U.N. Vows to Stop All the Bad Things, More Hillary Emails Going to Benghazi Panel, Farewell John Boehner: P.M. Links

|

New at Reason: 

Dynasty Runs in Blood & Oil's Veins, and That's a Good Thing: Also new next week: Quantico, Code Black, The Grinder, and Grandfathered. By Glenn Garvin

John McCain on Boehner's Resignation, Kim Davis, Drug Legalization, Planned Parenthood: Arizona senator says a Balanced Budget Amendment is the single-best thing to get done before 2016 election. By Nick Gillespie & Todd Krainin

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

NEXT: New Daily Show Host Admits to Political "Romance" with Rand Paul

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. Jeb Bush is under fire for saying Democrats lure black votes with “free stuff.”

    All 47% of them?

    1. “World leaders meeting at the United Nations adopted a “sweeping agenda” of new global development goals, addressing issues from climate change to “sexual rights” to poverty and hunger.”

      Meanwhile back at the Hall of Justice…what the fuck are they doing?

      1. Rufus, did you watch the French Debate? What was going on there?

        1. No. There was a debate?

          I was dealing with a SJW retard in my hockey pool.

          Loser.

          1. Is that a canadian swimming pool that freezes over in the winter months and becomes a hockey rink?

            1. Good one!

              Worse. It’s where 11 highly successful men meet and pick players for three hours. And then there’s me.

              1. You’re like the Zoidberg of the hockey pool! Congratulations!

        2. Honestly, I have no interest in watching this predictable nonsense.

          I have nothing to learn from Justin and don’t plan on voting for him. I loathe the NDP because left-wing and see absolutely no point to a one-issue Gaia party in the Greens.

          That leaves Harper. That’s my debate.

          1. Hey, you have an option of Bloc! If I could, I’d vote for them if they promise to push through the referendum and do nothing else. Then I’d vote “OUI” on it.

            1. Oh them.

              Whatever.

              ‘On a tout a gagner’ is there slogan.

              Is that so? Quebec has been sinking like Venice for decades now and it’s all thanks to asshole nationalists like them.

              1. their

          2. Cast a write-in vote. Spoil your ballot.

            1. I’m seriously thinking of voting Libertarian, which is about as effective. Just to see if we can get to 2% (had about 1.5% last time).

    2. Nonsense. No one would ever vote for a politician because he promised more government handouts than another politician.

    3. Jeb Bush is under fire for saying Democrats lure black votes with “free stuff.”

      I thought black lives matter? Isn’t free stuff what you give to people who matter? I has a confuse.

    4. This causes controversy!? Whoever said if you want to tell the truth you better make them laugh definitely had it right. The GOP has like thirty fucking third rails and manages to get zapped by each of them.

  2. U.S. Rep. and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced that he’s retiring in October.

    The orangest of the months.

  3. The State Department is turning over more of Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi-related emails to the panel investigating the 2012 attack.

    So we’re at the point it makes a difference?

    1. The difference is that they really know how to use the Sharpie now.

  4. Things you might not know about Bruce Schneier

      1. Awesome.

      2. Just when I think the internetz cannot get MOAR awesome….

    1. Your geek cred’s at risk Nikki. That site’s been a running joke for quite a while.

      1. If Julian Sanchez only found out about it today, I’m not going to feel bad. And I’m not really a geek anyway.

        1. Oh, sorry. I’d always assumed you were. Anyway, what Carl says.

      2. Yeah but her “worst” cred is running strong.

  5. The U.S. and China have agreed that neither will conduct “economic espionage” in cyberspace.

    And apparently neither can allow a buzz word gap.

  6. “Jeb Bush is under fire for saying Democrats lure black votes with “free stuff.”

    He stopped waiting on that apology, huh.

    Jeb better stand his ground and not bend.

    #blackfreeshitmatters.

    1. “Not only do Republicans want to cut social programs, thus turning you out into the streets to starve, now they dare to say we’re trying to buy your votes with free shit!

      “Now vote for us or you won’t get any free shit, and without government help how will black people ever survive?”

