A.M. Links: 26 State Governors Refuse to Accept Syrian Refugees, Majority of Americans Oppose Sending Ground Troops to Fight ISIS, Russia Confirms Bombing of Russian Plane Over Egypt

|

  • Credit: Jean Jullien

    A total of 26 state governors have now voiced their opposition to accepting Syrian refugees within their respective states.

  • According to a new poll, a majority of Americans oppose sending ground troops to fight ISIS, but still want the U.S. "to intensify its assault on the Islamic State."
  • Russia has confirmed that a bomb was responsible for bringing down a Russian passenger jet over Egypt.
  • "The response by Baltimore police to the rioting of last April had major shortcomings, including the lack of solid planning, vague orders and protective gear that was inadequate according to the independent review that was released Monday."

New at Reason

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

NEXT: Does ISIS Direct Attacks or Inspire Them?—And Why That Matters

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. Actor Charlie Sheen has admitted that he is HIV positive.

    Not the kind of high five he’s used to.

    1. Hello.

      26 huh.

      1. Good morning, Rufus.

        Yep, a slim majority of the states.

        1. Let’s say the number reaches 40. I reckon this would put the remaining states in a bit of a pickle.

          1. These statements appear to be mere posturing, since there doesn’t seem to be any legal authority for the governors to do that.

    2. Probably got it from infected tiger blood

    3. WINNING!

    4. How long, and how many of his sex partners has he told before now?

      1. He’s telling them all at once, by announcing it.

      2. How Long? Charlie was into Chinamen?

        1. Maybe he meant Howie Long?

      3. I believe the story said he contracted it four years ago. Rotten luck.

        1. Well, there’s bad luck, and then there’s being extremely promiscuous, sleeping with porn actresses, hookers, trannies, coke whores and apparently not using protection.

          1. I mean, what are the odds?

          2. I’m going to bet it’s drug use that did it and not the sex. Charlies doesn’t strike me as the kind of guy who’d be too big on hygienic needles.

  2. Woman Battered Beau Over Sex Position Dispute

    While parked in the rear of the facility, “Luper got undressed, and asked Vaccaro if he wanted to have sexual intercourse,” police reported. “Vaccaro agreed, and told Luper to lay down.”

    But Luper, a court filing notes, “did not want to have sexual intercourse in that position and stated no.” It is unclear where the pair was planning to tryst, or the position that was rejected by Luper

    During a subsequent argument, Luper allegedly struck Vaccaro in the head with a thrown object. As Vaccaro sought to remove some of his belongings from the car’s rear seat, Luper allegedly accelerated the auto “with Vaccaro still half way inside the vehicle.” As Vaccaro “pulled out of the vehicle,” Luper drove over his right foot.

    1. So, so disappointed.

      Maybe Crusty may approve.

    2. It is unclear … the position that was rejected by Luper

      Is this the writer’s first day on the job. Really? That is the only question people reading are interested in.
      Did he go Colombia JSchool?

      1. Si, en Bogota.

        1. On a Pablo Escobar Foundation for Excellence in Journalism scholarship.

      2. If this had happened in brazil I could tell you exactly why. Come to think of it that probably is the reason.

        1. It said clearly in the article ‘parked in the rear of the facility‘.

          So… yes.

    3. Florida Woman?
      *clicks link*
      Yup, Florida Woman. She never disappoints.

      1. I dunno, this is probably more of a ‘Crying Game’ scene than a Florida Woman story.

        1. There ought to be a law. Backing out of a sexual encounter just because you don’t want to have sex with a dude is a gross violation of xers civil rights.

      2. Florida Man’s wife?

  3. The response by Baltimore police to the rioting of last April had major shortcomings, including the lack of solid planning, vague orders and protective gear that was inadequate…

    “Sit back and see how it plays out” are vague orders?

    1. The report from the think tank Police Executive Research Forum or PERF, commissioned by the Baltimore police..

      I think the “major shortcomings” they’re concerned with can be addressed by more money for more militarization of more cops with more weapons and more freedom from oversight. God forbid they should address the cause of the rioting and maybe de-escalate the situation, stop acting like an occupying army.

  4. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/d…..ute-746391

    Florida.

    1. Damn you, Humungus!

      1. *hisses* my life is complete

  5. Whoops…

    Clinton charities refile six years of tax returns to amend errors

    The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation and an associated charity refiled tax returns for six years with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service to amend their reporting of donations from foreign governments and other errors, the charities said on Monday.

    The foundation refiled its Form 990 tax returns for 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, while the Clinton Health Access Initiative refiled its returns for 2012 and 2013 after Reuters discovered errors in the forms earlier this year.

    The charities said they were not legally required to refile the forms and were only doing so in the interest of transparency following what the foundation’s president, Donna Shalala, called an “exhaustive review.”

    1. And if this had been a conservative group, the IRS would have been all over them.

    2. Donna Shalala – holy shit do the Clintons like to keep their hacks around.

      1. She has been a good soldier for the Capos.

      2. Much like other criminal organizations, the only way to leave the Clinton syndicate is in a box?

        1. the only way to leave the Clinton syndicate is in a box

          That’s no way to foster personal loyalty.

    3. Must have been concerned they were about to get nailed to the wall.

    4. I am guessing after the forms go through the checks will be written by the FedGov and not by the Clinton charities.

      1. You’re not entitled to refunds for anything not filed in a timely manner, are you?

        1. You have 3 years to claim refunds, I think.

          1. ahhh.

  6. “The response by Baltimore police to the rioting of last April had major shortcomings, including the lack of solid planning,

    Heckuva job, Balty

  7. Two Floridians get free marijuana for life — from the feds

    In 1978, the United States started the Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program. It provides medicinal marijuana to people with serious health problems for life.

    While the George H.W. Bush administration closed enrollment in 1992, people in this program are still receiving monthly shipments.

    The FDA would not say how many people who joined this program are still living. We found records leading to four, including two people in Florida: Irvin Rosenfeld and Elvy Musikka.

    “The United States federal government has been supplying me 10 marijuana cigarettes per day for almost 33 years, and in the same vein arresting people for possessing marijuana they give me for medical use,” said Rosenfeld, who began receiving medical cannabis under this program in 1982.

    1. I always wondered if there was some government program where we gave people illegal drugs at the same time we were in a War on Drugz!. Glad to know there is. I was worried there might be some area where there was some vague consistency.

      1. I’m sure some other fed agency will read this and will be breaking down their door soon.

    2. Rico applicable here? Maybe all their funds should be frozen during the investigation.

      1. I also propose we seize all their vehicles and land.

    3. i was at a recent Bar conference on medical marijuana law, and as I hear it the federal MJ is pretty nice stuff. . . and it comes in a tin box.

  8. France has launched a new round of airstrikes against ISIS forces in Syria.

    White flag jokes hardest hit.

    1. and Black Flags.

        1. That didn’t mesh well with The Steve Miller scroll music I had going.

  9. According to a new poll, a majority of Americans oppose sending ground troops to fight ISIS, but still want the U.S. “to intensify its assault on the Islamic State.”

    That’s what you get for not expanding the poll beyond millennials. It’s been so long since any non-millennials have taken a poll, they probably had no idea what they were saying.

    1. I think the problem is that no one really trusts Barry to competently manage an assault on ISIS, but they really really want one.

      1. But I heard supplying the rebels in Syria and Libya was smart power at it’s best. It’s not like they’re supplying a bunch of terrorists or anything…

  10. Roosh: The Accusation That I’m A Rapist Is A Malicious Lie
    …The excerpt that is often used to falsely portray me as a rapist is the following, which I wrote in Bang Iceland (2011)…

    1. I’d rather read an ESB, Jessica Valenti, and Amanda Marcotte compilation article on rape culture than click on that.

      1. You have some truly disturbing thoughts, JB.

    2. You know who else banged Iceland….oh, nm.

  11. Utah judge who ordered removal of child from lesbian couple recuses himself

    Juvenile Court Judge Scott Johansen “hereby disqualifies himself from this case and refers all pending matters to be assigned by the presiding judge,” a court order issued Monday said.

    Johansen initially decided to take a baby away from her same-sex foster parents and place her in a home with heterosexual parents saying the child would be better off.

    Facing mounting criticism and calls for impeachment, he’d already reversed his order, according to court documents obtained by CNN last Friday.

