A.M. Links: Climate Talks in Paris, Police Abuse in Chicago, Corruption in New York

|

  • Sheldon Silver, the former speaker of the New York Assembly, has been found guilty on all seven counts in his federal corruption trial.
  • Jabari R. Dean, a 21-year-old student at the University of Illinois, Chicago, appeared in court yesterday afternoon on charges of posting the online threat that caused the University of Chicago to cancel all classes on Monday.

New at Reason

The full contents of Reason's December 2015 issue is now available here.

For access to our brand new January 2016 issue—as well as full access to all 47 years of Reason archives—subscribe to Reason Digital here.

NEXT: Hillary Clinton Wants $275 Billion in Additional Federal Infrastructure Spending—But Won't Say How She'd Pay For It

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. I say we boycott H&R commenting until the banner ad includes Lobster Girl. WHO’S WITH ME?

    1. Hello.

      That pop out didn’t come with a trigger warning.

      1. I can inform you that donating does not make the click-through thing go away.

        Note to Reason: Next time make it so. It would be good incentive for these fucks to stick a crowbar in their change purses early.

        1. My change purse has a zipper. Moron.

          But I can’t figure out where to put the coins.

        2. Thank you for the info.

        3. I can inform you that donating does not make the click-through thing go away.

          No, but plugins do. How do you people internet without them?

          1. I go to the internet for the advertisements.

            1. Looking at ads is my way of donating to Reason.

    2. Reason is poor-shaming those of us who can’t afford to donate. I’m totally triggered right now.

      1. Hey, those Reason cruises don’t pay for themselves!

          1. Don’t be so Jewardly.

          1. Trigger, please!

  2. Stephen Fisk, the newly elected mayor of Juneau, Alaska, has been found dead in his home.

    Doesn’t Alaska have the highest suicide rate of all the states? SOLVED.

    1. Highest rate of rape as well.

      STEVE SMITH: SOLVED.

      1. STEVE SMITH PREFER RAPEICIDE!

    2. Kill the people you hate first please.

  3. President Obama’s final State of the Union Address has been scheduled for January 12, 2016.

    End date has yet to be announced.

    1. +1 tone

  4. Gordon Ramsay’s Porn Dwarf Double Eaten by Badger

    U.K. tabloid Sunday Sport recently introduced the world to Percy Foster, a 35-year-old dwarf porn star whose career was just beginning to catch fire. It was all because an observant production assistant on the set of Hi-Ho Hi-Ho, It’s Up Your Arse We Go had noticed how much Foster looked like celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay. But just as Foster was set to join the rarefied ranks of celebrity lookalike dwarf porn stars, tragedy struck: The body of the 3′ 6″ performer has been discovered in a badger’s den, partially eaten.

    1. “All we are is dust in the wind.”

      1. “All we are is dust in the wind scat in a den.”

      2. I remember the first time I heard this song and thinking that while all this defeatist misery and poo was dished out to impressionable ears, the group, the record company and the producers were raking in the dough.

        You can always count on teenage angst to make a buck.

    2. That would actually be a really good porn parody (The Hi-Ho one). Someone has had to have done it by now.

    3. How the fuck does one end up in a badger’s den?

      1. I would think at least one way that has to be considered is extreme levels of badger lust.

      2. Maybe he was doing set research for “The Chronicles Of Pornia: The Midget, The Bitch and the Whoredrobe”.

        1. Maybe badger is the real Turkish Delight…

      3. Being dwarf-sized is probably a good start…

      4. He was researching a role.

      5. The same way one ends up in a bear’s den, I imagine. I’m just not familiar with the term “badger”. Perhaps Jesse can enlighten us?

        1. Badgers are the eloi who attend People’s State Indoctrination Collective #1 in Madison, WI.

          There’s a reason they wear red.

          Kevin R

    4. I can’t figure that story out. I’m just going to assume “partially eaten in a badger’s den” is some kind of euphemism.

    5. SF….you really wrote that, didn’t you?

      1. I wish. I’ve stayed away from dwarf work for years after Peter Jackson sued me.

      2. His writing has gained consciousness and has begun to affect (or should it be “infect”?) reality.

        1. or should it be “infect”?

          Yes. Yes, it should.

