The Pope Is Here, Sean Penn Is Angry, Censorship at Wesleyan: P.M. Links

|

New at Reason.com:

NEXT: Robert E. Simon, Jr., RIP

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. And so has Brian Williams.

    Also infallible.

    1. Ever since she became Caitlyn Williams all the coverage has been insufferable.

      Wait, did I mix something up?

      1. “Even more than dodging snipers in New Orleans, crash landing in my F-16 in enemy territory, and taking out Osama bin Laden singlehandedly, my greatest act of courage was becoming a woman.”

        1. Didn’t he get shot at by Hillary Clinton?

          1. Yes – it was a drive by handled through her personal server.

            His gangster name is Thumb and they call his partner Zip.

    2. Hello.

        1. Should I subpoena him?

  2. Joe Biden says he believes that life begins at conception, but doesn’t want to force that view on others.

    I want to believe in Uncle Joe’s candidacy. But I don’t want to force his presidency on anyone.

    1. See, I am fully pro abortion but I don’t get this.

      this is the ultimate hypocrisy. If you believe that life begins at conception then you must believe that abortion equals murder and it is not an issue that you can just defer to someone else’s opinion on

      1. Yeah, not much wiggle room on that one…

      2. Well to some people “life begins at conception” is as deep a thought as “I like deep-dish pizza”. There are no logical consequences to such a thought except some name calling and getting slightly rounder by each passing day.

        1. ^This so much. “Life begins at conception” tells us nothing about when a fetus acquires rights.

      3. I too am pro choice and believe life begins at conception. But I’m also a supporter of euthanasia, and believe that a quick death is preferable to a life of misery. There are too many unwanted children in the world already–we don’t need any more. And if the mother doesn’t care enough to carry her unborn child to term than why should I?

        1. So if the mother “doesn’t care enough to” feed her 3 month old and smothers her with a pillow, why should I care?

          1. Now you’ve done it. ABORT THREAD.

          2. Yeah. What’s your point?

        2. I’m disabled. Many people think my life is one of misery. If someone attempted to euthanize me because of their opinion on if my life is worth living you better believe I’d be returning the favor.

          Supporting someone’s ownership of their own lives and letting them choose when to end it is the exact opposite of saying that someone else own their lives and that someone else gets to choose when to end it.

          1. I only support euthanasia of people who have been born under the most extreme of circumstances. And the choice should be made by a spouse or family member, NOT the government. I apply the same standard to myself. If I’m ever injured and get severe brain damage that I will never recover from, I hope someone pulls the plug and puts me out of my misery.

            1. This has apparently already occurred…kill him.

              1. I was logging on to post something about hiding the wall outlet from Reasonoids so I could save Antilles, but I see that I am too late.

                1. Appreciate the effort, Chuck…

      4. “Life begins at conception” doesn’t imply that the “life” is human. Even if you believe a fetus is merely a cluster of cells, it’s hard to deny there’s some kind of “life” happening. But doesn’t mean it has protections of a person, as opposed to those of, say, a tadpole.
        What I’m saying is, Joe is Technically Correct – the best kind of correct!

        1. Exactly. The argument about when a fetus is alive or becomes a person is irrelevant, especially since that debate will never be settled.

      5. One could also see the consequences of prohibition maybe being a problem.

      6. No more hypocritical than supporting the death penalty or the legitimacy of suicide.

        I persist in my belief that all talk of ‘when life begins’ is absurd and ultimately a pointless distraction. Life is continuous from parents through to fertilized egg to child and on.
        What matters is individuation. When do we have a new human individual? Clearly not at conception. Clearly, by adolescence. Where’s the cutoff line when abortion becomes murder?
        Well, let’s leave it to those most intimately involved to decide. There’s no room for an outsider’s opinion, not when the alleged ‘child’ is still in the womb.
        Why, if “I don’t know” is okay in the rest of science, is it not okay in this specific area of biology?

        1. Because it’s not a biological question to be answered with science but a moral question to be answered with crowds of angry people holding signs.

      7. I don’t think it is hypocrisy. Murder isn’t killing anything that is alive. It is deliberately killing another human being without adequate justification.

        Of course life begins at conception in some sense. That’s when a genetically distinct organism comes into being. The main question is does the mother have an obligation to continue to house and nourish it, or does she have control over her own body and what goes on in it.

        1. ‘Murder’ is a legal term. And under our current laws it’s not considered murder when a woman terminates her pregnancy. Just as it’s not considered murder when the government executes someone.

        2. The main question is does the mother have an obligation to continue to house and nourish it, or does she have control over her own body and what goes on in it.

          Not that I live in a country where any abortion discussion is allowed, but this is my position. However, it is also why I consider induced labour (or caesarian) the only abortion procedure I’d allow. Preceded by signing a statement that the mother renounces any rights and responsibilities over any child that might result from the procedure.

      8. How do you reconcile NAP and being fully pro-abortion? Or are you evolving?

    2. Hell, why not before conception?!? Sperm’s got DNA, so does the Egg..and they’re both alive.
      ~~~
      Never completely agreed with the “when life begins” arguments when life is just a continuous process in my humble opinion.

