Democratic Debate Looms, Martin O'Malley Does Not, No Charges for Cecil the Lion's Shooter: P.M. Links

|

  • Looks like we''ll be watching giant bobblehead dolls.
    CNN

    Anderson Cooper says he'll be asking "pointed" questions at tomorrow's CNN debate between Democrats running for president.

  • As Martin O'Malley prepares to try to make a dent that's more than a rounding error in the popularity of either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, a poll shows the guy can't even muster up support in Maryland, getting backing from just 4 percent of the voters.
  • Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian has apparently been convicted of espionage in Iran. He and the Post have denied all allegations of any wrong-doing.
  • Zimbabwe will not be charging American Dentist Walter Palmer for hunting and killing Cecil the lion. His papers were in order and he apparently broke no laws.
  • A district attorney in Georgia is attempting to use anti-gang ordinances to go after a crew of confederate flag supporter who clashed with a group of black folks who were having a party.
  • Actor Randy Quaid and his wife, Evi, are being held on $500,000 bail in Vermont for a 2010 trespassing charge from a dispute in California.

New at Reason.com:

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

Advertisement

NEXT: 2016 GOP Candidates Could Learn Something From 'Bleeding Heart Conservative' Jack Kemp

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. Anderson Cooper says he’ll be asking “pointed” questions at tomorrow’s CNN debate between Democrats running for president.

    Some might think leading.

    1. Which candidate is the Mole?

      1. The first season of that show might’ve been the last “reality show” I actually liked. That and the early seasons of Real World/Road Rules on MTV.

        1. Almost any show is better than reality reality any more.

          This “debate”? I’m predicting it’s more like a surrealist, improv play, but real.

          Spooky.

    2. Hello.

      I know. I’m tardy. F-off.

      1. Busy celebrating Columbus Day, I presume.

      2. Hello Rufus. The only part of Canada I’ve ever been to is Quebec. Did I miss anything significant by not visiting other parts?

        1. French Canada is the best Canada.

          1. You misspelled “worst”

            1. One word, Al: poutine

              Is there anything else from Canada worth liking?

                1. Maybe football, hockey and basketball?

                  If you’re going to sell me on sports you could’ve at least tried Alexandre Despatie

                2. Grizzly is da man!

              1. Canadian bacon`

                1. Bland ham is NOT bacon…

            2. I went to Ottawa for a conference. Ottawa sucks. Gatineau is so much cooler. Everything in Ottawa shut down when the government employees went to their suburban homes. Gatineau actually feels like a living city with culture and shit.

        2. Vancouver is pretty fun. Toronto is where the money is. Montreal is where you take your hedonism. If you like stuff like Whistler, Lake Louise, Banff, Cabot Trail (NS), and so on – Canada has nice spots to see. Depends what you want to see and do.

          1. Thanks.

            1. Not much help. In the middle of cooking but keep asking me and I’ll be sure to be more helpful!

  2. Actor Randy Quaid and his wife, Evi, are being held on $500,000 bail in Vermont for a 2010 trespassing charge from a dispute in California.

    Parked the RV in the wrong driveway?

    1. He actually did a few bad things to hotels in CA. His wife is one of the craziest people alive on the planet today.

      I hope they’re around for a long time to come….

      1. Will either one be in the Republican or Democratic Debates?

  3. His papers were in order and he apparently broke no laws.

    The twittersphere disagrees.

    1. The twittersphere thinks this pales in comparison to the FEELZ.

      Honestly, I didn’t have the slightest idea that what he did was legal from the little bits I read about it. I thought he as a poacher. Media bias FTW.

  4. Anderson Cooper says he’ll be asking “pointed” questions at tomorrow’s CNN debate between Democrats running for president.

    “Which of the Republican candidates do you think is the stupidest?”

    1. “How great will your presidency be – super great, or just really, really great?”

    2. “Mrs. Clinton, your campaign has the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?”

      1. +1 three-eyed fish for dinner

    3. “If you were a Care Bear, what would your name be?”

    4. “What platitudes and empty promises will you offer middle-class working families?”

    5. “How do you tolerate the evil that is today’s Republican party? You seen to handle it with such aplomb…”

    6. “Stalin, or Trotsky?”