    6. “This dwarf is so undercooked I wouldn’t even serve it to Caligula!! You’ll never be a attack badger if you can’t even eat a whole fucking DWARF! This whole cete should be ashamed of itself! A porn DWARF! Go out there and get me a real size fucking person!”

    7. At least he died doing what he loved… ?

    8. I’m wondering if he was already dead and his body was placed in the den.

    9. *partially recycled

  5. Police investigating Overweight Haters Ltd fat-shaming cards handed to women on public transport

    Police are investigating reports women have been handed spiteful ‘fat-shaming’ cards on public transport.

    At least two people claim to have witnessed a man handing a laminated card to women on the London Underground from a group calling itself Overweight Haters Ltd.

    The cruel note reads: “Its not glandular, it’s your gluttony… Our organisation hates and resents fat people.

    “We object to the enormous amount of food resources you consume while half the world starves.

    “We disapprove of your wasting NHS money to treat your selfish greed.

    “And we do not understand why you fail to grasp that by eating less you will be better off, slimmer, happy and find a partner who is not a perverted chubby-lover, or even find a partner at all.

    1. False flag or one lone guy who works for NHS and has to deal with these folks day in and day out, you decide.

    2. We can definitely rule out John as the culprit.

      1. He could be trying to neg them, so I wouldn’t rule him out completely.

    3. Obviously I think that this should be protected free speech.

      But of all the reasons to reset fat people they seriously pull out “people are starving while you eat all you want”? Six year-olds who won’t finish their peas are capable of figuring out that that line of reasoning is bullshit, for fuck’s sake.

      And there’s an easier way to stop wasting money on the NHS.

      1. I think it’s a fine argument if you already know your target is an SJW and economic leftist (not sure those are even different categories.)

        “Food fairness” and “caloric inequality” and the “1% in weight” are nice turnabout needles to jab in their eye.

        1. Yes, I suppose those people often actually believe that the reason some people are poor is that other people are rich. But goddamnit, how fucking hard is it to see why that is nonsense?

          1. Very, if your entire worldview hinges on bleating about supposed inequalities.

      2. Not sure whether they’re garden variety fat shamers conventiently adopting SJW arguments, or SJWs who actually believe that crap. If the latter, this is the terminal phase which we all knew was coming.

      3. One of the marvels of socialism is that by making every decision in your life everyone else’s business, some of those people are going to turn into raging assholes if you aren’t living the way they think you should live.

      4. “I think that this should be protected free speech.”

        It’s England. You could go to jail just for saying that.

    4. They all should be arrested for using “s” where a “z” should be. And don’t get me started on those extra u’s.

  6. 40,000 lbs. of meat missing, never delivered

    Police say 40,000 pounds of meat is missing after a delivery never arrived, according to the Associated Press.

    Investigators say a trucker loaded $110,000 worth of meat into a trailer at Nicholas Meat in Loganton, Pennsylvania on November 21.

    Turns out, it never reached its destination in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

    Authorities say the driver used a fake ID to pick up the load.

    Warty pre-workout snack.

    1. Where’s the beef?

      1. Assuming the “meat” in question is beef… this makes perfect sense given how expensive it is lately.

    2. DHS should investigate. Sounds like a terror plot

    3. The only place I am buying meat from is a grocery store. Not someone going door to door selling meat, thankyouverymuch.

      1. Never been near Maxwell Street in Chicago, have you? You sell out of the trunk of your car or…

        “Yo, Aspirin! You GONNA get a headache!”

        *observes 1000 single dose convenience packets on a card table, wonders what truck got boosted trying to unload at a 7-11*

        1. No, I haven’t. But – one of the ways I take to work I would drive past a house, and the sign – about 3 feet long – on their front porch said “ciGarettes” (I kept the original typography).

          I will note the sign wasn’t there for very long.

      2. I can’t interest you in this free salami?

        1. Looks like a vienna sausage?

  7. Man has a hernia bigger than a FOOTBALL removed from his scrotum that had been growing for over 12 years

    A man has had a giant hernia surgically removed after he struggled to walk, urinate or have sex.

    The 65-year-old went to a hospital in Rabat, Morocco, after his scrotum became so big it reached the mid-point of his thigh.

