined…””

      Summer hours.

      Seasonal productivity declines. Its the middle of august. No one pays attention to anything. Except Trump. Dwell on that.

    4. Lots of people on vacations recently.

      1. Vacation? What’s that?

  11. As you know, I know how to build. I know how to get it done. We’ll have a great wall. We’ll call it the Great Wall of Trump. We’ll have a great wall and it will be – it’ll be actually — it can be a good-looking wall, as walls go, but we will have a really terrific wall and it will be gone for the right price.

    At least this trolling is funny. Cue the “idiot” articles!

    http://www.realclearpolitics.c…..trump.html

    1. Amazing.

      I just can’t bring myself to dislike this guy. I will never vote for him, but God, please let him stay in the race as long as possible.

  12. Perhaps they’re going to load up the Bill on his compatriot?

  13. Seriously? I dont see what the big deal is. A 17 year old is more than capable of knowing what she is doing and what she wants.

    http://www.Total-Privacy.tk

  14. So if ONE Uber driver gives a ride to someone who turns out to be a 17-year old whore, Uber will get shut down for human trafficking.

    If the police arrest one man and drive him to the county jail where he winds up getting ass raped, the police are obviously human traffickers.

    1. Justified human traffickers.

  15. Good article. Surreal madness.

  16. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    http://www.homejobs90.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.