      1. Every sperm is sacred/Every sperm is great/If a sperm is wasted/God gets quite irate.

        1. Onan disagrees.

      2. 1/2 DNA doesn’t count

  3. There are at least three nominally Catholic Reason writers.

    Gillespie. He looks ethnic enough. Slade. Doherty.

    1. Yeah, Gillespie is totally in. Then Tucille (or is he no longer counted as Reasonite?). And for third, I’ll go with ENB, because I consider her ESB’s mirror image, and both being Catholic would provide some nice symmetry.

      1. If Gillespie stillconsiders himself Catholic then he is of the self loathing variety by the way he talks about Catholicism.

        1. “Nominally” Catholic was the formulation. Just because you don’t consider yourself Catholic, doesn’t mean a Church agrees!

        2. If? Isn’t he of Irish-Italian heritage? I think it’s a pretty sure bet.

    2. Just going by names, Gillespie’s an obvious choice. I’d guess Krayewski, as well. Sullum is my sleeper pick.

      1. Shikha Dalmia, Charles Paul Freund and Sheldon Richman

        1. Argh, I forgot about Dalmia!
          (I tend to avoid his crappy articles).

        2. Are you trying to piss off the authentic Indian lady?

      2. I thought Sullum was Jewish.

    3. I’d throw in Rico himself. I assume “nominally Catholic” just means baptized and confirmed, so I’ll also say ENB. And sure, Gillespie, why not.

    4. The Jacket is Catholic. Not sure about Nick.

      1. I’ll add 2chile and Monticello.

        1. I’ll go with Soave as an alternative.

      2. The Jacket is a sinner.

        1. So then definitely Catholic

    5. Stephanie Slade

      As a libertarian who is also a devout Roman Catholic, I’m afraid as well that statements like these from Pope Francis reinforce the mistaken notion that libertarianism and religion are fundamentally incompatible.

      1. libertarianism and religion are fundamentally incompatible.

        Aren’t they? What type of mental gymnastics must one do to reconcile two such opposing ideologies?

        1. Yes you be libertarian without holding the religious in contempt.

          What hubris.

          1. I don’t hold religious people in contempt. I just feel sorry for them.

            1. Sometimes I feel that way. Sometimes I’m a little envious. Must be nice to be sure of something. Assuming they really are.

              1. Sometimes I’m a little envious. Must be nice to be sure of something.

                Agreed. It’s been proven many times that deeply religious people are happier than those who aren’t. But then again, ignorance is bliss. Unlike all the religious people who believe they have the answers, I’ll be the first to admit I have no clue how the universe and Earth came into existence, or what our purpose is (if there is a purpose). Anyone who says they have the answers is either delusional, or a liar.

        2. Why?
          I do not find a problem. Christianity and the morals and life approach to it are to be applied to Christians only, not the general population as stated by Jesus and Paul.

          Greed and consumerism are not very Christian, but working within a capitalist or free market is not a problem. As a Christian, I am free to give as much money to the poor as I wish. By using the government to make others give their money to some poor and a lot of bureaucrats I am enforcing my Christian beliefs on others including non-believers.

          Certainly, there are plenty of Christians on the left and right that think they can rule or create a government that will conduct God’s will (or heaven) on Earth.

          1. By using the government to make others give their money to some poor and a lot of bureaucrats I am Christian leftists are enforcing my their Christian beliefs on others including non-believers.

        3. What makes you say they are opposing ideologies?

      2. It’s just the Pope I’m incompatible with. And that whole idea he’s infallible. Or that he’s Christ’s representative on earth.

        It’s not religion that’s stupid. It’s the followers.

    6. What does nominally Catholic mean?

      I guess I would be considered lapsed?

      1. Nominally Catholic means Catholic.

      2. Goes to Christmas Mass?

  4. Speaking of the Pope, am I the only one who finds he bears more than a passing resemblance to the High Sparrow from Game of Thrones.

    Both in apperance and character

    1. Ouch.

      That’s quite the slam on the High Sparrow.

    2. I think Benedict is still the real pope. I think this is a false pope who tells the right people the things they want to hear and pisses off the other right people. It is meant as a test of faith. I mean can a pope truly “resign”. This is some Da Vinci code illuminati shit going down at the Holy See.

      Jesse Walker is right. It’s fun to be a crackpot.

      1. I’ve been saying for years that we need an anti-Pope. Do you have a newsletter one could subscribe to?

        1. That day has come! Of course the pope and anti-pope are not like matter and anti-matter in that they do not burst into energy in the presence of each other. It is more akin to spin and anti-spin. For we are all twirling, twirling, twirling through eternity.

          1. And next you’ll tell us the Earth orbits the Sun! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!11!1`

          2. Twirling towards freedom

        2. Isn’t Popehat the anti-Pope?

          1. Of course not, Anti-Pope is a SERIOUS BUSINESS, Popehat is a woodchipper fancier!

        3. Eddie can be the anti-pope.

        4. Yes, it’s called the BYU Newsletter.

        5. Yes, it’s called the BYU Newsletter.

    3. Now that you mention it… And I’m sure he’d like to make all Capitalists and Global Warming Deniers walk through the streets naked so they can be rightfully humiliated for their heresy.