  5. Post Debate Prediction: Jim Webb will still be known by his nickname, “Who?”

    1. Yes, he’s on first. Sheesh.

      1. Which is a shame. I like Webb.

        1. Me too. Great author and pugnacious asshole at times—-former U.S. Marine, duh—which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

          (I can never keep straight which phrase is the one that pisses the USMC off: “ex-Marine, or “former marine.” I think it’s “ex-Marine,” but I’m not sure)

          Anyway, I still can’t figure out why he didn’t try to run in 2008. I also can’t figure out why he can’t get any traction for President in this election. Evidently, a soon-to-be felon and serial bribe taker; a Socialist to the left of Eugene Debs; and a possibly brain-damaged banking stooge make far better standard-bearers for the Democratic Party.

          1. “I also can’t figure out why he can’t get any traction for President in this election.”

            Very little media coverage.
            Excluded from a majority of polls.
            Very little media coverage.
            Doesn’t say catchy one-liners which appeal to the average voter.
            Very little media coverage.
            Doesn’t look Presidential enough in the way that candidates ought to.
            Very little media coverage.

            I disagree with the man on many points, but if I wanted one of the current Democratic candidates to be given a fair/equal opportunity to be heard by the voting public he’s certainly my first choice of those running.

    2. The Doctor?

      1. That’s No.

  6. A district attorney in Georgia is attempting to use anti-gang ordinances to go after a crew of confederate flag supporter who clashed with a group of black folks who were having a party.

    We’re a nation of laws not rebels.

  7. Finally, the outrage I can get behind.

    A protest is planned outside Honda Center Monday, with seven animal welfare organizations calling for the suspension of Anaheim Ducks defenseman Clayton Stoner, who has been charged with violating British Columbia’s hunting laws in connection with the killing of a grizzly bear.

    And it wasn’t just a bear. It was Cheeky, the Beloved Grizzly Bear of British Columbia.

      1. Since the untimely death of Cecil the Lion, beloved is my favorite adjective. I use it in the same manner as it was applied to Cecil.

      2. I beloved you. *sobs into keyboard*

    1. Cheeky, the Beloved Grizzly Bear of British Columbia

      Why would you give a grizzly bear a cutesy name? This is just begging for dumb tourists to try to take selfies with it.

      The bear was known by those who worked in the area as Cheeky because he would “pop his head up, look at us and stick his tongue out at us,” Robert Johnson of the Coastal Guardian Watchmen Network told The Sun.

      Hmm. I kinda want a selfie with this thing.

      1. You probably can. Just head over to Stoner’s house in Anaheim.

        1. I find that wandering into athletes’ homes unannounced goes…poorly.

          I wonder if he got it taxidermied to look goofy with its tongue hanging out. That might be worth the inevitable 5150.

      2. Just for laughs, Jesse’s post is best read with Bob Belcher’s voice.

  8. His papers were in order and he apparently broke no laws

    The law of the jungle doesn’t require papers.

  9. So I’ve finally managed to read through the “independent” investigations into the Tamir Rice shooting. This is from the one written by a former FBI agent. Is it me, or is this basically saying that no matter what happens, police should just shoot before a threat even occurs, and it’ll be justified?

    When threat identification is combined with the concept of action versus reaction, an officer’s need to make split-second judgments with respect to the use of force becomes evident. Action versus reaction is simply the recognition that there is a certain amount of time required for every person to recognize a stimulus, formulate a response to that stimulus, and then carry out that response. When applied to deadly force situations, action versus reaction refers to the time it takes for an officer to observe the actions of an individual, such as the movement of an individual’s hands, perceive those actions as threatening, calculate possible responses to the treat, determine what level of force is necessary, and then complete the reaction. The reactions of a well-trained officer may be quick, but they are not instantaneous. The time differential between a threatening action occurring and the ability to respond to that threat always puts law enforcement officers in the position of having to catch-up.

    1. The practical effect of action versus reaction in deadly force situations is that officers cannot wait to react until they are absolutely certain of an individual’s malicious intent. If an officer waits to be certain that the individual reaching into a high-risk area is retrieving a weapon, action versus reaction dictates that the weapon could easily be used against the officer before he or she has an opportunity to respond.

