Arab Spring Groups Win Peace Prize, Ride-Sharing Apps Impact India, Millennials Not All Sociopaths: A.M. Links

|

joiseyshowaa/Flickr

New at Reason:

Friday Funnies: Gun Free Zone—By Chip Bok 

Brickbat: Open to the Public—By Charles Oliver

Movie Review: Steve Jobs: Michael Fassbender's riveting take on the man who changed the world.- By Kurt Loder

McDonald's 'Cage Free' Edict Gets Activists Clucking: Market decisions do more than new laws.—By Steven Greenhut

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

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.

346 responses to “Arab Spring Groups Win Peace Prize, Ride-Sharing Apps Impact India, Millennials Not All Sociopaths: A.M. Links

  1. Obama weighs expanding background checks through executive authority

    In response to the latest mass shooting during his presidency, President Obama is seriously considering circumventing Congress with his executive authority and imposing new background-check requirements for buyers who purchase weapons from high-volume gun dealers.
    Under the proposed rule change, dealers who exceed a certain number of sales each year would be required to obtain a license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and perform background checks on potential buyers.

    Sounds like this would be completely uncontroversial and not piss off the majority of voters, in addition to stopping all future deaths by guns.

    1. Hello.

      “Four Tunisian groups?the Tunisian General Labor Union; the Tunisian Confederation of Industry, Trade and Handicrafts; the Tunisian Human Rights League; and the Tunisian Order of Lawyers?were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

      So disappointed they didn’t double down on Obama.

      1. He apologized for bombing the Doctors Without Borders hospital. He clearly deserved it. Damn racist Nobel voters.

        1. They’re racists because they didn’t rename it “The Obama Prize”.

      2. What about the People’s Front of Tunisia?

        1. I support the Peoples’ Tunisian Front.

      3. Fuck Obama – I had heavy money riding on the Pope.

      4. Isn’t Arab Spring ISIS?

        1. I’m sure a good bit of it was people who genuinely just wanted more freedom and democracy. I have no ideal how much compared to ISIS type stuff.

          1. A lot of them seemed to want the freedom to install a democratically-elected Islamic state. One man, one vote, one time.

            1. Point is that there were a lot of people who wanted a lot of different things involved.

          2. And last I saw, Tunisia was the one ‘success story’ to come out of it all. Though things may have deteriorated since I last read about it.

            1. Aside from the terrorist attacks on tourists, I haven’t heard too much bad stuff from Tunisia.

        2. “Isn’t Arab Spring ISIS?”

          The correct answer is “no”.

          Certainly not the way it started.

          If some groups (in other countries) used the freedom brought by the Arab Spring to do stupid and evil shit, that’s hardly on the good people of Tunisia for overthrowing a vicious dictatorship through peaceful protest.

      5. The Noble Peace Prize has become one of those things that means the opposite of its title, I suppose.

        They just can’t stop giving to to people and organizations that foment (intentionally or not) violence.

    2. Obama weighs expanding background checks through executive authority

      Why the fuck not? It’s already been established he can legislate without congress and can enforce or not enforce any laws at his whim.

    3. Is this new news? Clinton proposed just such a thing and Obama said he’s already looked into it and decided it’s a lot more complicated than it looks, but he did say they’re continuing to look into it. “Scrub the laws” I believe was his term for seeing just what all he could easily get away with as an executive order.

    4. How are executive orders law?

      1. Executive branch agencies don’t make laws because that would be an unconstitutional delegation of authority. Only Congress can make laws. What the executive branch issues are rules and regulations, not laws. That’s why when you run afoul of the EPA or the SEC or whatever you moreoften than not pay a buttload of civil fines rather than facing criminal prosecution. (The enabling legislation for the executive branch agencies lays out the broad law so there are cases where you’re liable to a criminal prosecution but the civil cases are much easier and much more remunerative for the agencies.) See how that works? It’s not a law, it’s a rule and you’re not being punished for breaking the law you’re just being sued for violating the rules.

        1. much more remunerative for the agencies.

          Minor quibble, but the money doesn’t go to the agencies. It goes into the Treasury’s general fund.

          1. the money doesn’t go to the agencies. It goes into the Treasury’s general fund.

            Not any more.

            And it’s not like the CFPB is the only one.

            Maybe you just haven’t been keeping up on the news.

            And pay attention to the fact that all these different agencies are now making damn sure they have their own SWAT teams so they don’t have to worry about any meddling outsiders telling them what’s legal and what’s illegal. If they’ve got a gun and a badge and their own revenue stream, they are a government unto themselves. And I’m telling you, you are seeing the US turning into a banana republic right before your eyes where every petty official is now free to ignore any orders coming from “higher up”, because there ain’t no higher up when you’re a warlord with your own little fiefdom. Obama ignores the Constitution, Clapper ignores Obama, Clapper’s people ignore Clapper. If your boss ignores his boss, what the hell makes your boss think you’re going to listen to him?

            1. I did not know that, thanks for the info.

              Over the years I have seen tens of millions of dollars in fines collected, and they all went into the Treasury’s General Fund (and still do for us). I didn’t know other organizations got to keep the funds. That is just wrong.

      2. How are executive orders law?

        Functionally, they are indistinguishable to the extent law enforcement agencies (which is what the federal alphabet soup agencies are) enforce them.

        One of the more pernicious effects of “legal positivism” is to produce an apologia for unconstitutional and immoral laws as being on exactly the same footing as legitimate laws. “If it acts like a law, etc.”.

    5. Something like 87% of Americans support background checks to prevent nutcases/retards from gunning up.

      Not that it would prevent a single school shooting but it is not unpopular.

      Just some facts – don’t blow a gasket.

      1. Except that background checks already exist you mouth-breathing retard. I believe this would be targeted towards more personal level sales and therefore completely unenforceable anyway:

        The proposed executive action aims to impose background checks on individuals who buy from dealers who sell a significant number of guns each year. The current federal statute dictates that those who are “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms need to obtain a federal license ? and, therefore, conduct background checks ? but exempts anyone “who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.”

        White House officials drafted the proposal in late 2013 to apply to those dealers who sell at least 50 guns annually, after Congress had rejected legislation that would have expanded background checks more broadly to private sellers. While the White House Office of Legal Counsel and then-Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. initially concluded the regulation was legally defensible, according to several individuals involved in the discussions, some federal lawyers remained concerned that setting an arbitrary numerical threshold could leave the rule vulnerable to a challenge.

        1. Not only unenforceable, but would likely be completely ignored. But, hey, doing something is better than doing nothing!

          1. Never mind that doing something ends up enmeshing accidental violators rather than deliberate criminals, but hey, at least it’s something!

      2. Something like 87% of Americans support background checks to prevent nutcases/retards from gunning up.

        Polls give the president new constitutional authority?

        1. Politicians respond to polls and popular opinion. They will say they believe whatever they think the voters believe. What does it say about what the voters believe that so many politicians say so much stupid shit?

          How the hell do only 87% of Americans support a simple background check to prevent bad guys from getting guns? If it’s going to prevent bad guys from getting guns, 100% should be supporting flying unicorn patrols or time-travelling robots. 13% of the respondents apparently are too stupid to realize that denying the premise is not a valid logical response to the question of whether or not you would support background checks if it kept bad guys from getting guns. Of course everybody supports keeping bad guys from getting guns – but only if it’s only the bad guys that are affected, and hell, you can just pass a law making it illegal to commit crimes and that would solve that problem.

          1. Well… there’s probably at least 13% of the population that believes they would be unable to pass a background check but would like a gun.

      3. If 87 percent of Americans supported anything, it would face zero resistance in getting a law passed.

      4. Something like 87% of Americans support background checks to prevent nutcases/retards from gunning up.

        Who are the 13% of people who wan’t to give nutcases guns and have them shoot people? Look, I know that you just made up the statistic on the spot, but your imaginary survey doesn’t even support the conclusion that you’re straining to make.