  12. Russia has confirmed that a bomb was responsible for bringing down a Russian passenger jet over Egypt the Gulf of Tonkin.

  13. A total of 26 state governors have now voiced their opposition to accepting Syrian refugees within their respective states.

    Can we all agree, at least, that we like The Fugees? Let’s focus on what unites us.

    1. But at the same time, we all like Tom Petty, and he says you don’t have to live like a refugee.

    2. omg triggering they aren’t even united themselves anymore

    3. Those GOP governors are killing the Syrians softly.

  14. …a majority of Americans oppose sending ground troops to fight ISIS, but still want the U.S. “to intensify its assault on the Islamic State.”

    America has stock in aviation fuel manufacturers.

    1. I know I do.

    2. This morning CNBC (I know) was talking about how Lockheed, Raytheon, et al. stock would go up because of the Paris attacks.

  15. Australian Muslim Party aims to contest federal and state elections

    Australia’s first Islamic faith political party intends to field Senate candidates in all states and territories at next year’s federal election and also contest upper house seats at state level.

    The party, to be announced Tuesday, will be known as the Australian Muslim Party, Fairfax Media can reveal.

    Founder Diaa Mohamed defended the timing of the announcement days after the Paris terrorist atrocities, insisting there had never been a more critical time for the Muslim community to have a political voice in Australia.

    1. Hm. Optimistically speaking, this may actually be good. They can politically propose ideas regarding an issue we don’t entirely know how to deal with.

      1. They should stop saying “or else” at the end of every proposal.

        1. Put y’all back in Burkhas. No, really.

        2. Why? It’s more honest. The “or else’ is only implied by American politicians.

    2. This should be interesting. But at least they’re engaging in dialogue.

  16. Teenage Hackers Return With New List of Government Employees

    The hacktivist group that breached the personal email account of CIA Director John Brennan isn’t done yet.

    The group, which calls itself “Crackas With Attitude” or CWA, published a list of almost 1,500 names, emails and phone numbers of government employees on Monday. Some of the names and other details appear to be legitimate, although Motherboard wasn’t able to verify them all.

    The group reemerged after more than days days of virtual radio silence. One of its members, only known as Cracka, had not tweeted for more than a week. Cracka went AWOL just a few days after the group had released the contact details of almost 2,400 government members, potentially exposing sensitive information.

  17. Six People Found Murdered at Texas Campsite, in Pond

    William Hudson, 33, was charged with one count of murder after sheriff’s deputies were dispatched Sunday morning after a report of a shooting approximately 100 miles southeast of Dallas, Anderson County Sheriff Greg Taylor said in a release.

    At a campsite, inside a trailer, deputies discovered the bodies of a dead man and woman, officials said.

    Deputies learned that four other people had been at the campsite, but their whereabouts were unknown. At 1:15 p.m. on Sunday, authorities found four bodies in a pond behind Hudson’s home.

    1. Crystal Lake campsite?

      1. j…j…j….jason

        1. I don’t understand how anyone can kill in such discomfort wearing a fricken goalie mask.

          1. You get used to it.

            1. It’s a lot easier with a scoped magnum than with a machete.

    2. Holy shit! please say the killer didn’t use a machete.

      1. That’s something only the killer would know . . . so wait a second . . .

  18. Why would anyone believe reporting this now has anything to do with politics?

    From 2004 to 2014, over 2,000 terror suspects legally purchased guns in the United States

    Given France’s strict gun laws, the terrorists who attacked Paris on Friday may have turned to black market sources for the weapons they used. But in the United States, known and suspected terrorists are allowed to purchase firearms under federal law.

    “Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law,” the Government Accountability Office concluded in 2010. The law prohibits felons, fugitives, drug addicts and domestic abusers from purchasing a firearm in the United States. But people on the FBI’s consolidated terrorist watchlist ? typically placed there when there is “reasonable suspicion” that they are a known or suspected terrorist ? can freely purchase handguns or assault-style rifles.

    1. Given France’s strict gun laws, the terrorists who attacked Paris on Friday may have turned to black market sources for the weapons they used.

      Meaning that the gun laws they want won’t do anything.

        1. They are simply restating the ol’ bumper sticker “When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have them”

    2. Yeah, they’ve probably been saving that bit of juicy data for the perfect moment.

    3. Note that the 2000 “terror suspects” buying guns are from the ever realiable Terror List of 700,000 “suspects.”

      1. And I bet that many of those people ended up on the list because they once talked to an undercover FBI (etc) agents posing as gun dealers of the unlicensed sort.

    4. Are Libertarians considered terrorist suspects? Christians? Veterans? I’m probably on the list.

      1. Yes, yes, many of them, and yes.

        1. Don’t you guys know? Basically, the anti-gunners – if they ever accidentally come out and honestly say it- believe EVERYONE is a potential murderer and that is why no one should have guns. Piers Morgan put it perfectly succinctly when he said “Adam Lanza was a law-abiding citizen up until the day before the Newtown massacre”.

          They see all people – but especially gun owners – as potential Adam Lanzas.

          1. All people may actually be potential Adam Lanzas, it’s still irrelevant.

          2. I have yet to hear a single gun-control argument that isn’t equally applicable to all weapons, automobiles, and most common household items.

            1. Epi’s mantra about most things progressives say being projection has really helped clarify the topic for me.

              1. Oh god, I know. I used to work in this factory, and since it was in semi-rural Ohio, there were tons of gun nuts to chat with at break. There were certain people who would walk in on a gun conversation and always spout off something like this:

                “You guys are crazy! Why would you ever own a gun? Why do you need it? I mean, if I had a gun, I’d come in here and shoot everyone LOLOLOL! Especially my boss; I really hate that fucker… And that bitch in HR… And that snobby forklift driver… And that guy who runs that machine in that one area… And that manager who made me work last Saturday… Yea, I’d go crazy and shoot everyone in this place! Nobody should have guns!”

                I’d occasionally get this spiel as well:

                “You own a gun?! What are you going to do, come in here and kill everybody like that one guy on the news? Oh hey, make sure you kill Jane in the payroll department! And shoot that security guard who always gives me dirty looks! And be sure to shoot that one supervisor who bitched at me for taking long breaks! Oh, and make sure to tell me when you’re gonna do it so I can call off!” (accompanied by moronic laughing and elbow nudging)

          3. Paranoia strikes deep
            Into your lives it will creep…

      2. I’m probably on the list too. I should probably not fly the Gadsden flag on my home?

        1. If you have visited this website, you’re on the list. If you are a regular commenter, your name is bolded and underlined.

    5. and nothing else happened.

      1. But pants were still soiled in proggie enclaves across America.

    6. Yeah, suspects. I.e. people who haven’t been convicted of any crime.

  19. One of Japan’s biggest pop stars announces first US tour – there’s just one very weird problem

    One of Japan’s biggest pop stars has announced her first headline tour in the US and Canada next year.

    And what makes it different from other tours is that Hatsune Miku doesn’t actually exist.

    She’s a hologram .

    Described as a “virtual pop star” the green-haired illusion will be performing a seven-city tour in the US in 2016.

    Music fans will pack out stadiums for synthesised songs performed by a combination of lights and computer code.

    1. Rieger is happy.

        1. Yeah. Shit.

        2. Pam: How do you not murder her every day?
          Krieger: I do!

    2. What is this? I don’t even…

      1. Life imitates Gibson.

        1. +1 Neuromancer

    3. Hatsune Miku is my waifu.

      1. Pour some syrup on her and she’ll be your wafuru.

    4. She is a computer generated singing voice algorithm, the hologram is merely incidental.

    5. The way of the future way of the future way of the future way of the future way of the future.

    6. I love the Japanese but goddamn they are weird.

    7. See this is exactly why Godzilla keeps attacking Japan.

      1. It’s because the monsters don’t like it when people play God. Only monsters can play God.

  20. From a BBC reporter:

    I was St Pancras this morning, meeting French football fans as they came off the Eurostar. I got talking to Rached Khaouf and Charif Attar, two young men from Paris. Charif was at the Stade de France on Friday and heard the explosions, but he didn’t realise what they were until he started to receive texts from his friends. Charif told me he does feel afraid going to Wembley this evening ? but he has to confront his fear and carry on with his life. Rached says he doesn’t feel afraid, the terrorists must be re-educated.

    Bold mine.

