Two Dead After Paris Police Raid, Trump Wants to Shut Down Mosques, Bomb Threats Divert U.S.-Bound French Planes.: A.M. Links

|


  • ruffin_ready/Flickr

    Two are dead and seven have been arrested in a French police raid on those suspected of organizing the recent Paris terrorist attacks. President Francois Hollande said it's further evidence France is "at war" with ISIS.

  • Bomb threats derailed two Air France flights headed to America; both were false alarms. 
  • America will have "absolutely no choice" but to close down some mosques, said Donald Trump. "A lot of people understand it. We're going to have no choice." 
  • The U.S. Justice Department has brought criminal charges against USPlabs for claiming its popular nutritional supplements (such as Jack3d and OxyElite Pro) were made from plant extracts while actually using synthetic stimulants from China. 
  • Hillary ditches Rodham: "Per the Clinton campaign, the preferred first reference" is "Hillary Clinton," not Hillary Rodham Clinton, her campaign told journalists. 
  • For 11 days, The Economist is hosting an online debate about porn. Join in here
  • Why free tuition won't fix the college achievement gap. 
  • "Exposure to the CSI franchise is associated with decreased intentions to attain [sexual] consent and decreased intentions to adhere to those expressions of sexual consent."

New at Reason: 

Brickbat: White Like Me —By Charles Oliver

Law Enforcement Loves Legal LarcenyLegislators should ignore the self-interested fearmongering of cops and prosecutors who oppose forfeiture reform. —By Jacob Sullum

Anti-Liberty PoliticiansDoing everything but keeping us safe. —By John Stossel

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

Advertisement

NEXT: Two cheers for President Obama's support for free speech on campus

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. Why free tuition won’t fix the college achievement gap.

    How does one pull off free tuition?

    1. Bernie can’t answer that now, but I’m sure that Top Men (and Womxn) will be on it shortly!

      1. SEXIST!

        You put Mxn ahead of Womxn.

        1. Man should be on top of cunt. It is traditional.

    2. Hello.

    3. Why the skepticism, comrade?

    4. How does one pull off free tuition?

      step 1: $15 an hour faculty and admin

      1. The $15 thing reminds me of the climate change emissions targets. They demand and set something but don’t look at the results; both unseen and real. For example, the cost of hitting emissions targets increases for a business to the point they sometimes just outsource production to other places – like China and India – thus resulting in lost jobs at home. The same people who demand emissions be cut then bitch about not having a job. Same with the $15 stupidity. They don’t think that in the long-term everyone gets screwed because costs have to be OFFSET with growth and revenues.

        1. Plus, China and India produce magnitudes more CO2, pollution and toxins, widget for widget.
          With no new regulations on the horizon for either country.

          Fucking idiot watermelons.

        2. outsource production to other places – like China and India – thus resulting in lost jobs at home

          And more carbon emissions.

        3. The same people who demand emissions be cut then bitch about not having a job.

          Eh, how many of those people bitching could actually handle a manufacturing job?

          1. None. You have to import Mexicans for those jobs.

      2. And cut 2/3 of the admin off the top.

        It would be awesome to see the squealing from academia about that.

    5. Easy, fire all the professors and administrators and let the students teach themselves. The current lot at Missouri seem to be demonstrating that the know it all already

      1. Actually, though, their demonstrations evince they don’t know shit.

        1. Actually, though, that was the joke you missed.

    6. You take all the money from the 1% and when they bail out or run out of money, you take from the next 1%, repeat until you have achieved income equality and everyone is poor.

      1. “There will always be a 1%” was a blatant admission that it’s a matter of class war, not income inequality.

  2. “Per the Clinton campaign, the preferred first reference” is “Hillary Clinton,” not Hillary Rodham Clinton, her campaign told journalists.

    Also, the Human Rights Commissions is dropping the word rights.

    1. Is she insane. Half of her appeal to whatever fans she has left is that she is an independent woman. Dropping her name is going to piss the die hard feminist supporters off and it is not going to win her any points with the guys who just want Bill back in the White House.

      1. Meh. Most likely she found out one of the Rodhams is about to come up on indictment for something.

      2. How about just plain ‘Bill’s wife’ or ‘Chelsea’s mother’?

        1. Her Marvel superhero name is Lady Inevitable.

          1. What about Madame Baggage, or Ms. Saddlebags.

            1. Her saddlebags are an asset, as they provide her with protection while she does battle with the Evil, Right-Wing Conspiracy.

            2. Mrs. I made a rape victim cry on the stand? Does that work for you, Hills?

              1. Lol, though that could also be directed at her neck.

          2. I’m sure one of her powers is the ability to control cattle in the future.

            1. I don’t know about the future, she seems to have an awful lot of cattle lining up to support her NOW.

              1. She owns the National Organization of Womxn?

        2. My favorite, Monica’s Ex-boyfriend’s wife

      3. If people had better memories this would be even funnier. I remember back in the ’92 campaign when she dropped it because she didn’t want to urinate off the yokels with her liberated name. Then as soon as Bill won she went right back to it.

        My guess is that there are some internal polls that show she is flagging in support from men and they are sure it is all because of that Rodham name.

        If she wins, I bet that she will already have added that name back by the time she takes the oath of office.

        1. I guess it’s a good time to do it. Everyone’s distracted by Paris and the PC police throwing a fit about Paris being more newsworthy than them right now.

        2. they are sure it is all because of that Rodham name.

          I’m sure it’s because of the Hillary name.

        3. Wasn’t she just Hillary Rodham before Bill ran for president?

        4. I’m sure she’ll be back to it in her victory speech.

      4. Sure, but what are those die-hard feminist supporters going to do? They’re not going to stay home because whoever the GOP runs will have to pass the anti-abortion litmus test.

    2. Next thing Hillary will make “Stand By Your Man” her campaign song

      Hillary Clinton: “”””You know, I’m not sitting here ? some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette””””

      1. and she was right. Tammy was independently successful. Hillary was standing by her man like Ma Ferguson, for the coattails.

    3. The former realized her only real general appeal is her association (Lord help us) to her charming sociopath husband. What did the latter have to do with actual rights anyway?

    4. My name is P.Diddy, NOT Puff Daddy!!!!!!!!!!!!

  3. 114) They said it couldn’t be done, but today I think Slate has actually managed to near Peak Derp: Why Do We Always Turn to John Lennon’s ‘Imagine’ After a Violent Tragedy?

    1. Meh. I’d say this article is far closer to peak derp than that one.

      1. That one didn’t seem too bad when I scanned it. It seemed like someone realizing that oh shit, we’ve become hypocrites.

      2. Recognition unfurled around me like a hall of mirrors.

        I’ll call this the worst sentence of the month. So far.

        1. Agggh, replied to wrong post. I’ll plead Alzheimer’s.

          1. Why not just ask for it?

        2. Are halls of mirrors known to unfurl?

      3. I’m almost certain that if peak derp is ever achieved, it’s going to be this guy who does it:

        Brian Beutler

        Just start reading down that list of articles right there.

        1. I’m still betting that Hamilton Nolan will be the first to reach the peak of Mt. Derp in the country of Derpistan on the continent of Derpasia on planet Derpulon 5 in the Derp Galaxy.

        2. Oh, come on, if it comes, it will be at Salon

          1. I get the vibe that Salon is at least somewhat self-aware of the trash they are pushing, pandering to a very specific audience. Gawker on the other hand? I don’t think there is any self-awareness at all.

      4. Ronald Reagan, too, rode to gubernatorial victory in California in 1966 on widespread antipathy toward the student protesters of what was known as the Free Speech Movement. (At the time, free speech was very clearly a cause of the left.)

        This has always bothered me because it was the same then as it is today–they wanted to be free to speak their minds without having to listen to dissenting opinions. That’s why they took over buildings and issued demands–just like they’re doing today. To shut down dissent.

        The left does not and has never advocated for people to be able to speak their minds freely.

    2. I seriously pissed a normally calm friend off by telling him I found the idea of that song creepy. He was upset that I took it literally at its word and said it was about imagining a world of group think.

      1. Wait, groupthink is a *good* thing to him?

        1. He didn’t think the song was about that. He just though it was about eliminating religion and bad thought, and didn’t quite make the leap to how that’s group think.

      2. I was always struck by John Lennon of persons asking us to imagine a world with no possessions.

        1. *of all persons

        2. He wants us to imagine it. He is special and doesn’t have to

          1. Of course, the kick in the nuts was the condescending: “I wonder if you can?”

            I yell Fuck You every time I hear it.