      1. “Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, “What shall we do with the negro?” I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature’s plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! If you see him on his way to school, let him alone, — don’t disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner-table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot-box, let him alone, — don’t disturb him! (Applause.)” – Frederick Douglass

        1. Politicians and civic leaders were so much better back then.

    2. Free shit is free shit. Why is he singling out blacks? He is a racist, statist fuck. He knows no other course.

  7. “Free” stuff?
    They paid with slavish sweat and blood.

  8. Jesus Christ

    Is that American kid in the suit the spawn of Thomas Friedman?

      1. He is going to influence American policy someday.

  9. The U.S. and China have agreed that neither will conduct “economic espionage” in cyberspace.

    Correction: When caught, neither will admit to conducting economic espionage.

  10. Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refuses to issue gay marriage licenses, said her and her family are changing their allegiance from the Democratic Party to the GOP because Democrats no longer represent them.

    The GOP needs another martyr in the war on religion like it needs a while in its side.

    1. That may be the weirdest typo I’ve made yet.

      “The GOP needs another martyr in the war on religion like it needs a hole in its side.”

      1. And here I thought the GOP needed a whale in its side.

        1. Energy Independence Through Clean-Burning Whale Oil!

          Not a good slogan for 2016?

          1. Dude, we reached Peak Whale about 100 years ago.

          1. This is why there are no female libertarians.

        2. Not “a while in the shade”?

      2. I thought it was “a white on its side”

    2. Those stupid Republicans, catering to voters who switch from Democrat to Republican because of the excesses of the Democrats!

      1. I would like to know what brought her to the Democrat Party in the first place.

    3. Her and her family? LUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCYYYYYYYY!

  11. I honestly could not care less about Kim Davis or her political affiliation.

    1. I could care less, and I do.

  12. Why did ENB link to a video of a crazy, old man? Sup with that?

    1. Cause she hates us, which is clear after her small-government/anti-women post.

      On a more serious note, I have no idea who MRAs are but the anti-man animus is obvious among feminist SJWs.

      1. You shitlord, don’t you understand Everything Is Sexist?!?!?!??!?!

      2. I have no idea who MRAs are

        Mostly infantile men with shitty entitlement complexes who either can’t comprehend or don’t respect the agency of others, and believe that if they do XYZ they are therefore entitled to someone’s affections/loyalty/vagina. So they’re bitter that humans don’t actually work like this.

        1. Mfckr, spreading out shit for the MRA flies.

      3. Cause she hates us

        In the last few hours she has rung the bell for the abortion, #GAMERGATE, and Kim Dave folks, so there may be something to your theory.

  13. Jeb Bush is under fire for saying Democrats lure black votes with “free stuff.”

    For someone reared in politics, he really is bad at this.

  14. LibertyFund’s OLL is running a forum on my favorite living political philosopher, Anthony de Jasay, who turns 90 this year. I thought there were some nuggets relevant to our recent anarchist talks here (and everybody should read Jasay, so I take any excuse to bring him up). I think this is what Epi and Nicole mean when they talk about ‘practicing’ or living as anarchists, and it’s relevant to the question of libertarian strategy.

    The conclusion in Hartmut Kliemt’s opening essay (bold is mine):

    With the anarchists he shares the belief that coercion by collective mechanisms of governance can not be legitimized by agreements of individuals. But he does reject the typical anarchist’s reliance on a priori knowledge of rights and entitlements. Once the invention of state organization has been made, individuals have to acquiesce in the fundamental coercive power of the state as a fact of life. Yet it makes a difference whether subjects of the state voluntarily endorse its claim to legitimacy or not. They can either regard the state as authorized by their own consent ? as the contractarian ideology suggests ? or treat the coercive power of the state as imposed and decidedly not as an outgrowth of their free agreement. Acknowledging the latter truth is what Jasay demands.

    1. Related to that is an earlier statement in the piece (but in the midst of talking about HLA Hart’s work, so reading it out of context is confusing): acceptance of the social contract theory “changes the attitude towards government from ‘them against us!’ towards voluntary participation in governance, [and] individual liberty loses one of its natural defenses in opinion-formation.”

      This is the main goal of insisting on the anarchist argument: getting people to understand that the state is not legitimate, even if it is not going away. Getting some solid political wins would be nice to see, but our ultimate strategy is fostering an antagonistic attitude toward the state and its decrees. If more and more people see the state for what it is and consider it in opposition to their own interests, then we might see it lose some power and authority. The sentiment would naturally act in opposition to growing government. The limited government rhetoric that takes the state as legitimate, “we only need to restrict it to its proper sphere,” is a double-edged sword and lacks the same force.