    1. Is Obama clearing the Gitmo re-education facility for a new round of students?

  21. Oil Theft Soars as Downturn Casts U.S. Roughnecks Out of Work

    “This is like a drug organization,” said Mike Peters, global security manager of San Antonio-based Lewis Energy Group, who recounted the heist at a Texas legislative hearing. “You’ve got your mules that go out to steal the oil in trucks, you’ve got the next level of organization that’s actually taking the oil in, and you’ve got a gathering site — it’s always a criminal organization that’s involved with this.”

    From raw crude sucked from wells to expensive machinery that disappears out the back door, drillers from Texas to Colorado are struggling to stop theft that has only worsened amid the industry’s biggest slowdown in a generation. Losses reached almost $1 billion in 2013 and likely have grown since, according to estimates from the Energy Security Council, an industry trade group in Houston. The situation has been fostered by idled trucks, abandoned drilling sites and tens of thousands of lost jobs.

    “You’ve got unemployed oilfield workers that unfortunately are resorting to stealing,” said John Chamberlain, executive director of the Energy Security Council.

    1. Ha, I know Mike. If it’s him saying this, you can bet your ass it’s not an exaggeration. But I doubt it’s the laid off workers. They don’t own trucks and trailers to transport it with. Very few of those are owner-operators. The overwhelming majority are owned by the OFS companies.

      And those guys are hurting. Just last week I ran six 2010 KW T800s across the block with vac pumps on them under a year old. These trucks were worth $90k a year ago and the seller was still $70k into them. They brought $40k. And I was lucky to get that out of them. The vac trailers and tankers are worth even less compared with o a year ago. They’re at about 20-25? on the dollar. And fracking equipment has completely shit the bed.

      1. I’ve got a friend who works in the industry as a truck driver, doing tow jobs and the sort. As far as I know, he’s still working away in SD.

  22. A total of 26 state governors have now voiced their opposition to accepting Syrian refugees within their respective states.

    Somewhere, somehow somebody must have kicked you around some. Who knows, maybe you were kidnapped. Tied up, taken away and held for ransom. It don’t really matter to them. Everybody’s had to fight to be free.

  23. Fuck Paris Na Ledge from Slave 2 a King

    I support my African-American friends and brothers. I’m against any kind of terrors, but I’m also against hipocrisy, too.
    We all equally have right to publish in Youtube or other social networks and media outlets. If some of my brothers try to explain their genocides that committed by France during a history, no-one has right to delete it. Skin color is NOTHING for me.

    “I say this Because of the MAJOR participation of the SLAVE TRADE FRANCE was involved in. Hate to see the lose of life, yet my ANCESTORS souls are still crying over there PAIN.. And I am to.. France turned 4 times as many slaves as the Americas and used further brutality if that is even fathomable.”

    Comments Disabled

    1. No my friend.

      Fuck you.

    2. How many African slaves were sold by the Arabs?

      1. Drake, you know that is on the list of forbidden questions…

      2. Hard to tell, they had a strict policy of castration and infanticide for their african slaves, but they were in the trade for centuries longer than Europe (and never had a de jure end, just a de facto end due to economic and political problems)

        1. The British Navy did much to put an end to their slaving ways.

          1. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Yemen didn’t abolish slavery until the 1960’s. Followed by Oman in 1970s, Mauritania in 81. Though I have to imagine they were at least much less brutal in the 20th century but it’s hard to say.

            1. They were not much less brutal and they may have passed laws against slavery but no one pays attention to those laws. Hell, Isis just legalized slavery.

              There are many many chattel slaves in the world right now as we type. That shit has not gone away.

            2. And in Mauritania, slavery is still pretty much de facto legal. I’ve read that something like 1/4 of the population is enslaved.

        2. Holy shit. I didn’t know that. Doesn’t surprise me, though.

      3. SOMEONE had to sell them to the Europeans, right? Funny how African kings and merchants get a free pass to assholes like this moron.

        1. Part of that is because Europeans (incl those in America) kept records; the Africans did not. Also, that grim reality doesn’t comport with the narrative.

          I think it’s also important to not be dismissive of the emotions that these people claim to feel. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with their emotions, just let them rant.

          1. I reserve that privilege for thoughtful minds. I’ve had my share of wonderful conversations with African-Americans on the matter and don’t take it lightly.

          2. Meh… these emotions are conjured up about what they think their ancestors felt. It is abominable what was done to so many people, but it’s entirely in the head of the ranter. None of them experienced that or ever knew someone who experienced it. “My ancestors’ souls are still crying over their pain.” OK, buddy.

            1. It’s a delicate dance. I’m as put-off by the emotional ranting as everyone else, and more put-off by the babbling about souls than many others. But the stories about the slave days are handed down generation to generation in the african american community. It’s unfortunate, but failure to at least listen quietly to those rants is taken as prima facie evidence of racism.

              1. But the stories about the slave days are handed down generation to generation in the african american community.

                Or from the Roots TV mini-series.

                1. The greater point is you have a group who has a narrative based on oral histories, both their own and other peoples. And since slaves were not generally taught to read and write (actually forbidden by law in many states) they had no other method of preserving history. And I fully acknowledge how the tales often change in the generations of telling.

      4. How many African slaves were sold by the Arabs?

        A lot. But another interesting question; where are all the descendants of African slaves sent to the Middle East?…



        They don’t exist. As an African being sold into slavery (by other Africans), you would much prefer to sold Europeans rather than Arabs. The Arabs castrated the men, raped the women, killed their offspring and once the slave became injured or feeble, they were killed. The Europeans conversely applied a code of ethics that was downright saintly when compared to the Arab slave trade.

        1. “Europeans conversely applied a code of ethics that was downright saintly when compared to the Arab slave trade.”

          HOW DARE YOU MAKE THIS ASSERTION WITHOUT A TRIGGER WARNING?!?!

          HOW DARE YOU SAY AMERICAN SLAVES WERE BETTER TREATED!?!?!

          /heaving, slobbering SJW prog.

          1. “Trigger”? You don’t get to say that! That’s our word!

        2. Read “Sufferings in Africa” for an idea about how Arabs treated their slaves. Worked them to death and then killed them. Standard.

          Note: this is the book that Lincoln cited as making up his mind on the evil of slavery.

          1. Fascinating. Thank you.

            Richard Francis Burton also spent time in Africa, and travelled with several slave coffles as the guest of the Arabs. Burton’s observations about the Arabs remain relevant.

          2. Killed them after they died? Brutal.

      5. All of them. And how many of the slaves sold by the Arabs were captured by black Africans?

      6. Not to mention their fellow Africans.

    3. All those slaves had to come from somewhere…

    4. Needs MOAR CAPS

    5. That writing is [sic].

    6. You’re hired!

      /American college HR

    7. Yeah, all those people are dead. It’s not hypocrisy to have different views on slavery from your ancestors.

    8. I think many have alluded to this, but does anyone think that european ship drivers and handfuls (literally) of soldiers with muskets and bayonets, all by themselves, could have traipsed hundreds of miles into the wild, rounded up hundreds of thousands of the healthiest, fittest young African men, put several hundred of them at a time on a single ship, and shipped them to the West? It just doesn’t make any fucking sense. Of course the Europeans BOUGHT their slaves from other Africans. It is one thing to fight a war, and then take the spoils such as taking slaves to offset the cost. But there is no way it would have been cost effective to go to Africa simply to find and collect their own slaves to sell.

      1. I don’t think that too many people are completely unaware of the involvement of Africans in the slave trade. Though some people are, I’m sure.
        It’s not completely off to say that the demand from Europeans, Arabs and others for slaves made the slaving situation in Africa worse than it would have been otherwise. But it is ridiculous to downplay the involvement of Africans themselves as if they can only ever be victims.

      2. Disease killed off most every European who ventured inland from the coast and many on the coast waiting to fill their ships.

        The Western slave trade could not have existed without African accomplices.

        The captured Africans that were sold to the slaves were killed after inter tribal wars prior to the slave trade making them too valuable to kill.

        Just the facts ma’am.

      3. While the africans were often sold into slavery by other africans, the arabs were the middlemen in the great majority of transactions.