        3. “I was always struck by John Lennon of persons asking us to imagine a world with no possessions.”

          This.

          That song has always pissed me the fuck off. No possessions? What about my mind, body and conscience? I dont own those either? Cuz if I do then I own the fruit of my own efforts. The only way you can have a world with no possessions is if you have a world bereft of self-ownership.

          Fuck John Lennon. I never thought we lost anything when that nut shot his ass off.

          1. Straight up. It is one of my Top Ten Most Hated Songs. John was a scumbag that deserted his own son. Imagine parental responsibilities and basic human emotion .

      3. Same. I hate that song.

        1. I can’t Imagine why.

    3. Because people have no…imagination?

      /self-Swiss narrow gaze.

    4. Not a huge Beatles fan, but George Harrison’s Blow Away might be better after a tragedy.

      1. All Things Must Pass? Also, John Lennon’s solo career makes me seriously think his contribution to the Beatles may be way overestimated.

        1. Same with Mccartney.
          Ringo was obviously the secret ingredient.

          1. I honestly rank “All Things Must Pass” as a must-have set.

          2. Post-Bealtes McCartney is when he really hit his peak, or have you forgotten about a little group called Wings?

            1. What?? McCartney was in a band BEFORE Wings?

            2. So damned repetitious.

              JET! Woohoohoohooohooohoo…

              JET! Woohoohoohooohooohoo…

              repeat ad infinitum

              1. I will put “Silly Love Songs” up against any of those ludicrous Beatles songs any day of the week, and twice on Funday

                1. Here, there and everywhere is awesome.

                  And you just had to alert the ‘over-rated’ brigade did you?

                2. Is this a contest for most insipid?

                  Because you may be onto something.

                3. Was that not McCartney giving the middle finger to Lennon about pretentious and “important” songs like “Imagine”?

            3. I’m not typically one for “various artist” compilations, but The Art of McCartney is excellent. Yusuf/Cat Stevens’s version of The Long and Winding Road is great.

              1. Ringo was, obviously, the best Beatle.

      2. How about ‘Maxwell’s Silver Hammer’?

    5. Coldplay covering “Imagine” after a tragedy is itself a tragedy.

      1. How many levels of hell are there again?

        1. They keep adding new ones, i think. Especially since the Internet came out.

        2. Dunno.

          Ask Martin O’Malley.

          That’s where he is from.

    6. Because “Instant Karma” is a bit to cynical

      1. “too” – dammit

    7. Sometimes I find myself thinking that Bob Dylan is the most overrated musician ever, but then I remember that John Lennon existed.

    8. I personally would have gone with ‘Jealous Guy’.

      1. I think “Crippled Inside” would have been a nice touch.

        1. Shifting gears, actually, ‘We’re not gonna take it’ would have been the best choice.

          1. Come to think of it, France should adopt that as their official war slogan.

            1. You mean “Fight for your Right to Party.”

    9. That’s nothing. Probably the most sensible article they’ll post all day.

  4. Bomb threats derailed two Air France flights headed to America…

    Flying: You’re not doing it right.

    1. The wheels fell off that metaphor before it got off the ground.

    2. “Couple of days, we’ll be on the train to Hawaii.”

    3. “Shirley you can’t be serious.”

  5. America will have “absolutely no choice” but to close down some mosques, said Donald Trump.

    President Trump is going to remove a lot of choices.

    1. Why do i get the feeling that soon I’ll be reading a headline about President Trump meeting with president Le Pen? It’s seems insignificant, but it will really show how much the world has changed in a very short amount of time.

      1. “On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” — H.L. Mencken

        Looks like that great and glorious day is coming!

        1. We’ve had one for a while now. Arguably Jimmy Carter was the first in a long line of exceptionally stupid presidents.

        2. That day came years ago.

      2. ^^^This

        1. We seriously may be witnessing the end of an era, and a beginning of a new one.

      3. According to Zaytsev, unless we elect Trump and sate those nativist tendencies, we’ll get someone even worse in 4 years.

        1. Worse? So Chelsea Clinton?

          1. Hell if I know. VG has some weird obsession with the Trumpster.

        2. You know there may be something to that. There has been anger over the government’s refusal to address the immigration issue for decades now, and that anger doesn’t just go away by calling people racists and nativists in the media.

          I don’t know I think it’s like trying to stop a volcanic eruption by plugging it. The pressure is still building under the surface, you might delay the eruption for awhile, but you also make so when it finally does explode it’s bigger and more destructive then ever.

          You got to vent it, you got throw these people a bone or two.

  6. Will wonders NEVER cease?!?! A call for curtailment of freedom of speech from THE RIGHT (!!!!) and a defense of the first amendment from a member of the Gawker media group!!!!!

    http://gizmodo.com/this-congre…..1743109159

    Almost UN-FUCKING-BELIEVABLE. But I guess it happens, sometimes. Now, since Gizmodo says:

    “There’s a very good reason the Federal Trade Commission doesn’t have the authority to shut down individual websites when it doesn’t like them, as the ACLU’s Gabe Rottman told Gizmodo?.The propaganda ISIS puts online is a threat. But wholesale censorship is not the answer.”

    That extends to climate denial, hate speech and gamergaters, too, RIGHT?!?!? RIGHT?!?!

    I think we all know the answer to that?.sigh. God, I hate the oh-so-predictable, sneering and obvious Gawker media group. They believe in TAX JUSTICE (!!!) for corporations. And they are incorporated in the Cayman Islands?..

    But then to balance this?.Orwellian article from a lefty talking about how political correctness EXPANDS the freedom of speech?

    http://www.theguardian.com/com…..e-missouri

    Can’t make this stuff up. Slavery is freedom!

    1. Recognition unfurled around me like a hall of mirrors.

      I’ll call this the worst sentence of the month. So far.

      (I did it right this time)

      1. I bet with some work the author could mix another metaphor in there.

      2. It sounds frightening

    2. I’m not sure ‘isn’t there something we could do?’ is a “call for curtailment of freedom of speech”. It sounds a lot more like someone wondering if there’s a way we could interfere with ISIS propaganda efforts.

  7. The U.S. Justice Department has brought criminal charges against USPlabs for claiming its popular nutritional supplements

    How do we get Lois Lerner and Hillary declared a “nutritional supplement”?

    1. You can, but you aren’t gonna like the answer.

  8. For 11 days, The Economist is hosting an online debate about porn.

    But after hour four they had to call their physicians.

    1. ENB will have plenty of material for the next few days.

      1. Debate is over.

        CJ is a master debater.

    2. For Robert Jensen, pornography is much more problematic. He sees it as irremediably bound up with abusive and exploitative gender relations, and argues that there can never be sexual equality when members of one sex can “buy” the other. And he sees pornography as a poor answer to fundamental questions about values, such as the meaning of a human life, and what sex is for.

      First, can we kill the word “problematic”?

      Second, it ain’t slavery.

      Third, why does sex have to have higher meaning? Do my morning dumps have serve some higher purpose too? Because they can be quite satisfying too.

      1. So how do you think the guy addresses gay porn? It always seems folks conveniently forget about those guys when making their rants.

        1. He could always take the “gay porn is the most misogynistic at all because it’s just a bunch of men who don’t even want to use women for sex” line.

          1. I always love when they get forced into that argument. Makes them look like loons to their fellow progressives. You aren’t allowed to besmirch gaydom.

          2. No it’s misogynistic because gay actors get paid more or paid less or something. It’s an outrage, right?

          3. I humored my wife and watched The Kids Are All Right staring Annette Bening and Julianne Moore as a lesbian couple. They liked to watch male gay porn to get in the mood.

            1. Annette Bening and Julianne Moore as a lesbian couple.

              A movie that was about 20 years too late.

          4. No, he probably just finds a racial angle and harps on that. Given the variety out there, it’s rich pickings for a racist leftist.

      2. If it had higher meaning we’d have no porn.

        1. Don’t be a hater… I find porn to be very uplifting.

          1. What you did there, I saw it…

            No, on second thought, I don’t wanna see it.

      3. values, such as the meaning of a human life, and what sex is for

        I think what he means is that sex is for procreation, not recreation. But that gratuitous mention of “human life” leads me to believe he’s one of the every sperm is sacred crowd. Remember, they’re not just anti-abortion, they are against condoms, oral, anything other than procreative sex between people married to one another.