      1. Very much this.

      2. our ultimate strategy is fostering an antagonistic attitude toward the state and its decrees.

        “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help. ” – Ronald Reagan

        Is it any wonder why he was the Great Communicator? Too bad none of our current crop of politicians are willing to repeat or paraphrase this.

        1. And then he helped us by selling weapons to Iran, ramping up the WOD, and huge deficit spending.

      3. This is the main goal of insisting on the anarchist argument: getting people to understand that the state is not legitimate, even if it is not going away. Getting some solid political wins would be nice to see, but our ultimate strategy is fostering an antagonistic attitude toward the state and its decrees. If more and more people see the state for what it is and consider it in opposition to their own interests, then we might see it lose some power and authority. The sentiment would naturally act in opposition to growing government. The limited government rhetoric that takes the state as legitimate, “we only need to restrict it to its proper sphere,” is a double-edged sword and lacks the same force.

        I’ve been entertaining a similar thought for awhile now, but have been unsure how to propagate this sort of sentiment to others.

    2. Not related to the above, this is just good stuff; from Chris Coyne’s opening essay:

      Jasay also emphasizes the practical difficulties with social engineering. He notes that “[t]he hard part in political theory is to excogitate, not what we ought to want, but how to get it. It is easy enough to call for institutions ‘designed to’ do this, that and the other. The puzzle and the pain begin when the institutions that will do these things have actually to be ‘designed,’?” (1997: 117). Further, it is not just that efforts at social engineering may fail, but also that they may generate significant harms. “All we could tell the social engineer is that we want the engine to run sweetly and reliably, but we could suggest no way for him to find out how to make it run so.? It will very likely ruin the engine before it does” (1997: 117).

      1. This just sounds like Hayek revisited to me.

        One thing that drew me to algorithm science is their widespread acceptance of how little much of algorithmic possibility is permanently in the dark. There are whole problems that we can basically can prove we will never know if we can solve or not (I think Dasgupta’s book covers this well.)

        I would like to see this in government. It is just impossible for a centralised body to have the information it needs to deliver optimised local outcomes. So basically no social engineering problem as we know it, could ever be solved by some centralised power structure. The problems are the politico-economic equivalent of NP-hard.

        1. That was one of the insights I came away with too from reading up on ‘bounded rationality’.

        2. Well this particular quote is aimed more at political “scientists” and commentators who simply assume functioning institutions, and don’t want to wrestle with the question of how to make them function and check human shortcomings. I recall he does make the more Hayekian argument about the lack of information and feedback that government institutions get elsewhere, but the quote here is more about the rhetoric and types of arguments that statists use with much success. That’s also very Hayekian, but different from the information argument.

          I just wanted to post it because I get so frustrated by people bringing up these “easy” government solutions that are so common sense and simple that they’ll obviously work.

          1. I just wanted to post it because I get so frustrated by people bringing up these “easy” government solutions that are so common sense and simple that they’ll obviously work.

            You’re going to have a real uphill battle on your hands trying to cajole people into considering the epistemological validity of central planning.

    3. That is exactly what I mean.

  15. “The U.S. and China have agreed that neither will conduct “economic espionage” in cyberspace.”

    Largest International Game of “Let’s Pretend” Moves into Second Phase

  16. Pst. Did you hear?

    Apparently, and you didn’t hear it from me (motions to Warty,) but Episiarch’s mom puts bread in her meatballs like a poor person.

    Don’t tell anyone. Pass it along.

    1. I see you’ve finally figures out why Epi spends so much time with everyone else’s moms.

    2. What about breadsticks in spaghetti? Because… man, that sounds all kinds of delicious.

    3. Wait, WHAT??

  17. Spot the Not: randy popes

    1. his early death may have been caused by being penetrated by a stallion

    2. had an affair with a married woman before being pope; fathered at least 7 children out of wedlock.

    3. was accused of “many vile adulteries” and “his rapes… and other unspeakable acts.”

    4. according to some sources, held off ordination in order to continue his promiscuous lifestyle, fathering four illegitimate children

    5. had three illegitimate daughters; accused of being a “sodomite covered with shameful ulcers.”