        1. Do you have a citation on that middleman claim? All of the documentation I’ve run into myself has the west coast trade being direct between Africans and Europeans, being along reaches of the coast beyond Arab influence (and due to the ongoing tendency of Arab to sell Europeans into slavery as well)

  24. Kevin Williamson: Some GOP Meltdown

    And though conservatives’ internal debates sometimes get a little silly and theatrical, practically the entirety of the meaningful political discourse in our country is taking place on and among the Right. Our argument is Mark Levin and George Will and Reihan Salam; the Left’s debate is Franz the Eternally Wounded Transgender Activist at Amherst vs. Caitlyn the Eternally Wounded Women’s Studies Major at Yale on the subject of which malevolent pronouns turn literary criticism into rape. Take a little time some afternoon and read an issue of National Review cover to cover and then do the same thing with The New Republic. Listen to Justin Amash talk for five minutes and compare him with Bernie Sanders. And if Amash isn’t your thing, check out Cole, Martinez, Abbott, LePage, the ladies and gentlemen of the 38 state legislatures under full (30) or partial (8) Republican control, or one of those 32 Republican governors. The Republicans aren’t having a meltdown ? they’re suffering from an embarrassment of riches. White Protestants? Yes, pretty much all the white Protestants. But what about: black Mormon women from Utah? Right here. Millennial women from New York? Meet the youngest member of Congress. Gay California tech titans? Team Cruz.

    1. The Dems really have driven their clown car off the cliff.

    2. And though conservatives’ internal debates sometimes get a little silly and theatrical…

      Oh, the irony.

    3. “Our argument is Mark Levin and George Will and Reihan Salam; the Left’s debate is Franz the Eternally Wounded Transgender Activist at Amherst vs. Caitlyn the Eternally Wounded Women’s Studies Major at Yale on the subject of which malevolent pronouns turn literary criticism into rape.”

      Priceless.

    4. Oy. Referring to Paul Lepage as one of an “embarrassment of riches” in “meaningful political discourse” calls into deep question Mr. Williamson’s grasp on reality.

      1. It’s also not entirely fair, I mean the left also has Ezra Klein, Sad Beard, and Squirelly-Eyed Economist who despite all of their illogical partisan hackery, are generally not embracing the victim-complex shits on college campuses.

  25. Dozens of protesters arrested in Minneapolis after cops shoot black man.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015…..-shooting/

    1. I think I overheard this morning that the woman he beat has died. This case is going to turn to shit on the activists.

  26. Paris doesn’t need your hashtag ‘heroics’

    We have become experts at treacly online mourning. We take grotesque atrocities and launder them into trite symbols and slogans that are usually self-congratulatory and, of course, wholly ineffectual.

    The 19th-century author William Dean Howells once said, “Yes, what the American public wants is a tragedy with a happy ending.”

    On social media, the happy ending is the widely shared and tweeted image or hashtag.

    After the slaughter at the offices of the satirical French magazine Charlie Hedbo earlier this year, it was “Je suis Charlie,” or “I am Charlie.”

    It was a well-intentioned expression of solidarity, so long as you overlooked the absurd presumption of it.

    1. Wait. Are you saying that a semi-transparent French Flag placed over my Facebook photo isn’t effective at ending terror attacks?

      1. Only if you’re hot.

      2. BRING OUR GIRLS BACK!

        1. Ugh I don’t know why but out of all the embarrassing things this administration has done that really sticks out for me. It’s just so unbelievably childish. We are led by immature children.

          1. And just like children, they believe in magic.

          2. It was the wife of the President asking to “bring our girls back.” Who is she talking to? She’s married to the most powerful man in the world. Even if she doesn’t want US troops to go out there and rescue the girls from Boko Haram, it would be more productive to get Obama to put pressure on local powers to do something. So who is she addressing!?

            Nothing about that image makes sense.

          3. It really was a low point. The Wookie is married to a man who can answer the question “You and what army?” with “This one.”

  27. Weakened Hollande Faces Election Backlash in Wake of Attacks

    Following coordinated assaults by Islamic State last week that killed at least 129 people in Paris, mass demonstrations were banned and an impromptu gathering descended into a near-riot when a few firecrackers went off.

    For Hollande, a figure of unity 10 months ago, the failure to stop the attacks may have inflicted a mortal wound on a leader weakened by record joblessness and a mounting threat from Marine Le Pen’s populist National Front party. The backlash could hit in December elections for 13 regional assemblies. Polls show Hollande’s Socialists losing all but two or three and the National Front winning one — perhaps, two — for the first time.

    “This is obviously a nightmare for any president,” said Emmanuel Riviere, pollster at TNS Sofres in Paris.

    1. It’s like the political sub-plot from “Akira”.

  28. Jeremy Corbyn: I’m ‘not happy’ with shoot-to-kill policy if terrorists are attacking Britain
    Labour leader says policy is ‘quite dangerous’ and ‘counterproductive’, warning it could lead to ‘war on the streets’

    “I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you can.

    “There are various degrees for doing things as we know. But the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing.

    “Surely you have to work to try and prevent these things happening? That’s got to be the priority.”

    Number 10 dismissed the criticism of shoot-to-kill by saying that there were adequate legal checks to ensure it is used responsibly.

    1. “There are various degrees for doing things as we know. But the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing.

      Well he is right if you have 4 terrorists killing/butchering innocents on the street and you don’t shoot them you will always have four less deaths than if you do kill them.

      1. I hate break it to Mr. Corbyn but if people are running around on the streets shooting people, you already have a war in the streets. Killing them stops the war in the streets.

        1. Corbyn’s a hard-core, old school Marxist. I’d bet he believes terrorism is all about class conflict and the active terrorists have simply achieved class consciousness.

          1. He is emblematic of the entire Left. One of the many idiotic things Marx believed and perhaps the most idiotic is the idea that all actions are driven by class and economics. Islamic terrorism is driven by neither. Marxists and their retarded grandchildren on the modern left cannot account for or explain actions that are not driven by class and economics. Such actions in their view should not exist. Since they could never admit they are wrong about that, they just ignore reality and say stupid things like this.

            What is really sad is that the idea that all actions are driven by economics has permeated discourse to such a huge degree that lots of people who should know better endorse it. For example, see Nick Gillespie earlier this morning salivating over some half wit who thinks lack of economic opportunity is what drives ISIS recruiting.

            1. I’m somewhat sympathetic to Marx when he’s being descriptive as opposed to being predictive. EIghteenth Brumaire is a pretty good description of Louis Napoleon’s coup.

              Corbyn was rhetorically trashed by a lot of people in the party room when he made the comments you refer to. This is really the core of the problem facing the British Labour Party: most of the MPs are Blair-type leftists, big state management types. But the party leader is elected by a vast group of Labour constituencies. Corbyn basically won with votes from disenchanted rank and file and union leadership.

              1. The reason why his predictions are so wrong is because his descriptions are usually even more wrong. Class and economics can be a driver of human behavior but they are almost never the primary driver much less the single driver. Marx should have been thrown in the fire the moment it was obvious there were never going to be proletarian revolutions in the industrialized countries.

            2. some half wit who thinks lack of economic opportunity is what drives ISIS recruiting.

              Well it has to be a lack of economic opportunity because all cultures are equal, and all religious teachings and precepts are equal between different religions.

              And lest we forget all of the genocides, captured journalists and suicide bombs that went off in Detroit after a terrorist state was formed there when the car companies largely left town.

          2. I believe it was Marx that said that radical Islam is the PCP of the masses.

    2. Shoot-to-kill in order to end an ongoing terrorist attack? Way it introduce a completely unnecessary escalation in the use of force. Fucking slavers!

    3. “Couldn’t we gently urge them to please quit murdering us?”

  29. WaPo: President Obama’s False Choice against the Islamic State

    PRESSED ABOUT his strategy for fighting the Islamic State, a petulant-sounding President Obama insisted Monday, as he has before, that his critics have offered no concrete alternatives for action in Syria and Iraq, other than putting “large numbers of U.S. troops on the ground.” This claim was faulty in two respects. First, few if any White House critics are proposing a U.S. ground operation on the scale of the previous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time, military experts both within and outside the administration have proposed more modest measures that could significantly increase the pressure on the Islamic State if the president were to adopt them.

    1. Congress is going to vote to stop the US from accepting Syrian refugees. Obama of course will veto it. The Democrats will likely not vote to override it and will then be betting their political careers on ISIS not attacking the US. If there is another 911 in the US, I don’t think it will even matter if one of the perpetrators is a Syrian refugee, though likely one or more will be. All the voters will see is ISIS attacking us and the Democrats totally unwilling to do anything to stop letting their operatives into the US.

