A.M. Links: More Hillary Emails Released, Ben Carson Rises in Polls, Bangkok Bombing Suspect Arrested

|

  • Credit: White House / Flickr.com

    The State Department has released another massive batch of Hillary Clinton emails.

  • The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to allow an elected county clerk in Kentucky to continue denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
  • "A video appears to capture sheriff's deputies in San Antonio fatally shooting a man who had his hands up as shots were fired."
  • Authorities in Thailand have arrested the man they believe is responsible for the Bangkok bombing.

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: 4 Reasons This Article About E-Cigarettes Is Bad

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. GOP presidential hopeful Ben Carson is surging in the polls.

    As long as it’s not Santorum.

    1. “Santorum” . . . “surging.” Ick.

    2. Hello.

    3. Welcome to the Bachmann zone Dr, Carson.

  2. Outrage after Auschwitz installs showers to ‘cool down’ visitors:

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2…..cmp=hplnws

    1. Next up, a box car ride tour.

      1. And a free tattoo?

        1. Also, here is a distinctive armband, so people know you’re on the tour.

        2. “What is it, little 6-double-five-3-2-1?”

          1. I am not a number, I am a free man!

              1. Cause #2 is poop.

                /snicker

        3. Too soon, guys. Too soon.

          1. Give it a couple thousand years or so, Germany, then we’ll forget about it and lay off

          2. Yea, substitute it with Great Leap Forward humor so the serious lefties can be outraged.

            1. It’s all good since Mao made medical carequackery available to the entire country(side).

      2. Then beer and a slice at the brick-fired pizza caf? now open near the exit.

        1. Or if you want to lose weight, buy the “Auschwitz diet” books on sale at the bookstore.

        2. The TripAdvisor reviews say they burn the pizza to a crisp every time. No thanks.

          1. It also says “Visit scenic Auschwitz — what a gas!”

    2. You know who else wanted to up the temperature on people?

      1. The Dark Master himself, Beelzebub?

      2. “Up” the temperature? Did they speak English?

        1. Are you upping the ante on me in the game of grammar naziism?

          1. No, I’m raising the stakes.

              1. Cattle ranchers?

                1. Bobby Flay? Oh, wait, I thought you said ‘braise’.

              2. Vlad?

      3. Deniers?

        /prog

    3. However, for some Jewish visitors to the museum, the showers have evoked harsh memories of the execution of more than 1.1 million at the death camp, many of whom were murdered by being marched into showers filled with poison gas.

      Wow. So these people freak out everytime they eat on a patio restaurant that has these? The *misters* evoke harsh memories? Not, you know, the buildings themselves? And how many of these Jewish visitors who had these harsh memories evoked ever were actually interred in a concentration camp? Compared to the number of people just looking for something to be outraged at?

      1. THEY DIDN’T VISIT AUSCHWITZ TO GET TRIGGERED.

        1. I wonder – are there service stations near Auschwitz? So you can, you know, gas up?

          1. Gas?!
            Try our schnitzel!

        2. It was for the lulz?

      2. OUTRAGE, it’s all the rage

  3. The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to allow an elected county clerk in Kentucky to continue denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

    Lie down with public policy dogs you get public policy fleas. Issue the licenses.

    1. Yeah, it’s not like it’s immigration laws she refusing to follow.

      1. Or trying to enforce?

    2. Another day, another problem that could be solved by libertarianism.

  4. Future Trend: Servility!

    Robots and Social Equality: In Reason, Ronald Bailey concedes that “automation has taken over a lot of the routine physical and intellectual tasks that once were done by middle-income workers.” This has “resulted in a more polarized economy, where highly skilled workers in such fields as infotech and biotech are richly rewarded while a greater proportion of the workforce toil at relatively lower-paying service jobs.

    Like, what services, for example? Bailey cites MIT economist David Autor:

    Work, he argues, is evolving away from assembly-line rigidity and back toward a more pre-industrial paradigm populated by “new artisans.” Perhaps more chefs will prepare fine meals in the homes of clients, dramatists devise elaborate virtual environments as entertainment, tailors create one-of-kind bespoke garments. [E.A.]

    Hmm. Notice anything about these “pre-industrial” jobs? Maybe that at least two of the three involve a servile relationship to someone on the right side of the “more polarized economy”? One reason arguments like Bailey’s seem so sterile and unconvincing is that he (like many libertarians) doesn’t even consider that this might be a problem.

    1. Really? I’m hearing about jobs paying $700/wk per diem plus top rates for anyone who can operate heavy equipment or has industry certification for rigging, steelworking, pipefitting and welding. $30/hr plus $700 tax-free a week is getting into the “highly rewarding” range for a lot of guys who may or may not have finished high school.

    2. Why does it matter if I work for a client list or a faceless corporation. Well except for the fact I have a ton more freedom to manage what I’m willing to do for money in the first.

    3. One reason arguments like Bailey’s seem so sterile and unconvincing is that he (like many libertarians) doesn’t even consider that this might be a problem.

      Their argument would be more convincing if they pointed out why it is a problem.

      Restaurant workers, hotel workers, airline flight attendants, retail workers, auto mechanics, daycare workers, private tutors, house keepers….all of these are already “servile” relationships and usually the people are serving those that are more affluent.

      And the problem is…..?

      1. Journolists have to be wild and free. Unless their editors don’t approve it.

        1. See, this is a problem because Journolists have to be wild and free supplement their income by bleaching assholes or serving as piss-boys.

      2. Have they never watched Downton Abbey?

        Downton Abbey has been credited with spawning a massive worldwide increase in demand for professionally-trained butlers, especially British butlers, notably in China, Russia and parts of the Middle East. Between 2010 and 2012, demand was thought to have doubled, leading to some butlers fetching salaries as high as ?150,000.[108] In 2014, China’s first school for butlers opened, to meet a demand again attributed to the influence of Downton Abbey.[109]

      3. That’s interesting, because I work for a boutique Hedge Fund, and I do get asked how I feel about “making the 1% even richer” by the most unlikely people from time to time.

        I guess it is fundamentally a ‘servile’ relationship, given that my entire purpose in life is to help my firm achieve exactly that – but I hardly notice the savage beatings administered when I forget to kiss the hem of visiting plutocrats’ with sufficient zeal.

      4. And the problem is…..?

        Some people are unfairly more rich than others. Duh.

      5. Don’t forget lawyers. And doctors and accountants.

    4. It’s almost like every business transaction essentially boils down to pay for performance, at every level, making us all “servile” to one another.

      1. ‘Servility’ or what a person not consumed with envy might call ‘mutual benefit’. Though leftists prefer to negotiate their terms of employment or housing or whatever, with a gun and a uniform, which of course represents true equality!

        1. But how can it be mutually beneficial when one person is rich, and after the transaction they remain rich? Huh? Huh? Yeah, that’s what I thought Mr. Libertarian.

    5. I mean, they basically just took a giant shit over Etsy and the local food movement, which I thought were loved by millennial and progressives (I happen to like both).

      All because rich people might pay less rich people and get something in return.

      1. (I happen to like both)

        Wait, you mean Etsy and local food, or millennials and progressives?

        1. Etsy and local food. I think technically I’m a millennial. I like my wife and myself. The others have their uses.

          1. I had to look up “Etsy” and other than being based in Dumbo (rich, trendy, slightly-older-than-Williamsburg hipster area) the first story I see is they’re getting eaten by progs for supposed tax-evasion. Hahahahahahaha

    6. I have a friend who is a private chef for rich people, he lives in California except during the summer when he takes a gig in the Hamptons (he is originally from NJ). He travels around, cooks, lives in fantastic lodgings, and has plenty of leisure time. It’s actually a great life.

      1. If you can be successful at it I would think it might be more rewarding than a normal restaurant job. You can get to know your clients, cook them more personalized food, and probably experiment more.

        I can also seeing it being a superstar sort of economy, though. A relatively small number make it big while most sort of scrape by. Which is a lot like other areas of the economy (writing, music, acting), and which is perfectly OK.

        1. That’s exactly right. He started out in restaurants, worked for Daniel Boulud and Jean-Georges Vongerichten in Manhattan and then Thomas Keller in California, then went private working for really rich people who want that sort of cooking and catering in their own mansions.

      2. ” I like to use wine when I cook,and sometimes I put it in the food.”

    7. This is ridiculous. I go out and eat, and a few times a year it’s at a nice place. Do I need to grow a moustache and twiddle it now?

      A farmer, or even a tailor, apparently is a lowly servile job to these people. I know people in each category who make a comfortable enough living and feel liberated from cubicle environments which they absolutely hated. But maybe I don’t read enough web opinion journalism.

      1. Apparently we should live alone out in the woods somewhere and live in self-sufficient isolation. DIVISION OF LABOR BAD. MAN WITH GUN GOOD.

      2. If you don’t already have a moustache and twiddle it, you’re not a true libertarian.

        Turn in your orphans and GTFO.

        1. These orphans are my property! Fuck off, slaver.

        2. A moustache is necessary but not sufficient. Where’s your monocle?

    8. Yeah, because standing at your post on an assembly line for 8+ hours isn’t servile.

      1. This is a solved problem in socialist theory, since you are simultaneously a worker, and an owner of the factory. Sweet!

    9. One reason arguments like Bailey’s seem so sterile and unconvincing…

      Work, he argues, is evolving away from assembly-line rigidity and back toward a more pre-industrial paradigm populated by “new artisans.”

      So the argument that the nature of work here is shifting from from assembly-line rigidity back toward a more pre-industrial paradigm is sterile and unconvincing? How so?

      Automation takes over high-volume work (i.e. commodity work) which pushes workers into lower-volume work (i.e. custom work) which is by its very nature marginal work. Everybody gets the basics of life mass-produced as efficiently and cheaply as possible, leaving more money to spend on luxury goods. Contrary to popular belief, iPhones and high-speed internet connections and free-range organic non-GMO artisanal white bread spread which mayo or mayo not contain egg yolks are luxury goods. It’s the very commodification of these luxury goods that makes them affordable to the masses and leads people to believe they are not luxury goods. When Rolls Royces and Learjets can be spit out of a machine for a nickel, a poor bastard is somebody who only has 5 Rolls Royces and a pair of Learjets. Would you really argue that we are much worse off for having 5-cent Rolls Royces and Learjets?