    6. was suspected of having had a liaison with the wife of the soldier of Swiss Guard and as nuncio in Germany allegedly fathered three illegitimate children.

    1. 6

    2. 1 is the Not. As far as I know, no pope was ever ass-fucked by a horse.

      Here’s wiki’s list of randy popes:

      link

    3. 1. Are you in the military yet?

      1. I am technically part of the Army Reserve at the moment. I ship out at the end of November.

        1. For some reason, I have to get sworn in again for the Regular Army.

  18. “Jeb Bush is under fire for saying Democrats lure black votes with “free stuff.””

    Under fire?

    I RTFA this time, and i saw zero quotes by anyone actually rebutting the claim.

    It reminds me of the NYT writing an article attributing statements to “critics”, who later turned out to be government officials. Who is doing the actual “firing” here?

    1. Our Better Natures, Gilmore. Our Better Natures are putting him under fire the moment we hear the horrible things he said.

    2. Jeb wants to be under fire for that so he can fool the rubes that think that way so he can get elected and buy Black votes for the Republicans with free stuff.

    3. Yes, under fire.

      You might think that that fire would include *some* rebuttal of Jeb’s claims, some logic, some explanation of where he’s mistaken – but then you would completely misunderstand how *normal* people work.

      its why there are actually concepts like ‘truthiness’ and ‘fake, but accurate’.

      *Fact* and a *true model of reality* aren’t important to most people. That’s why Bush could be 100% accurate and *still* be the target of hate and ire – he said something about his ideological opponents that they do not wish to examine.

      So they attack him, not on the merits, but *personally*.

      1. Well, that’s better than nothing.

  19. Episiarch’s mom puts bread in her meatballs like a poor person.

    Wonder Bread, I suppose.

    1. That shit’s expensive.

      No, store brand white bread. From the day old bin.

      1. Ah, the day old bin. Isn’t that where she also got Epi from?

        1. If by “day old bin” you mean dumpster then yes.

  20. The U.S. and China have agreed that neither will conduct “economic espionage” in cyberspace.

    The only agreement I believe in less than an agreement to reduce carbon emissions.

    1. beat you to it

      1. Microaggressor.

  21. Man Who Lives in Castle And Pretends to Talk to God Chastises People to “Be More Humble

    1. You got me. Actually thought there was such a person somewhere in Moldova.

    2. Thought you were going to link to some wisdom from Prince Charles.

  22. “I Take A Ukraine, Now I Take A You Syria” = Putin Drinks West’s Milkshake

    My guess is that the US and EU will make protesting noises, but quietly hand Syria back to Assad and the Russians. Sorry! all those millions of people we displaced by trying to foster a civil war there. Still! = not as bad as Bush.

    1. Sing Ukraine to the tune of ‘Take the A-Train’.

      You must take the U-kraine…

      Now it’s stuck in your head.

      1. I don’t know “Take the A-Train”, so no.

        1. But for some reason I have Led Zeppelin’s “Black Dog” stuck in my head.

          1. Wait… is that the name of the alien race from Wondermark?

      2. Ukraine is weak!

    2. A proper Bismarckian realist foreign policy at that point would be to make sure conflict burns for another ten years, and becomes another Bear Trap. Don’t overthrow Assad, just make sure Iran and Russia have to quagmire themselves to keep him in power withouth being able to win.

      1. Don’t overthrow Assad, just make sure Iran and Russia have to quagmire themselves to keep him in power withouth being able to win.

        Yeah, we’ve had our two decades of quagmire, it’s Russia’s turn again.

        Nyah, nyah…. you’re it!

        1. Russia and Iran and Hezbollah and various Sunni terrorism enthusiasts. Plus, you get to weaken EU by flooding it with refugees and watching their emerging superstate begin to fracture.
          Seriously, if US ends up in that position, it will demonstrate once again that sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.

        2. Obama had the Cheese Touch until he shook hands with Putin.

      2. “another Bear Trap”

        nah.

        That idea made a lot of sense in the 1980s when we were hastening of the collapse of the soviet union by encouraging them to double-down in Afghanistan…

        … I think the increasing consensus view is that a multi-polar security world – with regional military super-powers like Russia and China – is actually *better* than the Neocon concept of the “US trying to micromanage the planet”.