      1. Exactly

        He’s a man of the people lived a life of poverty and wants to bring the rich and powerful to their knees to create a peoples revolution (which he of course would head). While he seems to be a bit more forgiving of sin than the High Sparrow was that might just be because he lacks the army of the Faith Millitant to back him up so he has to be more subtle.

      2. Kind of like Carnival? I’m all for it.

    4. The High Sparrow needs a hat. Everyone important has a fucking hat.

      1. Maybe that will be the dramatic end to Walk of Shame next season. At the very end, High Sparrow awaits – wearing an awesome hat. Thus dominance is established. Cliffhanger – where did he get the hat?

    5. “Speaking of the Pope, am I the only one who finds he bears more than a passing resemblance to the High Sparrow from Game of Thrones.”

      You are saying the guy from the movie Brazil looks like the Pope….

      That is heresy to Terry Gilliam films

      1. I’d wager he didn’t have a Twenty-Seven B Stroke Six properly filled out, either.

  5. Is the Pope coming to a town near you? Find out here. (Fun fact: There are at least three nominally Catholic Reason writers. Leave guesses in the comments section.)

    ENB, Shackford, and Suave.

    ENB favorited my tweet advocating for giving Agile Cyborg a weekly Reason column. This has to happen.

    1. The one married to a Frenchie.

    2. I am guessing: Slade, Soave, Ed Polish

  6. Transgender woman details ordeal TSA put her through after she went through the female line and the bodyscanner picked up her ‘anomaly’

    ‘I stepped into the full body scanner, the TSA agent looked at me and pressed the F button. The scanner picked up an “anomaly” in my crotch area.’
    ‘I said, “I’m transgender. That’s my penis,”. The TSA officer then said something like, ‘If you are a man, then go back in the machine and we’ll run you as a man’.’
    However she told the agent: ‘I’m transgender. I am a woman, but I have an atrophied penis, trying to make it kind of not a big deal.’

    1. And then American Airlines promised to rebook her after she was delayed but then called the cops on her, the cop basically told AA to go fuck themselves, and she eventually got on a plane after AA was publicly shamed on twitter.

      1. Also, the cop had an excellent “Are you fucking kidding me, calling me for this?” look on his face.

    2. Head meet desk. The machine doesn’t care what you feel. It has physical parameters it searches, and as long as you have a penis your going to go through on the male setting if you don’t want to set it off.

      Also, am I the only one that didn’t know body scanners had male and female settings?

      1. I didn’t know this. That must mean they judge your gender based on your outward appearance. The TSA has been othering the genderqueer the entire time! Shut it down!

      2. This ignores the fact that those damn scanners shouldn’t exist in the first place.

          1. And remember — those Scanners can literally make your head explode.

            1. Damn, nobody got that? Am I the only one who saw that movie?

              1. You are the only one who would admit to seeing that bomb

            2. Your application for the position at ConSec Corporation’s newly completed facility has been approved.

              But you already knew that.

      3. Rather than male or female, couldn’t they just ask “presence of penis or not?” That doesn’t make any gender judgment, but would explain the thing in the trousers. The responses from each passenger would be pretty amusing, perhaps make the job fun enough to attract a higher level of employee.

        Better to just remove the scanners, of course. It’s worth the $80 to get the TSA Pre designation and never have to go through those damn things again. Best 80 bucks I ever spent.

        1. Better to just remove the TSA, of course.

        2. Somehow the fine distinction we keep being told exists between gender and sex is ignored when sex is the basis of segregation.

      4. How about a “people with penises” setting? Did I say “male”? I meant “people with penises”. That’s what this setting is called. Yep. Got it mixed up. Sorry.

    3. Penii can atrophy? I didn’t think there was any muscle in them.

      I hope I never have to find out if penile atrophy is a real thing.

      1. If I am correct, certain steroids can effect penis size. I’m not certain if that is only while a guy is growing or if it can happen after a man is an adult.

        1. If drugs can make a penis atrophy then certainly something can produce hypertrophy…

          1. It’s not radiation is it? Spit it out man! You’re the medical physics guy!

            1. Hulk penis.

          2. There are countless newsletters you can sign up for that will fill you in on how to purchase the most effective varieties.

          3. If drugs can make a penis atrophy then certainly something can produce hypertrophy…

            It only works in puberty. If a boy with a micropenis is given anabolics before it’s too late, they can fix it.

            By the way, have you ever seen Chyna’s porn? The same effect happens to women, and it doesn’t stop working after puberty.

        2. By “steroids” do you mean the general sense of “synthetic hormones”? Because then you’re absolutely correct, and in fact that’s what’s happening here. If by “steroids” you mean anabolic steroids, then no. They shrink the balls, but that effect is completely temporary and they go back to normal after the user stops.

      2. It’s a real thing and happens to trans people who are taking hormones.

    4. I’ve never gone through the rape scanner. I always make the TSA idiots pat me down. If I’m going to be degraded, somebody’s going to have to degrade themselves by degrading me. Fuck you, monkey, feel my balls.

      1. … and let me guess, while the agent is getting his gloves on, you are playing this video in your head to get a lovely erection with which to humiliate him?