      1. Also:

        When Officers Garmback and Loehmann arrived on the scene, Officer Loehmann was on the passenger side of the vehicle which was within close proximity to Rice. At the time, Rice was reportedly armed with a handgun, and Officer Loehmann was without cover. Following universal training and procedures, Officer Loehmann’s attention would be focused on Rice’s hands as they moved towards his waist band and lifted his jacket. Unquestionably, the actions of Rice could reasonably be perceived as a serious threat to Officer Loehmann. Waiting to see if Rice came out with a firearm would be contrary to action versus reaction training. Considering Officer Loehmann’s close proximity to Rice and lack of cover, the need to react quickly was imperative. Delaying the use of force until Officer Loehmann could confirm Rice’s intentions would not be considered a safe alternative under the circumstances.

        1. Now I’m just pissing myself off by reading on:

          There is some dispute regarding whether Officer Loehmann issued any warnings before he discharged his weapon. While the issuance of warnings (or the lack thereof) may be considered during a policy or tactical review, it is insignificant to this constitutional review. The Fourth Amendment permits the use of deadly force in two situations: when it is reasonably necessary to (1) protect oneself or others from the imminent threat of death or serious physical injury, or (2) prevent the escape of a dangerous person. Warnings would never be required in the first (defense of self and others) category. If an officer’s reasonable perception is that his or another’s life is in imminent danger, delaying the use of force for the purpose of issuing a warning creates an unreasonable risk. As previously noted, the concept of action versus reaction already necessarily puts an officer at a disadvantage. Any further delay caused by issuing a warning (and waiting to determine whether the warning has been heeded) needlessly increases that risk. Thus, the only time warnings factor into a determination of reasonableness is when law enforcement officers are attempting to prevent the escape of a dangerous individual and, even then, warnings are to be given when feasible

          (emphasis in original)

        2. Gee, it’s almost like they shouldn’t have put themselves in a situation where Rice could so easily shoot them dead if he had been armed and had any malicious intent (which he wasn’t and he didn’t).

          This whole thing is such a blatant white wash. The “logic” used to justify these actions is bad enough. It’s almost worse that they had the gall to actually publish something like this and apparently think it would be accepted by anyone that has actually followed the story.

          They are just pissing all over this kid’s dead body. Again.

          1. The review addressed that too. We’re not allowed to question their tactics, because that would be Monday morning quarterbacking.

            The question of whether Officers Garmback and Loehmann could have avoided the situation had they used better tactics is one that is worthy of consideration from the prospective of policy and training for future events. However, it should not be considered when determining the constitutionality of the use of force. It could be argued that the officers enhanced that risk by entering the park and stopping their vehicle so close to a potentially armed subject. However, this type of “armchair quarterbacking” has no place in determining the reasonableness of an officers use of force, and is exactly the type of analysis the Sixth Circuit Court of Appels warned against in Smith v. Freeland8 when it stated: “?we must avoid substituting our personal notions of proper police procedures for the instantaneous decision of the police officer on the scene. We must never allow the theoretical, sanitized world of our imagination to replace the dangerous and complex world that policemen face every day.

            1. (forgot to add the (sic) after “Court of Appels”. It’s in the original.)

            2. Reading all of these, what strikes me is that everyone seems to be perceived as a potential threat until proven otherwise.

              Forget innocent until proven guilty. On the mean streets it’s apparently “enemy until proven compliant”.

            3. How in the hell does avoiding the question of whether the officers’ actions were reasonable and their use of force was avoidable—which gets right to the question of whether the officers were reckless—have nothing to do with the constitutionality of that use of force?

              Is the court saying that you basically can’t question an officer’s determination about using deadly force?

              1. This wasn’t a court, it was a review commissioned by the prosecutor that was done by a former FBI agent. But yes.

            4. It could be argued that the officers enhanced that risk by entering the park and stopping their vehicle so close to a potentially armed subject. However, this type of “armchair quarterbacking” has no place in determining the reasonableness of an officers use of force, . . . .

              Only a lawyer could argue shit like this (not that all lawyers are bad).

              But basically, this means that police can’t be held accountable for creating dangerous situations and then killing anyone caught up in that dangerous situation.