        1. Maybe. I didn’t RTFA or anything, but there are lots of folks who are anti-sex for reasons that have nothing to do with procreation. Given all the “gender exploitation” nonsense, this guy sounds like one of those.

        2. Robert Jensen, Journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin
          Robert Jensen is a professor in the School of Journalism at the University of Texas at Austin and board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center in Austin. His research draws on a variety of critical approaches to media and power. Much of his work has focused on pornography and the radical feminist critique of sexuality and men’s violence, and he also has addressed questions of race through a critique of white privilege and institutionalised racism. His books include “Plain Radical: Living, Loving, and Learning to Leave the Planet Gracefully” and “Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity”.

          1. It is amazing that someone can waltz through life and accomplish absolutely nothing useful.

          2. This guy must hate himself for the feelings he gets sometimes when engaged in his “research”.

      4. there can never be sexual equality when members of one sex can “buy” the other

        Women can “buy” men for sex too. For a whole lot less than a man can “buy” a woman. They just don’t choose to do so.

        And of course calling it “buying” another person is very loaded. It’s not slavery, it’s employment.

        1. Women can usually “buy” men for sex, and pay for it with sex.

          Men are not an overly complicated gender.

      5. Fourth, why do these kinds of “philosophers” still exist, and who cares what they say? Why care about some guy’s opinion about “the meaning of human life,” or living the ‘good life,’ or whatever else? If you share his religion and he works off of religious texts that you consider legit, then I understand it. But if he’s simply working off of what Plato and Hegel and whoever else wrote, who gives a shit?

        1. Yeah, contemporary philosophy seems to involve a lot of concern trolling.

    3. What is there to debate? Porn is a big tent that welcomes a diverse group of ‘viewpoints’.

        1. +1 penis cam

    4. One of the coolest things about the Greek language is the specificity of the insults. My favorite is ‘malaka,’ which means “one who is giddy from masturbating too much.”

      1. I have now learned something today. I *knew* that was a derogatory term from context, and knew it had a Greek connection (the target of the insult was Greek). Thanks!

        1. Ah, the joys of drinking with a Greek native speaker in college. There’s apparently a word that means “Go stick a banana in the Devil’s ass,” and another one that means “woman whose anus is loose from buttsex.” Unfortunately, i can’t remember what they were – like i said, drinking.

  9. So very annoyed. Any time a zealot shoots or blows up someone, etc we are told they don’t represent Islam. When a douchebag makes an online threat, or someone does something dumb like vandalize a mosque, we are told it’s the entire country having a backlash against the religion of peace. It really grinds my gears.

    1. It does seem to be human nature to assume all bad things done by an individual in a group we don’t like represent the entire group, while bad things done by a member of a group we like is just one bad apple.

      1. Like those few bad apple Communists and Nazis.

        1. Ha ha I love it.

          How often do we hear the same basic argument that goes something like

          “A long time ago people said bad things about A and they were wrong, therefore people who say bag things about B are wrong too.”

          It’s not really a logical argument.

          1. Is it logical to point out all the calls for violence in their scriptures, compare them to the violence being committed in that religion’s name? Maybe develop a thesis that this is a religion wrapped in a totalitarian political system that advocates violence – and we should keep our distance?

            1. Maybe develop a thesis that this is a totalitarian political system that advocates violence wrapped in a religion

              Possibly more accurate.

          2. Sort of like the crackpot inventor who says, people laughed at Edison, too.
            Yeah, so if people laugh at you, you’re the next Edison.

          3. “A long time ago X produced a particular outcome, therefore X will always produce the same outcome.”

            It’s the reverse argument some use when discussing immigration, Gillespie in particular.

            Past performance does not guarantee future returns. Variables change.

            1. Oh okay. So the next attack might come from the Baptists or Soccer Moms. I’ll stay tuned and withhold judgement.

    2. Obama and the Obamite left are on the side of the enemy. This is just part of their propaganda campaign on behalf of Islam and against the west.

    3. Don’t forget how eager the Left is to heap blame on ALL gun owners whenever some fuckstain shoots up a school.

  10. AMA wants to ban drug ads

    Because we’re just stupid proles that should just wait for our betters to tell us what’s good for us.

    The American Medical Association on Tuesday called for a ban on direct-to-consumer ads for prescription drugs and implantable medical devices, saying they contribute to rising costs and patients’ demands for inappropriate treatment.

    1. Do Doctors need a class in the word No. Patients may doctor shop, but with the scarcity we’ve got going on that isn’t really going to effect and individual doctor.

      1. My understanding is that most doctors hate the AMA and refuse to join. That’s certainly my wife’s case. Their slobbering all over Obamacare certainly didn’t help.

        1. Can you even refuse to join? It’s probably the most powerful trade association in human history.

          1. All I know is that my wife doesn’t pay her dues. Licensing is handled by state boards. I think the main thing the AMA does is control the number of residency programs in the country.

            1. Little known fact; they fix prices of medical procedures. The AMA appoints a board of technocrats, who “advise” Medicare/Medicaid on what the payout on medical procedures will be, these recommendations are accepted over 90% of the time. The Medicare/Medicaid payout schemes then become the base level for the insurance industry’s own payouts for medical procedures for liability and legal reasons. Driving up prices… that is unless you’re a socialist or an NPR news anchor, in which case you’ll believe these technocrats are helping to keep medical costs low.

              1. Ah, I knew that board existed, but did not know that the AMA was involved.

              2. Not to mention distorting the ratio of primary care docs and specialists.

                The result? Some 70 percent of all U.S. doctors are specialists, precisely the opposite ratio that most experts say would be best for the nation’s health. Primary care is the bedrock of a well-functioning healthcare system.

                Overpaying specialists hurts patients in other ways. The high valuations the RUC sets for procedures done by specialists serve as an incentive for them to overtreat, to deliver services patients don’t need, or might not want if they were better informed of their treatment choices. Estimates for the amount the nation wastes on such overtreatment is at least at $270 billion, or nearly a third of the total we spend on healthcare (including Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance).

              3. The AMA also owns the IP for medical billing codes and aggressively fight price competition by threatening legal action against medical practices that advertise on price referencing those codes – which makes apples to apples comparisons impossible.

                1. Yep. And guess who gets to print and sell all those CPT code books to every medical practice in the country?

                  (hint: it’s the AMA)

            2. They’re the doctors’ labor union. They write all the medical legislation.

        2. Ah, so it’s one of those organizations.

    2. Keep the patients ignorant and pliable. They’ll be less mouthy that way.

    3. I haven’t seen a drug ad yet that made me want to take the drug.

      The disclaimers about heart attacks, bleeding, etc etc are enough to stop me from wanting anything to do with the drug

      1. My favorite are the anti-depression drugs that list “suicide” as a side effect.

        1. I’ve always wondered whether the drugs themselves cause increased suicidality or if medication is simply the last option before suicide.

      2. “Side effects include death.”

        1. “Do not taunt Bouncy Funball.”

    4. About 40% of the directly marketed ads I see for prescription medicine are for birth control pills. I guess the AMA is the latest platoon in the War on Women.

  11. Dartmouth statement about the library “incident”

    Dartmouth is committed to the principles of free speech, public protest, and inclusivity and understands that these ideals may sometimes conflict with one another; however, the safety, well-being, and support of all Dartmouth students remain our highest priorities.

    1. Dartmouth better find a sacrificial goat in those protestors or they are going to lose Alumni funding. The people who graduated from their are not happy about the library incident.

    2. Such harsh condemnation of blatant racism from Darthmouth! I’m sure they would have been just as utterly outraged if white students assaulted and screamed at black students while disparaging their race.

      1. Fuck you, you filthy, white fuck.

        1. The AM links are supposed to be a safe space!

          1. Fuck you and your comfort!

          2. *Escorts Free Society to the puppy and coloring book corner of H&R*

            1. Warty ate all the puppies.

              1. OMWC stuck all the pages together on the ‘Dora the Explorer’ coloring book.

                Lastly, Sugarfree created some new coloring books to replace those, so that corner is no longer a ‘safe space’.

                1. The Color Colonic: A Warty Hugeman Adventure.

              2. And fucked all the coloring books.

        2. Whatever happened to the word honkey as a racial epithet? You never hear it anymore.

          1. I think it fell victim to the joke “why do blacks call whites honkies?”

          2. When someone screams racial epithets at me, I prefer the classic ‘cracker’.

            1. When someone screams racial epithets at me, I prefer the classic ‘cracker’.

              That’s our word!