        1. Well doesn’t she look sturdy. Make good wife. Birth many baby. Pull much plow.

      2. Last time I flew, which was a few weeks ago, I mistakenly got in the easy line. Not sure what it’s called. No one corrected me. Didn’t take off my shoes. No bag search. No scanner. It didn’t even hit me until I was all the way through. Hey! What happened. No shoes? No scanner? Like maybe 1 solid minute waiting for my bag to go through the X-Ray machine? That’s the way it should always be.

        1. I did that this summer. It was awesome. Although I realized my mistake after a moment. I turned around to go in the correct line and told the TSA person I made a mistake. She said it was ok. She approved me.

  7. Wendy Davis might run again.

    I’m fine with aborting this candidacy in the earliest mester.

    1. She won’t go anywhere. She burned the democrat volunteers bad with how horrible her campaign was.

      1. And yet, Hillary Clinton…

  8. Additional perspective on Scott Walker’s exit.

    He’s a college AND campaign dropout.

    1. Hey-oh!

  9. Over at the Doom thread, mtrueman is engaging in apologia for the Khmer Rouge as part of his gambit to argue that malnutrition is not caused by governments but free markets.

    It’s simultaneously horrifying and hysterically funny.

    1. Pfft., everyone knows malnutrition everywhere is caused by the US government, except when Michelle Obama gets involved! Also, CIA and yes, Jews international capitalist class.

    2. Not even joe would stoop to apologizing for the Khmer Rouge.

      1. Well, joe is smarter than Mr Trueman….

        Notice the progression of the conversation. He keeps shifting goal posts in order to avoid admitting that his original premise was at all wrong…. and ends up cornering himself.

        You can sense that he thinks every goal post shift is a brilliant rhetorical judo move turning the table on his interlocutors demonstrating that he is the superior intellectual.

        The guy is so depraved he literally doesn’t comprehend that his judo moves have put him in the position of defending the worst sort of savagery and brutality. I mean he understands that people will disagree with him and get emotionally exercised about it, and he thinks this is a good thing since he perceives such displays of outraged emotion as signifying that he has won the argument.

        I pity his parents. Can you imagine all the sacrifices they put into raising and educating him? All they got in return for their efforts is a self absorbed monster, who probably won’t even bother to visit when they are in the nursing home.

        1. tarran|9.22.15 @ 5:08PM|#
          “…Notice the progression of the conversation. He keeps shifting goal posts in order to avoid admitting that his original premise was at all wrong…. and ends up cornering himself.”

          It doesn’t matter. He’s here to see his name on the screen:
          mtrueman|5.4.15 @ 12:59AM|#
          “[?] What you haven’t fathomed is that I’m so morally depraved that my deserved rep here doesn’t bother me or interest me in the least. I post for myself; your feelings about me are of no concern.

          Help yourself engaging him; any comment will be countered with lies, made up ‘facts’ or just a pile of bullshit.

    3. Ugh, thanks for that.

      “Arguably the world’s most repressive state, North Korea, has seen improvements in their food situation over the past few years.”

      WTF is wrong that boy.

      1. Again, technically correct! They have seen improvements compared to, say, mass famine of mid-90s!
        As for what’s wrong, autism?

        1. Right, he says this immediately after denouncing “neo-liberal policies” for not eradicating hunger in India.

          There’s still hunger in India? Proof that markets are failing.

          Hunger is starting to decline after decades of famines engineered by the state? Proof that all governments are concerned with eradicating hunger.

          He is just a troll.

          1. And he pulled out that New Deal canard, (paraphrased) “markets sometimes fail because the transportation cost of getting a good to market is higher than the price of a good and so no one can get those goods, ergo market failure”.

            For fucks sake this guy is dense. Then obviously the price of those goods ought to be higher to reflect the factors of production, one of which is transportation. Or the products are entirely out of demand in which case you’ll need to explain why an entire market of producers overproduce this good so far out of proportion with demand that they can’t even be sold at market, a problem which could only have a political origin. Not a “market failure”.

    4. tarran, you and Brian are fighting the good fight. I don’t see how you can stand that stupid thing.

  10. The Pope has landed and so has [on] Brian Williams.

    Now that is a headline I want to see.

  11. Is the Pope coming to a town near you?

    Better keep the kids locked up this time.

  12. “Joe Biden says he believes that negroes are human beings, but doesn’t want to force that view on others.”

    Just saying. This always seemed like a silly position to me. If you think an action is murdering an innocent human you are justified in forcing that view on others. Unless we are suddenly going to start revoking all the other anti-murder laws we have on the books.

    1. If you think an action is murdering an innocent human you are justified in forcing that view on others

      I look again to Sir Charles Napier. I have no interest in forcing my view upon baby murderers. They are more than free to believe as they do. I still would fry them, however, I just don’t give a shit if I change their minds.

      Build your Planned Parenthood building. I will instruct my carpenters to construct a gallows next to it. You follow your beliefs and I will follow mine.

  13. The Pope’s visit is pre?mpting Jeopardy! in New York. 🙁

    1. I’ll take Old Men in Funny Hats for 200, Alex

      1. Who is Yoko Ono?

      2. I’ll take Swords for 400, Alex.

        1. What is a sabre?

        2. I’ve spent five years of my life trying to invent an anal bum cover. Failing to do so is my greatest regret.

      3. Suck it, Trebek!

    2. I’m so glad that umlaut thing never really gained traction.

      1. What do you have against the di?resis mark?

        1. English is supposed to be difficult. If we start simplifying spellings, adding accents or other marks to aid pronunciation, where would that leave us, eh? Speaking Spanish, probably. Lines must be drawn!