              The two officers should be sitting behind bars and coping with those consequences.

            5. Their questionable tactics had a direct effect on what their choices were following their arrival on scene. The proximity to the twelve year old and the lack of cover was completely their doing.

              1. They ambushed the kid and murdered him. The aggressive driving and immediate shooting looked planned.

      2. It’s basically saying that if an ELO perceives that someone’s hand is moving towards anywhere a hypothetical weapon could hypothetically be kept then that LEO is justified in shooting first and asking questions later.

        It’s basically a license to kill, as any LEO could say that they perceived a threatening action from a suspect, and there would be no way to counter them. It’s horrible.

        1. And you can’t question whether they were correct to perceive the threat, because … um, that BS situational blindness theory.

          I really should’ve become a cop. Maybe I could shoot my brother-in-law. He’s always armed, so that’s a plus. Then again, he’s white.

          1. Yeah, that’s the other big kick in the balls. It doesn’t matter that Rice was doing nothing illegal and would not have been doing anything illegal even if he did have a gun (except maybe for some age restriction violation on carrying….don’t know if that is a thing).

            A law abiding citizen gets scared shitless by a car that comes flying to within 5 feet of them with no warning and makes an instinctual reaction in the direction of their pocket, and that’s enough for the cops to gun them down and then let them bleed out while denying someone else the opportunity to help.

            1. Even if there is some way I could choke down the BS lie that this was a good shoot, the fact that they allowed the kid to bleed out is enough to damn them all.

              I hope I never find myself facing a situation like that. I honestly don’t know if I could restrain myself from not shooting down every cop in the vicinity in order to get to and render aid to the bleeding child. I doubt I could live with myself if I had not tried to get to the child to save him and a couple armed cops blocking the way would be a poor excuse in my mind.

        2. It’s basically saying that if an ELO perceives that someone’s hand is moving

          Don’t bring me down

          1. So, no jazz hands or up twinkles?

    2. George Zimmerman had to make a split-second decision too. But he’s not one of the King’s men.

      1. But by murdering a Black child he was promoted to ‘white.’

        I actually heard Progressives claim this as an explanation for the “white Hispanic” description in the media.

    3. Yes. That’s exactly what he’s saying.

    4. the concept of action versus reaction

      There’s an Isaac Newton joke in there, somewhere.

  10. No Trump references? You’re fired.

  11. QuaidGate is the New Benghazi

    No one has any idea whats really going on

    1. Canada won’t let you in if you have warrants or convictions, so he had to come back. He got popped crossing the border.

  12. Happy Fake Self-Righteous Anger Day, everyone! Feel free to celebrate by tweeting about it a bunch of times and then patting yourself on the back.

    1. How about we not celebrate anything? The whole self-righteous anger thing is ridiculous, but Columbus didn’t discover a damn thing.

    2. I didn’t get the day off.

      1. Me neither.

    1. “Leaf blowers also mentioned for banning — but no woodchippers.”

      I’m sure we’ve all had one of those moments where you find it really hard to be a libertarian, and I have one of those moments every time I hear some jerkoff outside with a damn leaf blower. It seems like whenever I’m trying to take a nap or read a book, someone has to assault my ears with the constant BRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTT of that stupid piece of equipment. What the hell does it do?? Moves leaves from one place to another? Is it really that hard to use a rake or a broom?

      Nevertheless, I begrudgingly support their right to use them… *sigh*

  13. Christopher Columbus never even touched the US Mainland…

    … yet, lets piss and moan and rename the holiday Pocahontasday because fuck its cheap and easy and way better than actually letting Native Americans into public office or something crazy like that.

    1. “Christopher Columbus never even touched the US Mainland…”

      And went to his grave denying a new continent had been discovered and maintaining quite passionately that he had been to Japan.

      That said, in Berkeley, we already have “Indigenous People’s Day.” Ain’t it grand?

      1. So, lefties want to deconstruct the mythology narrative of Columbus. Fine with me. But isn’t it odd they they seek to replace that mythology with another of a more favored group (Native Americans)?

        Because feelzzzz.

        Human beings are hilarious and predictable.

        1. One rich irony being that I doubt there’s a state in the union where the native population has been quite so effectively scrubbed out of existence as CA.