        1. wan’twant

        2. Keep in mind that shriek is a spoof account, and a particularly tiresome one at that.

          1. He’s just the loathsome Dave Weigel.

            1. I trolled Weigel on twitter verse and he retweeted that I called him a journolist biased hack…

      5. Palin’s Buttplug|10.9.15 @ 9:29AM|#
        “Something like 87% of Americans support background checks to prevent nutcases/retards from gunning up.”

        Yeah, turd, and I’m sure you could get 100% to agree to free money, too, so long as you word the survey correctly.

      6. prevent nutcases/retards from gunning up.

        Careful what you wish for Plug. You won’t get that Glock you want.

      7. Those 87% are essentially saying that IF background checks could prevent shrieking nutters from getting guns, they would support them.

        Nobody is supporting more ineffective, expensive, time-wasting, rights-violating background requirements. And that’s pretty much all that’s really on offer.

  2. A new study challenges the idea that kids today are less empathetic than their predecessors…

    Kids can be so ecruel.

    1. There is a lot of fake empathy going around today. The kind where people think they are empathic because they understand how people who are exactly like themselves think and feel. I’ve seen it mostly with extroverts who think being able to read their extroverted friends reliably means their empathic, when they can’t understand what a introvert is thinking or feeling to save their lives.

      I have no clue if this is a change from previous generations or not, though. I could see the proliferation of people making it easier to segregate yourself off into like minded folks and ignoring that different folks exist, but that really would only seem to effect your judgment of your empathy skills not actually how empathic you are.

      1. This.

        Extroverts are good at convincing themselves and others that they are empathetic, when, in fact, they may just be…well, faking it.

        Introverts aren’t good at expressing much of anything, but may genuinely feel empathy – but no one knows because of the first thing.

      2. Oh Illocust, I really understand what you’re going through *hugs*

      3. Introverts exist purely to do the bidding of dumb-ass extroverts, kind of like slave labor, you do all the work we take all the credit. I’m pretty sure it’s talked about in the bible.

        1. Extroverts exist to deal with all the public-facing bullshit that introverts want to ignore so we can focus on the technical work.

      4. Look, God rolls 3d6 for your empathy score, just like he did for the people he created 1,000 years ago. There is no real change to the average empathy ratings.

  3. Republican Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.) may get in on the Speaker of the House of Representatives race, joining Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz and Florida Rep. Daniel Webster.

    what a cluster.

    1. It may appear that way. However, we are only a few laws and regulations away from solving all of our problems.

  4. Ben Carson Tells CNN the Holocaust Would Have Gone Differently If the Jews Had Guns

    Blitzer: So, just clarify, if there had been no gun control laws in Europe at that time would six million Jews have been slaughtered?

    Carson: I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed.

    Blitzer: Because they had a powerful military machine, as you know, the Nazis.

    Carson: I understand that. I’m telling you that there is a reason that these dictatorial people take the guns first.

    “Ben Carson has a right to his views on gun control, but the notion that Hitler’s gun-control policy contributed to the Holocaust is historically inaccurate,” said Jonathan Greenblatt, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League. “The small number of personal firearms available to Germany’s Jews in 1938 could in no way have stopped the totalitarian power of the Nazi German state.”

    1. Twiitter fight:
      Ben White: Right the Jews of Europe having some guns would have stopped their mass execution by Hitler, the SS and German army

    2. 1. Dictatorial governments do tend to take guns away, yes.

      2. Dictatorial governments tend to have a lot more guns. And there were Jewish rebellions with guns, which managed to kill a few Nazis, but they didn’t last more than a few days and were pretty quickly crushed.

      Which means that 3. Everyone in this argument is an idiot. Not like that’s surprising.

    3. During the Warsaw uprising, civilian resisters with only small arms held off the German army for 2 months.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising

      1. While Stalin fiddled…

    4. I just love arguments based on hypothetical history.

    5. I don’t think you can say that it would have stopped the Holocaust had they had more guns, but you can’t say it wouldn’t have made anything different either. Jews being armed on Crystalnacht (however you spell it) may have made people think twice about how easily they could be intimidated. And whether or not it would have stopped the greater atrocities, it certainly would have made it more difficult.

      In any case, I don’t think that the important point is whether it could have stopped the Holocaust. The important part is that totalitarian regimes do seize privately owned guns and they don’t do it for no reason.

      1. and that’s the thing. No one pretends that having arms means the ability to defeat an actual army, but it does provide the means to shoot at some soldiers and makes the troops’ crackdown a bit more difficult. It’s one thing to take on an unarmed opponent, it’s another to have overwhelming superiority while knowing that some in your ranks, maybe you, are going to die.

        1. “but it does provide the means to shoot at some soldiers and makes the troops’ crackdown a bit more difficult”

          Exactly, and that’s what gun rights are about. The individual right to self-defense. As long as we’re talking impossible alternate histories, I’d love to make a prog go back in time and explain to a Jewish family not to worry that they don’t have a gun to protect themselves, it probably wouldn’t help them against the Nazis anyway. Because people in dangerous situations really like being told they can’t use something to improve their odds of survival by others who have never been there.

        2. The more important point to be made here is that an armed citizenry would be better positioned to deal with those bent on a tyrannical government long before it reaches the point where you have a clash between the citizenry and that government’s military forces. More importnatly, disarmed citizens become sheep, while armed people tend to be far less likely to just go along with shit they see is going to go ugly.

          Nobody can say what would have happened otherwise and it is just speculation, but one certainly can see the logic that says that had Germans been armed, that the Nazi party’s climb to power would have been far more dangerous and dubious.

      2. The important part is that totalitarian regimes do seize privately owned guns and they don’t do it for no reason.

        …will be completely ignored by goodthinkers because of the messenger.

      3. The important part is that totalitarian regimes do seize privately owned guns and they don’t do it for no reason.

        That’s why I’m looking into getting one of these:

        HK P30LS in .40 S&W

        1. I think they’d definitely want to seize that. If hadn’t already.

    6. “Oh that crazy kook is at it again!”

      /resumes push to disarm America

    7. Guns, hell – in the old days the Jews just needed one guy with a sling shot. And it’s not like they needed to defeat Hitler, just make it costly enough to deter him. I don’t need to run faster than the bear, I just need to run faster than you.

    8. The way I’ve seen it explained is Hitler loosened gun restrictions for Nazis and tightened them for Jews. The net result was less gun restrictions because there were more Nazis than Jews — therefore Hitler was pro-gun.

    9. And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more ? we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.

      Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, gulag survivor

    10. “The small number of personal firearms available to Germany’s Jews in 1938 could in no way have stopped the totalitarian power of the Nazi German state.”

      That is if you think the Wehrmacht Panzer divisions and Luftwaffe were going to be obliterating German cities in an effort to round up some local Jews. So no, not the “totalitarian power” of the state. (as if ‘totalitarian’ is a more firm sounding version of ‘total’)

      What it seems like Carson is saying that the costs of implementing that policy for the Nazis would have been higher, if small arms were widely available among the whole of the civilian population. I don’t see a controversy.

      1. Compare with: “The small number of personal firearms available to Afghanistan’s Taliban in 2012 could in no way have stopped the world-historical might of the American military.”

        1. Or, “The small number of personal firearms and improvised explosive devices available to ISIS in 2011 could in no way have stopped the Iraqi army, which was well-trained and heavily armed at great expense by the Americans.”

          1. “Of course, by 2014, ISIS had fully re-equipped with the firearms and equipment of the self-same Iraqi Army that had been supplied at great expense by the Americans”

        2. Or even “The small number of personal firearms available to the Mujahadeen in the Soviet-Afghan War in 1979 could in no way have stopped the world-historical might of the Warsaw Pact military.”

    11. The small number of personal firearms available to Germany’s Jews in 1938 could in no way have stopped the totalitarian power of the Nazi German state.

      …and what caused there to be a small number of available personal firearms?