    Possibly NSFW pic

    1. I think I would have gone to the hospital 11.99 years ago.

    2. It probably kept his waistline slimmer.

      1. If only to provide visual contrast?

    3. There is no possibility of me clicking that link. Thx

  8. Niagara police officer convicted in cheese-smuggling case

    NIAGARA, Ontario, Nov. 30 (UPI) — A former police officer in Niagara was sentenced to four months in prison in relation to a large-scale cheese-smuggling operation.

    Scott Heron, 42, of Niagara Regional Police was found guilty on six charges, including customs offenses, after attempting to smuggle large quantities of cheese from the United States to Canada undeclared in 2012.

    Police say Heron intended to distribute the cheese, valued at over $200,000, to local restaurants.

    1. Why the hell would Kanukistanis want our pasteurized, processed cheese food product?

      At least they get to make theirs from (bags of) RAW MILK.

      1. That stuff is closer to salad dressing than cheese.

        1. At least that is closer to actual cheese than our Kraft plastic-wrapped plastic Singles.

          1. I don’t get the impression that Canada is the land of fine artisanal foods and cheese. As far as I can tell Kraft Dinner is the official national dish (perhaps next to poutine).

            1. And they put anti-freeze in their maple syrup.

          2. At least that is closer to actual cheese than our Kraft plastic-wrapped plastic Singles.

            I hardly think Kraft singles represents the wide array of cheese made and available in the US. One of my wife’s Dutch friends was giving me shit about the poor quality of “American cheese”. So I asked her which American cheese, cheddar or smoked Wisconsin? Monterey Jack? Colby? It was like looking at a deer in the headlights, she quickly changed the subject to the fluoride in the water.

            1. Yes, the US produces many excellent cheeses. And other countries have “pasteurized process cheese food” too.

              1. And if you want cheese for a grilled cheese sandwich or a cheeseburger, kraft singles melt good.

                I also hate it when Europeans bitch about our chocolate. Reeces peanut cups taste better than most of the fancy ass truffles I’ve ever had. Fuck you euro-weenie.

                1. Hershey’s milk chocolate is pretty shitty, though. Not that the Nestle products that are more popular in Europe aren’t also shitty. I’d say Nestle and Hershey’s are comparably terrible chocolate makers.

                  You can get both lousy and excellent chocolate anywhere.

          3. Umm… Velveeta.

      2. You don’t even want to know what “Canadian Cheese” is.

        But seriously. The US produces some fine cheeses. Raw milk cheese just needs to be aged for a certain period before being sold.

    2. The problem with this type of smuggling operation is that to maximize profits, they sneak pure cheese across the border. Afterwards it is mixed with other stuff to dilute the purity of the cheese and make more to be sold on the underground market. Often the things that they dilute it with are dangerous and people die from ingesting the boot leg cheese.

      Then the RCMP is called in to determine who cut the cheese.

      1. Swiss, can you spare a moment?

      2. bravo

  9. “””World Leaders meet in Paris”

    We should do something about climate change, lets ban all flights or ground vehicles from leaving Paris

    1. And build a wall around the hotel/convention center where they’re meeting. Patrol the perimeter with citizens’ militia.

  10. Sheldon Silver, the former speaker of the New York Assembly, has been found guilty on all seven counts in his federal corruption trial.

    How greedy do you have to be to actually get charged much less convicted on that in New York?

    1. I assume someone wasn’t getting their cut.

      1. Actually Preet “Woodchips” Bahara is looking for higher office, so bagging a few big name pols known by the masses to be corrupt looked like a good career move.

        1. He better hope Silver’s Italian friends don’t have the woodchipper fired up.

        2. They’re going after Silver’s counterpart in the state senate too – Dean Skelos. There are some fun stories in the Post about how crooked he and his no-good son are.

          1. Forget it Jake, it’s …

          2. Forget it Jake, it’s …

      2. Tony Soprano.

  11. Men in panda onesies carry out armed robbery in Lincolnshire

    Two men dressed in panda onesies have carried out an armed robbery on a newsagent.

    Lincolnshire police said one of the men who robbed the shop in Louth on Sunday evening was armed with what appeared to be a handgun.