          1. I wonder what kind of white-people-guilt-mental-yoga the average SJW would go through to know that there is a radio station in northern AZ with the call sign KNDN (K-Indian), and that it is operated by the Navajo (yeah, the proper word should be Dene) nation.

    2. One of my friends linked to some Howard Zinn bullshit today.

      It talks about how Columbus slayed a bunch of Lucayans (native people of the Bahamas) when he landed, and the rest had to flee up into the mountains to seek refuge.

      Funny thing, though. I’ve been all over the Bahamas, and there are no mountains. Anywhere.
      Whoops.

      1. It’s hard to imagine what the source would be for that, besides Columbus’ own writings, which don’t mention anything like that. And he regards it as noteworthy when the natives are hostile, which he notes that the natives where he landed were resoundingly not, but that further south they very much were.

        He did take a few people as translators that seem to have believed they would be returned to their native islands, which they weren’t, which is kind of fucked up, but overall I never saw that much in Columbus that was too terrible.

        Now Cortez, OTOH . . .

        1. “They … brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things… They willingly traded everything they owned… They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features…. They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane… . They would make fine servants…. With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.”

          And he did subjugate them. In the end a couple hundred thousand died. Not too terrible I guess.

          “While I was in the boat I captured a very beautiful Carib woman, whom the said Lord Admiral [Columbus] gave to me, and with whom, having taken her into my cabin, she being naked according to their custom, I conceived desire to take pleasure. I wanted to put my desire into execution but she did not want it and treated me with her finger nails in such a manner that I wished I had never begun. But seeing that (to tell you the end of it all), I took a rope and thrashed her well, for which she raised such unheard of screams that you would not have believed your ears. Finally we came to an agreement in such manner that I can tell you that she seemed to have been brought up in a school of harlots.”

          Not to mention the practice of beheading and dismemberment for not being able to mine enough gold.

          1. “And he did subjugate them”

            Citation?

            And remember, we’re talking about *Columbus*, not every sailor to ever cross the Atlantic. Many of them were very bad people (hence my reference to Cortez). Because there are very bad people in the world.

            1. “… there are very bad people in the world.”
              Indeed. And we are not responsible for what any of them did in their lifetimes.

              “Citation?”
              Circle, scan Las Casas for a perspective different than the one I had repeatedly been taught in my years attending public schools.

              It is the only start which I thought of for you just now.

              1. Las Casas is good, but there’s a case to be made that he exaggerated some of the Spanish atrocities to advance his own political goals. Sorry, don’t have any citations for that readily at hand.

                1. “Las Casas is good, but there’s a case to be made that he exaggerated some of the Spanish atrocities to advance his own political goals”

                  ^ This.

                  Still, I am in no way apologizing for the behavior of sailors in the Caribbean in the 16th century. Compared with a lot of the guys around at the time, Las Casas is a refreshing voice of sanity.

                  Columbus was not a very good guy. He was also not a very evil guy. He was just a guy, worse than some, not so bad as others. The situation itself attracted a certain type of person.

                  Main point: there wasn’t anything *especially* evil about what went on. The Aztecs had just finished doing the same thing to their neighbors when Cortez showed up.

                  Columbus and his crew did some shitty things, and people who came after did some even shittier things, but Columbus himself didn’t run around enslaving and slaughtering people, at least not according to any evidence I’ve ever seen.

            2. http://www.history.com/topics/…..ontroversy

              Everyone cites Columbus’ own writings where he says he subjugated them and was proud of it.

              1. Columbus’ own writings claim that he visited Japan. The man was . . . prone to delusion and self-aggrandizement.

                On what island was this Columbus empire situated and how long did he rule?

          2. And he did subjugate them. In the end a couple hundred thousand died. Not too terrible I guess.

            “Think of it as Evolution in Action.”- Larry Niven

      2. Uh, if I remember my “People’s History”, the island he landed on was ‘Hispaniola’ (later to be known as Haiti/Dominican Republic)… and the native people were Arawaks.

        And I don’t recall them slaying them en masse out of hand, but rather most dying from disease. I thought the main thing Columbus was blamed for was chopping the hands off people who he asked to bring him gold, and they brought him fruit or something instead.