            2. Peckerwood is my favorite sobriquet

              1. Yeah. That one is the best.

                  1. And the beautiful thing about “haole” is that “whites” are a minority in Hawaii.

                    1. Whites are never a minority. You have to be off-white to be a minority.

                    2. The funny thing is that Haole actually means “foreigner” but I can confirm from my white privileged childhood in Hawaii that it was almost always used only against whites.

                  2. You’ve got to use the word ‘fucking’ before haole to be authentic.

          3. I prefer “honkaloid” or “honky-american” if you please, sir.

            1. Honkasian?

    3. How long until the President of Dartmouth is hectored by the Red Guards into resigning?

      1. The library incident burned up their political capital methinks. I have to hope and pray that white students are pissed off at least enough to not join their lynch mob.

        1. And use their white privilege ? I think you over estimate these special snowflakes.

        2. I sure as fuck hope that a lot of non-white students are pissed as well. I would be horrified if those assholes claimed to represent my interests.

    4. As of today, no complaints of physical violence have been made and we have not seen any video that shows physical violence.

      Was there violence caught on video or not?

    5. I hadn’t heard about a Dartmouth library incident, so I looked it up.

      Holy living fuck. Thank goodness my degree program was available online. I’d be pissed if I were trying to study and these morons disrupted the area created specifically for studying with their asinine chanting.

  12. For 11 days, The Economist is hosting an online debate about porn. Join in here.

    Just what we need; another online circle jerk.

  13. The New York Daily News: as always, so very, very dumb.

    1. Could you copy the text. Can’t get on twitter.

        1. Oh wow, those guys are morons.

          1. The Daily News used to be reasonable but in recent years they have been on brink of folding and also gone batshit insane on guns. Not sure if there is a connection.

          2. You’re referring to the headline about Eli and the Giants making the playoffs right?

      1. ‘Over 2,000 suspects on terror watch list have legally bought firearms in the U.S. because gun nuts are blocking law that would end this madness’

        “NRA’s SICK JIHAD”

        1. This will be my standard response to these fuckwits from now on:

          When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
          They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
          But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
          And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”

          -Rudyard Kipling, “The Gods of the Copybook Headings”. 1919

    2. The twitter guy wrote ‘Bold’. Does he mean bold as in ‘wow, courageous!’ or bold as in being sarcastic?

      1. Sarcasm.

        1. You think? He’s the EIC of Mashable. I don’t think that’s going to be sarcasm.

    3. So let’s start stripping Constitutional Rights for being a “Suspect”.

      1. I really wonder what plan they have for us when they take all our guns away. Because everything they propose is useless in stopping mass killing violence, but will be super useful in preventing political dissent in the future?

    4. the 68,000 suspects on the list are radical leftists that are afraid to arm themselves.

      1. ^other

        the other 68,000 suspects

  14. “Exposure to the CSI franchise is associated with decreased intentions to attain [sexual] consent and decreased intentions to adhere to those expressions of sexual consent.”

    How many Critical Gender Theory and Women’s Studies grad students did it take to come up with this piece of data?

    1. Is data a new word for crap?

      1. Yeah, I like it when a study is so obviously flawed that you don’t have to bother reading it.

    2. So new opening line. “Do you like CSI?”

    3. I eagerly await the day when it’s revealed that people who watch Big Bang Theory skews towards those who strongly experience the Dunning-Kruger effect.

  15. Meanwhile, exposure to CSI Miami leads to…

    *removes sunglasses*

    cheesy pick-up lines (which are worse than rape)?

    1. I’ll admit. If a guy used that kind of pick up line on me I’d give him a date.

      1. Did you sit in sugar, Illocust? ‘Cos your ass sure is sweet.

        1. Doesn’t work without the sunglasses Slammer.

          1. *fumbles sunglasses to floor, bends over to pick up, ass seam of pants rips*

            1. [strokes chin, gives appraising lookover, nods slightly]

      2. I’d give him a date.

        “March fiftyeleventeenth. That’s the day i will go out with you.”

      3. And “date” is euphemism for …

        1. The fruit of the palm tree Phoenix dactylifera?

          1. Citizen X,

            Needs a fig leaf.

    2. …You’re supposed to put on the sunglasses.

    1. Every hooker in Chi-town smiles a secret smile.

      1. ‘Excellent’.

    2. Because nothing makes men peaceful like sexual frustration.

    3. “Lawson said she was inspired to start the petition because she is tired of the violence in the city and thinks “you have to hit people where it hurts.”

      Like there aren’t other options to have sex with people.

    4. I wish I believed that these women were actually ready to stop feeding the gang violence machine with more bodies.

      1. A using birth control strike (or would that be an anti-strike?) might be a good idea too.

        1. Yeah. It’s just a mystery to me why that didn’t happen a long time ago. Then again I also read a story just this week that Syrian refugees are “starting” to use BC. Because they just realized, after years of civil war, that maybe bringing kids into that world was a bad plan.

  16. I’m not sure what to think about that alt-text. I mean, I guess it is there?

    1. It says “Trump Plaza”.

  17. Regarding those worried about Syrian refugees, I heard Obama on the radio this morning mockingly saying, “I guess they are afraid of widows and orphans.”

    He’s a grown man who’s got the petulant mocking tone of a 14 year old girl. Setting every other issue aside, how can anyone stand to be around a petty, pretentious know-it-all.

    1. He possesses very powerful aura of inclusion that makes people feel special, sort of like our very own Fist.

      1. You are all special, and I don’t just mean that in the euphemistic sense.

          1. Hold on, Loosely.

      2. aura or stench?

    2. “I guess they are afraid of widows and orphans.”

      I didn’t know the plan was to shoot all the adult males

    3. His main reference being all the pictures of widows and orphans he saw in the newspaper

        1. That reminds me of a woman I used to work with who had tattooed the faces of several serial killers to her back. She wasn’t a psycho herself, she just thought they were cool and dreamy.

          1. She wasn’t a psycho herself

            we’re going to need some evidence of that

            1. Tattooing serial killers on yourself is pretty heavy evidence to the contrary, in fact.

            2. I don’t think she was totally right in the head, but she didn’t exhibit any other psychopathic behavior. She had a kid and as far as I know hasn’t killed him yet.

              1. Did she show you any of the babies she ate?

          2. You wouldn’t happen to still have her contact information, would you?

            1. ‘Fucked in the head, good in bed,’ inevitably leads to the observation that you should ‘never stick it in crazy.’

              1. That lesson applies to international politics as well.

    4. He is channeling pure proggies talk, they love it !

    5. “I guess they are afraid of widows and orphans.”

      Just their kids

    6. Perhaps he’s only seen the pictures of refugees that Reason keeps posting.

    7. Obama is in a bad mood right now because France and Russia have joined together and are pounding the living crap out of his ISIS friends.

  18. Gird your loins, impending nutpunch.

    1. Don’t read the comments…

  19. I wonder what ENB says to herself after each time she enters and reads the AM threads.

    1. “Wow, that Rufus guy is so tedious.”

    2. “SERENITY NOW!”

    3. “The horror… the horror.”

    4. “Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn”

      1. Damn.

        I guess Google Translate will never be able to serve the Great Old Ones.

        1. They tried to work up an algorithm to translate the Dark Speech, but the test server started glowing and all of the programmers who worked on it went insane and killed themselves in terrible ways. They had to seal the test machine under tons of concrete, because it wouldn’t turn off or stop leaking eldritch ichor even when they unplugged it.

          1. I don’t see why anyone has a problem with this.

    5. [14 straight hours of scream-crying]

  20. Moment of silence for Paris victims before soccer match in Turkey turns into Allahu Akba chant.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt9bMYcmUFg

    1. The Greek players looked a little bit nervous. I wonder why…..

      1. Really – their countries have always gotten along so well.

    2. Damn, they really don’t give a damn what the rest of the world thinks about them. I think part of the problem we’re having with these guys is we expect them to be like communist or the Chinese, who wanted to convert us to their way of life by showing how awesome it is. These guys don’t give a shit if we think their life is cool or not.

      1. I’d wager it’s because they’re true believers. Why would a cohort of the followers of the one true God give a single fuck about the unbelievers’ opinion?

      2. Well, they are looking to convert some people, who do think that looks awesome.

    3. Was there some genuine reason, at least at some point in recent memory, for us to involve ourselves in the goings-on and cultures of that colossal, rotten shithole of a region? If I were anything but a jihadist sympathizer, I’d have walked off of that field sticking a middle finger to that degenerate, fucked-up crowd.