    Officers said the pair forced a female member of staff to hand over cash from the safe then left the scene on foot at about 7.30pm. The member of staff was shaken but unhurt.

    1. That’s pretty smart. The onesie grabs all the attention so no one can identify you, and you can ditch it in the first trash can you see becoming a whole nother person. As long as you were careful in how you bought it they’ll never catch you.

  12. I was gonna donate to reason, but now that I get the ad every time I refresh. And that’s NOT ok.

    1. Does it still do that when one has donated? Curious (and frustrated) minds want to know.

      1. Yep, still does it when you donate according to folks who have done so.

        1. It stopped for me.

          1. Me too, obviously there is a cheap bastard meter, I’m surprised I hit the goal…(they probably knew they weren’t getting any more out of my tight ass)

  13. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel will announce the formation of a police accountability task force for the city today.

    Made up of current and former law enforcement officers?

    1. Yes, basically, exactly like the IPRA except not the IPRA because window dressing.

    2. The panel’s recommendations will be presented to the mayor and city council by the end of March.

      “Accountability” and “recommendations”. One of those words does not mean what you think it means.

    3. Who else would “know the law” well enough?

  14. Nothing about the Baltimore-Cleveland cripple fight last night?

    Warty, I am disappoint.

    1. He was eating 40,000 pounds of meat.

      1. Something something hernia porn dwarf scrotum.

        1. No, Johnny Manziel didn’t play last night.

        2. That’s a lot to keep track of, yet somehow it all makes sense.

    2. Yep, I hate Cleveland THAT much.

      ? God (@TheTweetOfGod) December 1, 2015

  15. Everything Must Go: South Dakota Ghost Town on Sale for $250,000

    Just in time for holiday shopping: An entire South Dakota ghost town, complete with its own watering hole, is on sale for $250,000, a real estate agent said on Monday.

    The roughly 6-acre town of Swett, includes a tavern, three-bedroom house and a former tire shop about 100 miles southeast of Rapid City, South Dakota.

    This could be our shot at Libertopia. Who’s in?

    1. I’ll contribute $500 but as a first order of business, I demand we build an orphanage. How else would we keep the town running?

      1. A flood of illegal refugee Hispanic Muslim terrorists?

        1. Mexican ass-sex and pot bear to the right.

      2. Orphanage before Messican brothel?

        … or AS Messican brothel?

        1. No no no, you don’t turn the orphanage into a brothel. Then the kids grow up and come back toting a shotgun for revenge. The orphanage is a brainwashing camp whose of age graduates willingly join the brothels.

    2. Also discussed yesterday.

      1. Shit. Well, at least we still have Lou Reed…

    3. Watering hole? How about a f’n hole? She could double as orphanage manager.

      =============

      The herbal viagra laws are rather draconian in that state.

    4. 6 acres for $250k? You could buy a section in deep west Texas for less than that I bet. And I’m sure it would be easier to incorporate and start running your own affairs out here.

    5. Does SD have liberal laws on weed? Wait. I’ll check.

      Also, does it have actual ghosts?

      1. If the police chief and mayor don’t care, does it matter? And the whole world needs more ghosts.

  16. Katie Pavlich: The Obama administration, not the NRA, sells guns to terrorists

    Currently, legislative proposals in Congress to prevent “terrorists” from purchasing firearms in the United States would require anyone who is simply named on the list to be banned from purchasing a firearm and would do nothing to clean up the list to focus on people truly associated with terrorist organizations. It shouldn’t be surprising that gun control zealot Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is leading the way, Bill of Rights and due process be damned.

    The NRA is interested in protecting the civil rights of Americans, not protecting the ability of terrorists to get guns.

    Have suspected terrorists been able to purchase firearms in the United States? The answer is yes, around 2,000 times. Does this fact warrant stripping the Second Amendment rights from citizens who aren’t terrorists because they’re on a government list? The answer is no. Regardless, considering terrorists get firearms in and from all parts of the world regardless of gun control restrictions or laws, it’s an irrelevant argument.

    1. God Bless That Woman!!!

      1. Bless= Damn.

    2. Katie Pavlich = wood…uh I mean would!

  17. I like that the ad returns even when you simply refresh a page.

    1. Oooh, and after each comment you post

      1. That doesn’t seem to happen to me.

    2. ABP has let me down.

      You can click anywhere on the page close it though.