      1. “The small number of personal firearms available to Germany’s Jews in 1938 could in no way have stopped the totalitarian power of the Nazi German state.”

        This is exactly why it should have been a LARGE number of personal firearms.

        Idiot.

    12. This fight is extremely silly. Yes, armed Jews would have made the Holocaust more expensive, no, they probably wouldn’t have stopped it. It’s ludicrous to imagine an armed Jewry, given the legal state of Jews in Europe for the few hundred years prior. But it’s almost like the ADL trolls are taking this as a personal insult. Do they think having some guns would have made it worse for the Jews? I don’t get it.

      1. How could it be worse?

      2. They should be insulted since they are on the same side as tyrants

      3. Do they think having some guns would have made it worse for the Jews?

        How can you have an orderly holocaust when they fight back? Progress is all about efficiencies!

    13. “The small number of personal firearms available to Germany’s Jews…”

      Was a demonstration of effective gun control?

  5. The future Edward VII’s three-way love seat (SFW)

    1. I’m trying to figure out the positioning. The pillars are handholds for the guy, I think, girl #1 bends over the table and puts her feet in the bottom stirrups, and girl #2 puts her feet in the top stirrups and lies down on girl #1. Does that seem right?

      1. Isn’t that how it works in your dungeon?

        1. To us, that item of furniture is a curiosity. To Warty, it’s a blueprint.

          1. Oh, like you wouldn’t want to bang high-end old-timey Paris hookers in unnecessarily complicated fuck-furniture.

      2. I think the guy stands in the bottom stirrups, girl 1 in the top stirrups, and girl 2 kneels on the little pad by the bottom stirrups.

  6. Spot the Not: silly US booze laws

    1. bar tenders must pour drinks out of sight from customers

    2. all booze over 3.2 ABV must be sold at room temperature

    3. no booze sales on Christmas

    4. no sale of single servings

    5. no Happy Hour or Ladies’ Night

    6. no simultaneous purchase of beer and liquor

    1. Too.

    2. I’m going with #1

      1. I think that’s how they do it in Utah.

    3. Had a coworker complaining about running into 6. He was mighty pissed. I’ve heard anti-discrimination laws be used to get rid of Ladies’ Night in California, but I don’t think its codified, so I’m going with 5 being the not.

      1. In Minnesota they banned them because the state Department of Human Rights found that bars with ladies night were guilty of gender based price discrimination.

        Thanks to Steve Horner- Asshole

        I remember when this was going on, some bars changed it to “skirt night”. So anyone wearing a skirt got the free drinks. A newspaper talked to some bar owner in Dinkytown (neighborhood next to the U of Mn – where Dylan got his start) and he said that wouldn’t work for him because if he tried it his bar would be filled with dudes wearing skirts.

      2. I’m pretty sure Boston has this ordinance.

      3. John Lee Hooker has the blues.

      1. Depends on what he means. In SC the liquor stores are divided in half, with separate entrances/exits. Beer and wine on one side, liquor and bowls on the other.

      2. That’s the case in NY. You can buy beer at the grocery store but if you want wine/liquor you have to go to a liquor store – that doesn’t carry beer.

        1. Yeah, a lot of states, cities, and counties have similar rules.

    4. I’d guess 6, but they all seem plausible.

    5. In 6, I mean at a store that sells liquor and beer, it is illegal to buy both at the same time.

    6. I meant 6 as the Not because I wasn’t thinking about separate liquor stores. Should have gone with the beer pong ban. The rest are from Utah, Oklahoma, Arkansas, DC, and Massachusetts.

      wiki

      Interestingly, Missouri has some of the most lax booze laws. In Missouri, Louisiana, and Nevada, there are no public intoxication laws.

      The barrier used to hide alcohol pouring in Utah is called the Zion Curtain:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zion_curtains

      1. 6 is real. Can’t remember the state. I’ll bug the guy at lunch and get back to you, but you aren’t allowed to buy both liquor and beer at the bar. You must choose one or the other.

        1. I think he was talking about at a store. I think that the ordering beer and liquor at a bar thing is not too uncommon. Though I think it is usually just about ordering more than one drink at a time for one person.

          1. Ah, that makes sense then.

    7. I’m gonna have to guess this is a trick question whether you know it or not. You may think you just made up one of these laws, but I can assure you there’s no liquor law too stupid to ever have been enacted somewhere at some time.

    1. The only winning move is not to play.

  7. “Four Tunisian groups?the Tunisian General Labor Union; the Tunisian Confederation of Industry, Trade and Handicrafts; the Tunisian Human Rights League; and the Tunisian Order of Lawyers?were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize Friday for their role in fostering the Arab Spring. ”

    Wasn’t the Arab spring a failure that fostered more war and violence not less? I mean I could see handing out the award if we hadn’t seen the results yet, but it’s a little late in the game to pretend everything is hunky dory.

    1. The prize is nothing but political signaling, it has nothing to do with actually fostering peace. For quite some time, now.

      1. Intentions matter. Intentions are all that matter.

    2. that the Arab Spring was a failure is in keeping with the Peace Prize. You know Obama got one, right?

  8. Ride-sharing apps like Uber are helping raise people out of poverty in India.

    Hasn’t India had enough of rapings on public transport??????????

    ????!?

  9. Obama Administration Ends Pentagon Program to Train Syrian Rebels

    LONDON ? The Obama administration has ended the Pentagon’s $500 million program to train and equip Syrian rebels, administration officials said on Friday, in an acknowledgment that the beleaguered program had failed to produce any kind of ground combat forces capable of taking on the Islamic State in Syria.

    Pentagon officials were expected to officially announce the end of the program on Friday, as Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter leaves London after meetings with his British counterpart, Michael Fallon, about the continuing wars in Syria and Iraq.

    “I wasn’t happy with the early efforts” of the program, Mr. Carter said during a news conference with Mr. Fallon. “So we have devised a number of different approaches.” Mr. Carter added, “I think you’ll be hearing from President Obama very shortly” on the program.

    Nothing left to cut.

  10. Amazon.com is challenging artisan-emporium Etsy by launching Handmade at Amazon…

    I know most of those words but that sentence makes no sense to me.

    1. Etsy is like a flea market or the artist alley at a con. People make something by hand then sell it to other people. Sometimes its really cool stuff like medieval armor. Other times its cutesy crap you wonder how they found buyers for it.

      Amazon is going to kill Etsy. I’ve wanted to buy stuff from them in the past, but I’m not willing to go through the trouble of figuring out how crap on their website works. I’ve got an Amazon account already. As soon as the sellers see how much bigger their market is on Amazon we’re going to see a mass migration.

      1. It’s too bad regretsy.com shut down. Its description of much of Etsy’s offerings as “whimsical fuckery” was perfect.

  11. Relax. This Is Exactly How Congress Should Work

    If you listened to the political media, though, you might have been under the impression that something had gone horribly wrong because the House Majority Leader made the surprise decision to withdraw from the race for speaker, leaving Republicans to scramble for a candidate. Yet this is the kind of messiness we should expecting from our most democratic institution. The House is where public sentiment first manifests. And public sentiment?on the Right, and probably in most corners of American political life right now?isn’t in the mood for coronations.

    Nevertheless, nearly the entire political media treated a healthy instance of intra-party debate as a failure of governance. Upsetting the status quo (if it’s Republicans, at least) is treated as turmoil rather than change.

    1. Sam Smith is an excellent argument against gay rights.

    2. As if anyone is going to know who this person is in 20 years (or in my case, now).

  12. Are we going to have an all Texas ALCS?

    1. Quite possibly. That would be pretty cool.

      I just hope whoever comes out of the Cards-Cubs series wins the NL. I can’t stand the Mets and the Doyers.

      1. I would rather a meteor capable of causing the apocalypse strike the Earth than the Cardinals win anything. I’m pretty much fine with any other team winning it all. Except maybe the Mets, because New Yorkers don’t deserve to feel happiness.