      1. Ask the Israel-first crowd.

        1. I’m a rabid noninterventionist. As far as I’m concerned, Israel can stand on its own two feet.

      2. It doesn’t matter at this point – Europe and the U.S. are actively importing that shit-hole culture right now.

      3. Most of our entanglements are remnants of the Cold War and protecting oil reserves for the West. Meanwhile the Sunni/Shia conflict is getting revved up and we’re trying to preserve the old arrangements. It’s stupid and it will get worse before it calms down.

      4. Was there some genuine reason, at least at some point in recent memory, for us to involve ourselves in the goings-on and cultures of that colossal, rotten shithole of a region?

        Oil.

        Seriously, oil. The oil embargo in the ’70s demonstrated that we needed their oil flowing. Now, not so much, but back in the day, and for a long time, we really did. But, old habits are hard to break.

        1. Isn’t that why all those potentially awesome American cars were detuned to consume less fuel? Brits can’t believe it when I tell them everyday cars in the United States used to have 6-liter-and-higher engines in them.

          1. They were also detuned for emissions.

        2. OIl….that was the plot of Three Days of the Condor.

          Higgins: It’s simple economics. Today it’s oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?

          Joe Turner: Ask them?

          Higgins: Not now – then! Ask ’em when they’re running out. Ask ’em when there’s no heat in their homes and they’re cold. Ask ’em when their engines stop. Ask ’em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won’t want us to ask ’em. They’ll just want us to get it for ’em!

    4. I chock this up to tribal unwashed masses nationalist futbol hooliganism vs elite European power France.

    5. So there’s crass, awful soccer hooligans in Turkey, too.

      1. This is what I’m talking about. Yes, it’s just these assholes doing it. Imagine if a muslim was booed in the same fashion at an event in the U.S. How many news stories and articles would we see explaining how our society or christians are bigots and hateful?

        1. SO MANY ARTICLES. They’d burn up every electron on the Interweb with the outrage.

          Meanwhile, the possibility of getting arrested for thoughtcrime is almost certainly the only thing keeping masses of, say, British hooligans from showing up at soccer matches against Muslim countries in t-shirts with Mohammed’s face on them.

          1. Christ, have you seen how much coverage ONE DUDE yelling “Muslims suck!” at the Green Bay game got?!?

            Can’t get away from articles about how distraught Aaron Rodgers is over it. SIGNAL HARDER!!!

      2. Funny thing is, hooliganism is now worse almost everywhere else than in the country most famous for it (England). In Italy they still throw bananas at black players. In Argentina, the stands look like a war zone.

    6. Are you sure they weren’t just booing because David Beckham was named Sexiest Man Alive! by People?

    7. Our “friends”, the so-called “moderate Muslims”.

    8. Yeh I posted that last night.

    9. I know it’s way too late for this to matter, but I wouldn’t characterize what happened in Turkey as indicative of much of anything. When it comes to Turks and football, 1. Turks don’t like being told what to do, 2. Turkish fans are beyond loud and crazy and constantly making noise, 3. imposed moments of silence don’t fit into Turkish footballing culture very well.

      They held a moment’s silence for the Ankara bombings, where actual Turks were blown up. It was booed by a section of the crowd. This is not as sinister as it may seem.

      There’s a video out there demonstrating just how unhinged Turkish fans can be: Darius Vassel, a middling, old, English player signed for Fenerbache (one of the Istanbul superclubs); he was greeted by an insane mob, decorated by scarves and flowers, followed by a mass of singing, chanting humanity, and accompanied by several lit road flares. For a relatively crappy player.

  21. Two are dead and seven have been arrested in a French police raid on those suspected of organizing the recent Paris terrorist attacks.

    Investigators have found encrypted apps on the phones, which appear to have left no trace of messages or any indication of who would have been receiving them, according to officials briefed on the French investigation.

    Way to go, Snowden.

    1. Yet somehow investigators found them anyhow.

      1. Yes but how many people will they not find because of that app? Because of the encryption, there could be and probably are other people who are part of that cell that the police won’t find.

        I support people being able to encrypt. We cannot, however, lie to ourselves and pretend there isn’t a cost to this. The cost isn’t as high as LEO’s say it is but there is one. This case appears to be one of the costs. The supporters of public use of encryption do their cause no favors trying to deny the obvious.

        1. Yep. Bad guys use guns, too. Not an argument against the Second.

          1. Absolutely. But we should be honest about that. We shouldn’t pretend “no bad guys will ever use guns”. That is just not true. It is the same thing here. Encryption makes life harder for cops. That however is a price worth paying should be the argument.

            1. ‘making life harder for cops’ is a feature not a bug.

        2. Plenty of crimes would be infinitely easier to solve were we only placed in chains, and confined to labor camps. The potentiality that it may be less bothersome for the government to track certain criminals’ communications if everyone is enslaved, to be honest, is immaterial to the point that its mere mention is offensive.

          1. Don’t forget the 24/7 video and audio monitoring.

            1. Both should be mandatory in your shower. The NSA has a national security interest in watching you bend over and bone your date against the bath ledge. For security. National security. True story.

              /PATRIOT Act crowd.

        3. I did not know your last name was Brennan.

          1. Ohhhhhhh SNAP!

            That one’s gonna leave a mark!

            Unless you encrypt it….hth

          2. IN fairness, I did know you are illiterate. Which part of “I support public encryption” do you not understand? Should I write it using smaller words?

            I am really at a loss here how to make this any more clear than it is.

  22. Dumbass economist says that the Paris attacks could boost the Eurozone economy:

    Economist Nouriel Roubini said Tuesday the Paris attacks could end up boosting the eurozone economy if the European Central Bank decides to increase its program of monetary stimulus by a larger margin than it would have otherwise. In an interview with CNBC, the founder of Roubini Global Economics said the the impact of the attacks would otherwise be ‘modest’, unless more follow.

    1. People keep saying that lack of economic growth and opportunity is the root cause of terrorism. I guess the best thing France could do is bomb Syria to stimulate the economy there striking at the root cause of terrorism. And while they are at it, they should probably bomb French Muslim neighborhoods as well to spread the wealth around a little.

      1. Developmentally retarded, demented, barbarous twelfth-century cultures are the root cause of terrorism. I live in Britain, and I won’t be returning to the United States until 2018, so this type of noxious horseshit is even stronger than in the comments at the Daily Beast.

        1. Yes. The root cause of terrorism as much as anything is that spineless assholes like this guy have allowed it to work. Make no mistake about it, terrorism works. It succeeds in getting what its perpetrators want. It didn’t used to. But post World War II, the West decided that it just wasn’t fair to employ the measures necessary to put a stop to terrorism and unsurprisingly we have gotten more of it as a result.

          1. We might disagree as to what constitutes necessary measures in this regard, but it’s absolutely true — and, frankly, indisputable in reasonable circles, as I see it — that our responses to the havoc animals of bin Laden’s ilk cause are infinitely more detrimental to our own societies than they are to the viability of the terroristic organizations and movements that commit these sorts of acts.

            We steadily — wittingly or otherwise — deconstruct our own cultures for fear of further carnage, like terrified serfs. Two adolescents with homemade explosives actually managed to frighten an entire American city into lockdown.

            This sort of pernicious dependence, cowardice, and infirmity is exactly the opposite of what made us great.

            1. #BostonStrong amirite?

              You are spot on.

              1. We can’t deal with this entirely by ignoring it. We have to make the people who engage in terrorism or support it pay a horrible price. In addition to that, however, we need to stop being so mawkish and sentimental in response to these attacks. The whole Boston Strong thing was the worst thing we could have done. All it did was tell every loser out there that they too can become celebrities and really hurt us by building a bomb. The reaction needs to be “not only are we not hurt, we are going to hunt down and kill anyone who tries this”. Sadly, our reaction is often the exact opposite of that.

                1. The correct response to the Boston Marathon bombing would have been to declare and describe in their entirely the details of the attack and its perpetrators, and to advise all residents to arm themselves.

                  1. The correct response to the Boston Bombing would have been to found and hanged the people responsible and forgotten about it. It should have been a one week local story.

                    1. That also.

            2. There has always been people who dressed as civilians and made mischief on battlefields. For a long time Western Governments understood that allowing this to happen put civilian populations in grave danger. If army’s can’t tell who is a soldier, they have no choice but to target civilians. As a result, the rule had always been anyone caught on a battlefield not wearing a uniform or any fighter caught out of uniform hiding in the civilian population was summarily hung. Further, when enemy populations resort to such tactics, they were death with incredibly harshly. Yes, it was harsh and cruel but it saved lives in the long run by creating a disincentive for people to engage in such tactics.