    10. Hmm. Notice anything about these “pre-industrial” jobs? Maybe that at least two of the three involve a servile relationship to someone on the right side of the “more polarized economy”?

      125 years ago these same people were bemoaning the servility inherent in the wage slavery of the factory system. Hell, the alienation of labor was a major theme of their prophet Marx.

      What this actually shows is that they are conservative, in the non political meaning of the word, fearing change itself.

    11. “Maybe that at least two of the three involve a servile relationship to someone on the right side of the “more polarized economy”?”

      I’m gonna guess this twit never worked in any sort of ‘service’ business. Or more probably s/he is tossing the word out because narrative.

    12. Work for the bosses? Exploitation!
      Develop a skill and serve people directly? Slavery!

    13. I guess he’s never gone to a deli counter and asked them to slice the turkey thin, or gotten a haircut, or a massage, or bought a birthday cake, or….

      1. Yes, but part of his psyche looks down his nose at them, and then another part feels guilty about that part…….

    14. One reason arguments like Bailey’s seem so sterile and unconvincing is that he (like many libertarians) doesn’t even consider that this might be a problem.

      I applaud this SJW’s restraint in not using the word “problematic” or the phrase “not okay.” I know it’s so tempting, but it just flags you as a moron when you use those phrases.

      I imagine that this fool is an absolute dick to his secretary (another icky servile position). Most of us normal people treat our secretaries with respect because we know that they work hard and are subject to the consequences of our screw ups. I bet this guy doesn’t even take his secretary out to lunch for her birthday.

  5. “A video appears to capture sheriff’s deputies in San Antonio fatally shooting a man who had his hands up as shots were fired.”

    Hands up throwing pit bull shadow puppets probably.

    1. Furtive. Movement.

    2. Look, those cops, after tasering the guy and chasing him across the street, only had a split second to decide if the other cop was going to shoot or not.

      And let me tell you, you do *not* want to be the cop with a full magazine left if one of your buddies pops one off.

      1. While conducting an impartial investigation, they’re making sure you know what a bad man the victim was.

    3. He had a perposeful look in his eyes.,That happened BTY

      1. He scared them by raising his hands directly over his head in a threatening manner.

  6. HOA loses court showdown: Judge says purple swing set can stay

    As we reported recently, a Missouri homeowners association took one of its families to court ? even raising the specter of a possible “daily fine or jail time” ? over a backyard swing set that the family had stained purple (a color we’re rather partial to, here at Yahoo).

    This was after the HOA tried to fine the Stouts for the swing set ? and suffered defeat at the hands of its own appeals committee when the family asked the panel to reconsider the fine. Jackson County Circuit Court Judge Jennifer M. Phillips referred to that defeat in ruling against the Raintree Lake Property Owners Association on Friday.

    The judge denied the HOA’s petition, its request for fines and its request for attorney fees.

    1. So no jail time, huh?

    2. Over the years I’ve heard stories about how mental HOA are.

      Holy shit those people are…mental.

      1. We’re lucky – our HOA dues are about $300 a year. That’s enough for them to maintain the pool, tennis courts, and common areas, but not enough for them to operate a full-on fascist regime. So while there are a few neighbors whose homes and yards aren’t as well-maintained, we also don’t have people fucking with us about our mailboxes, fences, swingsets, or any of the other trivial shit that might attract the attention of the president of a better-funded HOA.

        1. The “small enough to drown in a bathtub” argument for small government in a nutshell.

          1. The “small enough to drown in a bathtub” argument for small government in a nutshell.

            Exactly: they maintain the very basics, but pretty much let everyone live their lives as they see fit. So yeah, in an oddball sort of way, I live in a libertarianish neighborhood.

        2. Wait until they figure out they can hire a management company.

        3. I got threats from an HOA for having an oil stained driveway which was actually a few drops of oil that you literally had to be on top off to see.

          Fuck HOAs.

          1. My sister and brother-in-law live in a really upscale neighborhood. Their HOA, to put it midly, is vigilant. He got a letter from them regarding dollarweed growing on his lawn.

        4. “A better-funded HOA” is the key. I live in a large community that has had its ups-and-downs and changed hands several times so most of their time and attention and money is spent on real neighborhood concerns rather than the petty bullshit rules. Not that they wouldn’t love to be able to enforce all the thousands of little rules but they can’t afford to piss off the folks who pay the dues so they have to give a little nod-and-a-wink to the technical violations. People who don’t like the neighborhood government and the cost of it are free to move out and take their money with them and the HOA doesn’t actually have the guns and the badges to keep the homeowners locked in. Amazing what sort of spontaneous order appears when the market allows everybody to vote with their feet and their pocketbooks on what sort of order they want.

      2. I used to work at the gate of a gated community. There is no way in hell I’ll ever give someone money to tell me what to do with my own property! I mean…aside from the government, that is.

        1. I used to work at the gate of a gated community. There is no way in hell I’ll ever give someone money to tell me what to do with my own property! I mean…aside from the government, that is.

          I worked as the gate guard at a gated community when I was a kid. How’s this for a godawful HOA: this one prohibited motorcycles in the neighborhood.

          1. I knew they were godawful when you said they hired you.

            1. I knew they were godawful when you said they hired you.

              Pretty much. Sure, I looked sexy as hell in that Wells Fargo uniform, but the neighborhood pretty much went to hell after I hired on.

              I think that had partly to do with the fact that I gladly opened the gate for motorcyclists.

      3. My HOA is actually quite pleasant. There’s only 12 or 14 of us, and its pretty clear that anything that goes around is going to come around, fast and hard.

  7. The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to allow an elected county clerk in Kentucky to continue denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

    Quit or shut up.

    1. She can go on to do her second passion: professional cake baking.

        1. Or she can stay and just follow orders.

          1. You kow who else just followed orders?

            1. George Lucas (pre-Star Wars)?

    2. “I feel sad, I feel devastated,” Ermold said. “I feel like I’ve been humiliated on such a national level, I can’t even comprehend it.”

      This doesn’t sound gay at all

      1. Well, okay on the license, but she won’t issue an annulment when any marriage built on activism doesn’t last.

    3. Funny how the court does not, in effect, distinguish between a county clerk’s duty to serve and baker’s right to serve.

  8. Oregon wedding features marijuana bar, budtender

    The couple had a wedding planner from Lake Oswego’s Bridal Bliss.

    “This was our first request for a weed bar,” said owner Nora Sheils, “We made sure everyone was safe and provided transportation. The couple provided the product and hired the budtender for the tent.”

    Elledge, who describes himself as a professional marijuana grower, seems pleased to be a pioneer,

    “Even an 81-year-old woman who hadn’t smoked weed since the ’60s came into the tent at our wedding,” he said. “Though skeptical at first she ended up loving it.”

    1. If this wasn’t two gay Messicans, not worth the read.

      1. Gay Messican was the strain they were smoking.

        1. Well they had Gay Mexican (a piquant old-strain Oaxacan), and Ass-Sex (a pungent indica hybrid out of Mendocino).

          Good times . . . .

    2. Though skeptical at first she ended up loving it.

      As far as I can tell seniors really dig weed. It makes Little Miss Sunshine seem prophetic.

      1. “You got kicked out of the nursing home for snorting heroin?!”

        “I’m old!”

  9. The State Department has released another massive batch of Hillary Clinton emails.

    She ended up taking that Nigerian prince for a lot of money.

    1. They both know what it’s like to be deposed.

    2. You mean the Nigerian prince didn’t know what a massive batch Hillary Clinton is?

      “Massive batch” and “Hillary Clinton” in the same sentence. I’m going to be saying that a lot in the next few days I think.

  10. GOP presidential hopeful Ben Carson is surging in the polls.

    SURGE!

    1. I took that ‘who do you side with’ poll somebody had kindly posted a link to a few days ago – I was somewhat surprised to find out Carson was my #3 guy. (Somewhat surprising as well, Kasich was next-to-last between the far-and-away worst O’Malley and pretty-awful Hillary and while I expected Christie and Trump to be pretty low and wasn’t surprised to see them right down there with Sanders, I was surprised to see Fiorina was just barely better than them. )

      1. I think Fiorina was actually below Clinton on my list, for some reason.

        1. If only I cared enough to investigate why Fiorina and Kasich scored so low on my scale. Rational ignorance, I suppose.

  11. ISIS has destroyed the ancient Temple of Bel in Syria’s Palmyra.

    Hostis Humani Generis and a large bounty on every ISIS scalp, por favor.

  12. Still Pining for Mitt: Some GOP Donors Hoping Romney Will Jump in the Race

    Though this election cycle was supposed to feature the most impressive field of Republican presidential candidates in decades, a handful of the party’s major donors and bundlers remain underwhelmed by their options. They are longing for the bad old days, and Mitt Romney is still their man. These holdouts continue to hope that the former Massachusetts governor, who said in January he would not run for a third time, will change his mind. They believe he could dispel the chaos that has reigned over the Republican field for months. Though they gave plenty of money to Romney’s presidential campaigns, this year they’re keeping their wallets shut, waiting for him to reenter the fray.

    1. Why would they pine for someone who has clearly demonstrated he can lose?

      1. Not sure. Maybe because he is an actually successful business person, unlike Trump, and they think that will work this time?

        1. It’s crazy. We don’t know if any of the current candidates are general election losers. We know Romney is one though.

          1. Reagan lost before he won. Also, just because you lose, or fail, doesn’t mean you give up.

            1. I see your general point, but Romney is no Reagan. Romney lost to an increasingly unpopular Obama during a bad economy. He literally lost because he was disapproved of more than the other guy (who was pretty disapproved of).

              1. Hey, I’m not saying it’s a good idea for him to run, I’m just saying if you want something bad enough you don’t stop trying for it. Plus, if you are smart and learn from your mistakes then you improve your chances for success. Obviously Obama wasn’t unpopular enough and let’s face it, has always had a cheer leading press in his favor. Reagan ran against Carter when the economy was in far worse shape than in 2012, and had the advantage of the hugely embarrassing Iran Hostage Crisis working against Carter as it was in the news every single day.