        1. This specifically said Lucayans and Bahamas. I have no idea if it was correctly attributed to him or not.

        2. Hispaniola was the first place he landed, but he made four voyages and visited many of the islands (but never the mainland).

  14. Has there been any discussion of the Federal prison pork ban? Ironically, announced the same day as ISU’s Bacon Expo (where I enjoyed some delicious pork products).

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfro…..id/695684/

    1. Federal prison pork ban

      Wow…

      No doubt public schools will be next.

    2. I had a split second of happiness where I thought you were using “pork” in the a budgetary sense. Then I realized that I was being naive and delusional.

    3. Everyone likes pork. I understand some can’t eat it for religious reasons, but I’m sure many of them would like it if they tried it.

      Bacon, pulled pork, ribs, chops = yummy

      I find this survey suspect.

      1. It’s also cheap.

        A very wise man once described it as a magical animal. You can basically turn any food waste into pork.

        1. “Filling up the sausages with this and that…”

      2. I don’t like it that much. I like the smell of it, but I can only eat a bit of it or I feel sick. I know I’m not normal though.

        1. What do you mean by “it”? The pig is a magical animal that produces many kinds of wonderful meat.

          Jamon Iberico? Baby back ribs? Carnitas? Black Forest bacon? I feel sick by not eating those.

          1. Pork is always my last choice of meat. Although I do love the smell of bacon and if it’s mixed in with something I can eat more of it. I think it tastes fatty and I hate that. The texture also often seems squishy.

            1. The texture also often seems squishy.

              Pork has the texture and taste of human flesh–or so I’ve heard.

              1. Pork has the texture and taste of human flesh–or so I’ve heard.

                If true, this would make me reconsider my stance on cannibalism.

                1. this would make me reconsider my stance on cannibalism.

                  Wait, why would you want to STOP eating people? They’re delicious, although a bit finicky to cook.

                  /Armin Meiwes

            2. Even on pizza? That’s the one area where I find it hard to accommodate my non-pork-eating wife. All of the good meat toppings are pork based.

              We have to go to Pizza Rev because they’re the only place with beef pepperoni, and they suck.

              1. Pizza is fine if the meat is sparse

                Actually I just thought of a possible exception to my dislike of pork: prosciutto. I could probably eat it like candy. I like the texture and taste much more than something like pork chops.

                1. I’m sort of new here so I don’t know if this has come up before, but do you guys love Deep Dish Pizza?

                  1. but do you guys love Deep Dish Pizza?

                    I love deep dish, but in Jersey we call it by its more accurate name ‘lasagna’.

                2. This is way better than your dago food.

                  1. I would need to do a side-by-side test with the better prosciutto

                    The spanish hams i’ve had tended to be very sweet, ‘floral’, and not the sort of stuff I’d want to munch a big ol sandwich of. nice as an appetizer tho

                    1. Was it Iberico de Bellota?
                      Unbeatable.

                      I had 4 oz of thin sliced bellota in the fridge, and my kids ate it for snack without knowing what it was. My fault for not hiding it, I guess.

              2. Real pizza has no need for such frippery. Californians have totally fucked up the concept; in that horrible state, the epitome of pizza is something bland with a whole pile of assorted shit on top.

                Feh.

            3. I think it tastes fatty and I hate that. The texture also often seems squishy.

              This bothered me about pork for a long time. I only recently started eating much of it, and sometimes it still icks me out a bit.

              1. Yeah I’m better than I used to be too. My mom says she couldn’t even eat pork when she was pregnant with me.

                1. Try Lechon Asado. If you don’t love it after the first bite, I’ll let you kick me in the crotch.

                  Nobody has ever taken me up on that offer. That’s how confident I am that you’ll like it.

            4. I like ham and bacon but not much else pork-wise. But there are surely many other items on the pris menu I would rather do without – anything from the cabbage family, say, or anything that came out of the sea that isn’t a fish.

              1. Butterflied pork chops on the grill a couple weeks ago – about an inch and a half thick – just outstanding. I’m not much for pickled pigs feet and chiccarons (sp?), but otherwise….bring it on.