          1. MAIK AMURKA GRATE AGIN!!!!!

          2. Don’t want difficult? Esperanto for the win! It’s going to become popular worldwide any day now.

            1. Esperanto has funny letters.

          3. Adding diacritical marks makes spelling *more* difficult, not less.

            1. Everybody’s a dia-critic.

              1. Ted just wants everything to be neat, clean and on one page.

    3. Back in high school you were a square
      Carried books and sliderules everywhere
      You made straight-A’s year after year
      They called you geek they called you queer.

      For everyone who laughed in your face
      Now’s your chance to put them in their place
      ‘Cause you’re on a TV show
      Where your big brain earns big dough!

      (Sing it to the Final Jeopady theme)

    4. You’ve just exposed yourself as a New Yorker writer.

  14. A very problematic student newspaper has run afoul of Black Lives Matter. (My response to this kerfuffle will be published soon.)

    Can we expect another back and forth with an accredited graduate of the CSJ?

  15. Bishophill has some fun with the clueless greens of England

    In the crazy world of the environmentalist, the following logic holds:

    Oil companies are subject to a supertax on top of corporation tax.

    Oil companies operating West of Shetland do not have to pay this supertax.

    Therefore oil companies operating West of Shetland are subsidised.

    Therefore we should apply the supertax to all oil companies.

    One can apply this logic elsewhere:

    Rich people pay income tax at 40%.

    Poor people pay income tax at 25%.

    Therefore poor people are subsidised.

    Therefore we should tax poor people at 40%

    .

    I’m not sure our environmentalist friends have thought this through.

    1. The ratchet only works in one direction.

  16. The staff of The Wesleyan Argus had the unfortunate duty last night of reporting that the school’s student government is considering a petition to defund the publication.

    They need to divest in something.

    1. Man, just close the paper. Drop out of that hellhole and transfer to another school.

  17. The Pope has landed.

    Crazy old commie enjoys the usufructs of capitalism to jet about the globe to decry capitalism.

    1. Sideshow Bob: By the way, I’m aware of the irony of appearing on TV in order to decry it, so don’t bother pointing that out.

    1. After they exterminate the Jews they’ll target the redheads. But he’s too stupid to realize that…

    1. I wish that were a parody.

    2. “Stuff like this is why I love [University of Delaware].”

      Oh, you poor kid…

  18. A very problematic student newspaper has run afoul of Black Lives Matter.

    I tried to read that gobbledygook, but I couldn’t get through it. Maybe I just missed the “Problematic” part.

    Dear Black Lives Matter:
    STFU and fuck off.
    Thx

  19. Hey! It’s been a while, sorry. How is everyone?

    So my Facebook feed is full of progressives getting ready to burn Shkreli in effigy. Or possibly reality. Because capitalism. Or something.

    Anyway, it led to this statement:

    “He thought that since the insurance company would pay for it it doesn’t mayer how much it costs. But we, the consumers, will end up paying for these prices”.

    I am waiting for the right moment to bring up birth control.

    1. I tried the tact “Perhaps if there weren’t rents to seek, there wouldn’t be rent seekers?”

      Blank stares.

      1. They may not understand “rent seeking”.

    2. My Facederp “friends” are proclaiming the mystery of faith that it’s the fault of unfettered capitalism and ignoring anyone who suggests that it might be regulatory capture.

      1. The real mystery is why any of you are on Facebook.

      2. Because if there’s any word that really captures the essence of our captive, centrally banked and highly regulated economy, it’s “unfettered”.

      3. I thought the correct term was ‘unbridled capitalism’?!

    3. So my Facebook feed

      I see your problem.

  20. Why can’t Wesleyan students just start another student newspaper? Is there some rule that there can be only one?

    1. Who gets funding out of the student activities fee?

    2. THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!

      You have to cut off the editor’s head before you can take over.

  21. Lewinsky press in sycophantic swoon over Argentine religious thug, notably crude in his statism and intellectually shallow to boot.

  22. So I forgot to mention this: I mentioned something about Donald Trump’s bankruptcies on twitter, so Eric Dondero showed up and started telling me it wasn’t Trump’s fault because the only reason anyone ever goes bankrupt is because of the EPA and OSHA.

    He then vanished into the ether and wouldn’t answer when I asked how companies could have gone bankrupt before the 1970’s if that were the case.

    He’s the retarded gift that keeps on retarded giving.

    1. Excuse me, Irish, but his name can only be styled as DONDERRROOOOOOO.

    2. Can you imagine how tortured that fascist little shit is?

      The closest he ever came to the levers of power was being on the staff of a libertarian congressman…. who fired him for incompetence.

      It’s doubtful he’ll ever have a job with the government that is anywhere near that level of status.

      1. He hopes that if he humps the legs of the powerful enough, eventually one of them will restore him to his former status.

      2. Doubtful.

        In DC failure and incompetence are career enhancers.