            2. Romney is a complete failure of a professional politician, that basically won one election in 20 years of trying.

              That the republican establishment is all goo-goo-gah-gah for the dufus demonstrates how fucking out of touch with reality they are.

            3. Reagan never lost the general, he lost the primary against Ford.

        2. Maybe because he is an actually successful business person,

          Romney was a much bigger cronyist than Trump. His actual role in the one success that he continually boasted of, Staples, was dramatically overstated. He was one of many early investors and did not have anything to do with its founding.

      2. Mitt has the best hair in the GOP.

        1. Better than Perry’s?

      3. Why would they pine for someone who has clearly demonstrated he can lose?

        Generally, it’s because Republican donor daddies know that he’s someone who can be controlled easily. They tend to prefer very loooooow energy stuffed shirts that require micro-management of their public image, and it’s been that way going back to Ford, at least, if not longer. It’s why Jeb has accumulated a ton of money thus far despite most of the actual rank and file hating his guts.

  13. Cops go to wrong house – homeowner, officer, and dog wind up shot:

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015…..tcmp=hpbt3

    1. Odds that the homeowner ends up charged and the officer gets disability and 80% pension for life?

      1. Probably so. The dog’s dead, so thus far, this thing’s played out by the numbers..

      2. The article hinted at the possibility that another of these keystone cops might have been the shooter – since they can’t confirm if the homeowner even had a gun.

        1. They’re still trying to determine if they can convincingly plant one.

        2. Like that would matter when it comes to the possibility of the homeowner being charged.

    2. The War on Police is in full swing.

    3. Police were still investigating whether there was a burglary at the home where the suspicious person was spotted.

      Yeah, I’m sure their razor sharp focus is on a possible crime to a non-badged party after an officer involved shooting down the street.

    4. I blame the house for being in the wrong spot.

      1. I blame the house for being in the wrong spot.

        Let’s say one of the little nails holding up the ‘9’ on the house number were to come loose and it swung down into a ‘6’, and the cops showed up thinking they had the right house . . . charges?

        1. Lemme think. There’d be paint shadow. Wait, you got me on that. *Gently taps sarc meter*

    5. Alexander said that the officers had not been given a street address, but went to a home matching the description given by a 911 caller who made the initial report.

      “It’s has a roof, and doors, and windows.”

      1. “…looks suspicious…I’m moving in!” BLAM, BLAM, BLAM! “I’m hit. I repeat! Hero is hit! Request more blam, blam, blam backup! Oh the humanity! Must…get…home….”

        1. *nudges Rufus motionless body with foot*
          “Police Department! Stop resisting!”

          *later that day*

          “We identified ourselves to the homeowner. All procedures were followed.”

        2. “I’m hit. I repeat! Hero is hit!”

          Excellent.

  14. “A video appears to capture sheriff’s deputies in San Antonio fatally shooting a man who had his hands up as shots were fired.”

    Perhaps he was about to go Super Saiyan.

    1. HIS HAIR WAS GLOWING!!! WE HAD TO SHOOT BEFORE HE GOT US!

    2. He was obviously getting ready to bust some badass kung fu moves on the officers.

  15. The State Department has released another massive batch of Hillary Clinton emails.

    Who will play Hillary’s and Palin’s emails in the SNL sketch?

    1. “In 1993, Danny Resnic was having anal sex during a casual hookup in Miami Beach when his partner’s latex condom broke. ”

      If I had a dollar for everytime I started a story with that line.

  16. Also found in the Hillary email stash – via Jake Tapper

    re: Memo to Impeach Clarence Thomas

    1. Racist. Good thing she married “the first black president”.

    2. some tinfoil hat comments there – This was part of the push for Obamacare so what did they have on Roberts?

      1. The adoption of one of his kid’s was sketchy.
        They threatened to revoke the adoption and prosecute his wife.

  17. What Languages Are the Hardest to Learn?

    There’s a reason why most American students start with French or Spanish as a second language. These romance languages are somewhat similar to English and require (relatively) less time to learn than most. Using information from the Foreign Service Institute, this infographic from Voxy categorizes 23 languages by the level of difficulty.

    1. I thought most people learned Spanish because its the only foreign speaking country we share a border with, and the only language the average American is ever likely to hear in real life.

      1. I run into Russian more often than I do Spanish.

        1. You’re a libertarian and comment on Reason. By definition you aren’t an average American.

            1. Are you an American? Just so you know I am taking notes…

            2. I love seeing you say that.

              1. straffinrun, I know you guys might make that mistake because of my strong fiscal conservatism, but I am also a strong social concervative, I just keep my mouth shut on those issues here because my views are unwelcome. It’s a learned defense mechanism that comes from living in a blue state.

                1. …but I am also a strong social concervative, I just keep my mouth shut on those issues here because my views are unwelcome.

                  You can be a rabid social conservative and still a libertarian as long as you’re okay with letting others be social liberals or libertines and as long as you all respect the NAP. Reason seems to be the last holdout from the great Paleolibertarian wars of the 80’s in that regard.

                  1. the great Paleolibertarian wars of the 80’s

                    we lost a lot of good men out there

                2. I knew that. I’m a conservative anarchist. I learned to keep my mouth shut on most issues anywhere.

                  1. I’m a conservative anarchist

                    Lawful Neutral is such an annoying alignment…

                    1. Don’t worry, this Paladin has your back. Maybe.

                    2. Um, I think that would be chaotic neutral.

                    3. There are but three alignments. THREE.

                      Law
                      Neutral
                      Chaos

                      Now, get off my lawn, weirdos.

                3. straffinrun, I know you guys might make that mistake because of my strong fiscal conservatism, but I am also a strong social concervative, I just keep my mouth shut on those issues here because my views are unwelcome. It’s a learned defense mechanism that comes from living in a blue state.

                  So I am not the only one.

                  1. Great, now you guys have summoned the Bo-lrag.

                  2. a bunch of secret Republicans here. *looks nervously around*

                  3. I’m a strong social conservative (in my personal life) as well. I just don’t think that laws can change a man’s heart, so I’m entirely against implementing my morals in law.

                    1. What Trshmnstr said. It is immoral to use force to make someone “moral”. That is Talibanesque beat-you-because-your-beard-isn’t-long-enough crap.

                      I am a Xtian-Godbag-Christfag-Bleever by voluntary choice. I’ll follow that creed voluntarily, myself. No forcing on others by law, brute force or other compulsion.

            3. UnCivil is the 91%!

      2. I thought it was a practical one as well.

        I believe Charles V said: “I speak Spanish to God, French to men, Italian to women and German to my horse.”

        1. Actually I think it was Charles IV of France. I forget. I ain’t googling that.

          1. It was Charles V

            1. Thanks.

              These Advil, 222, and Tylenol caffeine pills to fight migraines are eroding my memory.

              I think.

              1. Party time!

              2. Party time!

      3. Unless you share a border with a certain Northeastern Canadian province.

    2. The more interesting question would be “what language is the hardest to learn for English speakers?” As expected, they didn’t answer the question in the headline. Oh well.

  18. Remember when that dried-up old prune bitch went to Egypt in 2012 and protesters threw tomatoes right at her stupid, wrinkly old face? Another foreign-policy success. They chanted “Monica” while they did it.

    It was pretty hilarious, except for the fact that America’s retarded grazers are about to allow that dumb cunt back into the White House, a spectacle that gets less and less funny every time.

    Man I’m so not on cocaine.

    1. Did you mention something about someone being bitter on the other thread?

      1. Yeah, you said something about someone being bitter and my response was “Oh, certainly.”

        What, are you too fucking stupid to remember a written conversation that took place five minutes ago?

        Or do you just wander around internet comment forums checking on everybody’s emotional well-being? I’m a bitter Bible-clinging right-wing extremist who’s been awake for three days and hates your face and the smell of your mom’s pussy. Any other stupid questions?

        1. No, I was just noting that yes, you certainly seem bitter. Carry on.

  19. “A video appears to capture sheriff’s deputies in San Antonio fatally shooting a man who had his hands up as shots were fired.”

    Just came from nowhere and snatched them right up, did it? Captured images of guns going off and shots flying right out of barrels, all on their own!

    1. The photograph stole the officer’s soul, and his soulless body caused the man to be shot.

    2. What’s pathetic is that the man’s hands dropped almost instantly when the shots were fired so the cops will claim he was reaching. I assume they could possibly tell which came first, but how eager will they be to prove one of their own did it. If it’s conclusive the cops shot first, they’ll say, “It’s just too close to call.” If it were the other way around, the evidence would be solid forensic proof.

      1. I wonder what it really looks like, once you correct for the speed of sound. It wouldn’t be too difficult to accurately estimate the camera distance.

  20. The Chinese fiscal stimulus memory hole

    “Consumption-oriented” is the key word there. I don’t blame Buiter for speaking precisely, but few readers will pick up on his careful use of words. Still, switching to more consumption is a surrender to lower rates of economic growth, not a way of keeping the growth rate high. That is a good idea, but a funny kind of stimulus.

    In the meantime, the consumption sector in China seems to be faring poorly. On the way up, investment rose at the expense of consumption, but on the way down they are falling together. Funny how things like that work out, and it does suggest that a consumption-oriented stimulus maybe can break the fall but it won’t restore prosperity.

    It’s striking how little recent discussion I’ve seen of China’s much-heralded fiscal stimulus of 2008-2009.

    This is an object lesson in relying too much on short-run macro models, or models in which sticky prices are the only imperfections, or models where the quality of investment is not a factor. Whatever you think of the American Great Recession, the Chinese case is very, very different.

    1. If they switch to a consumption model, that means individual Chinese will see a rise in their quality of living as they get to enjoy common consumer goods the rest of us take for granted. That sounds like a good thing.

    2. They need more TOP MEN (with ivy league degrees).

      1. (with ivy league degrees).

        Redundant. Everybody knows all Top. Men. come from the Ivy League.