                1. chicharron? I think that’s it

                    1. I gotta run. Good pork talk, guys.

                    2. I gotta run. Good pork talk, guys.

              2. Oh and all manner of sausages.

    4. Oh, you mean pork the meat; not pork the trillions of dollars they spend.

      1. I thought it was a ban on prison rape. But that would be a foolish thing to try and stop as it’s an integral part of the prison experience.

    5. The International Skating Union had a Bacon Expo?

    6. Yes, and we’re not buying the ludicrous notion that prisoners were (1) given a questionnaire to choose what to get rid of on the menu and (2) they chose “pork”.

    7. Cyclone country? If so, I’m a few hours west of you.

      1. Interesting – I was born/grew up a few hours west of Ames.

  15. From the Chromecast 2015 teardown:

    The previous Chromecast’s cheeky model number appears to have given way to something more conventional: NC2-6A5. Is there a pop culture reference we’re missing here? …Anyone? …Anyone?

    Alert reader Commodore Bob points out that NC2 could be read as NCC, and 6A5 in hexadecimal converts to 1701. As you all know, NCC-1701 is the registry number of the USS Enterprise.

    You Star Trek people…

    View-Master VR headset now available for $30

    #ThrowbackThursdayMonday

  16. Message to lefties on columbus day: Did the europeans even massacre the natives. Most of the deaths were from diseases did they deliberately kill natives with disease. Natives were killing and warring with each other pre-colonization and euros were warring and killing each other as well. The white man is no special evil. Humans are flawed and have the potential for great good and great terror regardless of race. Stop blaming white euro men for all of the woes of the world.

    1. “Most of the deaths were from diseases did they deliberately kill natives with disease.”

      Yes, they did, actually, but the rest of your point still stands.

      1. Eh….there are maybe one or two recorded instances of them trying, but it’s doubtful whether or not that was the actual proximate cause. On the one recorded attempt to deliberately spread disease that I know of (using blankets from smallpox victims), the disease could very well have been spread by prior contact, as it had been documented that European traders had visited the village that received the blankets within days of the attempt.

        The thing is, whether Europeans helped it along or not, the Natives were screwed either way. Any contact with Europeans, peaceful or otherwise, put them at risk.

        1. Definitely. The diseases would have (and did) run rampant, anyway. But there is evidence that the spread of disease was noticed and encouraged, at least by a few.

    2. The natives gave us the gift of syphilis.

      1. OMWC would know, he was there.

        1. Dude, if it wasn’t for the evil Jew Yakub, you wouldn’t have to wrap your weiner.

      2. I’ve been meaning to tell you:
        Re-gifting is bad manners.

      3. Not according to Michener’s “Hawaii”. Poor sexually liberated indigenous Hawaiians, naive enough to screw all those sailors.

        1. Deborah Hayden mentions in Pox: Genius, Madness, And The Mysteries Of Syphilis that there’s still debate over whether pre-Columbian corpses in Europe show syphilitic changes or just something similar but NOT syphilis. It’s kind of a fun read although I think she stretches her point a bit far in the list of people who she thinks had syphilis in history based on their symptom sets.

          1. Best we can tell, first appearance in Europe was 1495.

          2. Pox: Genius, Madness, And The Mysteries Of Syphilis …………………It’s kind of a fun read ……

            ———————–

            Sounds like a real page turner.

        2. I always get my history of medicine from crappy novels.

          1. Michener ain’t so bad. He does his homework and tells a nice long story that makes travel pass by.

            1. He didn’t do his homework on that one, unless there was a European visitation of Hawaii pre-1495.

              I seriously can’t get past three pages of anything of his.

        3. I remember reading an account about some (British?) ship that was anchored off a polynesian island for a few months to re-fit and take on provisions. The locals found out how useful iron nails were to heat up and beat into fish-hooks so the women would trade sexual favors for iron nails. The ship’s captain had to write up and enforce strict rules against stealing nails as the ship began to fall apart before his eyes – sailors had pulled out and replaced nails with wooden pegs which quickly rotted.

    3. “Natives were killing and warring with each other pre-colonization”

      Nuh uh! They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.

      1. And in their every action, they thought of the next seven generations.

        1. And they lived in perfect harmony with nature and they were never mean to any animals ever.

      2. Don’t forget that the kids got to ride around on unicorns…

  17. As Martin O’Malley prepares to try to make a dent that’s more than a rounding error in the popularity of either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, a poll shows the guy can’t even muster up support in Maryland, getting backing from just 4 percent of the voters.