    3. Twitter is the gift that keeps on giving. I don’t know why I took so long to get into this because there are so many dumb people that I haven’t laughed this hard in years.

      I had one guy tell me that I should always believe black people when they say they’ve been oppressed. He then called me a racist because I said ‘but sometimes black people are wrong and they could also lie for their own purposes.’ He claimed I was saying there was a conspiracy among black people to lie, which was not quite my point.

      Another guy told me evolution can’t be true because ‘why then are there still monkeys? Why did monkeys not evolve?’ When I showed him a chart explaining how we have a common ancestor, he said ‘LOL evolution is so dumb.’

      1. ‘LOL evolution is so dumb.’

        It’s hilarious when ignorant people dismiss something they don’t understand as dumb. But it’s a quick way to determine who I’m dealing with.

        1. There’s a guy who tweets under ‘Take that Darwin’ and he just retweets crazy anti-evolution stuff from Christians. Examples:

          “Victor M. Gonzalez ?@vhgtms Sep 16
          @RezaHaddadzadeh @khamenei_ir LOL, no such thing a evolution. We are in a state of entropy and always have been. The whole universe is,Bible”

          “Jeffrey Walker ?@Jwalkertide 3h3 hours ago
          @TheRejected2011 Or saying you evolved from a stone or pebble versus a solid granite rock, underwater…with lightning over a kzillion yrs!”

          “Nate ?@middrange0 17h17 hours ago
          don’t understand how ppl STILL think evolution exists, actually I do. It’s shoved down our throats in school but we never question anything”

          “Natafreakinlicious ?@natray2010 15h15 hours ago
          @PeterHase2014 bcuz evolution can pick n choose when to change right!! Lmfao! So maybe we will see more monkey humans in the future then?

          1. Wow…some people have such small minds and NO imagination. Evidence of Evolution is everywhere–except for those too close-minded to see it.

          2. Wouldn’t you find it more comforting to assume it’s a prolific and dedicated troll? I know I do.

      2. In the past day I’ve had Trump-loving actual Nazis flinging #cuckservative at me for agreeing with Charles CW Cooke on something, followed by an (in) famous TERF this morning. I really do love twitter.

  23. No, really! This time we’re serious

    The spending proposal is subject to approval by the City Council, and the money would be allocated by the council’s committee on homelessness and poverty. The $100 million figure was chosen in part for its symbolism, said Herb Wesson, the council president, and to make it clear to county, state and federal officials that the city was willing to contribute to solving an urgent problem.

    “We wanted to send a message that we’re serious,” Mr. Wesson said. “Today, we step away from the insanity of doing the same thing and hoping for different results, and instead chart our way to ending homelessness.”

    1. Step one – each councilor will have to house one homeless person per residence they own or rent.

    2. The $100 million figure was chosen in part for its symbolism

      We’re serious, except not really, we haven’t really analyzed the true costs.

      1. They also haven’t analyzed how, as soon as you’ve housed all your homeless, an equivalent number will show up from other areas to take their places on the corners and under the viaducts. There’s an equilibrium to their presence.

        Also, one of the main reasons for the ‘homeless’ is that most ‘homes’ come with rules, which so many of these people don’t want in their lives. If you live in a building somewhere, you’re not allowed to sit up drinking in the middle of the night, you’re not allowed to shoot smack whenever you want, and you can’t complain that you’re homeless and hungry so people will give you dollars you can spend on booze and smack.

        We see so many folks like this every day in the ER. It’s not a “myth” that some people prefer living on the streets, no matter what an activist might try to tell you.

        The only thing I think would help would be ‘no-judging’ shelters with showers, toilets and cots, where you are allowed to do whatever you wanted, including alcohol and drugs,and you aren’t required to go to counseling, meet with a social worker, or attend a religious service. I’ll bet a lot of the current homeless would go for a place like that, especially during colder times of year.

        1. I’m almost certain many of the young, bedraggled but mysteriously hale-looking panhandlers peopling the street corners around my city are in fact living in homes of some sort.

    3. So the City Council has Wessonality.

    4. “chart shart our way to ending homelessness.”

      FTFY

    5. How many houses on Staten Island would $100M buy?

      1. The LA city council’s evil plan is to ship all the homeless to Staten Island?

        How many homeless would NYC fire back in counter-battery?

        I see a couple of John Carpenter films coming true, once the MAD protocol is instituted.

    6. Did he do the Dr. Evil dramatic-zoom-in when announcing 100 million dollars?

  24. Maybe LA can end homelessness by building houses out of hundred dollar bills and giving them to the bums.

  25. “so has Brian Williams.””

    “Welcome to MSNBC, Brian! Don’t worry – we’re all full of shit here.”

  26. The Pope has landed.

    So he flew in on a commercial airline that exists to make icky profits. And here I thought he was champion of the people. *spits on the floor*

    1. Alitalia hasn’t made a profit in like 80 years.

  27. Pander?

    “Secretary Clinton is in a tough primary battle, and opposing Keystone has direct appeal to many Democratic activists she is courting, so this is no surprise,” said Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton White aide on climate change. “It’s hard to see her taking any other position politically at the moment, despite Keystone’s relative unimportance as a substantive climate and emissions issue.”