        1. Real smart guys come from Wharton. They are some of the few who can call Oxford grads “clowns” and “losers”.

  21. Authorities in Thailand have arrested the man they believe is responsible for the Bangkok bombing.

    ISIS has destroyed the ancient Temple of Bel in Syria’s Palmyra.

    The religion of pieces.

  22. Man takes selfie while driving, crashes into tree

    Police said 29-year-old Jordan Toner was driving with seven passengers when he leaned over to join the photo, ran off the road and into a tree.

    Among the people injured were two females sitting in the front seat. Authorities said one of them suffered a fractured nose and cut above her eye, while the other sustained neck and possible back injury. They were transported to Houlton Regional Hospital. Sgt. Chadwick H. Fuller said neither of the women were wearing seat belts.

    Two male passengers also suffered injuries including cuts near their eyes and back.

  23. Biologists Are Biased Toward Penises
    Researchers interested in the evolution of animal genitalia tend to focus on the male side of that equation, often unjustifiably ignoring the female

    Penises are amazingly diverse things. They can be long or short, thick or thin, arrow-straight or oddly curved. As a result, researchers focus a lot of attention on these intriguing organs, often dismissing female genitalia as simple, boring receptacles.

    As a generally penis-obsessed species, you might assume we were talking about human sexual organs. But guess again. Biases towards the male organ?and against vaginas and other female genitalia?permeate the biological literature and research community. In other words, we love all things penis so much that we invest an inordinate amount of attention on studying animal penises, too. Sometimes, we want penis so badly that we are quick to declare that out-of-the-ordinary female animal genitalia is actually just a penis.

    1. Well, let’s face it, penises are awesome.

      1. well mine is… yours is just a shriveled up prune.

        1. I was in the pool!

    2. This sounds related to the “scientist are biased because they test new drugs on male animals first” argument. People looking for bias are going to find it in a traffic cone.

      1. People looking for bias are going to find it in a traffic cone.

        Well you know what it kinda looks like…

        1. Oh god, that reminds me of the people bitching that rockets are phallic shaped.

          1. They only need to be that shape to penetrate gaia’s atmosphere. Once in space, a craft shaped like an interstellar hoo-ha would work just fine. It would still need some stiff protection for re-entry, though.

        2. Well you know what it kinda looks like…

          Depends on what angle you are looking at it from, no?

      2. This sounds related to the “scientist are biased because they test new drugs on male animals first” argument. People looking for bias are going to find it in a traffic cone.

        Or the claim that marketers are sexist because female razors cost more than male ones, even though they’re used for completely different things and have different features.

        Plus, if razors were the same and pink ones just cost more, women could just buy male razors and there’d be no difference, so the razor argument is also predicated on the notion that women are morons who pay more for the same product because it is pink.

    3. Sounds like some phallacious reasoning.

      1. *stands and applauds vigorously*

        1. I’d shake your hand for that one, but, you know.

    4. Even my article about bias focused on the penis!

  24. US commentators call for Australian-style gun law reform

    Local and state changes can only go so far. Scott Lemieux, professor of political science at the College of Saint Rose in New York, wrote in The Guardian that passing gun control laws at a federal level looked impossible for the foreseeable future, since small, rural states with a disproportionate number of gun-owners are over represented in the Senate and House of Representatives.

    “Australian-style gun control is not coming to the US anytime soon, especially with support for gun rights only growing,” he wrote.

    An equivalent buyback in the US would require the destruction of 40 million guns, the Washington Post reported in 2012, after 12 people were killed in a shooting at a cinema in Aurora, Colorado, during a screening of The Dark Knight Rises. If it didn’t happen then, or after the Sandy Hook school shootings just months later, can it happen now?

    clutch those pearls.

    1. small, rural states with a disproportionate number of gun-owners are over represented in the Senate and House of Representatives.

      Over-represented in the House? I’m not he understands how the House works.

    2. Scott Lemieux, professor of political science at the College of Saint Rose in New York, wrote in The Guardian that passing gun control laws at a federal level looked impossible for the foreseeable future, since small, rural states with a disproportionate number of gun-owners are over represented in the Senate and House of Representatives.

      I’m shocked a professor of political science doesn’t understand that states can’t be “over represented” in the Senate since the Senate is DESIGNED to have only two members per state.

      1. He’s upset that it’s getting in the way of confiscation. So upset he can’t even think straight.

      2. What in the world?

      3. I’m shocked a professor of political science doesn’t understand that states can’t be “over represented” in the Senate since the Senate is DESIGNED to have only two members per state.

        This is not all that shocking. That rural states “have too much power” because of 2 Senators per state is liberal cant at this point.

        1. I imagine he knows that it was designed in this way, he just thinks the consequence of the design is undemocratic.

          1. He’d be right but that was the point, I believe, or at least was designed to act as a check on the House.

            1. And he thinks that is a bad thing, that’s my point.

              The Senate is designed in an undemocratic way. Maybe that’s a good thing, maybe it’s not. I’m quite certain he’s of the latter opinion. I don’t think he’s refuted by pointing out how the design was thought necessary at the Founding.

              1. And he thinks that is a bad thing, that’s my point
                I’m not disputing that.

                I wonder if he thinks it’s a bad thing in general, or is it just a bad thing because it’s getting in the way of his gun-grabbing fantasy.

                1. I think it’s a bad thing, counter to the logic of the Declaration. I see that it was a necessary thing for the Founding though.

                  1. I think it’s a bad thing, counter to the logic of the Declaration

                    Well, since the change in selection of Senators was implemented it as more in line with a democratic ideal than a republican ideal, for better or worse.

              2. Except that he said they were overrepresented in the senate *AND* the house. Sometimes when some stupid motherfucker puts his foot directly in his mouth, you don’t even have to jump to his defense with logical contortions, even if you happen to agree with him.

                1. That’s why I made no attempt to defend him on the House point.

                  1. See Restoras’ comment about his statement about the House? And see how there’s no comment from me under it?

                    Then maybe see how my comment was to SF’s one about the Senate.

                    1. The point is that his view had none of the nuance you imparted onto it, neither stated nor implied. You invented a side to take just for the sake of arguing, because you’re you.

                    2. I didn’t invent anything, SF said something about the Senate and I said I imagine what his point is there.

        2. Franklin’s compromise is somewhat lost on these people.

          1. That and the idea that the states are independent entities that have agreed to federate. They want to reject it and become a single political unit, one that is subject to majority rule. Just like the trillion dollar coin and upending the Constitution, they want all checks and balances removed because they see it as a path to unrivaled political power.

            1. Maybe he thinks people matter (and that people are harmed when their votes are undercut by designs like this) and made up entities like states don’t.

              1. That would be a rather odd position for someone who’s advocating for centralizing power under a national… wait for it… state.

                Just because he made a little faux pas doesn’t mean he’s as retarded as you are.

                1. I don’t think you understand the arguments here.

                  People being underrepresented is problematic to democratic principles, states being so is not.

                  1. Must I provide the trite definition of a democracy involving a sheep and two wolves in order for you to understand the there is a difference between a republic and pure democracy?

                    1. Ignore Bo.

                      “I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.”

                    2. I like the sheep and two wolves story too, but the one where one wolf elects to eat the two sheep is pretty bad too.

                      And a republic of wolves gets to eat the sheep too, you know.

                  2. And protecting the minority from the whims of the majority isn’t important, apparently. Take away the senate and watch the Free Shit Brigade bury the country in a decade. We’ve seen twice in the last 15 years what happens when one party has the trifecta – it always ends in significantly more spending and significantly less liberty.

                    1. The undemocratic nature of the Senate is not the only check and balance we have, you know. And a minority of states can block liberty enhancing measures as easily as the other way. One reason why the current welfare state bureaucracy is untouchable is that you can always get enough votes in the Senate to filibuster any meaningful reform.

                  3. That assumes quite about “democratic principles”, and ignores that the senate stopped being a representative of the states upon adoption of the 17th amendment, but since you’re inventing unstated arguments that aren’t actually there still, I mean, yeah, sure, why not?

                    1. I can’t make any sense out of this.

          2. A compromise is never a final solution to a progressive. It is merely the starting point for the next round of negotiations.

            The compromises made for the smaller states to ratify the constitution are irreverent now that it is obstructing what those in the more highly populated states want.

            1. Well, the compromise does kind of undercut the whole ‘consent of the governed’ thing. I don’t see why one should stick with such a thing just out of tradition’s sake.

              1. Well then, you should give the smaller states the opportunity to secede if yhou think ‘tradition’ is such a bad thing.

                1. I don’t think tradition is a bad thing, it’s just never by itself justification for something.

                  And I’m by no means against secession.

              2. Well, the compromise does kind of undercut the whole ‘consent of the governed’ thing

                Perhaps it does, but what other solution would you suggest to temper the madness of the mob?

                1. I think the madness of the mob is less a problem than the madness of a minority of that mob. But more seriously, I think the Constitution provides, or should provide, a nice check. It takes certain subjects off the table rather than undercutting the entire democratic process.

                  1. I think the madness of the mob is less a problem than the madness of a minority of that mob.

                    Well, its a good thing the minority of the mob can only block things, and not put its madness into effect.

              3. Well, the compromise does kind of undercut the whole ‘consent of the governed’ thing.

                So does democracy (if there is no exit option), so what’s your point? There is no consent of the governed if the only options are “consent to TEAM RED,” “consent to TEAM BLUE,” or “take what you get, you dirty uninvolved citizen”

            2. A compromise is never a final solution to a progressive.

              You know who else wanted a final solution…

              1. A chemist?

        3. That rural states “have too much power” because of 2 Senators per state

          Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine would like a word . . . .

      4. No, YOU don’t get it. Since gun restrictionists are in an absolute minority both in number of states they control AND number of voters they can persuade, it is obviously a fallacy of governmental design. Because if we had the perfect government, this obviously correct limitation would pass unanimously.

      5. The Guardian that passing gun control laws at a federal level looked impossible for the foreseeable future, since small, rural states with a disproportionate number of gun-owners are over represented in the Senate and House of Representatives.

        Don’t let the little fact that low population starts are evenly split between team red and team blue get in the way of that narrative.

    3. Small states are overrepresented in the House, huh?

      This is a professor of political science?