        While i hate the idea of linking to Vox on anything… I think #2 listed here is fairly accurate

        “”There is also a theory that Putin, in addition to reasserting and protecting Russian influence in Syria, is maybe hoping this will give him something he can use to strike a grand bargain with the US and Europe.

        There are two versions of this theory. One version says that Putin wants to stir up trouble in Syria, threatening Western interests there, in order to force the West to grant him concessions. Another version says that Putin believes he can offer Russian military assistance and intelligence against Islamist extremists in Syria as a prize to trade in exchange for Western concessions.”

        Some of those concessions may already be in the works

        1. Another version says that Putin believes he can offer Russian military assistance and intelligence against Islamist extremists in Syria as a prize to trade in exchange for Western concessions.

          If that really goes through, ‘the West’ may as well collectivelly disband their foreign office departments and stop having any kind of foreign policy.

          “My puppet is under danger, and I am about to go in and try to save him. But you guys gotta pay me for it.”

          1. Beats what we’re currently doing…. which is risking US assets (and political appearances) by fighting ISIS … (instead of letting the Syrians do it themselves)

            …alongside the Turks, who are fighting the Kurds .. (instead of letting the Syrians do it themselves)

            …which basically adds up to “fighting the Syrian Civil war on behalf of No One”

            Basically making ISIS into “the problem” changed the entire dynamics of our reason for being involved.

            The so-called “Syrian Rebels” have almost zero role at this point. Or at least are in a position where they’d benefit more from a negotiated settlement rather than trying to gain something slugging it out with ISIS and the Russian-supported Syrian Army.

            1. “fighting the Syrian Civil war on behalf of No One”

              Oh, absolutely. I wish Andrew Sullivan didn’t retire so he could explain how this is a masterpiece of 3D Chess, about to screw everyone over like Road Runner does to The Coyote.
              Obama administration in Syria managed to top the idiocy of its policy in Libya. And, while Iraq was basically American (not including domestic factors) failure on a far larger scale, at least there there was some sense of what they were trying to achieve.

              1. Related: the blog has its faults, but I thought this article about a Kurdish gunsmith was interesting.

                Also this is about a Ukraine farmer who fought against the Russia invasion.

      3. Given their stellar performance in all their foreign adventures – the Russians do not need our help to turn Syria into an decade long quagmire.

        1. Hungarians, Czechs, East Germans, Chechens (round 2) and Georgians wish you were right…

  23. Randy couple indulged their ‘animalistic lust’ after being kept waiting at McDonald’s drive-thru

    Who the hell cares if some woman gave a guy head in the drive thru line. Aren’t there more important things for judges to worry about in the UK. And if you don’t like the video footage don’t look.

    1. Did she swallow?

      What?

      1. Is that not on the video footage?

        1. “LET’S GO TO THE TAPE!”

          1. I bet you say that all the time.

    2. Some people get upset when others are getting laid and they’re not.

      1. Maybe.

        I think people like to exercise wonton authority over others indirectly. Telling the couple to clear off and don’t come back would have been the right thing, but hardly as satisfying as turning the video over to police to deal with them properly.

        1. What is wrong with teenagers working at McD’s?

          In my day, that CCTV tape would have been stolen, copied and passed around the school.

    3. Before sentencing Higgins read the following statement to the court: “u wot m8? i swer u are one cheeky cunt mate, say it to me in the street and not in court and we’ll see what happens. i swer 2 christ I’ll hook you in the gabba. you better shut your mouth or im calling me homeboys rite now preparin for a proper rumble. tha rumble that’ll make your nan sore jus hearin bout it. yer in proper mess ya nob head. u fucking cheeky kunt m8 i swear i am goin 2 wreck u i swear on me mums life and i no u are scared lil bitch gettin your mates to send me messages saying dont meet up coz u r sum big bastard with muscles lol fuckin sad mate really sad jus shows what a scared lil gay boy u are and whats all this crap ur mates sendin me about sum bodybuildin website that 1 of your faverite places to look at men u lil fuckin gay boy fone me if u got da balls cheeky prick see if u can step up lil queer”

      1. All said while wearing a nipping schmedium.

      2. It’s better in the original Cockney rhyming slang.

    4. “One disgusted observer filmed the lewd incident on his mobile phone while parents had to shield their children from the sight.”