        1. Whoa whoa whoa, hold on there, hoss. I could sympathize with you if you had said the Yankees, but back off on the Mets and their fans. They are far less obnoxious and irritating, and bear their misery in quiet solitude. Unlike those douchebag entitled Yankee fans, who had the class to boo their team when they lost the wild card.

          1. Look, I’m a depressed Philadelphia transplant with a grand total of one title in sports I’m old enough to have appreciated. I don’t want New Yorkers or Bostonians to feel pleasure.

            That being said, you’re certainly right, the Mets winning isn’t nearly as bad as the Yankees.

            1. Ah, I see. Ok, I’ll give that too you – Philly can be a great town and deserves better sports representation. If Boston can go on the title tear it has for the past 10+ years I see no reason why Philly can’t too.

          2. I see you’ve never actually met any Mets fans.

            1. I know several. Granted, not necessarily a representative sample but I haven’t heard a peep out of them – they are far too accustomed to disappointment and hope dashed on the rocks of incompetence to crow too loudly before they’ve actually won anything.

              I think the species you are referring to are common among all sports teams to one degree or another – Rabidly Blind Fanicus. They’re everywhere. Except maybe the Browns.

          3. Disagree the Mets fans are totally obnoxious when they have a good team, worse than the yankees. They just suck most of the time so you don’t have to deal with it.

            1. Now, ^THIS is someone who knows some Mets fans!

          4. They are far less obnoxious and irritating, and bear their misery in quiet solitude.

            Where the fuck are you from? The incessant whining and obnoxious little brotherism from Mets fans is second-to-none. They’re as bad as Sox fans pre-2004.

            1. Yankees fans (of which I am one) act like entitled children.

              The incessant whining and obnoxious little brotherism from Mets fans is second-to-none. They’re as bad as Sox fans pre-2004.

              This is spot on. Mets fans are brutal. They are also completely pessimistic (Harvey won’t resign here in three years!!!! is a common complaint), which is fun, but extremely annoying.

            2. I’ve lived in NY all my life. I stand by my assessment. Yankee fans are far worse than Mets fans – it isn’t even close. Perhaps if you live in Queens or Long Island it is different, but my experience hasn’t born that out. YMMV.

              1. Yankees fans (of which I am one) act like entitled children.

                Absolutely, I won’t defend my brethren. But I’m surrounded by Mets fans in an area that traditionally skews NYY (Central NJ), and I suspect they’re even worse because of it. Mets fans, both at work and amongst my friends, are louder about their fandom and completely fucking insecure about it at the same time. Look, I’m terribly sorry that the Post hasn’t written enough headlines about your team in the last five years, but they were terrible and your typical fair-weather New Yorker doesn’t much care about incremental improvements in player development.

                And FWIW it’s no surprise the Yankees got booed: they spent the last two months in full-throttle offensive tailspin with their most important players leading the way. If the season was three games longer they’d have likely missed out on the playoffs entirely. This was not a successful season regardless of the five months of overachieving, and the fans of any team that loses 12 games in the standings over eight weeks is right to be a little ornery about it.

                1. Water wet. Sky blue. New Yorkers are entitled, obnoxious, despicable boors.

      2. I think the Mets will have a hard time getting past the Dodgers, as the Mets pitching staff, while exceptional, is quite young and inexperienced versus the Dodgers.

      3. same. I want to see the cubs, I really can’t stand the Cards either.

  13. Homeless Florida man brings skull to grocery store

    “He had put the skull on top of a trash can over there because he wanted to tell somebody to call the sheriff’s office,” said Indian River County Sheriff’s Office spokesman Thomas Raulen.

    The unidentified homeless man found human remains in an isolated area near the homeless camps and brought it to the Publix to report the body on Tuesday.

    “He was using it as a puppet,” witness Nick Pecoraro told WPBF News. “It smelled like death.”

    1. “He was using it as a puppet,”

      Well who wouldn’t?

    2. I bring a skull every time I go to the grocery store.

      1. ‘Ground beef or prime rib? That is the question.’

    3. “… And old Dan fell, turning round and round and round, twenty thousand miles, for it took him 30 minutes to hit the water below…”

    4. “He was using it as a puppet,”

      Alas, poor Yorick, I knew him well.

    5. Indian River County

      So when are they going to rename it to Native-American River County?

    1. “suspended” ha. That same judge is pressing assault charges and disorderly conduct on bar fighters every other day I’m sure. Meanwhile he gets suspended.

  14. Italy is opening a school for aspiring porn stars.

    I suppose at least affirmative consent there will most likely be in writing and notarized.

    1. I imagine that’s all part of the liability waiver.

  15. A DCMA complaint has deprived us of the Kanye / Weezer mash-up we were all terrified of

  16. People are fucking retarded sometimes: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..65932.html

    1. I loved playmobile as a kid, lego was okay. I guess that’s why I went to business school.

      1. What I don’t get is how these people can think an action figure with straight hair and “skin” that’s closer in color to John Boehner that Wesley Snipes is instantly considered black.

      2. I loved Playmobil too – made many imaginative (in a non-SugarFree way) adventures for my Playmobil knights.

      3. Playmobile was pretty good. But I’d much rather play with Legos today.

    2. I’m a bit confused by this one. The company admits it was supposed to be a slave who became a pirate. Is the mom upset because slavery once existed?

      1. The only way to truly move on is to deny it ever happened.

        1. But at the same time, we must constantly obsess about the shameful racist past. You just can’t win.

          1. The only winning move is not to play.

            1. nice!!! War Games

              1. Race War Games?

    3. You mean, pirates are not good people?

  17. Stephen Hawking Says We Should Really Be Scared Of Capitalism, Not Robots

    If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.”

    Essentially, machine owners will become the bourgeoisie of a new era, in which the corporations they own won’t provide jobs to actual human workers.

    As it is, the chasm between the super rich and the rest is growing. For starters, capital — such as stocks or property — accrues value at a much faster rate than the actual economy grows, according to the French economist Thomas Piketty. The wealth of the rich multiplies faster than wages increase, and the working class can never even catch up.

    But if Hawking is right, the problem won’t be about catching up. It’ll be a struggle to even inch past the starting line.

    1. For starters, capital — such as stocks or property — accrues value at a much faster rate than the actual economy grows

      Even if that is so, 1) It’s because of central bank activity and 2) There’s a limit to that and it usually ends in collapse

    2. And Hawking is recycling Marxist arguments.

      1. Hawking – like, say, Ben Carson – is a genius in his specialized area, but that doesn’t translate to other fields.

        1. Indeed. Patton graduated last in his class at West Point but was one hell of a general.

          1. You can’t teach that kind of of reckless disregard for the lives of one’s subordinates, i guess.

            1. Interesting take. He didn’t believe in set piece battles of attrition like his colleagues that just threw troops at the enemy – in that respect he regarded the lives of his subordinates higher than other generals.

            2. He had a higher survival rate for his troops than any other general in Europe…his blitzkrieg like tactics saved many lives.

              1. And that’s the key point. You can’t oppose blitzkrieg offensives by adopting a passive, unreactive defense and ignoring mobility. The French had discovered this in 1914, but somehow, West Point hadn’t got the memo.

                Set piece battles had been old hat since the Franco-Prussian War.

      2. Is it fair that muons get all the mass and neutrinos none? No, I say! Arise, leptons, and throw off the shackles of your Standard Model oppressors!

        Hawking is done. Put a drool bucket around his neck and stick him in a sunny room somewhere.

    3. Well, that settles the science of that.

    4. I am scared of capitalism – when the power of it is wielded/ mutated by morons.

    5. I’m afraid of capitalist robots.

    6. The wealth of the rich multiplies faster than wages increase, and the working class can never even catch up.

      Catch up to what?

      1. The poorest people at any given time are never as rich as the richest people. That’s the point he’s making, which is a dumb point because the actual individuals making up each group is constantly changing. But he just sweeps that tidbit under the rug like every other SJW.