      1. Remember, Political Science is to Science, as Military Intelligence is to Intelligence.

      2. Some of the small states should share representatives, maybe?

        http://www.thegreenpapers.com/…..Hous#table

        The top two over and underrepresented states are small states.

  25. To the Pole! Obama Requests Increase in Coast Guard Icebreaker Fleet to Maintain Presence in the Arctic

    White House says U.S. needs vessels in the hotly contested region to “maintain the open seas”

    President Barack Obama will call for an expanded fleet of Arctic ice breakers on Tuesday, warning that the U.S. risked losing control of shipping routes, fishing grounds and pristine habitats if the Coast Guard does not strengthen its presence in the region.

    The plan hastens the construction of a new Arctic ice breaker by two years and urges Congress to release “sufficient resources” to build still more vessels, the New York Times reports. The U.S. Coast Guard currently has a fleet of two active ice breakers, far fewer than Russia’s 41 vessels, with 11 more in the pipeline

    Also, we should investigate why the Canadians maintain a threatening lead in Zamboni technology.

    1. Why do we need more icebreakers when polar ice is going to disappear?

      1. To make sure it disappears.

      2. I wonder how much change to water and ice temps is caused by keeping these pathways artificially open with ice breakers. Ice cover is pretty important in lakes for keeping fish alive, but I don’t know how it act on an ocean scale.

        1. The fact that ice is less dense than water, hence it floats, is what prevents a lake from freezing solid, thereby preserving the aquatic life.

          1. Smaller ponds can de-oxygenate if they stay frozen over for too long.

      3. According to Al Gore, that was supposed to happen in 2014.

    2. Climate change will feature more water in its solid form, locking up 334 kJ/kg of infrared energy that would otherwise go to changing the atmospheric temperature.

    3. It would be nice if that asshole would actually engage Canada in a civilized discussion about the Arctic.

      Fuck Obama for this move.

      1. And by engage I mean him actually lugging his sorry ass up here and talking face to face to Harper.

        1. Fun fact, the Canadian capitol building actually looks like Superman’s Fortress of Solitude in the Christopher Reeve’s movies.

          1. Funner fact: That’s where they actually filmed it.

    4. Shouldn’t the fact that there are only two *Coast Guard* icebreakers and, apparently no civilian icebreakers, be a strong indication that the people of the United States don’t really *need* more icbreakers?

      I mean, you don’t see the Coast Guard running tugs for civilian ships do you? No, because the demand is so high, civilian operators fill that demand.

      Since there are no US civilian icebreakers, its likely the only demand for icebreakers in the US is solely from those people who decided to set up shop in the places the US government started icebreaking. Get rid of that distortion and let the market sort things out.

      Hell, not even the US Navy needs icebreakers anymore. Subs can get where they need to be and US military ships have little reason to push through icebound areas. Its not like we’re ever going to do an amphibious assault on Kolyma.

      1. Just to be clear, that’s only the fleet of Arctic icebreakers. There are more in the Great Lakes, and they want more of those too. Last winter was apparently a problem.

        1. The Canadian menace looms large…

      2. Look, if we don’t close the icebreaker gap, the Tsar of Russia could just walk right in here and start pushing you around. Do you want that? ::Shoves Agammamon:: Do ya?

        1. Hey! You leave Agagamnambaon..non alone! *Shoves some guy*

  26. Pope Francis: Priests Can Forgive Abortion If Women Are ‘Contrite’

    Pope Francis will allow Roman Catholic priests to absolve women who have had abortions if they seek forgiveness during the upcoming Holy Year of Mercy, the Vatican announced Tuesday.

    The pontiff said he will allow priests “discretion to absolve of the sin of abortion those who have procured it and who, with contrite heart, seek forgiveness for it” during the special year, beginning December 8.

    “I am well aware of the pressure that has led [women] to this decision,” he wrote in the announcement. “I know that it is an existential and moral ordeal.”

    Abortion is considered a grave sin by the Catholic church, and those who seek it are usually excommunicated. In normal circumstances, forgiveness can only be granted by senior church figures.

    1. ???

      I was under the impression priests could forgive the sin of murder. Isn’t that why they give condemned murderers the opportunity to confess? Doesn’t Catholic orthodoxy hold that if you wish to make amends for past behavior and express actual contrition for your sins, the priest will offer you absolution? Why would abortion be different from every other sin?

      1. That seems to be the thinking at Catholic.com

      2. Priests can forgive anything if you are contrite, yes. That’s their job.

      3. Every word of that entire last paragraph after “grave sin by the Catholic church” is utter bullshit.

        But who can expect a major national news outlet to know the basics of one of the most popular and fastest-growing religions in the world? There’s still a lot to unpack from these latest VMA’s.

        1. Apparently abortion does carry with it automatic excommunication, but you can still seek absolution and can have the excommunication lifted.

          Always remember that the severe penalty of excommunication exists first to prevent a heinous sin from occurring (i.e. moving a person to rethink performing an action in light of the penalty that will be imposed), and second to move a person to repentance and reconciliation. Also, for a person to be automatically excommunicated, he must know that the penalty exists and will be imposed for a particular offense, and then choose to perform the action with full knowledge and freedom.

          Nevertheless, the door to reconciliation remains open to the repentant sinner. The diocesan bishop has authority to remit the automatic excommunication imposed for an abortion. Such remission would occur in the Sacrament of Penance.

          The bishop in turn may delegate this authority to priest confessors. Accordingly, in the Priests’ Faculties and Permissions promulgated by Bishop Keating (and still in effect despite his death), each priest in the Diocese of Arlington has the authority within the context of the Sacrament of Penance to remit the automatic excommunication and to grant absolution the first time a person confesses having procured or assisted with procuring an abortion.

          1. This is worst than trying to figure out some of the more arcane rules to Dungeons and Dragons.

            1. *rolls two d20s for salvation*

          2. The person must be aware that it is an excommunicable sin. In the state that modern catechesis is in, that is a huge qualifier. And there are other factors which could ameliorate the penalty of excommunication.

            And currently any parish priest can absolve one of excommunication, at least in the US. I don’t know of anywhere in the world where parish priests do not have that authority, although technically it could be reserved to the Bishop of a diocese.

          3. Excommunication: definitely the worst form of communication.

            1. And expensive, if lawyers are involved.

      4. Why would abortion be different from every other sin?

        Because abortion is more highly politicized than most other sins, maybe? That’s all I got.

  27. So two Hispanic cops gun down a fat white man in cold blood? Anything else happen?

    Whites lives matter!

    1. How do you know he didn’t self identify as black? Rush to judgement. Shakes head.

      1. or a woman

        1. Oh fuck! This could be immigrant on immigrant violence!

    2. Ah, I wondering if the victim was white. I couldn’t see any other reason his race didn’t get mentioned.

  28. Desperate mother builds $3000 ICE CAGE to keep her meth-addicted son, 17, from leaving after he was rejected by every rehab centre in Australia… but police warn she could be charged

    more

    1. Was wondering before I clicked how she made a cage made of ice…

    2. Like…ICE ice? or ice ice? Did she build a cage our of pure crystal meth?

      1. Have you any idea what the street value of this mountain is?

        1. “It’ll keep the four of us high for a week.”

    3. The son apparently agrees with the mother’s idea and went along with the plan fully willingly. Sounds like this is a scheme to make money somehow. Maybe donations from readers, or maybe just pressure tactics for their government welfare programs.

  29. It’s Sugarfree’s world and we’re just living in it:

    Wife says estranged husband’s twisted sex demands gave her PTSD

    1. She misspoke. She meant STD.

    2. I am just a mirror.

      1. …on Scarface’s coffee table.

    3. Poor harmless pervert. He pissed his wife off good for her to try to ruin him like this. I wonder if she expects anyone to believe that she wasn’t a willing participant in their sex games.

      1. “Now right before I come, I want you to put this towel over my head and dump this pitcher of water over my face!”

        “Flash bang me now, you pig1”

        /PTSD Sex

  30. Slammer’s metal find of the week:

    Bizarre, lo-fi black deaththrash art rock from Brasil. Possibly needs moar labelz.

    Echoes- God of Hell

    1. I love it. I especially love that the Darkthrone recorded-with-a-cassette-player-from-100-feet-away sound is now old enough to be retro-ed like this.

  31. The Federal Reserve is about to make a terrible mistake
    “Serious” policy makers are insisting that interest rates need to be raised?leaving millions behind in the process

    The stubbornness was on display last weekend at Jackson Hole, Wyo., site of the Fed’s annual policy conference. Fed vice chair Stan Fischer made the case that inflation will soon move upwards, a key indicator that the central bank will soon raise interest rates. The idea is that falling unemployment will create tightening in the labor market, leading to increased wages and eventually rising prices. To stop prices from running out of control, the Fed needs to slow the economy by increasing interest rates.

    There are a few problems with this reasoning. First of all, who exactly thinks the economy is running too hot right now? While unemployment has dropped, wages have been stagnant for the vast majority of workers for 35 years. Somewhat faster wage growth may be on the way, but it’s not here yet, and the idea that the moment when workers get a bit more in their paychecks, the Fed has to take away the punch bowl and make their lives worse doesn’t make much sense.

    1. Gosh! Stagflation!?!?! That’s impossible! Keeping interest rates below market clearing levels and printing money to make up the difference has never had that effect before!

    2. In no way can the bad money be chased out until the interest rates rise. The Fed can either raise rates or become irrelevant.

    3. The idea is that falling unemployment will create tightening in the labor market, leading to increased wages and eventually rising prices.

      While unemployment has dropped, wages have been stagnant for the vast majority of workers for 35 years.

      Whether or not the economy is running too hot isn’t based on wage growth, it’s based on general GDP growth. In the 70’s, we actually had very solid GDP growth, it’s just that unemployment was high and wages were stagnant so the increased inflation completely fucked people. You can have inflation without rising real wages, as Venezuela is currently learning.

      It’s like people at Salon don’t know how inflation works or something.

      1. Wage growth is a key component of inflation. Look at the 70s. Carter’s job creation numbers were excellent and labor generally got its way until Reagan cracked down on the Air Traffic workers.