    So here’s how bad O’Malley fucked up in Maryland. After his second term, his Lt. Governor, a young black veteran named Anthony Brown, ran against a pudgy, white Republican named Larry Hogan in a state that is about as blue as it gets and lost.

    1. O’Malley is terrible in all respects. Yet David Simon, who acknowledges that O’Malleydid more to wreck the lives of Baltimore’s African-American citizens than any other person in Simon’s lifetime, would still vote for him if he were to get the Dem nomination. Because, “Team Blue” #blacklivesmatter.

      1. My “greater than” sign disappeared. Team Blue *greater than* Black Lives Matter. geez.

      2. I too was amazed he said that.

        1. Meh, Simon is an asshole.

    2. O’Malley 2016: All of America can be like Baltimore. Seriously, when your strongest campaign literature is shirtless selfies, you need to bow out of politics and get a sinecure of-counsel position somewhere.

  18. My Columbus Day hot take is that I guess Italian-Americans are officially white now.

    Not that that matches up with my lived experience.

      1. Boundaries!

      2. And Playa proves my point.

      3. For what it’s worth, I have Italian ancestry and I do not possess dark labia.

        1. Pics?

        2. There is a connection between dark labia and bacon.

          Just sayin’.

    1. God, next you’re gonna tell me the Irish are white.

      1. No, that will only happen when we find out it’s wrong to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day slash the Cultural Destruction of the Gaels or whatever.

        1. Well, I am upset that Patrick made them put pants on…

        2. The 1990s called…

          Boston’s mayors had boycotted the event [Boston’s St. Patrick’s Day parade] since 1995, when the council took its fight to exclude gay groups to the U.S. Supreme Court and won on First Amendment grounds.

          1. But they made it okay to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day.

        3. I watched The Knick this weekend and I choose to use it as a historically accurate source.

          Those Irish in the mob scene trying to murder all the blacks – what a bunch of a-holes, amirite?

          1. hmm. That looks interesting.

            Is it like True Detective, and can i watch the first season by itself, or will i get caught up waiting on new episodes…?

            1. I’ve just seen the first few episodes of the first season on HBO, so I can’t say how it progresses.

    2. ” I guess Italian-Americans are officially white now”

      well, except Sicilians

      1. excellent

  19. Popehat is a national treasure.

    1. With regards to the Austin dildo protesters, sweets to the sweet…

  20. Nihilist Arby’s strikes again, and Playa Manhattan approves:

    Nihilist Arby’s ?@nihilist_arbys 6h6 hours ago

    In honor of Columbus Day, we’re gonna go completely fuck up the Chipotle on the other side of town.

    Enjoy Arbys.

    1. That’s funny on a number of levels.

      I bet that Chipotle employs a higher percentage of white people than Arbys. At least in CA.

    2. outstanding

  21. “Anderson Cooper says he’ll be asking “pointed” questions at tomorrow’s CNN debate between Democrats running for president.”

    What is your favorite color? Show your work!

    1. What would your secret service nickname be?

      1. Old Man With Candy.

    2. Hillary’s new nickname as POTUS will be: Just die already you tired old hag.

      1. Or “Cankles”.

  22. “Pointed question”

    I’m hoping for the statistical… How many people have been killed by the u.s. Military under each president? What is the mean, standard deviation, 95% confidence interval, mode, and median of these numbers and what can we learn from this type of analysis?

    1. The man posits this like the lovely boy is on Breitbart or Super America Jesus loves the Fucking Sniper Church.org websites.

      It is very fucking interesting to note that Reason has not broached the hospital bombing. I am interested in their fucking reasonings for this.

    2. What is the mean, standard deviation, 95% confidence interval, mode, and median of these numbers and what can we learn from this type of analysis?

      Mostly, just that you’re a moron.

  23. Sometimes man you jsut have to go with the punches.

    http://www.CompletePrivacy.tk

    1. If you were a man standing in front of me I’d ask permission to just punch the living shit out of you if you affirmed conflict. I will win, guaranteed, Sam.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.