      I wish them luck with that.

      1. And the Democrats will still win the next election as long as these events have time to go down the memory hole by election season. The people can remember that Democrats are grossly incompetent only for about a year and then they get distracted by the Republikkkans war on women, ethnic minorities, single moms, gay people or some other group that has yet to earn their victim card.

        1. I dunno…all this insanity at college campuses is demonstrating to middle America where all this progressive derptitude ultimately leads. And Hillbot’s likeability and trust numbers are abysmal.

        2. I don’t know. The Democrats will still win the White House, but the state level is a barren wasteland for them. President Obama can tell Jim Abbott to pound sand and dump 100,000 Syrians right onto Ft. Hood and ther is nothing Abbott can do about it. However when every congressional rep in Texas outside of Austin and a couple Houston and DFW districts are GOP, it will really start to hurt.

      2. If there is another 911 in the US … all the voters will see is ISIS attacking us and the Democrats totally unwilling to do anything to stop letting their operatives into the US.

        And they’ll elect a slate of Elephants that will give us another Patriot Act and a few more agencies and bureaucracies.

        One party to fuck it up, the other party to make it worse.

  30. . But in the United States, known and suspected terrorists are allowed to purchase firearms under federal law.

    But the really scary part- they’re *right wing* terrorists!

    1. Even worse, we’re still allowed to talk about purchasing woodchippers! And speculate on the likely eternal destinations of federal employees!

      1. *gasp* WHAT IF ONE OF THEM ACTUALLY OWNS A WOODCHIPPER?

        1. *whistles while casually pulling tarp back over the trusty DR*

  31. http://www.breitbart.com/natio…..ort-skirt/

    Salon is the most offensively stupid publication in the world. I love how whenever

    1. Post-Andrew Breitbart breitbart.com is a close second, but yeah, Salon is the worst.

      1. The Nikki of clickbait political news opinion sites?

      2. No it is not a close second. It just says shit you don’t like to hear. Nothing is more offensive than having the nerve to point out facts that don’t fit the narrative apparently.

        1. Breitbart news took the place of my beloved Mike Church Show on teh Sirius 125 in the morning.

          It is horrendously awful – just constant ZOMFG TEH TERRURZ AND BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AND WAR ON CHRISTMAS! bad. Every. Day.

          It’s horrid. I totally believe Andrew Breitbart is rolling over in his grave. He was of good cheer – even lefties couldn’t help but like him. He just exposed bullshit.

          The organization that retains his name has just turned into National Review with offices in Jerusalem and London.

          Breitbart is Fucking. Awful. now.

          1. I didn’t know they had a radio show. I have never listened to it. Their website isn’t bad. Milo Yianopolis writes more interesting shit in a day than the entire Reason staff does in a month.

            Is it all good? Doubtful but I don’t read it all so I can’t say. But there is plenty of interesting and good stuff on their website. I don’t see how you can say otherwise. Hating Breitbart, much like liking Breitbart, is mostly social branding. The truth is as it usually is somewhere in the middle.

            1. The radio news is horrid, and taken from the websites – they’re always directing you to the website.

              It’s awful, John. And it’s Stephen K. Bannon, the editor or something, who hosts the show. He sounds like a retarded Lindsay Graham mixed with a stuttering Ann Coulter. It’s fucking horrid. wretched.

              I listen to FUCKING NASCAR RADIO IN THE MORNING NOW CAUSE IT’S THAT BAD!

              1. I am not doubting you about the radio news. I have never heard it. So I can’t say you are wrong. I can only judge the website and the website has some good things.

              2. Almanian , do,you,think Gordon will win this week? That would be an awesome ending to his career.

      3. Breitbart is a bit much sometimes, like Glenn Beck’s personality transcribed. But nonetheless it has had some good news stories over the years. They actually do some journalism, unlike Salon which doesn’t publish anything that doesn’t meet the minimum threshold of retardation.

    2. I’d give that honor to Jezebel, but Salon is close

    3. “2LikeReply
      anmlntwk
      19 hours ago

      There is no doubt that the West’s one-sided policy in favor of Israel has caused many of the problems we are now seeing. By the way, what does “Bibi” have to say about all of this?”

      My God they don’t ever stop with their idiocy.

  32. I notice that the nutkick thread from yesterday afternoon suddenly blew up to 300+ comments. I’m assuming that Tulpa showed up, and that it’s a cesspool, and that I shouldn’t read it unless I want to raise my blood pressure?

    1. There was a lot of OT to drive up the count, but The Coward of County showed up to take a dump in the comments.

    2. I scrolled past the cop-fellating and found people posting off-topic links. I think the pm lynx was just lifeless yesterday.

      What a sad POS you’d have to be a cop fellator though… Let me spend countless hours of my life defending violent abuse by men of sub-average physical condition, intelligence, and personal hygiene who have embarrassing mustaches.

  33. Funny how the language “evolves”:

    Actor Charlie Sheen has admitted that he is HIV positive.

    We don’t say someone is “cancer positive” or “Ebola positive”. We say they “have” cancer or are “infected” with Ebola.

    So why don’t we say people “have” AIDS or are “infected” with HIV?

    1. IIRC, that language has been used basically since we knew what HIV was.

    2. So why don’t we say people “have” AIDS or are “infected” with HIV?

      We do say both of those things.

      1. Are you sure?

        1. We do but only when talking about dirty brown people in Africa and Haiti.

          1. You were supposed to say you’re not just sure, you’re HIV-positive. Goddammit, John.

            1. Do you have to raise your hands if you’re Sure??

              1. Speaking of old commercials, every time The Wanderer plays on the radio in Fallout, I have a powerful urge to buy a Snake Light.

                1. Hahaha I had the same reaction, I wasn’t sure if I was the only one. Good commercial then I guess?

              2. Re: Almanian’s Rusty Woodchipper,

                Do you have to raise your hands if you’re Sure??

                Jesus H. Christ. Are we that old? Next thing you know, we will all start singing “I’m a Pepper, too!” and watch old reruns of “Cliffhanger

                1. Not “I’d like to teach the world to sing

                  in perfect harmony…”?

                  Cuz that is one stuck in my head forever. I can even remember stepping back into the living room to watch the commercial if I heard it come on from another room.

                  1. Also OM, you have to ask? It’s right there in your name

            2. No. I am dirty white trash Warty and I am not even gay. So I am definitely infected.

        2. HIV is the virus. “HIV positive” means the virus has been detected. AIDS is a cluster of symptoms caused by HIV. You “have AIDS” because you are test “positive” for an HIV infection.

          This may be the dumbest conspiracy of the them all. The switch from STD to STI is more Orwellian than this long-standing way of referring to HIV/AIDS.

          1. I don’t think it is a conspiracy. It is just how we talk. Go and look. Here is a link talking about HIV rates in Africa. Never once does it use the term “HIV positive”

            http://www.avert.org/professio…..a/overview

            The term “HIV positive” seems to only be used when talking about westerners.

              1. Ugh, SFed. Google “HIV positive Africans”. People use the term for non-Westerners.

            1. HIV “rates” are how you talk about populations. Are you going to call them “HIV positives”? You’re taking a linguistic shorthand and making out it be some sort of PC policing.

              It’s no different than feminists freaking out over “vagina.” The vagina is only the inside part. What about the labia?!? Synecdoches are not a crime.

            2. If that’s true, it may be because Westerners have greater access to testing, so have actually tested positive. Some of the Africans are just walking around with the virus, sans test, so don’t know they’re “positive”.

              On another note, I got tested the other day for the first time and am happily HIV negative.

              1. A lot of Westerners are walking around without knowing it too.

        3. Yes, we are sure.

      2. We do. What is interesting about that is that poor people in places like Africa and Haiti are “infected with AIDS”. Rich white people in nice places like Hollywood are “HIV positive”. Funny that.

        1. Can one be HIV+ but not have AIDS?

          1. Don’t we have a few “HIV doesn’t cause AIDS” crackpots around here, come to think of it?

            1. It’s not AIDS-AIDS.

              /Whoopi.

            2. Name the crackpottery and we have at least one, yes.

          2. Jared has Aides.

            1. …Who help him rape children. Who could have foreseen the joke taking that dark of a turn, huh?