    “Clinton’s opposition will make it that much more difficult for President Obama to disappoint party activists and approve the pipeline.”

    “It’s about time,” said Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth Action, the political arm of the environmental group. “Now we need Pres Obama to finally deny the Keystone XL pipeline permit. And we need Secretary Clinton to use her Keystone XL test to keep fossil fuels in the groud.”

    Toss some shiny trinkets into the crowd as you pass by, Hill.

      1. Serious health issues didn’t stop FDR or JFK from becoming President. I’m sure she believes she can ride it out once she’s in office.

        1. But “serious health issues” did stop HRC from testifying before Congress ….

        2. Didn’t cause FDR to bother to brief Trumann on any part of what was going on, either. SOB was criminally negligent.

        3. You know who else wasn’t stopped by serious health issues?

          1. “You know who else wasn’t stopped by serious health issues?”

            Il Duce’!
            Well, he was after they killed him…

    1. “We need Secretary Clinton to use her Keystone XL test to keep fossil fuels in the ground.”
      -Erich PIca

      Pica: an eating disorder where people eat dirt.

      This stuff just gets better every day. Keep it in the ground, you dirt-eater you.

      1. “Pica: an eating disorder where people eat dirt.'”

        +100 Years of Solitude

  28. A very problematic student newspaper has run afoul of Black Lives Matter. (My response to this kerfuffle will be published soon.)

    Problematic, Robby? The page you link says that their “problem” is an insufficient amount of coverage paid to the members of Anyone Other Than White People Club. I want to believe that your “very problematic” description is tongue-in-cheek, but since you’re basically Anita Sarkeesian with a dick and undeserved libertarian street cred, I’d wager that you’re going to argue in favor of a more pandering inclusive approach to journalism.

    1. basically Anita Sarkeesian with a dick

      That’s unfair! I’m sure Robby writes his own articles.

      1. basically Anita Sarkeesian with a dick

        That’s unfair, I’m sure Sarkeesian has a dick of xer own.

  29. The scourge of BIGOREXIA

    Sometimes I wonder if I count as having this. And then I look at how weird actual bodybuilders are, and I feel much better. Plus I look better than this skinny fuck here anyway.

  30. “A very problematic student newspaper has run afoul of Black Lives Matter” the usual suspects

    The actual article doesn’t pin any specific grief on BLM, as an organization.

    …but rather suggests that “Lack of detailed coverage” of some teenage moral self-congratulation event (aka ‘protests’) held in solidarity with the rioting black kids in Baltimore.

    (Because nothing quite says UMOJA MY BROTHERS!! than Wesleyan students having a hug-fest during lunch)

    Then they ran a (not very interesting) op-ed by some kid who thought BLM was stupid.

    The mistake seems to be when the paper wrote apologies for both. Because doing so seemed to give credit to the idea that the paper is supposed to only print stuff that congratulates the right people for having the right views, and silence anyone who has the wrong views.

  31. Heh. Nobody cares about Sean Penn.

    1. Sean Penn does

    2. All of Film Actor’s Guild does. And, by extension, Kim Jong-il.

  32. More reasons Twitter is hilarious: this happened.

    Jeet Heer is a writer for TNR. There was a story about Jeb Bush saying assimilation will be ‘retarded’ by multiculturalism. Jeet Heer claimed he was using retarded as a slur, even though he was obviously using it in a completely neutral fashion. When he got called out on the fact that Jeb clearly wasn’t using retarded as a slur, he doubled down and tried to explain why it was still inexcusable to use the word retarded, even when doing so in an inoffensive way.

    1. Many conservatives on my timeline are defending Jeb Bush’s use of the word “retarded” here: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/l…..tural-iowa ?

    2. This brings up a point about political language that I’ve been meaning to make: that there are shades of connotations.

    3. The defence of Jeb is that in a dictionary sense he said nothing offensive: he meant “retarded” as in “slower”

    4. Thing is, words have conniptions more potent than dictionary meanings. “He’s a queer fellow – I mean, odd — look at the dictionary!”

    5. In the current case, “retarded” is a very, very potent insult. So much so that the slur overwhelms other dictionary meanings.

    I can’t stop laughing. This is retarded, and I mean that in the slur sense.

    1. “Jeet Heer?”

      “Hell, no!”

      1. He’s a queer fellow — I mean retarded. Which means slow and odd. Look up his picture in the dictionary.

    2. Can’t decide if people who focus on words like this are just doing it to create a distraction from the real issue, or if they’re just painfully ignorant. Probably a little of both…

    3. You mean “more reasons Twitter is retarded?”

    4. a very, very potent insult. So much so that the slur overwhelms other dictionary meanings.

      No.

      1. Way to be niggardly about semantics, Jeet.

    5. …words have conniptions…

      Congrats, Jeet. Primary school vocab fail.

      1. Between him and Elizabeth Stoker Breunig once saying ‘I register your malcontent,’ New Republic really has some brilliant writers on staff.

    6. Heer is being incredibly niggardly with his interpretation of Bush’s comments.

        1. Meh, yours was better. I was rushing to get it in there.

    7. “Words have conniptions”?

      even if the retard meant, “connotations”…. the subsequent use of “potent” just adds extra layers of @#(*@$ stupid on top.