        1. The poorest people at any given time are never as rich as the richest people.

          Exactly. The only thing that makes sense is that he is advocating communism.

    7. the outcome will depend on how things are distributed.

      haha. Like Hawking isn’t getting a much greater share of other’s productive output than he is contributing to them. Those wheel chairs, batteries and voice synthesizers were made by people in places that, without capitalism, would still be subsistence farming…What has Steven Hawking contributed to their lives?

      1. He told them that black holes evaporate which is an interesting bit of irrelevant trivia.

    8. I’ve often tried to imagine a world in which every job currently done by a human is instead done (better) by a robot/computer, and in which we haven’t been exterminated by these robots. In such a world all the necessities and many of the luxuries in life would require no human labor, so costs would be limited to the value of raw materials and capital. But we’d also probably move towards having closed loop supply chains for those goods (e.g. food to fertilizer, repeat), so in many cases the costs will trend towards zero. In such a case, yes, the robot owners will be living in the lap of luxury, but so will everyone else. After all, if something is essentially free then it will be very easy to obtain. And people will always be able to provide some service that robots can’t provide (art, entertainment, “entertainment”, etc.) at least until we either merge with the robots or get destroyed by them. If the poorest person lives like a modern-day 1%er, will they really care that someone else is living like a God?

      1. If the poorest person lives like a modern-day 1%er, will they really care that someone else is living like a God?

        Yup

        1. A few SJWs might, but I know plenty of people who are content to sit on a couch all day and watch TV/play video games. They only get up to go to a job that pays them like a 70%er, which is good enough for them. If they could live like a 1%er based on a few hours of work a year, they wouldn’t care what anybody else was doing. They certainly wouldn’t take the time out of their busy Xbox schedule to support an SJW fighting for equality.

          1. I think your sample is skewed there. You’re not accounting for the vast seething rabble of malcontented proles who would gladly immiserate anyone with greater resources than themselves in preference to climbing out of “poverty” themselves.

            I have a generally optimistic view of mankind, but wherever I look, I see prosperous nations adopting educational policies that indoctrinate children into being slavering, drooling lumpenproles. A few more generations of this and it’s “game over”.

      2. If the poorest person lives like a modern-day 1%er, will they really care that someone else is living like a God?

        I don’t see equality in this scenario. Since poverty is defined as the lowest quintile, the poor will always be with us.

      3. If the poorest person lives like a modern-day 1%er, will they really care that someone else is living like a God?

        The poor of 2015 are living far better than the 1% of, say, 1500, or even 1700.

        So, yes. That’s why there is a commandment: Do not covet your neighbor’s goods. Human nature is to be envious of others. In some individuals it leads to progress, but in many it just leads to conflict.

    9. Hawking is clearly senile. He is afraid of robots as well.

  18. “You think you’re going to have anxiety now? You haven’t even seen anxiety,” said a Florida judge before throwing an alleged domestic-violence victim in jail for reconsidering pressing charges against her husband.

    Florida Man gets a gavel.

    1. In this case, Florida Woman. Florida Woman can be so absurd as to make Florida Man look sane.

      1. Isn’t that every woman, really?

  19. Hell, even geniuses are fucking retarded sometimes: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..66146.html

  20. How to Create a Feminist Utopia: Redefine the Family!

    We should instead recognize that the front door of a home is not a magic wall behind which the rules and realities of public life have no relevance. Individuals build families within the context of broader communities, and what happens at home follows when they leave.

    The utopian understanding of the public family would, by extension, mean the economy wouldn’t distinguish between work in and out of the home?and so would be structured such that the labor of the domestic sphere is worthy of economic value. The understanding that care work is actually work rather than a quality inherent to mothers would be the norm, and the government would compensate both men and women for caring for their dependents. In building this utopian system, we’d be able to turn to American history for blueprints. Prior to welfare reform legislation of 1996, welfare was structured in a way that provided long periods of cash assistance to families. Family, in these cases, was defined as a pregnant or parenting woman and her dependents. However, welfare reform debates revealed that disdain for that system in part because the care work of single mothers was deemed unproductive.

      1. Let me translate: “MOAR FREE SHIT!!”

    1. However, welfare reform debates revealed that disdain for that system in part because the care work of single mothers was deemed unproductive.

      That’s right, the problem was those mean people who dared to say it was unproductive, not the objective fact that they produce nothing whatsoever of value but instead are a burden upon the productive members of society.

      1. I think that’s a mischaracterization of the situation. Yes, they do create value, but it’s of value to themselves and their family, not to an employer, a customer, etc. They do not get paid because the people benefiting are themselves; they do, however, avoid the expenses of, say, hiring someone else to look after the kids.

        The author of that piece is a moron, however. I think she most clearly demonstrates how stupid she is with the statement:

        The understanding that care work is actually work rather than a quality inherent to mothers would be the norm, and the government would compensate both men and women for caring for their dependents.

        No, dipshit, people shouldn’t get paid simply because they “do stuff,” even if that stuff is hard work. You get paid for doing something that someone is willing to pay you to do. The only people who get benefit out of child care are the mother and the father.

        1. Good point. You might as well insist that the government pay you to mow your own lawn and fix your house too. Hell, they should probably pay me when I go for a hike or a bike ride. That’s hard work too.

          1. Exactly. As much as these people would like to pretend otherwise, the government is your fucking parents. You aren’t entitled to an allowance because you’ve done your laundry and cleaned your room.

        2. the government would compensate both men and women for caring for their dependents

          Fuck you, cut spending.

          1. But, other people should be forced to pay me for taking care of my own kids! Because, FAIRNESS!!11!!!!!!

      2. They produced babies. And babies are human lives, which are worth more than everything else in the known universe combined. Therefore their productivity is infinite, more than justifying living off the taxpayer forever.

        1. It’s probably a good thing that some of them are selfless enough to abort their fetuses. After all, thin of the money these women save us.

          1. What are you talking about??? They’re creating VALUE! VALUE!

    2. Prior to welfare reform legislation of 1996

      Yes, let’s go back to subsidizing more of what we don’t want, single parent families on welfare with no hope of ever leaving the system.

    3. We should instead recognize that the front door of a home is not a magic wall behind which the rules and realities of public life have no relevance.

      Your family must conform to the new norm, for the sake of the Greater Good ?

    4. The utopian understanding of the public family would, by extension, mean the economy wouldn’t distinguish between work in and out of the home

      This is already understood to some degree as is evidenced by existing marriage/divorce law. There’s a reason the stay-at-home mom can get half of her CEO husbands wealth when she gets tired of putting up with his crap.

    5. “We should instead recognize that the front door of a home is not a magic wall behind which the rules and realities of public life have no relevance.”

      So Big Brother should be the patriarch

      1. “It takes a panopticon state …”

  21. ‘We are so relieved’: Missing king cobra snake found under dryer near Orlando

    snake found under dryer near Orlando
    Published October 08, 2015FoxNews.com
    Facebook9179 Twitter455 livefyre Email Print

    Now Playing

    Reality star’s missing king cobra found in Florida

    An 8-foot king cobra snake that had been missing for more than a month was found under a dryer in a garage not far from its reality TV star owner’s home near Orlando.

    Officials say a woman contacted Orange County Animal Services on Wednesday night after she heard hissing sounds while putting clothes in her dryer.

    Valerie Kennedy, the wife of “Airplane Repo” star Mike Kennedy, told FOX411 the snake “was found last night at 11p.m. The poor thing was in pretty bad shape. His eyes are fogged over. He hasn’t eaten a thing since he was captured.”

    1. The newly-free cobra took one look at the rest of Florida’s ecosystem and said “Fuck that, i’m staying under this dryer.”