            3. After World War II, the leftist intellectuals fell in love with “wars of liberation” and guerrilla tactics. As a result, Western Powers stopped dealing with terrorists and partisan fighters and the populations that supported them in such harsh ways. In fact, they started treating them so well it became preferable to be a terrorist than a soldier. If you are a soldier in uniform, you can be shot on sight and if the enemy captures you, you are sent to prison for the duration of the war no questions asks. If you are a partisan, you can only be shot if they catch you actually engaging in combat and if you are captured you are entitled to legal due process before you can be imprisoned. So of course more and more fighters have chosen to be terrorists than be soldiers. Our fecklessness on this issue has done nothing but encouraged people to engage in terrorism rather than traditional warfare.

              1. The problem with this sort of thinking is that enemies whose motivations are born of the foundational tenets of their cultures — such as Muslim terrorists — are usually surrounded by innumerable millions who share the beliefs which spawn those motivations. We could successfully exterminate al-Qaeda, say, and their activities would simply be assumed by another set of murderous jihadists. Incremental conflict of this nature is ineffectual with these people.

                The alternative, however, is total warfare, which carries with it the near-unconscionable moral dilemma of whether we are willing — whether it is justifiabe — to obliterate an entire civilization for our sufferance of the direct actions of but a few dozen thousand terrorists.

                Practically speaking, and in absolute terms, the sheer ability to strike at these barbarians has never been an issue for us, excepting that the bureaucrats who command our military are indecisive and fickle. As I’ve said before, the United States constitute history’s hyperpower. Were we so inclined, we could convert Asia into ash and dust in less time than it would take you to drive to Virginia Beach.

                1. The alternative, however, is total warfare,

                  And yes, that is a terrible alternative. It is however the alternative a fanatical enemy forces upon you. Wars are not won by winning battles. Winning battles is just the means to the ultimate end of breaking your enemy’s will to fight. If winning battles and limited wars do not break your enemy’s will to fight, then your only alternatives are defeat, endless war, or total war.

                  It is clear that winning battles and limited wars is not breaking the Islamists will to fight. So our choices are to either give them what they want (total submission), spend decades of ever more bloody and escalating wars with them that will likely end in total war anyway or engage in total war against them now. That is a terrible set of alternatives but those are the only ones available.

                  The other thing about partisan movements like this is that it doesn’t matter if the vast majority of the population they hide in doesn’t support them. What matters is if the population is willing to turn against them. Passive non support is no better than outright support. Even if the population hates the radicals, it won’t help if they are more afraid of the radicals than they are of you. You have to give them a reason to stand up and rat out the radicals. And usually that can’t be done strictly by bribery or charity. Mostly it has to be done by making the population more afraid of you than they are of the radicals.

                  1. With regard to Muslim civilization specifically, total warfare would mean total warfare in its purest sense — we’d have to annihilate everything. They’d probably make their strongholds where their neighbors are all implicitly, or explicitly, supportive of their cause. That would mean facing massive, fantastically bloody civilian insurrection of a fanatical nature — an eventuality whose only remedy would be our doing to the locals something akin to what the Covenant did to mankind in the ‘Halo’ franchise.

                    1. We’d literally have to kill hundreds of millions of people. Is that something you think we can justify.

                    2. So our choices are to either give them what they want (total submission), spend decades of ever more bloody and escalating wars with them that will likely end in total war anyway or engage in total war against them now. That is a terrible set of alternatives but those are the only ones available.

                      We will not submit.

                      Therefore total war is inevitable.

                      We can do it now, before the whole globe is riddled with jihadi madness, or later. The Plain of Glass can encompass the world. Or it can bring peace to the Desert. It is inevitable now.

                    3. I don’t know that we would have to annihilate everything. They are fanatical but not that fanatical. Let me give you a really extreme thought experiment.

                      Suppose France just nuked the ISIS areas of Syria tomorrow. They have nukes. Not just one nuke but say ten of them or whatever it takes to completely incinerate every single ISIS controlled area. Then they went into every Mosque in France and publicly hung the Imams leaving their bodies on public display and shot anyone who tried to cut them down or demonstrate against it. Then they told the Muslim population of France they are free to stay or go but they need to understand they and their leaders are going to be held responsible for any act of terrorism.

                    4. That domestic response is wholly irreconcilable with my morals, and I’m about as far away from a bleeding-heart liberal as anybody can be. State terror is Satanic, and employing it thusly is unforgivable to its own extreme.

                      Additionally, I don’t think you quite grasp the nature of religious fanaticism for these individuals. Their worldview is predicated on an earnest trust in the righteousness of their deaths in the commission of acts of holy war against unbelievers. They would most assuredly fight to the death for their malignant cause. That’s the entire problem. You can’t break fanatics of this kind. The only way to defeat them is to exterminate them.

                    5. I completely grasp it. You, however, don’t grasp two things. First, there is a limited supply of people who have that world view. If you kill enough of them, they will run out of fanatics. Second, that world view is only attractive if it looks like a winning one. Few of even the fanatics want to die for a losing cause. People join fanatical movements mostly because they want some kind of meaning and purpose in their lives. The people blowing themselves up in shopping malls or shooting concert goers honestly believe they are part of a larger movement that will bring on a better world. Radical Islam is in many ways just a Islamic spin on the 20th Century Utopian sicknesses that killed so many people. And its appeal is similar. You too can be a part of creating paradise here on earth. You can give your life for something larger and noble.

                      The best way to deprive such an ideology of converts is to make it look like a loser. Make it clear that it is never going to transform anything or lead its followers to anything but a pointless death. Harsh and unrelenting measures against such an ideology do that. The worst thing to do is to try and placate it. All that does is embolden the followers and encourage others to see it as the winning way.

                      So yes, you can kill an ideology with violence. It is hard, but you can do it.

                    6. “First, there is a limited supply of people who have that world view. If you kill enough of them, they will run out of fanatics.”

                      Everything we know of the culture whose depths breed these terrorists, and the very basis of the cause for which they fight, illustrates to us with unmistakable clarity that their beliefs, vary as they may by severity in some instances, are shared on an elementary level by enormous minorities, majorities, or mixtures of both determinable by more specific questions of their Muslim faith.

                      There is no equivalence between the Islamists with whom we do battle in Afghanistan, say, and the Marxist partisans of Colombia. They’re not extricable components of their societies. They’re not readily identifiable as separate and distinct from the inhabitants of the places they hide. To kill their ideology, as you phrase it, would require the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.

                      Their pool of genuinely viable recruits numbers in that range, without exaggeration. It would be necessary for us to depopulate entire regions for your strategy to become even marginally effective. Are you willing to accept that as justifiable?

                    7. Everything we know of the culture whose depths breed these terrorists, and the very basis of the cause for which they fight, illustrates to us with unmistakable clarity that their beliefs, vary as they may by severity in some instances, are shared on an elementary level by enormous minorities, majorities, or mixtures of both determinable by more specific questions of their Muslim faith.

                      that is not true. Not every Muslim country produces terrorists and there have been plenty of times in history when Muslims were not particularly fanatical. The Mad Madhi in the Sudan was just as radical as anything we have today. And he had plenty of committed followers. His movement however didn’t last after the British found and beheaded him and death with his followers.

                    8. There is no equivalence between the Islamists with whom we do battle in Afghanistan, say, and the Marxist partisans of Colombia.

                      There is a lot of equivalence. The radical ideology that motivates the Taliban and ISIS, while medieval and Islamic based is greatly influenced by western Utopian thinking. ISIS is closer to the Khmer Rouge than the old Ottoman Caliphate. It certainly has the veneer and language of Islam but it also has the transformative utopianism and world ambitions of Marxism.

                      Regardless of what you call it, it is an ideology. And all ideologies share some things in common. And one of those things is they are only appealing if people see them as winning and making a difference. Without that, you are left with a few real dead enders who are willing to die for anything and you have something like a small suicide cult not a world movement.

                    9. “Second, that world view is only attractive if it looks like a winning one. Few of even the fanatics want to die for a losing cause. People join fanatical movements mostly because they want some kind of meaning and purpose in their lives.”

                      And herein lies your misunderstanding of the most basic, integral facet of these fanatics’ dogma — their cause cannot lose, and can never be seen in any substantial sense as losingm, if one is a true believer. The nature of a perpetual holy war instigated and waged in the sight, at the behest, and through the blessing of Almighty God is definitionally incompatible with the possibility of defeat in any meaningful sense. They can’t lose.