        1. Real wage growth is not an element of inflation. Nominal wage growth might be because you have to raise nominal wages in order to try and attempt to keep up with inflation, but real wages in Venezuela have plummeted during their inflation spiral.

          When people talk about wage growth, they’re talking about real wage growth, not nominal growth, so no, wage growth and inflation are not linked in the way Salon is claiming.

          1. You’re wasting your time. Simple concepts like inflation are beyond its reasoning capacity.

  32. There’s no way to stop the water, and no time to waste: The science behind rising sea tides
    The world’s fastest-moving glacier has already begun self-destruction, and it may prove beyond saving

    A hundred years after it spawned the iceberg that sank the Titanic in the North Atlantic, the Jakobshavn Glacier is now a major contributor to global sea-level rise, this time threatening the homes and lives not of 2,200 passengers and crew but of a billion people across the world.

    As climate-watchers and coastal-dwellers keep a weather eye out for signals of irreversible changes in the environment, the world’s fastest-moving glacier has already begun self-destruction.

    Jakobshavn is now shedding ice nearly three times as quickly as it was 20 years ago, dumping enormous and growing quantities into the ocean. It’s contributed 0.1 millimeters per year to worldwide sea-level rise ? more than 3 percent of the 3 mm produced globally ? for the past decade.

    1. Everybody bitches about the drought, but they don’t want more water. Make up your minds, people!

      1. Lets chop it up and ship it to California. We’ll use it to simulate snowmelt in the mountains on both watersheds. It was going to melt anyhow.

    2. Oh yes, I’m certain that 0.1 mm of sea level rise is actually precisely that measureable.

      1. It might be NOW, but what about when they took the baseline measurements 30 years ago. This is like when water trating got precise enough to measure parts per billion instead of parts per million. Oh noes! This water has 27 ppb arsenic! We’ve been drinking it without arsenic poisoning for 150 years!

    3. no, not 3mm!!! /insert penis joke here

  33. GOP presidential hopeful Ben Carson is surging in the polls.

    So Republicans are supporting the two candidates who are most likely to royally fuck up this country. Huh.

    1. R A C I S T
      A
      C
      I
      S
      T

    2. I told you dumb asses Carson was the real force among SOCONs not Huckabee and you wouldn’t believe me. And don’t worry, it just means you can keep your street creed and vote for the Biden Fauxchontis ticket.

  34. Chris Christie, Rand Paul scraping the bottom in new PPP poll

    Rand Paul at 1% nationally.

    Majority of Republicans still think Obama is a Muslim.

    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-ma…..w-ppp-poll

    1. Majority of Republicans still think Obama is a Muslim.

      That is because he was born in Kenya. Duh.

    2. I’m not panicking as it’s quite early, but Paul really needs to do something to stand out sometime soon. A successful ‘moneybomb’ fundraising event would be nice.

      1. Fundraising won’t do it.

        A while back I said that his only hope was to scream loudly at Trump, jump on his back, and find a “666” burned into his skin under that mop of hair thus saving America from the Anti-Christ. The GOP base would love him.

        1. At this stage what gets you marked as a ‘serious’ candidate which someone can safely support is your ability to fundraise. Paul’s numbers tanked when the reports came out that he was underperforming in that area.

  35. The woman in Kentucky facing jail means that gay marriage has truly arrived. This is what government marriage means. It means that anyone who has a license can bring the full force of government to bear on anyone who refuses to recognize their marriage. Yes, this woman is a state government official but she just as easily could have been a business who refused to insure a gay spouse or a public organization that refused to do so. And government coercion in this case like all cases means fines, jail or if you resist going to jail death if necessary. Because of the Supreme Court decision this is no longer about gay marriage. It is about the rule of law and the power of the courts. We can’t have people out ignoring court decisions based on their “conscience”.

    Government marriage is coercion. That is why Libertarians used to object to it. Sorry but you can’t spend 20 years trying to expand government marriage to include more couples and still get to claim you object to it. It doesn’t work that way. You object to public accommodation laws don’t you? Then why are you not trying to expand those to include gays in the name of “sure we object but as long as we have them they should protect everyone equally”? You wouldn’t use such absurd logic there and you don’t get to use it here.

    The moment that cell door slams behind that women, the libertarian moment will have arrived. Enjoy it.

    1. “on anyone who refuses to recognize their marriage”

      If by anyone you mean the government official who is given the power to recognize marriages.

      Cripes.

      1. Yes them and any college that has a spousal group, or anyone else who doesn’t operate in a very narrow private sphere. The only difference here is that because she is a government official she is going straight to jail rather than being sued fined and then eventually having the sheriff show up to take their things to enforce the judgement. The principle is the same in both cases. You of course will never grasp that because you are a congenital pedantic idiot incapable of reasoning beyond the most crude level.

        1. “The principle is the same in both cases. ”

          Not at all.

          In some areas you have anti-discrimination laws which apply to ‘public accommodations.’ Those laws have applied to people who don’t serve or employ religious people or married people for a long time, now some states have included gay people (married or not) under them. In this case this is a public official who doesn’t want to equally apply the law.

          1. It is not about anti-discrimination laws. It is about marriage. If you say business are free to recognize or not recognize marriages as they choose, you no longer have government marriage. That is not how licenses work. I think there is some question whether religious based organizations can get away with not recognizing gay marriage. I think they likely will be forced to do so or give up their tax exempt status but they do have a chance. But non religious based businesses have no chance. No way are the courts going to set the precedent that businesses are free to only recognize some spouses. If they did, there would be no way to prevent businesses from refusing to recognize any marriage and the courts are not going to let that happen.

            1. “If they did, there would be no way to prevent businesses from refusing to recognize any marriage and the courts are not going to let that happen.”

              But before the SCOTUS decision organizations in states that did not recognize SSM were free to, and many did, extend benefits to same sex partners.

              1. Yes they were. Because the state didn’t recognize the marriage, there was no license and the issue of government marriage was not implicated. Now there is a license. If you say they can not recognize gay marriages, then there is no way to say they can’t recognize any marriage. And that is not going to happen.

                1. This is like something from Alice in Wonderland!

    2. Yes, this woman is a state government official but she just as easily could have been a business who refused to insure a gay spouse or a public organization that refused to do so

      AND WHYCOME THEY DON’T TEACH THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLZZZZ?

      1. Her being a state official just means she goes directly to jail. If she were a private citizen, she would be sued and fined and then go to jail when she resisted the sheriff showing up to enforce the judgement. In both cases the person is subject to government coercion with all that implies. The government official just starts a but further up the ladder of force.

        The whole point of a marriage license is to be able to use the force of government to make people recognize your marriage. Private parties cannot get away with recognizing some marriages and not others when dealing with the public.

        Strictly speaking, this woman should go to jail and any business that refuses to recognize a gay marriage should be sued. The rule of law depends on it. Understand, however, once the government is involved it is about the rule of law and coercion. If you find the methods necessarily associated with that distasteful, you should have thought about that before you supported the government getting involved.

        1. “If she were a private citizen, she would be sued and fined and then go to jail when she resisted the sheriff showing up to enforce the judgement.”

          Really? Please point us to the law in Kentucky under which that would happen to a private person John.

          1. Yes.

            If an employer offers spousal health-insurance benefits, do they need to offer them to all married employees, gay or straight?

            In general, yes.

            Companies that offer spousal health benefits and use a separate insurance company to fund their benefits will now be required to cover both gay and straight spouses. “Based on the court’s ruling today, there is simply one type of spouse,” says Todd Solomon, a law partner in the employee-benefits practice group at McDermott Will & Emery in Chicago, who has been tracking same-sex employee benefits for nearly two decades.

            But companies that are self-insured, which means they assume the insurance risks for their own employees, a common practice among large companies, aren’t under the same legal constraints. “There is technically no legal requirement that a self-insured company has to include a same-sex spouse,” Mr. Solomon says. As a result, self insurance “is where we are going to see a lot of activity and a lot of litigation.”

            Companies should think twice about self-insuring but denying benefits to gay spouses, because they will be vulnerable to discrimination suits, he says.

            http://blogs.wsj.com/atwork/20…..employers/

            1. That’s some general speculation, I asked for the specific law under which a private citizen in Kentucky would face action for not recognizing a same sex marriage.

              1. Yeah, no one will ever get sued for that. never. Of course they will and they will win. They would have to win. If they didn’t, the entire institution of government marriage would be called into question. What is the point of getting a marriage license if your employer or anyone else is free to ignore it?

                Be happy Bo. People you hate are going to jail and your views are being enforced on the ignorant and unwilling country.

                1. I keep asking you to cite the law under which what you say would happen will, and you keep dodging.

    3. She’s not a good lead character in this morality play. As you note, she’s a public officer, not a private business. While I also can’t understand why libertarians won’t tilt at the windmill of ending state marriage licensing like they do so many other all-but-lost libertarian causes, this is not a good event to make your case.

      1. It is a perfectly fine event. Libertarians will cling to the rationalization that since she is a state official this is different but that is not really the case. Businesses and anyone dealing with the public can no more refuse to recognize a gay marriage than this woman can refuse to issue marriage licenses. The only difference is they will get sued and this woman goes to jail. That however is a distinction of quality not of kind. If you get sued and refuse to pay the judgement, eventually the sheriff shows up to enforce it and if you resist that you go to jail. It is all government coercion, it is just that getting sued is the lowest and first level of it. It all ends with you either complying or going to jail.

        1. If the officers of the law are allowed to ignore the law as they please, then there is no law. Now, I’m on record as saying that the law is a polite fiction and doesn’t really exist, but I didn’t expect you to agree with me.

          1. For sure Warty. This is no longer about gay marriage. It is about the rule of law. From the libertarian perspective, this woman going to jail is a great thing. And businesses being sued for not insuring gay spouses is a good thing. That is what the rule of law means. it means everyone complies with it or goes to jail. And after the SCOTUS decision the rule of law is gays are married and everyone must recognize that.

            That woman going to jail means gay marriage is here. And considering how important gay marriage is to Libertarians, i can’t see how they are not happy to see it.