  22. Google’s Cute Cars And The Ugly End Of Driving

    Cars are giant, inefficient, planet-and-people-killing death machines. Self-driving cars ? especially if they are operated as fleets and you only use one when you need it, summoning it Uber-style ? would mean we could have fewer vehicles per person, less traffic congestion, less pollution, far fewer vehicles produced per year (thus lowering the environmental impact of production), and, best of all, safer streets. The blind, people with epilepsy, quadriplegics, and all manner of others who today have difficulty ferrying themselves around as they go through the mundanities of an average day will be liberated. Eliminating the automobile’s need for a human pilot will be a positive thing for society.

    So go fuck a tailpipe if you love cars so much. Your love for cars doesn’t supersede the lives of 1.2 million people who die in automobile accidents every year. It’s not more important than the energy savings we’ll get from not manufacturing 60 million or so vehicles every year that spend most of their time idle. Turned off. Parked.

    1. Well maybe I will fuck a tailpipe then. This is the same tired argument to ban everything else. “________ is bad for some people in some situations, so we have all got to sacrifice ____________.”

    2. I *hate* driving. I would do pretty much anything to avoid my commute every day. I would love it if my car would drive itself so I wouldn’t have to deal with it.

      It’s this kind of thing that’s pretty much turned me against the whole self-driving car movement.

    3. This guy seems to be taking you literally.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U1a1dx4emI

      1. But enough of that. i really came here to post this

        It is one of my favorites and NSFW

      2. Pfft, it’s not like the car was running . . .

    4. I don’t get why there would be less traffic congestion (aside from autonomous vehicle intercommunication and coordination, but they don’t seem to be considering that).

      The author says that people would only use cars when they need them, but all of the people stuck in traffic during rush hour are “only using the car when they need it.”

      1. It’s very simple.

        Determine level of demand, ensure supply is demand x 0.75. If congestion persists, determine new level of demand, and eliminate sufficient cars to reduce the supply to this new level of demand x 0.75.

        Continue until complaints, congestion and economic prosperity are eliminated.

      2. Less on-street parking would be necessary and could create some additional lanes in urban areas. Shorter gaps between cars (maybe 3 car-lengths versus 10) for braking distance would greatly relieve congestion on highways if vehicles could communicate and coordinate. This could be really cool if 18-wheelers would travel in convoys and avail themselves of the energy savings of reduced air resistance.

  23. Why police could seize a college student’s life savings without charging him for a crime

    The government is mainly basing its forfeiture of Clarke’s $11,000 on one claim: His checked bag and money smelled like marijuana, so, according to law enforcement, the money was very likely obtained or meant for illegal drug activity.

    A spokesperson for the US Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of Kentucky said it couldn’t directly comment on a case with pending litigation, but he pointed to a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent’s affidavit outlining why police felt justified in seizing Clarke’s cash.

    1. Shorter: FYTW

  24. High School QB Suspended For ‘Inappropriately Touching’ Center

    Moore was called to an assistant principal’s office a couple of days after the incident and was asked to give his version of what happened. Then the principal talked to the alleged victim who then gave a different version of events. A security guard then escorted Moore back to the principal’s office and was asked if he tickled the other boy in practice:

    “I’m like, ‘I guess.’ He was laughing when I touched him. I didn’t mean to say tickle. I said tickle because he laughed. He calls my mom, makes it sound like I’m a complete pervert and she comes to get me.”

    Moore was then suspended for three days and sent home with the written referral: ‘Student inappropriately touched another student during football practice.’

    1. Wait they aren’t allowed to tickle each other? Thank god I didn’t go to public school. I tickled all my friends, and laughed manically that I wasn’t ticklish so they couldn’t get revenge.

      1. You monster.

        1. It’s a family trait. Aunts, uncles, and parents tickle us constantly growing up. By the time we hit puberty we’ve either genuinely gotten over being tickilish or have learned to fake it so well outsiders can’t tell. Either way, what’s the fun of having such a skill it you don’t share the love with others.

        2. I have older siblings that terrorized me in this manner and yep, it is monstrous behavior.

    2. My highschool wrestling coach who everyone thought was a huge badass won like two state titles, and would have one a third except he got disqualified at states because he was accused of something similar.

      1. tickling the opponent that is.

      2. Everyone knows the quickest was to get a reversal is to jam your thumb in your opponents ass. Or so I’ve been told.

        1. Typically if you were to get a reversal the other guy is behind you so it can be tough to jam your thumb up his ass without anybody noticing.

          1. THAT is not your thumb!!!

    3. and this is why the shotgun formation is becoming increasingly the norm. True story.

      1. So no more ‘snap on pressure’ I guess?

    4. Huh. I thought weird, slightly homoerotic touching was normal and appropriate in football.

      1. Growing up I thought all jocks were gay… or at least gay-ish.

      2. That’s why I played football! Oops! Wait, I mean I played it for all the important things it teaches you like teamwork and playing through pain.

        Seriously, when I played us linebackers would direct the slants of our d tackles by putting our hands on their asses and squeezing the cheek that we wanted them to slant towards.

        I still give an old classmate of mine a hard time because she married the d tackle who played in front of me. I tell her I’ve grabbed his ass more than she ever has and they’ve been married 20 years.

    5. I anticipate and entire coaching staff and team being suspended after a post-TD congratulatory ass-slapping.

  25. Okla.’s executions on hold after mix-up

    Governor Mary Fallin agreed Thursday that all executions in Oklahoma should be delayed after an autopsy revealed that the wrong drug was used to stop an inmate’s heart in January.

    Fallin said ”it became apparent” last week that prison officials had used potassium acetate ? which experts say doesn’t work as quickly or effectively as potassium chloride, the drug required under the state’s protocol ? to execute Charles Frederick Warner.

    ”Until we have complete confidence in the system, we will delay any further executions,” Fallin said.

  26. I love you Italy.

    1. No doubt. I would be happy to help with practice.

  27. The big ‘black racism’ lie: The toxic right-wing trope that shrouds the truth about white supremacy

    Earlier this week, Professor Anthea Butler shared her disgust towards Republican presidential primary candidate Ben Carson, describing him on Twitter as “coon of the year.” I share her sense of upset with Ben Carson’s betrayal of The Black Freedom Struggle, willful lies about African-American history and politics, and how he, like other black conservatives from the Reagan era onward, is a professional “best black friend” for the Republican Party and the White Right. Carson, as a leading member of the black conservative cadre, serves as human chaff and a defense shield, a man whose primary purpose is to make excuses for white racism.

    The right-wing media pounced on Dr. Butler because they are obsessed with seeking out mythic “black racism” or some example of “hypocrisy” by the Left on matters of race and justice. “Liberal racism” is also a perennial fixation for the right-wing hate media; they chase this chimera because one such discovered instance would, in their minds, erase the sin that is decades of white supremacy and racism as political strategy for the Republican Party.

    1. Has your constant posting of Salon links caused you emotional pain? Do you take medication? Shouldn’t you just go find a nice woman into S&M instead of torturing yourself like this?

      1. I don’t think he’d want a nice one for that, Juvie.

      2. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder.

      3. At least sarcasmic has stopped his daily tabloid dumps. So we’ve got that going for us.

    2. I’m surprised someone’s publishing this. This really seems the type of story you don’t want to give coverage to if you’re on the left. The defense arguments they are using only really fly in academia. If the rest of the party and nation hear it, they’re going to start getting the side eye.

    3. That’s the genius who wrote this gem:

      The freedom to kill, maim, commit wanton acts of violence, and to be anti-social (as well as pathological) without having your actions reflect on your own racial group, is one of the ultimate, if not in fact most potent, examples of White Privilege in post civil rights era America. Instead of a national conversation where we reflect on what has gone wrong with young white men in our society–a group which apparently possesses a high propensity for committing acts of mass violence–James Holmes will be framed as an outlier.

      1. Nope, no racial stereotyping there. None whatsoever.

        1. Not too mention no evidence whatsoever but who needs that when you have feelings?

        2. It seems just about everything DeVega writes is predicated on the concept of white privilege and a white conspiracy. His continued employment is a sad statement on the quality of discourse.