      This person is a professional writer?

    8. Jeb’s usage was fairly obviously a verb instead of an adjective, and Heer damn well knows it.

    1. Who, one might ask, is footing the bill for this?

    2. Oh FFS. The dad says the kid “can’t sleep” but he’s got it in him to shuttle around the country meeting dignitaries? People you are being trolled.

      Oh hey, the Pope is in town too. He can kill two birds with one stone.

  33. I’m tired of the nigglers who complain about the use of the word “retarded”.

      1. Oh, irish thing above.

    1. “What did he say?”

      “New sheriff is a niggler!”

  34. Morality As Fashion – No Longer a Figure of Speech

    Fashion Show Tribute to Cecil the Lion

    *No word yet if the models would be rubbed in antelope blood and fed to starving lion cubs

    1. Good lord, Gilmore, are you filling in for Derpetologist? Step back from the abyss, man!

      1. I can’t. It’s staring into me.

  35. Sean Penn is suing Lee Daniels for $10 million for insinuating that he beats women.

    As long as Penn remains on the correct side of the Venezuelan question, I’m good… I’m good.

  36. Tom Woods (libertarian radio-show host) says = There is No Such Thing as “Social Justice”

    *haven’t listened to it. Just got notice in my inbox.

    1. Ooh, queued. I am looking forward to him taking shots at John Rawls! Because he and his slimy “liberal” theory don’t get shat on sufficiently.

      1. I read Rawls ‘theory of justice’ (is that what it was called?) in college.

        from what i remember, the first 2/3 of the book were actually a pretty good breakdown of approaches for conceptualizing “a just society”. i.e. critiques of the argumentative methods.

        then he gets to his “original position” argument (‘you are about to be born, and must design the world you are born into’), which he then argues leads logically to the idea…. that – given self-interest, yet no control over our condition of birth – we should want the largest possible safety net. more or less.

        Yet i don’t even recall the claim being made that it must be the most expansive safety net… or even the Western Liberal conception of one. Just that one should exist.

        in short, i’m not sure Rawls was ever the uber-progressive guy himself, but was rather adopted by progs as their philosopher of choice. I could be wrong. I only recall spending maybe 2 weeks on that book.

        1. I guess I’ll be mentioning BHL twice in this discussion, but… this week, two of the writers there came out and accused leftists of embracing Rawls in the 60s/70s as the newest vessel for their anti-commerce beliefs. Rawls’s own conception of the just liberal order could allow a decent amount of market freedom and inequality, as long as it still worked for the benefit of the poor (and I think he allowed that people could place moral weight on entrepreneurial freedom). His concern was the safety net and the condition of the poor. But a lot of political philosophers took his writing as the new, sophisticated theory of justice that could also justify the anti-market policies they were already advocating.

          This became clear with the evidence that markets and capitalism do more for the poor than socialism and redistribution. A society interested in helping the poor must rely on well functioning markets. And so, lately, Rawlsian liberals are trying to change the discussion from the condition of the poor to the gap between the poor and rich. If the concern is now about income inequality, they can continue using Rawls’s work to argue against markets.

          http://bleedingheartlibertaria…..nequality/

          1. lately, Rawlsian liberals are trying to change the discussion from the condition of the poor to the gap between the poor and rich.

            This is my problem with Rawlsian ‘veil of ignorance’ argument (well, one of several – it doesn’t, for example, explain why Civitate Dei fails the argument). It doesn’t take any account of envy, the most insidious of human qualities. If you truly go from ‘veil of ignorance’ of what kind of society you will be born into, one that focuses on inequality gap is perfectly fine – odds are excellent you won’t be born as one of the super-rich that free market doesn’t prevent. But if you redistribute from them, your odds of getting something from nothing increase. Set the percentage you fuck low enough, and it’s perfectly rational, yet you end up an Occupier.
            Yes, yes, run out of other people’s money, blah blah – if leftists accepted those arguments, they wouldn’t be leftist in first place.

    2. Social Justice is neither sociable nor just.

  37. Why Fight For a Shit-Hole Country? many soldiers ask themselves, joining wave of middle-eastern migrants

  38. Joe Biden says he believes that life begins at conception, but doesn’t want to force that view on others.

    He wants instead to force other views on others, especially woolly economic views.

    A very problematic student newspaper has run afoul of Black Lives Matter.

    Like, who doesn’t?

    Wendy Davis might run again.

    She looks like the type of woman who would make a coat out of the skins of 101 aborted fetuses.

  39. So, does that commie rat bastard Chavista punk imagine that FEWER people will know about him beating his ex-wife if he sues someone for mentioning it?

    -jcr

  40. Sean Penn is mad because the pope somehow saw through his alter boy disguise.

  41. “Joe Biden says he believes that life begins at conception, but doesn’t want to force that view on others.”

    When he thought the cameras had stopped rolling, he elaborated: “I mean, I would certainly never lynch a [African-American], but I certainly won’t impose that personal preference of mine of some grieving family who thinks their loved one was killed or raped by a [African-American]. The decision on whether to lynch a suspect is a deeply personal choice to be made by the family involved, in consultation with their local Kleagle.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.