      Yes, he was so disgusted by the sight he filmed it. As evidence of course. For him to thoroughly examine by repeated viewings, at home, by himself.

  24. An update on prog-on-prog clashes.

    ‘Stonewall’ Boycott: LGBT Advocates Slam Roland Emmerich’s Drama as ‘Whitewashed Propaganda’

    Roland Emmerich’s drama “Stonewall” comes with the tagline “Where Pride Began,” but for many LGBT advocates the indie film opening on Friday is not a source of pride but anger.
    Emmerich and screenwriter Jon Robin Baitz, who are both openly gay, chose to build their film around a fictional young, gay, white, Midwestern man (played by British actor Jeremy Irvine) who arrives in Manhattan and becomes a key player in the uprising at the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village.

    “It’s not just a little bit inaccurate, it’s a lot,” Faith Cheltenham, president of BiNet USA, an advocacy group for the bisexual community, told TheWrap. She criticized Emmerich and Baitz for taking liberties with actual events. “Fiction still has a responsibility. Filmmakers have a responsibility to not re-create history, to not take someone else’s history and turn it into their own,” Cheltenham said. “That’s an affront to civility, really. And it’s theft. It’s the wholesale appropriation of a group of people that were there.”

    1. A responsibility to whom?

    2. “That’s an affront to civility, really. And it’s theft. It’s the wholesale appropriation of a group of people that were there.”

      Good grief. Have any of these people ever seen ANY other movie “inspired by actual events?”

      I expect they want the movie to be 100% “accurate” to the details exactly as their friends have spun the tale through the years, right? And make their friends dashing, handsome heroes?

      1. It’s all on a flowchart, man.

        Is there something to complain about?

        Y– Complain about it.

        N– Look closer.

        And the arrow loops back to

        Is there something to complain about?

      2. And make their friends dashing, handsome heroes?

        Saverin, a co-founder of Facebook, attended my session at Harvard. I was disappointed when he was played by a rather unattractive actor, by movie standards, in the Social Network. Of course, he was slimmer back then.

    3. “Fiction still has a responsibility. Filmmakers have a responsibility to not re-create history, to not take someone else’s history and turn it into their own,” Cheltenham said. “That’s an affront to civility, really. And it’s theft. It’s the wholesale appropriation of a group of people that were there.”

      They absolutely do not.

      They *do* have a responsibility to not slap a name on the resulting story just because of brand recognition.

      I, Robot
      Shadow of Mordor
      300

      etc.

      1. “Fiction still has a responsibility. Filmmakers have a responsibility to not re-create history, to not take someone else’s history and turn it into their own,” Cheltenham said.

        I guess we really have no choice but to just execute all the millennials who have no idea the Titanic was a real ship. It’s just too late to save them.

        1. Titanic was a real ship

          OMG!

          1. I’ve been wasting all this time looking for Bubba Gump Shrimp in the supermarket.

            1. There’s a restaurant by that name in HK.

      2. I Am Legend.

      3. What, most of the past decade of terrible, cringeworthy comic book cinema gets a pass? At least the reboots of reboots that everyone has seen before but which inexplicably keep getting made.

    4. ” “Fiction still has a responsibility. Filmmakers have a responsibility to not re-create history, to not take someone else’s history and turn it into their own,” ….”That’s an affront to civility, really. And it’s theft. It’s the wholesale appropriation of a group of people that were there.””

      – Why “Straight Out of Compton” is basically a “Dre & Ice Cube Buffing Their Egos” movie

    5. Roland Emmerich making an “inaccurate” film? Unpossible!

  25. I told this in another thread, but it’s a funny story I thought I would share again.

    But last night I also told an anecdote about my trip to China. We went to the Forbidden City, and there were these signs with English translations. They signs were brown and at the bottom was embossed “This sign provided by the American Express Company” (paraphrasing…don’t remember exactly). But most of the signs had this part crudely painted over with brown paint to try and make it less obvious.

    I found a picture!

    I just can’t describe how amused I am by this. The best part is the lame attempt to cover it up, rather than just pay for new signs or something.