                    10. Thymirus,

                      The number of “true believers” is directly proportional to whether the movement is perceived as being the winning side. The stronger and more successful a movement is, the more true believers it attracts. And conversely, the less successful it is, the fewer true believers.

                    11. Now that is a harsh response and the world would no doubt have fainting fits over it. And in the short term every Muslim would swear revenge. In the long term, however, I bet Muslims would decide they have better things to do than terrorize Frenchman. And in doing so, it would shorten the conflict with Islam and over the long term save Muslim lives.

                      We are going to keep dicking around and letting this conflict fester and go on longer and get bigger and bigger that we will end up having to resort to even worse measures than I describe.

                      I am not saying this is the exact answer. I am not sure I buy it myself. I still hold out some weird hope Muslims will come to their senses. But, at least consider the possibility that a really strong and brutal response early to conflict can in many cases save lives by ending the conflict sooner.

                    12. John,
                      Haven’t the Serbs and Croats been doing essentially that for the past 1000 years? I don’t think it would accomplish anything except to ramp up the next round of violence. And it would put all decent folks squarely against the French.

                      Eventually almost every conflict has to be solved in the long term by voluntary means – negotiation. OK, you’ll cite WW2 and the Japanese, but the US is and was an extraordinarily merciful nation. And that mercy is what made the peace possible and the last 70 years fruitful. Same in Europe to a great extent.

                      OTOH, when the Allies imposed harsh measures on Germany after WWI things came unglued pretty quickly.

                      It really is a battle for the ‘hearts and minds’ of the millions that we need to win in order for the society itself to reject the violent extremists. Unfortunately, the Muslim world has such a different worldview, and is so brainwashed by Islam, that this will take several generations at least. I don’t see peace in the ME in any of our lifetimes.

        2. *stronger here.

    2. If he’s so sure of that event’s positive nature, I invite him to purchase a one-way ticket to a Muslim-majority country, claim homosexuality with a large sign outside a soccer stadium, and record what happens.

      1. I’ve always wondered why Paul Krugman doesn’t rent a bulldozer and demolish his home. It’s the secret to wealth, apparently, so why not?

        1. If he could print his own money, he certainly would

        2. As much as I’d like to believe that it (his retarded belief system, and others like it) is all attributable to evil, or immorality, or malice, experience has taught me that a great deal of the time, these sorts of people really are just mind-fuckingly stupid, and that’s all there is to it. They partition their various convictions and beliefs away from each other, so they exist without reconciliation with their neighbors — cognitive dissonance.

          1. I think they get a sophisticated reason for why something will work (govt stimulus can put idle resources to work), reduce that reason to a slogan (govt stimulus boosts growth), and then stick with the simplistic slogan from there on out. According to Keynes, there needs to be certain conditions for fiscal stimulus to be a net positive. These morons reduce it to any spending will increase growth, even if that spending is in reaction to massive destruction.

        3. Someone please repeat the Krugman/Bernake joke I read here a few weeks ago. I believe they paid eachother to eat eachother’s shit? I need to have it ready when I see my proggie brother next week.

          1. Two economists were walking down the street one day when they passed two large piles of dog shit.
            The first economist said to the other, “I’ll pay you $20,000 to eat one of those piles of shit.” The second one agrees and chooses one of the piles and eats it. The first economist pays him his $20,000.

            Then the second economist says, “I’ll pay you $20,000 to eat the other pile of shit.” The first one says okay, and eats the shit. The second economist pays him the $20,000.

            They resume walking down the street.

            After a while, the second economist says, “You know, I don’t feel very good. We both have the same amount of money as when we started. The only difference is we’ve both eaten shit.”

            The first economist says: “Ah, but you’re ignoring the fact that we’ve engaged in $40,000 worth of trade!”

            I think the punchline was stated differently here, though

            1. ‘created two jobs and increased GDP by $40k!’ Spoken by Krugman, of course.

    3. And to think I took Roubini seriously once upon a time

      1. Broken clock yada, yada, yada..

  23. Dear Reason,

    When Mother Jones’ position on an issue appears reasonable and thoughtful compared to yours, you have a problem.

    http://www.motherjones.com/kev…..n-refugees

    I guess Mother Jones has joined the pants shitting yokaltarian revolution. Etu Mother Jones?

    1. Drum’s concerned with the optics. That MJers are losing the center on this issue by harshly mocking their opponents. He has no problem with letting in Syrian refugees.

      The liberal response to this should be far more measured. We should support tight screening. Never mind that screening is already pretty tight. We should highlight the fact that we’re accepting a pretty modest number of refugees. In general, we should act like this is a legitimate thing to be concerned about and then work from there.

      Mocking it is the worst thing we could do. It validates all the worst stereotypes about liberals that we put political correctness ahead of national security. It doesn’t matter if that’s right or wrong. Ordinary people see the refugees as a common sense thing to be concerned about. We shouldn’t respond by essentially calling them idiots. That way lies electoral disaster.

      1. Yes. But Drum at least admits it is not unreasonable to think that we should not allow the refugees in, even if he disagrees with that. That admission makes him far more thoughtful and reasonable than the Reason staff and a good part of the commenters who seem to think that anyone who thinks this could be a bad idea must just be a racist pants shitter. Drum is a loathsome asshole with totally self centered motives but for the single reason that he will admit the people objecting to this are not crazy he shows a better understanding of the issue than anyone at Reason.

        1. You would think it would be common sense around here that insulting people who disagree with you, and calling them racists doesn’t win you any converts.

          1. If you go carryin’ pictures of Chairman Mao
            you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow.

            1. But I read just above that John Lennon was an idiot. How can this be?

          2. No it doesn’t. But it makes you feel better when you don’t have any good response to their arguments. The entire Reason response to this is just over compensation. They know they have a tough case to make here and rather than admitting that or (gasp) modifying their position they are doubling down and trying to pretend the opposing position is beyond the pale.

            1. Then maybe you should go hang out with your peeps at Mother Jones for awhile.

              1. Oh come on Citizen. Even if you disagree with John’s position on the refugees you have to admit that Reason’s response, and your insult are not going to win any over to your side.

                1. Bard,

                  Perhaps CN has decided it is time to purge the impure. The refugees are a hard question. On the one hand people reasonably believe in the principles of free movement and open borders. On the other hand, that principle like every principle has its limits. And when you run up to the limits things get hard. The easy thing to do is be a fanatic and just stick to your principles no matter what the consequences. The hard thing to do is be a reasonable person and understand that no principle no matter how noble should be applied in every circumstance. When it shouldn’t be is called practical ethics. And practical ethics are messy and hard. But life is messy and hard.

                  People don’t like that. So to avoid that reality they ignore it and pretend that “sticking to their principles” is the only way and stop engaging in rational argument and reduce themselves to moral preening.

                  1. For me the issue is the commitment to the principles that keep this country free, namely the Bill of Rights (although that is not all-inclusive).

                    We are already fighting a losing battle against internal forces on both sides that want to destroy those rights in the name of progress and/or security. I think that wholesale importation of a culture that does not value those rights either only makes matters worse. Europe is a good example of where that path leads.

                    So yes, I am apprehensive about bringing large numbers of ME Muslims into the country. While I don’t think they should be banned outright, I certainly don’t think it should be any easier for them to get in than it is for any other foreigner to legally immigrate.

                    1. The more fundamental issue in this discussion is the nature of democracy, and its permissibility in a moral nation. The sacred rights of men are not subject to the whims of mobs.

                    2. We have already become a democracy in the actual sense of the word. Unfortunately, most people think that’s a good thing.

                    3. The sacred rights of men are not subject to the whims of mobs.

                      No but those rights only mean something if they can be enjoyed. It does you no good to have rights and freedom if you don’t also enjoy some measure of safety and security which allows you to enjoy them. Figuring out how to protect those rights and also provide an environment where they are meaningful is the hard part.

                    4. Lee,

                      I am committed to the Bill of Rights too. I guess I missed the part where it guaranteed the right of anyone from any country in the world to come here at US government expense.

                      Again, we need principles. And they should be followed. But there is more to it than that. If there wasn’t, there would never be any ethical dilemmas.

                    5. I think that wholesale importation of a culture that does not value those rights either only makes matters worse.

                      So, a wall on the Mex border? Admittedly, their culture is much closer, but still not exactly individualistic or capitalistic.