              1. Insert Ayds Diet Plan reference here.

                1. Seriously, when I was about 12-13 in the early 80s, I was home from school and I was watching Donahue (hey, we didn’t have cable or anything at that time!) and they had a panel that was discussing this new thing called AIDS. And I thought they were taking about the diet pills!

                  1. I miss the 80s.

          3. OMWC @ 9:52: Yes, absolutely. HIV is now manageable with a pill-a-day regimen. AIDS is a late-stage symptom of unmanaged HIV.

          4. Because the disease takes some time to develop and because the supressant drugs can be quite effective, you can have HIV without having AIDS symptoms.

        2. Not everyone with HIV has AIDS. And I dispute your contention more generally.

          1. Yes I realize that. But that is besides the point. We talk about people in Africa in Haiti being infected with HIV and people in nice places like Hollywood being HIV positive.

            There, do you understand what I am saying now or is there some other pedantic point you can make?

            1. I understand what you’re saying, I just think you’re making it up. It’s perfectly acceptable to use both terms for both populations.

              I assume what you are actually complaining about, for some reason, is that you often encounter people in this country talking about people they view as potential sex partners as either “HIV-positive” or -negative, or just “pos” for short. I don’t see why it would be surprising that people use a status-oriented term like that for people who will hold said status indefinitely, likely for the rest of their lives, when the status is what is relevant.

            2. That’s because people in poor places like Africa typically can’t afford the medications that stave off AIDS (which is the collection of symptoms that occur in the final stages). You’re trying to put a PC spin on this, but it’s just in your head.

              1. That makes no fucking sense. Your ability to afford medications has nothing to do with whether you are infected. Do we call people who can afford treatment for TB, “TB positive” and people who can’t “infected”?

                Just admit you missed my point and are showing your ass here and move on.

                1. I don’t know what point you’re trying to make, but it was obvious from your 9:51 post that you didn’t know the difference between “HIV” and “AIDS”. Maybe you mistyped, I don’t know.

                2. “TB positive” means that you have failed a PPD test. You may or may not be infected with TB, but you’ve had enough exposure for your body to produce antibodies. Due to the nature of TB it is very hard to say definitively that someone does not have some of the bacterium in their system, and similar to HIV it can spend years in the body before it causes an active infection with symptoms. “Infected” is reserved for people that are actively displaying symptoms. So, for TB, “positive” and “infected” serve the same semantic difference for HIV that “positive” and “AIDS” do.

                  1. If you are HIV positive you are technically infected with the virus. It is still there, it is just perhaps dormant. Saying someone is “HIV positive” is just another way of saying they are infected.

              2. ^This.

                The socons here have finally learned that they lose credibility when they start screeching about the diseased homos and their filthy, unnatural sex practices. So they’ve shifted to taking every opportunity to obliquely mention teh AIDS.

                1. What the fuck are you talking about Tonio? We are talking about people here versus people in Africa. The homos have nothing to do with it. Not every conversation involves your sexuality. I know that is a shock to you but it is true. No one gives a fuck about it for the most part.

        3. How can you be this ignorant of the difference after three decades? HIV+ does not mean you “have AIDS”.

          1. How the fuck can you be this annoyingly pedantic and be so stupid that you completely fucking miss the point? Seriously, the point is that we talk about “infection rates” in places like Africa and Haiti and “HIV positive” rates here. Poor foreign people are “infected”. Nice locals are “positive”. Okay? Do you fucking get that?

            I fucking understand the difference. I just didn’t worry about making that clear BECAUSE IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MY POINT.

            1. See my answer above – there is a difference that you obviously DON’T understand – or your conspiracy-addled brain won’t let you understand.

              1. I totally understand it. I don’t know what else to tell you. You are normally not this stupid. But I guess this is your day. The fact that being infected with HIV is not the same as having full blown AIDS, says nothing about the observation that we talk about HIV infections when talking about Haiti or Africa but say “HIV positive” when talking about someone like Charlie Sheen. That is my point. If you have something to say to it, say it. Otherwise, shut the fuck up because the conversation is clearly above your head.

            2. Seriously, the point is that we talk about “infection rates” in places like Africa and Haiti and “HIV positive” rates here. Poor foreign people are “infected”. Nice locals are “positive”. Okay? Do you fucking get that?

              First, that wasn’t the “point” RC Dean was trying to make.

              Second, do you have any evidence for that?

              1. That was exactly his point, Nikki. Here it is again. Try and read it this time.

                Funny how the language “evolves”:

                Actor Charlie Sheen has admitted that he is HIV positive.

                We don’t say someone is “cancer positive” or “Ebola positive”. We say they “have” cancer or are “infected” with Ebola.

                My response to this point is that we do talk about HIV the way we do other diseases but only when we are talking about poor people in Africa and other places. We only use the “HIV positive” language RC is referring to when we talk about nice white people like Sheen.

                What about that point is so fucking hard to understand? I don’t know how to explain it any more clearly.

                And as far as evidence. it is my observation. I have never heard anyone refer to “HIV positive” rates in Haiti or Africa. The term is in my experience only used when talking about Westerners. That is my observation from what I have seen. If you don’t like that, go fuck yourself. I can only tell you what I have seen. If what I have seen is not indicative of the full truth, then show me counter examples. If you have no counter examples, then why the hell are you calling me a liar and claiming my observations are not valid?
                So why don’t we say people “have” AIDS or are “infected” with HIV

                1. So why don’t we say people “have” AIDS or are “infected” with HIV

                  Um… Some people do say that. I say that.

                  Well, I guess I’m more inclined to say that someone has “teh AIDS,” but that feels like the same thing.

                  1. AIDS is almost a meaningless term in the West. The medications seem to be so effective at suppressing the virus, does anyone in the West with HIV ever develop full blown AIDS anymore? I am trying to remember the last well known person to die of AIDS. I am coming up with a blank. I am not sure anyone with access to the right meds ever develops AIDS. They all just have HIV infections.

                2. If you don’t like that, go fuck yourself. I can only tell you what I have seen. If what I have seen is not indicative of the full truth, then show me counter examples.

                  Take a fucking pill, John. It’s not about what I like or don’t like. You’re acting like your faulty memory is some kind of source of truth, and the fact that I am contradicting you based on evidence is just some kind of bitchy response. Google “HIV positive Africans”. There are results. It is a phrase people use, whether you recall hearing it or not.

                  1. You take a pill Nikki. I made a simple observation and you start accusing me of lying and not knowing the difference between AIDS and HIV. If anyone needs to take a pill it is the person who couldn’t just say “I don’t think that is true because..” and instead started claiming I didn’t understand the difference between AIDS and an HIV infection. And that person is you.

                    And it is not my faulty memory. Go look and see the difference in the way we refer to well known people who have HIV versus the way we refer to some nameless person in Haiti. I am not saying why we do that. I am just saying we do. I don’t understand why you find that point so offensive.

                    1. I am just saying we do.

                      John speaks for every man so they don’t have to, I guess.

                    2. Go look and see the difference in the way we refer to well known people who have HIV versus the way we refer to some nameless person in Haiti. I am not saying why we do that. I am just saying we do. I don’t understand why you find that point so offensive.

                      I don’t find it offensive, I find it incorrect. You are “just saying we do,” but…we don’t. For example, there are three times as many Google results for “HIV positive Haitians” as there are for “Haitians infected with HIV.” You have not cited any evidence at all for your point.

                    3. If anyone needs to take a pill it is the person who couldn’t just say “I don’t think that is true because..”

                      How many times do I need to mention Google before you admit I am doing just that?

                    4. You and your vulgar “facts,” Nicole.

                    5. John, just do the Google search. It really doesn’t support your claim.

          2. Some of these guys are upset it’s not still GRIDS.

            1. Too bad FRIDS isn’t a handy word.

        4. That has not been my experience. I hear people talk about HIV positive poor people in Africa often enough.

          1. I rarely if ever see that. HIV positive is almost exclusively used when talking about people over here. Why that is, I am not really sure. But as Rywyn and Nikki tell you, I am just lying about that. My observations much be completely made up and a lie because of some PC conspiracy or something.

            1. But as Rywyn and Nikki tell you, I am just lying about that. My observations much be completely made up and a lie because of some PC conspiracy or something.

              No, John, but your “observations” do not research make. Do you know how easy it is to research whether phrases are used in English today? Google is your friend. What you think you have observed over a lifetime is not a reliable source for research.