          1. Not to go all Epi on you, but everything progs say is projection. They accuse us of doing what they do, project their worst feeling onto us, etc.

            1. Not to go all Epi on you

              ewwwwwwww

              1. You should probably get some antibiotics.

          2. Liberal websites all feel that they need a token angry-to-the-point-of-incoherent young black to write for them nowadays. I don’t blame the writers, though. Providing a hairshirt for white guilt seems to be a steady paycheck for not much work.

            Ta-Nehisi Coates turned down an offer of triple his salary from Jason Whitlock to run ESPN’s “Black Grantland.” It seemed like far too much work than churning out Black Panther gibberish for The Atlantic every couple of weeks.

            1. Paragraph 1: Good point.

              Paragraph 2: That’s an insult to the Black Panthers who may have been angry and incoherent, but were a do-something kind of group. Unlike Coates who just whines about how unfair life is because of white privilege.

              1. His father was a Black Panther, the only reason I brought it up.

                1. Oh, I didn’t know that. Thanks.

            2. I put it in the same classification as tv evangelists.

              1. I meant “them”, being the writers.

      2. Instead of a national conversation where we reflect on what has gone wrong with young white men in our society–a group which apparently possesses a high propensity for committing acts of mass violence–James Holmes will be framed as an outlier

        She has a point. White men shoot up crowded movie theatres all the time. It’s a typical Saturday night in most small towns in the Midwest.

        1. I don’t think these people really want to talk about the propensity of certain racial categories towards violence and capital crimes.

        2. The writer clearly does not know what “propensity” and “outlier” mean.

          When less than 0.0001% of a population demonstrates a particular behavior each year, it does not have a “high propensity” to engage in that behavior. Rather, individual observations of such behavior are anomalous outliers.

          Presumably, the writer really meant to write that white males have relatively higher rates of mass violence than other groups. This is incorrect. Eric Hickey has researched serial killers and their victims extensively. In his examination of a sample of 226 male serial killers for which race and ethnicity could be determined, Hickey found 73% of the offenders were white, 22% African American, 3% Hispanic, 1% Asian, and 1% other. In other words, at least where serial murder is concerned, both this writer and Donald Trump are full of shit.

    4. I share her sense of upset with Ben Carson’s betrayal of The Black Freedom Struggle[…]

      “But I am not being Manichean by saying so, nuh-uh!”

    5. Earlier this week, Professor Anthea Butler shared her disgust towards Republican presidential primary candidate Ben Carson, describing him on Twitter as “coon of the year.” I share her sense of upset with Ben Carson’s betrayal

      The right-wing media pounced on Dr. Butler because they are obsessed with seeking out mythic “black racism” or some example of “hypocrisy” by the Left on matters of race and justice. “Liberal racism” is also a perennial fixation for the right-wing hate media

      How does Salon manage to fit so much stupidity into each paragraph? I’m not being facetious, it’s truly amazing that they’re so consistently not self-aware.

  28. I am I supposed to feel sorry for this stupid woman who failed to show up at court? She had a subpoena to testify in a trial. A Judge, jury, and the entire court staff were there wasting taxpayer money waiting for her stupid ass.

    1. Meh. Often there are multiple trials scheduled for the same day and the same jury pool is used for multiple trials. And it’s not like those people only work when there’s a trial, my understanding is that they work regular 40-hour weeks.

    2. Michigan law has a carve out for domestic violence. If the alleged victim fails to testify, or recants the story, the prosecutor can still go ahead with essentially repeating what’s in the police report, in spite of the fact that it violates a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights to confrontation. So there would have been no need for the subpoena.

    3. She refused to testify. The state knew that but subpoenaed her anyway, then questioned her without providing legal representation after she had asked for it. I’m siding with the single mom who was attacked and sent to jail.

      1. I’m not sure that the state is obliged to provide victims and witnesses with individual legal representation. The prosecutor is supposedly acting on behalf of the victims.

  29. Projection: It’s not just for progs

    I found this socon book about different kinds of skeptics. It reminded me of how Islam categorizes different kinds of disbelief.

    1. Disbelief because of trying to substitute Allah’s Laws with man-made laws.

      LOL, sounds like exactly the same things that SoCons say about letting gays marry, not keeping sodomy a crime, etc. Delicious, unconscious self-parody by From Gospel Light.

    2. Idolatry is worse than carnage.

      -Quran 2:191

      1. So, perfectly ok to slaughter Hindus.

        1. But only if they aggress against you:

          Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love the aggressors.

          Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage.

          Quran 2:190-2:191

          Sort of NAP meets Hilarious Overkill

          1. Yes, people often love to leave out the stuff that contradicts whatever they want the narrative to be when it comes to quoting that most contradictory of religious texts.

            In other words, as with most things, it’s a tad more complicated than “QURAN MEANS CARNAGE!!”.

          2. The real danger is when we get SJW Imams.

            When someone looks at them the wrong way, it’s a microaggression – which of course – is an attack.

  30. Climate apocalypse is here, now: Science fiction has become our new reality
    Climatologists dismissed the science behind “The Day After Tomorrow.” Eleven years later, it’s not so improbable

    By all accounts, 2015 is likely to wind up as the hottest year on record, with large parts of the world suffering from severe heat waves and wildfires. Despite all this, however, a stretch of the North Atlantic below Iceland and Greenland is experiencing all-time cold temperatures, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. What explains this anomaly? According to scientists from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Pennsylvania State University, among other institutions, the most likely explanation is the arrival in the area of cold water from the Greenland ice sheet that is melting ever more rapidly thanks to climate change. Because this meltwater starts out salt-free, it has remained near the surface and so, as predicted, is slowing the northern advance of warmer water from the North Atlantic Current.

    So far, the AMOC has not suffered a dramatic shutdown, but it is slowing, and scientists worry that a rapid increase in Greenland ice melt as the Arctic continues to warm will pour ever more meltwater into the North Atlantic, severely disrupting the conveyor system.

    1. Actually, the most likely explanation is…..weather.

      1. I think that is more of a description.

    2. Science fiction has become our new reality
      Climatologists dismissed the science behind “The Day After Tomorrow.” Eleven years later, it’s not so improbable

      “Whaaa, are you kidding? No, no, no! Come on, we didn’t mean we would have higher temperatures and more wildfires and the seas would boil! No, we meant to say we’re going to have new an ice age because of global warming! How could you have misinterpreted our words that way? Sheesh!”

      1. To be fair, the possibility of the North Atlantic region getting colder because of changes in currents has been discussed for a long time.

        1. Discusses? Maybe.

          Proven? That’s a different matter.

          Besides, the issue here is not that scientists are finding new interesting things to study, but the way they ENCASE IN CEMENT certain facts and use them as an anchor to fix their political position. Haven’t you noticed that the “Science is Settled?”?

          1. Discussed. Not discusses. Qwerty fail.

          2. You missed my point entirely. Nothing empirical is proven until it happens. I’m just saying that the doomsayers have been pushing that as one possible outcome of AGW climate change for a long time.

    1. Well, I doubt she’d be any worse than any of the other assclowns running for it.

      1. True, most of the names that are being floated right now are those who would just be Boehner 2.0.

    2. have you met my daughter Ivanka? You’ll love love love her. She’d be great for this country, okay. She really would. No to mention she’s good looking, I mean look at her duh. Anyway she’d be great.

    3. I’m not opposed

      http://getnetworth.net/wp-cont…..worth1.jpg

    4. You know who else wanted to appoint beloved members of his household as government officials. [Hint: think of the most expansive possible definition of members of a household.”]

      1. Kennedy?

        1. Assuming you meant JFK, not that chick from Empty Vee. No, I would have characterized that as “family members.”

      2. Kanye West?

  31. were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize Friday for their role in fostering the Arab Spring.

    Astonishing. People really do just believe whatever the fuck they want. If a social movement is giving progressives boners, the only question is whether it will be a simple failure or a complete catastrophe. The results are about half and half at best.