                2. Not looking to win any over to my side, MB, especially not the conservatarians. They’re a lost cause.

                  1. Sure CN,

                    It is just that the people who disagree with you are stupid and irrational. It couldn’t be that they have a point or that you could be wrong. Nope, that is impossible. They are just a lost cause.

                    That is what your saying. Ask yourself, do you really believe that? And if you do, what does that say about your commitment to rationality and reasoned discourse?

                  2. You don’t have a side, it appears you have a losing argument based on ideology rather than reality. When the people you try to protect are the same ones that will take your life and freedom, did you win?

              2. Maybe I should. Or maybe I should keep pointing out things about reason in hopes they get better? Whatever reason’s flaws, they have a better chance of getting better than Mother Jones.

          3. Are you shitting or pissing your pants right now?

            1. Depends? – when a Yokeltarian can’t get any love from the commentariat.

          4. They’re not trying to win converts; they just enjoy characterizing any resistance to immigration on any grounds as xenophobic. In that way, they’re the true libertarians and morally superior.

            /No true Scotsman

            1. You would think a magazine called Reason…. would put less of a premium on social signaling and moral preening.

              Drink.

            2. They’re weeding out the impure people who aren’t true believers. They’d make good communists.

              1. Insulting people who disagree with us is the H&R commentariat’s whole goddammed raison d’etre. Fuck the thin-skinned conservatarians.

                1. No. It’s an excuse to not engage in the details of the argument.

                  “First Principle, you fucking yokeltarian!”

                  And end of conversation.

                2. Insulting people who disagree with us is the H&R commentariat’s whole goddammed raison d’etre. Fuck the thin-skinned conservatarians.

                  Absolutely. And let it never be said I don’t give as good as I get. I am fine with the insults. And am happy to return them in kind if that is how you want to do things. The problem is your side seems to be unable to take it. All I ever hear is endless whining about how mean I am to people.

                  You guys love to throw out insults. You can’t however seem to take them being thrown back very well.

                3. I believe in libertarian principles, that doesn’t mean they are all going to work at this moment. I tend to think living up to those principles is a good thing, but dying because of them is a bad thing. Self preservation should be in the equation. An old phrase might help- “I give respect when I’ll respect you.”

                  1. *”I give respect when I get respect.” or something like that. -puts dunce cap on

          5. “Shut the fuck up, MB! You’re out of your element!”

  24. “Hillary ditches Rodham: “Per the Clinton campaign, the preferred first reference” is “Hillary Clinton,” not Hillary Rodham Clinton, her campaign told journalists. ”

    Apparently the pollsters told somebody on its campaign: Clinton= Good times, Rodham=BAAAAAAAD.

  25. In a re-match. Greece and reality face off once more! Reality wins:

    “”We have reached agreement on everything, including the 48 additional measures” that should allow the 12 billion euros (12.8 billion) to be paid out on Friday, Finance Minister Euclid Tsakalotos told reporters after marathon (cute) talks.”
    […]
    Greece in July accepted a three-year, 86-billion-euro (93-billion) EU bailout that saved it from crashing out of the eurozone, but the deal came with strict conditions.
    Athens has since adopted a number of the unpopular reforms but creditors have wanted it to do more.
    Dijsselbloem, the Dutch finance minister, said that “substantive agreement has been reached on all outstanding issues” regarding the current steps that Athens must take.”
    http://www.livetradingnews.com…..124661.htm
    ——————————–
    And, natch:

    “Greek farmers protest against tax hikes in bailout deal”
    http://www.globalpost.com/arti…..ilout-deal

    1. Not gonna lie – I’m just about schadenfreuded out about these assholes.

  26. commenters who seem to think that anyone who thinks this could be a bad idea must just be a racist pants shitter

    Since the argument is based explicitly on hysterical fearmongering, that’s not an unreasonable take.

    1. OH YEAH!? WELL – HOW’S THAT EBOLA EPIDEMIC WORKIN’ OUT FOR YA? HUH??!!!111

    2. I’m not really concerned about potential terrorism by ISIS members among the refugees. Seems like a tiny threat being overblown. I am concerned that Muslim immigrants seem to have an extremely hard time assimilating or integrating into any nation that accepts them in large numbers. See France, Britain, Sweden and Germany. Probably due to the welfare state, they have higher levels of unemployment and crime which seems to lead to extremism. That is a legitimate concern, not hysterical fear-mongering.

    3. Sure Brooks. You know it is just rediculous. And you are such a brave guy you are willing to bet other people’s lives that you are correct.

      Thanks for providing a perfect example of what we are talking about. You have no facts or rational arguments. All you have is your absolute religious faith that nothing bad could come of this. The fact that 129 people just died in Paris and they apparently just barely avoided having a soccer game blown up in Germany or any other inconvenient facts mean nothing to you. No facts or argument will ever be allowed to get in the way of your conviction that nothing bad could ever happen and anyone who thinks otherwise is just hysterical.

      That is your position. And I am not sure if you are too stupid to understand your position for what it is or just lack the intellectual integrity to admit that maybe the world might not be what you think it is.

      1. John,

        Is that the Precautionary Principle I hear?

        I think there is a middle ground. We should properly vet any immigrants – whether from Mexico or Syria – such that one would feel safe having them watch their kids for the weekend. But we should not close off immigration. Each wave of immigration has enriched the country, even if each wave had some problems.

  27. Drum’s concerned with the optics.

    Exactly “Fuck principles, we might gain a political advantage if we stoke the fears of the rubes.”

    something something hobgoblins

    1. Unfortunately, Batman only works one area.

  28. For 11 days, The Economist is hosting an online debate about porn. Join in here.

    You can download free cliff notes with pictures here.

  29. The University of Vermont held a three-day retreat so students could confront their “white privilege.

    The university website features testimonials from past attendees of the retreat, who praised the way the event was a “safe space.”

    According to the school’s website, the University of Vermont offered the retreat at no cost to its privileged white students, covering all expenses including meals.

    1. How you can have a “safe space” where racism is celebrated is a mystery to me.

    2. So a literal reeducation/brainwashing camp paid for by the college. Lovely.

    3. So the white man gets a free three-day retreat, including meals, in Vermont in the fall? Does the privilege of these honkies know no bounds??

    4. covering all expenses including meals

      I’m sure this had nothing to do with people attending.

  30. Two are dead

    but were the refugees? or sons of refugees? Or just migrants?

    Pedantic people want to know!

    1. Sons of Asylees….pedant^infinity

  31. working from home today – which started with a morning nap while watching “World At War”. Now it’s time to play catch up with some coding and EDI issues.

    Have fun, H&R members. The trolls? Go fuck yourself.

    1. God I love World at War. I really think it might be the best documentary ever made. It was before they dumbed everything down. It is BBC, which has always made awesome documentaries. And best of all, it was done within living memory of the events. It gives the accounts of people who were actually there. It is just fantastic. It never gets old. I don’t care how many times you watch it.

  32. Hillary ditches Rodham: “Per the Clinton campaign, the preferred first reference” is “Hillary Clinton,” not Hillary Rodham Clinton, her campaign told journalists.

    “Coming to grips with reality”, they call it. If Charlie Sheen did it…

  33. David Burge ?@iowahawkblog 20h20 hours ago

    Here’s a good refugee screening question: will you agree to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

    1. Beautiful

    2. Awesome, I liked this one too “If America is so full of stupid violent xenophobes, why do you want Syrian refugees to come here? Sounds like they’d be better off in Sweden”

  34. The trolls? Go fuck yourself.

    But what about concern trolls?

    They just want to help us realize our potential as humans. Lifeboat ethicists need love, too.

    1. Yeah. Another version of yokeltarian – concern troll. Nice.

      “FIRST PRINCIPLE. NOW STFU, PANTSHITTER!”

    2. No Brooks. We are just dumb and naive and think we could talk some sense into people like you. You are our windmill Brooks. You should be flattered that we choose you to chase.

  35. What in the fucking fuck is the “college achievement gap?” When you work hard at a difficult major at a good school, instead of gender studies? When you go to college as opposed to not?

    Make college “free” and it will be just as awesome as public schooling. Fuck that shit.

    1. Yeah, I don’t think sending more people to college is likely to close that gap.

  36. think we could talk some sense into people like you.

    Will there be camps?

    1. No. Just endlessly and hopelessly dreaming you will some day be smarter than you are.

  37. Yes, of course. How tiresome it must be for a towering intellect like you to deal with mental defectives such as I.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.