    1. Hell, spackle and a mudding trowel and then maybe paint or tape over it. They must have those things handy since they probably make them to ship here, so why not?

  26. One of my favorite YouTube channels returns with an awesome documentary on development of AI in context of gaming and Cold War. Melted my heart early on when, while discussing Enigma machine, he mentiones that Poles had the first breakthrough in breaking it. 15 minutes of awesome production values, as well made as any TV history program, done by one guy.

    His Iconic Arms series on famous weapons and their depiction in video games may be of interest to Reasonoids, too. No idea how accurate it is when it comes to weapons, but it certainly makes an awesome history lesson for ignoramuses like me. And pays tribute to Garand, AK and M1911, my three favorite firearms ever.

    1. That looks cool.

      I was going to ask people to post Youtube channels they like at some point. there’s so much out there.

      1. I love Shoe on Head. She’s smart, super-adorable, funny and on point.

        1. Two words: fake geek girl.

          (/sarc)

        2. Yeah, i’ve seen her. She’s very New Yawk-sassy, without crossing the line into too-annoying.

    2. A few years ago I was at a computer security conference, and the NSA had a booth. They had an Enigma machine, and they let me touch it. So I can’t hate the NSA too much.

      1. We know what you are now. And you’ve declared what your price is.

        1. To be fair, he did collect a good price for going over to the Dark Side a little.

  27. Half an hour and under a hundred comments? ENB really derailed the afternoon schedule.

    re: GG, something I’ve been rolling around for a bit… the whole “ethics in journalism” thing was pretty much tacked on. I read the original Quinnspiracy post when it was first published, and the outrage was more along the lines of WELL SEE WOMEN REALLY ARE GETTING SPECIAL TREATMENT. Which isn’t necessarily a bad-hearted point, but hardly the staid argument about journalistic integrity that’s tossed around as the fundamental basis of GG activism.

    That said: it wasn’t ever a necessary component. In fact it’s a bit of an excursion from what should have been a pretty obvious point to make about gaming press. Gamers were getting pretty cheesed off about the editorials passing for journalism. It’s not an issue of whether gaming journalists were compromised but whether they really served the community in the first place. When your hobby is routinely being shat on and you yourself accused of all manner of antisocial and bigoted habits, and the press springing up in service to this perspective takes a very dim view of the community, it’s tough to remain impassive. GG was the boiling over of long-simmering sentiments about the treatment gamers received from writers who served a niche clique of strident anti-gaming readers. That’s not a matter of ethics, but in fact it’s much more relevant.

  28. From the Kim Davis article:

    “She called “absurd” the idea she should quit as clerk due to her religious beliefs, and said she was following state law that has not changed since the Supreme Court ruling.”

    Of course, the reporter obviously didn’t have the space to cite the Kentucky constitution:

    “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

    The American Family Association gets it:

    “When she took her oath of office, it was an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Kentucky. She did not take an oath to uphold the rulings of the Supreme Court, especially when submitting to such rulings would require her to violate her oath to uphold the Constitution.”

    1. I’m still waiting for someone to explain why when Gavin Newsom began giving out marriage licenses in San Francisco years back, in violation of state law, he was a hero, but this lady is a horrible lawbreaker. I don’t support her in the slightest, but it is amazing that doing it in one direction makes you considered a courageous icon, while in the other direction you’re an asshole who needs to respect the law.

      1. What are you, some kind of Neo-Platonist trying to find the Perfect Form of Principle? What the Right People want is correct, what the Right People don’t want is incorrect and they have the Ultimate Argument of Kings, so fuck you.

      2. Newsom and company were careful enough (had decent government lawyers) not to be in contempt of court. That’s why they stopped giving out marriage licenses after a while. Kim Davis crossed that line. This is the difference.

        1. Newsom and company were careful enough (had decent government lawyers) not to be in contempt of court.

          Which really does illustrate nicely the basic complaint here:

          Violate a state statute/constitution – no prob.

          Violate a court order – go to jail.

          Is it any question why people complain about being governed by unelected judges, not elected legislators, governors, and a democratically ratified constitution?

      3. Lefties suddenly love the Pope.

      4. They believe that refusing to follow the Fugitive Slave Act would be a moral even though illegal, while a state that continued to segregate segregate schools following Brown v Board would be both illegal and immoral.