              1. How dare you, Nikki! My anecdotal evidence is pure, 100%, unadulterated troof!

                It should stand in for well-researched evidence any day of the week!

                1. He sounds like he’s about to pop another gasket and disappear for awhile again. I hope not, because the threads are better with him around even though I have to occasionally “go fuck myself”.

                  1. He’s alright most of the time except when it comes to gay marriage and killing all the muslims.

            2. No one says you are lying. But confirmation bias is a thing and people see patterns that don’t exist all the time.

            3. Pauline Kael please pick up the white courtesy phone…

      3. this thread gave me AIDS.

        1. Line up here for “treatment.”

    3. “Doc, are you sure I got de AIDZ?”
      “Yeah, Fuckin’ positive.”

    4. Because HIV+ means the virus is detectable.

      AIDS means you have clinical signs and symptoms of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome.

      These are not quite the same.

    5. I think that the main reason is that HIV infection is often asymptomatic for a long time, so testing positive for the virus isn’t the same as being sick with the AIDS. It is also talked about differently because it has been so politicized as a disease, which I think is what you are getting at. But I’m really not sure why that is funny or interesting.

      1. Good googledy fuck. I just had to scroll past a ten foot long shit slinging contest over the difference between AIDS and HIV.

  34. Oh good, the Missouri Disease has spread to KU.

    Trigger warning: HuffPo

    1. http://www.mediaite.com/online…..hite-fcks/

      Check out what is going on at Dartmouth. Remember, these people are all about making universities “safe spaces”. Nothing says “safe space” like having a mob scream obscenities at you as you study in the library.

      In civilized countries that is known as disturbing the peace or maybe assault and it gets you arrested. In uncivilized countries it gets your ass kicked. Dartmouth apparently is somewhere below even uncivilized.

      1. What I don’t get is why tensions are this high now. Justified or not, it’s not like police killing black kids is anything new. And the economy sucks, but it’s not really all that bad. So why are kids playing Spartacist right now?

        1. Tensions are “this high” because leftists agitators have figured out they can do this and it works. It is the same group of losers behind every one of these protests. The entire thing is astro turf.

        2. While the economy may not be that bad, I think a lot of college students are slowly starting to realize they are not about to walk into $100k p.a. jobs when they graduate.

          Couple that with the general trend that college faculty are about third generation radicals now and there is a diminishing pool of common sense on most campuses.

        3. Something about Halloween costumes, I think….

      2. Yeah, someone posted this yesterday. I’m still shocked people actually put up with that shit. If someone had been intimidating a young woman like that while I was in college, it would have guaranteed them a punch in the throat.

      3. Yeah, that one was amazing. How about some arrests for assault?

      4. The protester were probably in the library because it was cold or raining outside. They don’t seem the type to sacrifice comfort when protesting.

      5. When you listen to them it’s clear they live in a bubble. They talk about validating experiences and creating safe spaces like that shit means anything, or is considered anything but a punchline to most people. They talk to the public like they talk on campus, and the difference between their life and reality is stark.

  35. So how ’bout dem LIONS! Super Bowl, here we come!!

    On TV, I mean….they’ll be watching. Again.

    But 2-7, byotches!!11!

    *what passes for good news for Lions Fan*

    1. Ah the Lions. Finally they catch a break and don’t have the refs losing games for them.

      BUT.

      Dude, you CAN’T miss converts like that! He nails it and the game is over. Instead, you gave the Pack life.

    2. Ha, they should hold the parade now, because that’s the only one they’re ever going to have.

  36. Did something happen in France this weekend? I was busy watching some kickass football games and riding my motorcycles in the SIXTY-DEGREE TEMPS in Michigan!! Glorious weather.

    1. I took two walks yesterday, with only a light coat on, so yeah!

    2. Snow this weekend… But it has been a glorious few days. I put up xmas lights yesterday (not plugged in until December!). I couldn’t stand the thought of being on a ladder freezing my ass off.

  37. New York Mag has a new piece, to which I shall not link, which claims all those articles about the delicacy of college students are wrong because the rate of actual mental breakdown is not demonstrably rising (or something).

    I thought the problem in higher ed is that it has become a monstrous scam and waste of money.

  38. I listen to FUCKING NASCAR RADIO IN THE MORNING NOW CAUSE IT’S THAT BAD!

    *makes sign of cross*

  39. Second, do you have any evidence for that?

    *snickers*

    1. *Twix*

  40. Russia has confirmed that a bomb was responsible for bringing down a Russian passenger jet over Egypt.

    Je Suis Paris but when 229 Russian and other tourists die in an airplane downed by an ISIS-planted bomb, nobody changes the colors of their Facebook picture to white, blue and red.

    Strange how things work, don’t they?

    1. Dude, Russians

    2. Yeah, well, add spending ? 22 billion on migrants (new ones in Germany, 2015) instead of using that money to save and improve lives elsewhere, which would be much more efficient. Or on the individual level, people shouting about human rights and open borders who spend a lot of money for their own entertainment, instead of privately saving lives with that money (e.g. by donating to African children).

      1. The problems in Africa are not going to be solved by donating money to NGOs, any more than they ever have been in the past. People in the West spending their own money on their own entertainment does not deprive anybody in Africa of anything. Given how “socially conscious” so many entertainers are, a nontrivial portion of that money is likely ending up there anyway.

        Insofar as you have a valid point, it is in hypocrisy (“we should help the poor!” where “we” means “you” and “help” means “effectively funnel tax money to warlords”) and misappropriation of funds (the ?22 billion should be returned to the taxpayers, not “used” by governments on bullshit social projects).

        The best way to “save and improve” lives is not to throw money around but to encourage the development of commerce and the rule of law, which is not something that modern, technocratic government programs do.

        1. ‘The best way to “save and improve” lives is not to throw money around but to encourage the development of commerce and the rule of law, which is not something that modern, technocratic government programs do.’

          That’s not incompatible with what I’ve said. I suggest investing in foreign infrastructure and indeed in establishing companies there. (Ensuring the rule of law is most problematic, as that comes close to establishing your own state on foreign ground. Bribing others to act lawfully is tricky, too.) It’s probably useful to educate certain foreigners, on the condition that they work in their home country for some time. That being said, financing free health care – temporarily – may be necessary to stabilize peace. (Basically, the charitable state would have to compensate for the other state’s failure in doing what a limited government is supposed to do. That’d mean either establishing security, or to cover the excess risk. In more extreme forms, one would have state-A-financed/held companies in state B.)

          That aside, accepting the egalitarian humanists’ premises, one would still have to use the ? 22 billion differently, more efficiently (directing money to refugee camps around Syria, for example). It’d be about saving and improving lives short-term. Alternatives tend to be seen as social Darwinism and thus to be rejected.

          1. What do I know? It’s never worked before, but maybe it will work this time.

  41. “Brown says Syrian refugees to California will be vetted”
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/art…..636674.php

    Right. Everybody will have to stop at the veggie-inspection station and declare whether they are Syrian refugees or not.

    1. How the fuck do you “vette” someone from Syria? What, do you call the local police station from their home town and ask if they are a “terrorist”? Call ISIS and ask them if this is one of their guys?

      The idea that you could in anyway vette these people has to be the most ridiculous thing the government has tried to sell us in a very long time.

      1. ICE Officer: Are you currently, have you ever been, or do you ever intend to be affiliated with ISIS, al’Qaeda, or any other organization that has sworn destruction to America, infidels, or Western culture?

        Refugee: Yes. I mean, no. Crap!

        1. ICE Officer: ‘Is that a bomb in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?’

          1. “Why can’t it be both?”

        2. Ron Bailey and Cytoxic both assure me that none of these people are any threat to anyone. Isn’t that enough for you?

      2. Vette them by offering them bacon. Bacon can solve many problems.

        1. Bacon washed down with Jack. Apple or Daniels. Depending on price. It is a government program. OK Daniels. The employees should only have the better available for theft.

      3. How does a club bouncer “vet” you to ensure you are 21 or over?

        1. Depends. Are you a hot 18 year old chick?

        2. He checks your passport. If it is fake you aren’t getting in. Only fake American IDs work.

        3. Yeah MJ we will just check their IDs. If it doesn’t say “ISIS member in good standing”, then let them in. That will work.

          1. And if they don’t have IDs… that’s the point I’m getting at.

            If you don’t have a legit ID to show the bouncer, you don’t get in.