    4. The woman in Kentucky facing jail means that gay marriage has truly arrived. This is what government marriage means. It means that anyone who has a license can bring the full force of government to bear on anyone who refuses to recognize their marriage.

      John, she’s a government official. This is not a private business.

      Also, remember how you were telling me it’s not a big deal when a minority is oppressed because the majority getting oppressed a little bit is worse than a minority getting oppressed a lot? Well, people who won’t serve gay weddings are a minority. So by your own logic, I shouldn’t care about their oppression for the same reason you argued slavery wasn’t that big a deal because at least we didn’t have the horrible oppression of the graduated income tax at the time.

      Gee – it’s almost like you’re a hypocrite who only cares when people you like are oppressed and gleefully looks the other way when it’s people you don’t give a shit about.

      1. It doesn’t matter. See the WSJ link above. This is what you people wanted. You are getting it. You should be happy. When the cell door slams behind that woman it will be the culmination of 30+ years of Libertarian work and dreams.

        The courts and the government are making this happen. If that is not a good thing, why did you think the lawsuits were so great?

        1. “This is what you people wanted. You are getting it.”

          This is like saying to people who opposed state imposed segregation ‘well, you got private anti-discrimination law, you must have wanted it!’ They’re two different things.

    5. One can advocate for getting government out of marriage while also stating that, to the extent that government is going to continue to be involved in marriage, it shouldn’t discriminate.

      1. Okay, so do you think the same thing about public accommodation laws? If we are going to have them, why should they not protect people who are fired because they are gay?

        Name one other case where you apply this logic. Where else is there some law or program you think is bad but you also want it expanded in the name of “equality”. If you can’t, then explain what is so special about marriage versus public accommodation laws or welfare or any other bad government institution.

        1. Take the Civil Rights Act for example. Part of it says government can’t discriminate, the other part says private businesses can’t discriminate. I agree with the first part, but not the other. Government shouldn’t discriminate, because government doesn’t have rights. Government has powers. When it comes to recognizing marriage, I’m inclined to apply the same logic. Government should not discriminate against marriages that it recognizes, but private businesses should have the right to recognize or ignore marriages as they see fit.

          1. That is nice but government marriage doesn’t work like that. We are not talking about people getting their own private marriages and the government recognizing them. We are talking about the government giving people licenses to be married. That is different.

            If you support the government having to recognize marriages but no one else, then you don’t support government marriage. And that of course is a perfectly fine position. I agree with you. Sadly, that is not what is going on here. Moreover, that is not what the Supreme Court did. In fact, the Supreme Court moved away from your ideal and granted government marriage to more people.

            1. And here I thought the topic was someone in government refusing to do their job regarding a marriage that their employer recognizes, not a private business being sued. I see those as totally different things. Whatever. You’re on a roll. I won’t get in the way.

              1. I can only explain it to you sarcasmic. I can’t make you understand. The rule of law applies to everyone, not just government officials. Yes, she is the first one to go on the block over this, but she is not the last. Having a marriage license means you are married and no one can say otherwise or treat you otherwise if they want to operate in public. As I have explained all over this thread, private parties are going to be no more able to refuse recognizing gay marriages than this woman is able to refuse to issue licenses. The only difference is this woman is skipping the being sued and fine part and going right to jail and private parties will get sued first. Everyone, public officials or not will be forced to recognize gay marriages. So the principle is the same in all cases.

                1. A government employee refusing to do her job and issue a marriage licenses is not the same thing as a private business refusing to recognize that license. It’s her job.

                  I understand what you are saying, in that if a government employee can be taken to court for refusing to issue a marriage license, then the next step is to take businesses to court for refusing to recognize the license. I get what you are saying. I just don’t agree. They’re not the same thing. Could one lead to the other? Sure. Probably will. But they’re not the same.

                  Thing is, I agree with the former but not the latter. If government policy is to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, and her job is to issue those licenses, then she had damn well better issue those licenses or find another job.

                2. The rational ethics of human interaction don’t necessarily apply in cases of politically granted powers, monopolies and privileges. Those interactions are predicated on aggressive force from the onset, thus a civil servant has a duty “to serve” while a cake baker has no duty to serve, just a right to do so if they choose. That said, the civil servant should be fired not jailed.

                3. She has the gall to stand up to the Fedgov, therefore we hate her.

        2. “Where else is there some law or program you think is bad but you also want it expanded in the name of “equality”.”

          Uh, lots. I think public schools are a bad program, but I think they should have to serve whites, blacks, straights, gays, etc., equally if they exist.

          1. So you would support programs that expanded the public schools? For example, would you support expanding the public schools to include pre K or adult education? Why not? Why should kids who are under five not have access to public schools? If we are going to have them kids shouldn’t be denied access.

            Or to take you example of blacks. Suppose blacks couldn’t go to the public schools but instead had vouchers and went to private schools that were better. Would you support taking away their vouchers and putting them in public school? Well, gays were not subject to common law marriage and were free to contract as married couples as they wished. They had the system that really everyone should have just like blacks had vouchers in my example.

            1. We don’t have to make up hypotheticals here, we have history. When Brown came down it most certainly expanded expenditures on public schooling because the schools offered to blacks pre-Brown were cheaper. Do you oppose Brown on the grounds that it expanded government?

      2. And one can also say that if you’re employed by the state, it’s not an infringement of your liberty if you’re supposed to hand out marriage licenses to the people the state tells you to. In that case, the state is your employer, and your employer can tell you to do whatever they want so long as it’s within the law.

        Let’s say I worked at a bakery and I was refusing to make cakes for a gay couple but the people who owned the bakery were ordering me to make the cake. Has my liberty somehow been infringed if my employer fires me because I wouldn’t bake a cake for the people they told me to bake a cake for?

        When you’re employed by an organization it’s not an infringement of your liberty to do what they tell you to do. You can’t get a job which requires you to hand out marriage licenses to anyone who can legally get married and then discriminate in this fashion. That’s absurd – do your fucking job or go get another one.

        1. This woman is not being threatened with being fired. She is being threatened with jail for defying a court order. If the people of Kentucky want to fire her, they have every right. That, however, is not what is going on here. A federal judge is ordering her to do this and telling her that she is going to jail if she doesn’t. That is not the same thing as the owner telling you to do something and you not doing it.

          Again, the SCOTUS made gay marriage the law of the land. That means anyone who doesn’t comply doesn’t get fired, they get sent to jail. That is what “law” means in the ultimate sense.

          1. Because. Her. Job. Is. To. Issue. Marriage. Licenses.

            Sheesh.

            1. What Bo said.

              1. When you’ve lost sarcasmic on same-sex marriage…

                1. When you’ve lost sarcasmic on same-sex marriage…

                  I’m looking at this from 30,000 feet. From where I’m at, all I see is a government official defying the law. The specifics are immaterial.

            2. Then fire her Bo. If the state of Kentucky were removing her from office, you would have a point. That, however, is not what is happening here. She is going to go to jail. This is not about the state or doing her job. if it were, she would be subject to being fired. This is about defying a federal court. And her refusing to do this is no different than some dumb bastard who gets sued and refuses to pay the judgement.

              1. She’s an elected official, right? This would be like if the sheriff said they were not going to prosecute married gays hitting each other as spousal abuse. You can’t fire the elected sheriff, but you can order them to carry out the law as it stands. If he doesn’t want to do that he can quit. Same with this lady.

                1. Here I go again agreeing with Bo. The job of the sheriff is to enforce the law. Not to like it. If he doesn’t like the laws that he has sworn to enforce, then he shouldn’t be the sheriff.

                  1. Devil’s advocate: What about Empire State sheriffs refusing to enforce Cuomo’s gun control legislation?

                    1. Devil’s advocate: What about Empire State sheriffs refusing to enforce Cuomo’s gun control legislation?

                      I’d like to think that this is the case b/c the local sheriffs recognize it as an obviously unconstitutional law. The cynical part of me always chimes in “the sheriffs want to be re-elected”.

                    2. What about Empire State sheriffs refusing to enforce Cuomo’s gun control legislation?

                      Seems they are actually enforcing the second amendment of the Constitution, which is the highest law of the land.

                  2. The job of the sheriff is to enforce the law. Not to like it.

                    Actually, most sheriffs make some sort of oath to upholding the constitution of their state. This is why you have some sheriffs pledging not to enforce gun restriction laws.

                    1. Actually, most sheriffs make some sort of oath to upholding the constitution of their state. This is why you have some sheriffs pledging not to enforce gun restriction laws.

                      Good point. That’s what I get for adding to a Botard analogy.

                2. She’s an elected official, right? This would be like if the sheriff said they were not going to prosecute married gays hitting each other as spousal abuse. You can’t fire the elected sheriff, but you can order them to carry out the law as it stands. If he doesn’t want to do that he can quit. Same with this lady.

                  Seems I’ve heard this argument about immigration laws and nobody ever quits

        2. And one can also say that if you’re employed by the state, it’s not an infringement of your liberty if you’re supposed to hand out marriage licenses to the people the state tells you to.

          Not to pick nits, but did the state of Kentucky order the woman in question to hand out marriage licenses to any particular person?

          1. It was an order by the governor. And since she is an elected official, I don’t think it is as simple as just firing her for not doing her job.

            1. Here in the Commonwealth of PA, I believe a county’s president judge can remove that county’s register of wills (who issues licenses) for non-compliance, or really for any reason.

              1. I googled a bit. It seems she can only be removed from office if she is impeached by the state legislature, which isn’t going to happen. Kentucky may have the occasional Democrat governor, but the state legislature is deep field Republican.

                1. I really thought the process was going to involve livestock or cousins marrying.

  36. She’s at it again! Mother of two who was jailed for ear-splitting sex sessions is back in court for yet more noisy antics

    Gemma Wale spent two weeks in jail earlier this year for excessive noise
    Neighbours complained she screamed and shouted too loudly during sex
    In the dock again yesterday where she was fined ?150 for new offence
    Disrupted those around her by constantly banging doors, throwing objects and shouting in her Birmingham home

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..ntics.html

    Um, no. Just… no.

    1. When I was a 20-something, the upstairs neighbors would come and pound on the door because my GF was too loud. Of course apartments (and cheap hotels) are the worst when it comes to sound levels.