        I don’t believe the recent SC ruling is in the same league as either of the cases cited above, but there are plenty of folks who do. In their view, Gavin was doing the moral, if illegal, thing and Davis is both illegal (at least per the SC) and immoral.

        1. there are plenty of folks who do

          Apparently, not being able to take advantage of inheritance tax breaks = chattel slavery.

  29. First Ladies Advance Women’s Rights and Emphasize Importance of Professional Females in Positions of Power by….

    Naw, just kidding = they showed off their New Dresses and gave a panda a silly name. Girls just want to have fun, duh!

    1. First Ladies . . . Emphasize Importance of Professional Females in Positions of Power . . .

      First Ladies are not professionals. First Lady is not a professional position.

      They *may have been*, but how many of them have ever actually held a job outside ‘First Lady’ while the husband was in office?

      And I’d argue that First Ladies are not in positions of power either. At best, the power they have is because they *might* have the POTUS’ ear.

      And the people who try to pretend they are anything but glorified VP’s in order to bolster some sort of ‘feminist’ agenda . . .

      Also, what the shit? . . . third-graders from a Chinese-immersion elementary school in the nation’s capital.

      1. First Ladies are, however, perfect fodder for feminist cults of personality.

      2. “First Ladies are not professionals. First Lady is not a professional position.”

        DUDE, I know….

        …i was just pointing out, ‘Deez bitches aihnt no Elenor Roosevelt, Amirite?”

        Feminists will bitch for a month about a scientist wearing a shirt with sexy ladies on it… but Michelle Obama could #@*$&@ Twerk in front of the entire planet and they’d praise it as “empowering” and “groundbreaking”

        Hillary made “Afghan women’s rights” a centerpiece of her SoS role… and Michelle made hay out of #BringOurGirlsBack… but neither of them would so much as risk a fingernail on “women’s issues” if it meant any actual WORK

        1. Michelle Obama could #@*$&@ Twerk

          Ah, hell no.

  30. Second-Class Bitch, Dalai Lama, Refuses to Follow Pope’s Class Act

    Reports suggest he waved, “East Side Motherfucker” gang signs before throwing a handful of money in the face of Papal Envoy

    1. Fuck the Dalai Lama. Him and his ilk are every bit as odious as that horrible Mother Teresa. I fart in their general direction…

      1. Ah, a fellow Pen & Teller: Bullshit! watcher?

        “What is he saying? That Gandhi is naked, and the girls are naked too?”

        “Gandhi is naked! And the girls are naked, too!”

        1. But wasn’t he doing it to test his self-discipline? So it’s okay, right?

          1. Yes. Also, enemas.

            1. I’m not… I’m not clear whether the link here things is self-discipline or naked little girls.

              1. Who said the girls were little?

                1. My sick imagination, apparently, because that’s immediately where I jumped.

        2. Absolutely.

          Penn and Teller for President!

          1. Teller as President would be amazing. State of the Union would be a work of art!

      2. I love how celebrities and politicians fawn all over the guy.

        Dalai Lama, Queen, Pope…not my style man.

      3. Dalai Lama is worse than MT – he openly espouses the return of the Tibetan class system which, coincidently, had the monk class at the top.

        1. Didn’t he recently give up on that and promise full democracy? Not that it matters at this point, he can promise that independent Tibet will produce cows that produce icecream and poop out chocolate, for all the difference it will make.

          1. Sure, sure, full Democracy – just as soon as I’m re-installed as the head of government again.

            Sounds kinda like – sure, we’ll let the IAEA inspect our nuclear facilities for evidence of our building a nuclear weapons capability. *whispers* Aade, you got the IAEA to sign off on that agreement that allows *us* to do those inspections, subject to their audit, right?

        2. Dalai Lama is worse than MT

          I think it’s a toss-up. Mother Teresa harmed a lot of people during her life whereas the Dalai Lama wants to be put into a position where he can harm and subjugate a lot of people.

          1. The Dalai Lama has been advocating for the return of a social system that *did* a lot of harm to a lot of people – more harm than anything MT could have ever done, and certainly not even with the guise of misguided compassion.

      4. A fellow reader of Hitch, eh?

  31. No alt-text? How about…

    “Orange you sad to see me go?”

    1. “Flacks of My Tears”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.