    1. Isis Isis baby

      1. “That depends on what the definition of IS IS.”

        Prescient?

    2. Well, I suppose Tunisia is sort of the least worst example. At least they didn’t give it to people in Egypt or Libya or something.

      1. It started in Tunisia because the conditions were most conducive. It was a sort of natural happenstance there. It was imported elsewhere by western governments and terrorists with awful results.

  32. Has anyone heard from John?

    1. No. People were just talking about where he’s been the other day. Someone thought he may have an illness in the family. Perhaps his mom. I have no idea.

    2. John is working full time on the Huckabee campaign.

    3. I’m telling y’all, John stopped posting at the same time as Kim Davis went to jail. Make of that what you will.

      1. I thought it was more when she got out of jail? Some torrid affair, perhaps?

    4. He just sort of leaves and for a few weeks at a time and then resumes posting like normal. This is a normal phase in his cycle. We must wait until the next full moon, when the north winds blow.

  33. Glad to see IJ getting some positive press at Vox.

    The story of what happened at the airport was pieced together with Clarke’s account, the affidavit, and other court documents provided by the Institute for Justice, a national nonprofit that runs EndForfeiture.com and is helping Clarke get his money back from law enforcement.

    http://www.vox.com/2015/6/17/8…..les-clarke

    1. Forfeiture is an issue where our interests and the stated interests of progs overlap.

      1. Forfeiture is an issue where our interests and the stated interests of progs overlap.

        A) They’re too busy blacklivesmattering to actually engage in meaningful actions and reforms. B) Since when did the stated goals of progs involve the inviolability of property rights?

    2. Good to see this. IJ won’t hire me, though, so I hate them.

  34. Barton Gellman gives a mass data and security talk at Purdue. Shows a few slides that have not been unclassified.

    Eugene Spafford, a Purdue professor of computer science who has held high clearances himself, wrote to me afterward: “We have a number of ‘junior security rangers’ on faculty & staff who tend to be ‘by the book.’ Unfortunately, once noted, that is something that cannot be unnoted.”

    DSS is notified. DSS forces Purdue to wipe Gellman’s entire 90-minute presentation from their servers.

    But universities are not secret agencies. They cannot lightly wear the shackles of a National Industrial Security Program, as Purdue agreed to do. The values at their core, in principle and often in practice, are open inquiry and expression.

    1. Think of it as a classic case of mission creep. Purdue invited the secret-keepers of the Defense Security Service into one cloistered corner of campus (“a small but significant fraction” of research in certain fields, as the university counsel put it). The trustees accepted what may have seemed a limited burden, confined to the precincts of classified research.

      Now the security apparatus claims jurisdiction over the campus (“facility”) at large. The university finds itself “sanitizing” a conference that has nothing to do with any government contract. Where does it stop? Suppose a professor wants to teach a network security course, or a student wants to write a foreign policy paper, that draws on the rich public record made available by Snowden and Chelsea Manning? Those cases will be hard to distinguish from mine.

      1. I was gonna say ‘needs moar labelz!’, but I agree with you.

  35. The woman said she told a state victim’s advocate she wished to drop the charges against her husband, because the last time he went to jail, he lost his job and was unable to pay child support.

    “I’m homeless now. I’m living at my parents’ house? I had to sell everything I own,” the woman cried, adding, “I’m just not in a good place right now.”

    Yeah, sending her to jail oughta solve all of their marital problems.

    1. No, I think it’s that SHE doesn’t want her abusive HUSBAND jailed because she’d financially better off with him able to hold his current job and pay meaningful child support. Sure, they could attach the salary from his prison job, but that $1 per hour doesn’t go very far.

      1. And I think it’s actually a bit more than $1/hour but still below minimum wage. Plus, we’re paying for his housing and then having to pay her welfare for her kids.

      2. I was deriding the judge’s logic, not the wife’s. Although the trick with DV cases, at least as handled by the attorney I worked for (IANAL), is not to allow the prosecutor to serve process on the victim in the first place (assuming the victim is onboard, which in the cases that came through his office, they almost always were for the reasons this woman cited). Without deposition the prosecutor rarely took the case to trial. But once you’re summoned to depose or testify, you’re just courting more trouble by failing to show up.

        1. I, Anal

          The new bestseller by Commodious Spittoon

          1. “I am not a lawyer, but I do enjoy a good reaming.”

    2. Between the woman, the guy and the judge, it’s hard to find one that gets sympathy.

      1. She should have shown up, then gone on tangents about how the prosecutor is hurting her children by pursuing these charges against her express wishes. She needs to repeatedly ask why the prosecutor is punishing her for someone else’s crimes.

        1. “She should have shown up, then gone on tangents about how the prosecutor is hurting her children by pursuing these charges against her express wishes.”

          But then she goes back to this thug and in two months, it’s back to court?

        2. I doubt she’d engender much sympathy from a jury, let alone the judge in a bench trial. After that Ray Rice incident I had an argument with a woman about Rice’s wife, who had begged the public not to make a cause of it. She didn’t want her husband fired, which is understandable motivation: she’d already taken her lumps, why should she be punished by having her husband’s lucrative career ended prematurely? But no, according to this woman, the best thing for her is having the public intervene on her behalf and mitigate her access to the fortunes her husband enjoyed. Rice is still a scumbag and the Ravens were within their rights to let him go, but the total lack of empathy for the woman was maddening.

  36. If using peaceful protest to overthrow a hated vicious dictator doesn’t deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, then I don’t know what does.

    It’s not their fault if other people in other countries squandered their newfound freedom.

  37. Millennials may not be all sociopaths, necessarily–but if any of them aren’t, it isn’t due to a lack of effort by the psychopathic baby boomers who raised them.

    1. I’m not a sociopath and my mom is not a psychopath, asshole.

      1. That’s what all the socipaths say about their psychopathic mothers.

        1. Let me tell you about my Mother

  38. San Fran asked to provide 12 weeks of paid leave to parents:

    “If passed, under Proposition B, a charter amendment, city workers ? married, domestic and single parents ? could tap into parental leave and retain a single week of sick leave. And city-employed couples would no longer have to split their leave.
    […]
    Proposition B would cost between $570,000 and $1.1 million per year, based on the city controller’s estimates.”
    http://sfpublicpress.org/elect…..SgBlP.dpuf

    The supe who proposed it sees it as ‘a model for private companies’; I guess a model on how to go bankrupt.

    1. Yeah, private companies want to run themselves just like the City of San Francisco.

      How delusional is the sup?!

    2. The supe who proposed it sees it as ‘a model for private companies’; I guess a model on how to go bankrupt.

      People like that superintendent believe in their hearts that businesses are naturally stingy and that the reason they don’t fork out more money to keep their workers happy is because of a) greed and b) callousness. The Marxians wallow in their own ignorance and stupidity, which seem to be the job requirements to land a job for the city’s public sector.

    3. THREE MONTHS OFF! 1/4 OF THE ENTIRE YEAR, FFS!
      Sorry…

    4. DC is pushing for 16
      #WINNING! (the welfare state war, that is)

      1. In the dead-tree issue this morning, the imbecile flogging it claims ‘it will help in attracting and keeping good employees’, neglecting the fact that there’s no lack of lay-abouts trying to get to the public trough right now, and besides, giving them the entire year off would help, too.

        1. “Good employees” who don’t work for 16 weeks. Sure.

  39. When white people vote for a black Democrat, that is proof of how tolerant they are. When white people vote for a black Republican, that is proof of how hard they trying to hide their racism.

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/…..ben-carson

  40. So, have the lowlifes who almost killed Spencer Stone been described to the public yet, or are the scum in the government/media complex already burying this story?

    1. Good question. I’ve heard them described as “male Asians” then assured it’s not “terror-related”.

  41. I’ll give $300 million for carving out an Independent Nation for Untouchable/Dalit in India http://wh.gov/iPUPU http://goo.gl/NFK0A

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.