    2. Dumb question. How can refugees be vetted? Migrants I kinda get because it implies they’re moving around by choice and may have some record of them to check into. But refugees are, as I understand the term, are fleeing from chaos and violence to safety and may not be easily traced.

      1. Not dumb at all. What’s dumb is moonbeam’s pandering; promising to ‘do something’.

        1. This is just like Miyagi asking Daniel if he is ready to train for Karate. “I guess so”
          Walk right side road: OK
          Walk left side road: OK
          Walk middle: Squish, just like grape.

          Just admit that you believe Syrian refugees are no worse than anywhere else: OK
          Try your best to refuse admittance for folks from that part of the world: OK
          Say you will try to “vet” them? Squish just like grape

      2. Well, Syria still has a functioning central government, right? Authoritarians love records and identity papers. So, it’s reasonable to assume that somewhere in Damascus there is a database, perhaps with photographs, of every Syrian adult. DMV equivalent?

        1. There very well may be, but I doubt the Assad regime is very keen on cooperating with the US government in allowing access to those records.

  42. ENB . via Twitter – recommends this piece, in which some of Gawker’s female employees complain about in-company discrimination: https://t.co/r1ge9CXasg.

    In my view, it’s poorly structured, and even more poorly supported. Maybe one of you can salvage it. All I can make out is a series of allegations that vaguely dance around some wage gap and not treating women just the right way as feminine beings yet at the same time like men (with no coherent instructions, naturally). — Esp. funny, that one of the men supposedly noticed that a particular woman is a harassment suit just waiting to happen. The whole thing could’ve been useful, if it was more concise and competently done, as it is a larger instance of pseudo-egalitarians unable to get their philosophical system to work — an approximation to a closed system that excludes external causes of failure.

    By the way, read this study on the performance gap — in which male lawyers outperform female lawyers as objectively measured in hours billed and client requisition. This being consistent with the individuals’ statements about their ambitions, and the resulting wage gap. Azmat and Ferrer, Gender Gaps in Performance, 2015: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1136.pdf

    1. Substitute “acquisition” for “requisition”. Mass Effect and cows.

    2. Does it matter if they have a point? Even if they are making the whole thing up, Gawker being the victim of a false sexism claim is what is known to civilized people as justice being served. Go get em girls!!

      1. Some delicious irony, at least.

      2. It does. Understanding the points of contradiction, how the system develops, behaves dynamically, and collapes is interesting and useful. It provides insights into female nature (esp. ambiguities), into pseudo-egalitarian philosophy, the dynamics of groups (hierarchies, reputation, deception, cheating, identity, etc.), and political routines. (A contrast to one’s own view has obvious uses.) – I can appreciate “cosmic irony”, regardless. Less in this case, because I’m not particularly familiar with Gawker.

      3. I read the article and I have no idea what it’s point was. There was something about how Nick Denton, personally, has a problem dealing with women, but it doesn’t outright claim he is sexist because he sometimes mouths all the right platitudes. There was something about a pay gap, but as such articles usually do it hand-waves away arguments that might explain why it exists and simply asserts that the women should be paid more. There was something about how Gawker’s appearance of some gender equality in employees is driven by Jezebel accounting for a plurality of the women writers in the organization. There was something about how Gawker has a bunch of women in powerful positions, but they’re not in exactly the right positions the writer thought they should be, or were doing the job in a womanly way; whatever the fuck that means.

        Since the writer is a former writer for Gawker, I’d probably point to this article she spent months working on as a reason why her pay isn’t as high as someone else within the organization. She’s just not that good.

        1. Nick Denton is a complete ass. He is also a gay man. Saying a gay man who is an ass to begin with has problems with women is not going out on much of a limb. It is even less so when you consider the disturbing number of male Progs who turn out to be complete misogynistic sociopaths.

          1. I can confirm that misogyny among gay men, especially in liberal urban areas is pretty high. I’ve never encountered such disgusting attitudes towards women as I did among a lot of the gays in DC.

            1. What do they have against women?

        2. There’s comparable-worth stuff in there, but no substance to it. Remarkably, she calls some work the women do invisible, then mentions that she was told to include specific examples of discrimination. She’s not able to mention such examples, instead she calls discrimination omnipresent. Which is a contradiction, as this should enable one to come up with striking examples. She doesn’t manage to do so in an exceedingly verbose article that has been written over months. That’s a strategy of glass examples, evidence that is as invisible as the work, something that is nebulous and can’t be checked. It relies on belief.

          Along the way she mentions that their legal team is all-female, and it becomes clear that the female leaders (Dietrick, Donohue) engage in affirmative action, favoring women. Her concept of diversity is based on outcome, not opportunity, and she demands rather high numbers. It’s not clear how – and against what – she determines representativeness and the nature of diversity to be achieved. Note that Jezebel, according to her, is pretty much 100% female. (No hunting for men to improve diversity there.)

          1. She notes the special freedom of Jezebel, then asks for special protection for women too. (Demanding to get only advantages.) She complains that the environment and treatment is “masculine” (“yelling”) – that it should be feminine – but complains when a female’s work in an interim position is lauded as “stepping into the breech and helping out”. She imagines that “helping out” is gendered (dropping “stepping into the breech” under the table). This analysis isn’t convincing. And of course it clashes with demanding a more feminine environment and treatment (call it gendered), which she did just moments ago. (Demanding to get only advantages, even when logically impossible.) She also complains when women’s feminine behavior in certain positions is valued and consequently expected. When you want workers who are agreeable and have a higher person v. thing orientation, you will – being neutral – end up with more women than men. Since you hired these people to be more agreeable and person-oriented, you will also expect them to act in the way you hired them for. (Here, I don’t even acknowledge the valid preference of feminine women over feminine men. Nonetheless, I want to emphasize that women’s softer, more sensible voice and shape greatly complement feminine behavior.)

          2. She notes the special freedom of Jezebel, then asks for special protection for women too. (Demanding to get only advantages.) She complains that the environment and treatment is “masculine” (“yelling”) – that it should be feminine – but complains when a female’s work in an interim position is lauded as “stepping into the breech and helping out”. She imagines that “helping out” is gendered (dropping “stepping into the breech” under the table). This analysis isn’t convincing. And of course it clashes with demanding a more feminine environment and treatment (call it gendered), which she did just moments ago. (Demanding to get only advantages, even when logically impossible.) She also complains when women’s feminine behavior in certain positions is valued and consequently expected. When you want workers who are agreeable and have a higher person v. thing orientation, you will – being neutral – end up with more women than men. Since you hired these people to be more agreeable and person-oriented, you will also expect them to act in the way you hired them for. (Here, I don’t even acknowledge the valid preference of feminine women over feminine men. Nonetheless, I want to emphasize that women’s softer, more sensible voice and shape greatly complement feminine behavior.)

            1. “Since the writer is a former writer for Gawker, I’d probably point to this article she spent months working on as a reason why her pay isn’t as high as someone else within the organization. She’s just not that good.”

              I agree. By the way, she makes clear that, relative to the men, she has a greater preference for personal essays than for investigative work, but that she would do any work she gets assigned. Then she complains that she got less investigative work than the men. Her flawed idea of comparable worth (not tied to commercial value, yet her definition of worth claimed to be objectively binding) again emerges here. And she overlooks absolute as well as comparative advantage in competition, — She’s not as motivated as men to do investigative work )absolute male advantage, since – ceteris paribus – greater motivation means better performance). And men are less motivated than she is to write personal essays; even if she was better at investigative journalism, if men are much worse than she is at personal essays then – economically – the latter are what she should write (comparative advantage).

              1. She wants female (sex) differences respected, then ignored. There’s no coherent principle as to when which should be done, apart from maximizing her advantage. She seems to have no grasp of economics, comparable worth, and freedom of association. Over the course of her personal essay, she should’ve stumbled over the fact that diverse people are different, have different needs and abilities, and that they won’t fare as well in a collective environment than they would in different, specialized environments. Different constitutions lead to different outcomes, especially in the same environment. Go, girl.

    3. “If I have to tell you what’s wrong…”

    4. Lizzie is just another whiny Beltway liberal piece of crap. Nothing more.

    5. The first link may not work. Here’s the full one (correct the empty space): https://medium.com/matter/ on-gawker-s-problem-with-women-f1197d8c1a4e

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.