    2. A frenzied, high-pitched yes.

    3. My girlfriend got alarmed when she first discovered my tendency to throw objects when I orgasm. I sometimes have to get up and walk several feet to find something to chuck against the wall but what am I supposed to do? It’s an involuntary response to sheer ecstasy.

  37. Incredible moment wildlife volunteer ushers a BEAR from his house after catching the mammal looking for food in his kitchen

    Joel Rosenthal spotted the mammal looking for food at kitchen counter
    He approached the bear named rose and began ushering it from his house
    Bear walked towards back door before making a beeline for another room
    It later returned outside and looked up at the filmmaker with sorrowful eyes

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..tchen.html

    That animal was definitely too comfortable around people.

    1. Captured on camera, Joel comes across the bear – which had crept inside via the open back door

      Biggest reason I keep my doors closed. Safer for everyone.

      1. That is a very homoerotic sentence.

    2. Have we learned nothing from Tim Treadwell?

  38. The latest Daily Mail article on Clinton demonstrates the falsity of a very big lie that has been promulgated by several cabinet level officials in the Obama adminstration; that they couldn’t use official governmental email addresses because they would be deluged by crank emails.

    As usual, your emails aren’t showing up in my State account. Still working on that problem,’ then-deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan once wrote her.
    Sullivan colleague Huma Abedin weighed in on a separate occasion when aide Lauren Jiloty also couldn’t receive email from Clinton ? and ended up using her own private email account as a quick fix.
    ‘Well its clearly a state vs outside email issue,’ Clinton heard from Abedin, who also had an address on the secretary’s private server
    ‘State has been trying to figure it out. So lj is getting all your emazils [sic] cause she’s on her personal account too.’

    Basically, Hillary’s emails were getting bounced because they were not whitelisted – as any email from a random crank would be.

    If the Democratic Party had any opposition to corruption, they’d have ejected Clinton from their ranks long ago.

    1. Well shit, if it was a fifth we’d all be drunk. If the Democratic Party had any opposition to corruption they wouldn’t be the Democratic Party.

    2. It almost sounds like the network admins overseeing the State Departments email services are grossly incompetent or have their hands tied by policy. See? It’s not Clinton’s fault! It’s the incompetency of the State Department’s bureaucracy!

  39. Ha, blame the intern!

    RG3 blames intern for social media snafu, liking Dan Snyder hate page

    Griffin’s official Instagram account “liked” a post from another user that slammed the Washington Redskins, their “sorry ass team owner” and dropped an #ImpeachDanSnyder hashtag for good measure (in case the subtlety hadn’t come through earlier).

    Griffin then responded with a block-lettering mandate headlined “I JUST WANT TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT” and then went on to throw “one of the interns” under the bus for authorizing the previous like, saying he didn’t have access to his own passwords.

    1. The continued dumpster fire that is the Washington Football Team makes my heart so happy.

      1. Me too. I feel a tiny bit bad for RG3, but he has to take some of the blame for his own fuckups, even if everyone around you is actively fucking up at the same time.

        Perfect scenario for him, he lands in Houston. Good defense, and if he cannot beat out Brian Hoyer, then he has sucked all along.

        1. RG3 is an injury magnet, though. Would Houston want him?

      2. I’m afraid of words so I can’t say “redskins” or else I’m a racist…

    2. I really hope Griffin goes somewhere and wins a superbowl, he deserves if after getting fucked as raw as he did.

  40. Can one of you football fans enlighten me? There’s a lot of media excitement here about Jarryd Haynes doing well pre-season in the 49ers. Does anyone give a stuff about him in the States?

    1. It is the pre-season, so no. If he plays well in a real game, then he will be a big deal.

    2. The guy in my office who is originally from Australia does.

      The rest of us, not so much.

    3. I had heard that there was an Aussie Rules guy trying to make the NFL, but that’s about it. I’m shocked to learn now that he’s trying to play a real position. The normal pattern is that a washed-up AFL guy punts for a couple years after he’s too old to play Aussie football anymore.

      1. Oh, he’s rugby, not Aussie Rules, I see

        …They’re different, right?

        1. Very. Aussie rules players are tall, lean, and run a lot. They have to be able to leap onto others’ backs too. The game is open, crazy, and impossibly exciting.

          Rugby league players are generally built like brick shithouses. Fullbacks (as Hayne was) are a bit smaller and faster, but that’s only when compared to the bricks with eyes playing in the front row. League is great, but a lot of it involves big blokes running into each other.

          Rugby union is played by private school knobs, for the most part, and need not detain us here.

          1. I love Aussie rules football. It’s the best thing to come out of Australia other than Nick Cave, funny slang terminology, goofy kangaroos that kick box people, and Naomi Brockwell.

          2. The first time me and my buddy saw Aussie rules back in the 80s our first thought was ‘what. the. fuck. is this?’

            Hawthorne!

          3. *narrows gaze*

            /former second row

          4. Nice summary. I like AFL a lot too. I assume that the rugby I see a lot there is League? Those guys are huge.

            1. League is the touch football version – the REAL rugby, with honest-to-God scrums, lineouts and such is union.

              1. honest-to-God scrums

                Oh man I hate that rugby. I want to see action, not dancing around in a circle.

                1. Scrum resets are a pain in the ass, but really it seems that between Super Rugby, ITM/Currie Cup, and other Southern Hemisphere influences on the union game in the last few years, there’s a lot less of it and more running.

                  Or at least the referees are less tolerant of badly-formed scrums and award more penalties and free kicks in the hopes of getting the game moving.

          5. League sucks. Tackle man with ball, then run away!

      2. If he is concentrating on kick returning and being on special teams I would think he can make a roster. If San Francisco ends up cutting him he is going to get a chance someplace else.

  41. China moving hundreds of manufacturing plants to USA:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..h-tensions

    Derek Scissors of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, said Chinese investment in the U.S. could increase to $100 billion in the next five years.

    1. Okay, that’s weird. Is it China doing it, or is it Chinese businessmen?

      1. Well, they do have to do something with all the dollars and Treasuries are a shitty investment. Coupled with the US being their biggest customer and…well, why not?

    2. Cue wails from lefties about China sending their manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. “This country used to have a robust service economy, now it’s nothing but dangerous industrial jobs.”

  42. http://www.independent.co.uk/n…..66861.html

    I had no idea that Americans beat the shit out of that train terrorist in France.

    1. Only European publications give it coverage. In America we are too busy encourage racial strife, or renaming mountains.

      1. I hope the Grand Tetons aren’t on the renaming mountains list. I would have a sad if they were.

      2. If Trump wins I want to see it renamed Mt. Palin.

        1. He is going to rename everything after himself.

        2. He could just change his name to ‘Denali’.

    2. Good on them? The SOB tried to murder a train full of people.

  43. “A video appears to capture sheriff’s deputies in San Antonio fatally shooting a man who had his hands up as shots were fired.”

    “It’s very shocking and looks very bad,” said Nelson Wolff, the county judge and its highest elected official. “I’ve been in this position for 14 years, and I’ve never seen anything like it.”

    Would it be less shocking and look better had it been a routine fatal domestic disturbance call?

    1. Judge Wolff said he would also be looking at the county’s use-of-force policies to see if changes needed to be made.

      Sounds like the honorable judge may be overstepping his professional courtesy.

      1. So if the policies say it’s okay to shoot a guy with his hands in the air, no problem?

      2. Judge Wolff said he would also be looking at the county’s use-of-force policies to see if changes needed to be made

        Gotta love how they treat life and death criminal incidents as matters of protocol and administrative infractions where it concerns their own personnel. Maybe the guy who shot that cop in Texas can make that whole murder trial thing go away by telling the judge that he’ll review his use-of-force procedures.

      3. I don’t think its the fucking policies the judge needs to be concerning himself with.

  44. Yahoo shares fall after CEO Marissa Mayer, 40, reveals she is pregnant with identical twins and that she will be back at work in just two weeks – despite giving staff 16 weeks maternity leave

    Yahoo’s chief executive Marissa Mayer is planning to take only two-week’s maternity leave, despite being due to give birth to twin girls in December. However, the stock market reacted badly to the announcement with shares in the company falling by more than two percent.
    The 40-year-old mother-of-one was pregnant when she joined the company as CEO in July 2012 and gave birth the following September.
    Despite the arrival of a new baby boy, Mayer continued to work from home and was back in the office within a fortnight.

    1. I’d like to “lean in” to her, right?*

      *I know she is not the “lean in” CEO.

    2. Four months of maternity leave? Who do they think they are, western Europe?

      1. No kidding, the kid could easily be mining coal by that age (supervised, of course).

    3. However, the stock market reacted badly to the announcement with shares in the company falling by more than two percent.

      Equal share price for equal…um… uh…patriarchy!

      1. I don’t get it.

        The shares fell because the charismatic CEO won’t be off the job for very long?

        WTF? Is the market telling us she needs to be fired? I can’t see any other rational reason for this price move.

  45. Man pulled over for direct eye contact.

    http://nbc4i.com/2015/08/31/da…..e-contact/

    1. What in the fuck?

    2. Black, Dayton (lots of drugs), Michigan plates. That was no doubt a fishing expedition and he was looking for any reason at all to pull him over.

    3. Again with the facecrime.

  46. China, euro zone weaken despite world awash with cash

    China’s giant manufacturing industry contracted while British and euro zone growth eased in August, rattling markets and reinforcing expectations interest rates may fall again or stay near zero for longer.

    Manufacturers across the world struggled, a series of surveys showed on Tuesday. It came as the People’s Bank of China loosened policy for the second time in two months last week and amid 60 billion euros a month of European Central Bank stimulus.

    World stocks and commodity prices fell as the poor Chinese data intensified already rampant fears about its economic health.

    1. Its like nobody knows what “despite” means any more.

  47. Goddammit, Restoras.

    1. Yeah, sorry…was away for three days and forgot myself.

  48. worker-yanked-through-drive-thru-window

    from the comments:

    Michelle Obama is really getting out of hand. We know she hates fast food, but this is extreme.

    Heh.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.