      1. Aw, you’re right. They’re barely even trying this year

  18. New Animal Collective album announced, first single released

    In case anybody besides me is into that kind of thing. The single is Peacebone meets Summertime Clothes. Could be 2016 album of the year.

    1. I do not enjoy listening to that kind of music.

    2. Is Eric Burden featured?

      1. Different animals, grandpa

        1. #2 son is hot for a Russian girl. She is cute. And classy. She speaks good American. He speaks good Russian. So I have my hopes. But not a grandpa yet.

          1. Speaks… American?

            1. He speaks French… in Russian.

            2. They should just call English, American now anyways. Not like England is all that into speech and language anymore. They’re not even inventing new words across the pond.

    3. Ooooo, great news.

  19. Mickey Kaus: Why Doesn’t the GOP Elite Give Up on Amnesty?

    If the Republican establishment is so panicked about Donald Trump ? a wild, proto-fascist egomaniac with his finger on the button, in their telling ? you’d think it would do the one thing that would almost certainly stop him: Surrender. By “surrender” I mean abandon their decades long dream of winning Latino votes through a magic pill called “comprehensive immigration reform” (known to its opponents as amnesty). After Romney’s 2012 defeat, conservatives like Charles Krauthammer argued that if they just caved to the Democrats on this one issue ? immigration ? they wouldn’t really have to change anything else. (“It requires but a single policy change ?.”)

    Today, Trump’s massive rallies can be interpreted as an expression of the historic populist undercurrent animating America’s white working class. Or they can be interpreted, with less sophistication, as Americans saying, as loudly as they can, “WE DON’T WANT YOUR F___ING ‘COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM.'” Either way, anger over elite “more immigration” plans is the molten core of the Trump eruption. Is there any doubt that if “comprehensive immigration reform” went away for good, Trumpism would wither?

    1. Amnesty if dead in the water because it’s obvious that its not a one time deal. They’ve burned all their credibility on that. Immigration reformers need to stop focusing on that and move on to fixing the system.

    2. The republican establishment has repeatedly state now that they prefer president Hillary to a president Trump, Cruz, Carson or Fiorina.

  20. Stop the lies against Planned Parenthood

    Here’s a thought experiment. Imagine if I used this essay and powerful public platform to repeat a lie about a Christian church that I heard is plotting to kill gay people. And then someone burnt that church to the ground. Of course I would be morally guilty of helping to incite that crime ? because I would be spreading intentionally provocative smears.

    Mind you, the right wing wouldn’t hesitate for a second to blame me. They would be correct to do so. My irresponsible rhetoric would have produced inflammatory results. Of course, that wouldn’t make me culpable in a court of law. But in every other sense of the word, I would shoulder a share of the blame.

    Many on the right have been far less judicious in their apportionment of blame. Take the example of protests against police brutality. Conservative writer Katie Pavlich said the Black Lives Matter movement “promotes the execution of police officers.” “Their agenda is it’s OK to go ahead and kill cops,” said Fox News’ Kimberly Guilfoyle.

    1. when you’re talking about pigs and bacon frying, that does not sound like the local welcome wagon. Whether black lives “promotes” cop killing or not as an organization is immaterial; the words of its members make it sound like an acceptable thing. Maybe Sally knows of the BLM person who spoke out against that sort of rhetoric, but I don’t one exists. Then I think a second time – it’s Sally Kohn. Why did I think a rational argument was possible?

      1. One of the Daily Show knockoffs I saw last night* said BLM is different because they are actually facing violence (from cops). So it’s OK for them to be violent.

        Anyone who is writing about rhetoric right now can be dismissed as a an enemy of free speech.

        *the one with the bald bespectacled black guy. It’s really bad. All leftist propaganda, no humor, but the audience laughs uproariously the entire time.

      2. BLM probably promotes cop killing to about the same degree as Reason commenters promote cop killing (and wood-chipping of public officials).

        I’m not a big fan of the direction of BLM, but the insistence of some people to bring them up in response to stupid reactions to a shooting is no good either. Unless someone can point to actual incitement or threats made by an organizations leadership or spokespeople, it’s on the individual who commits the violent act and it is cheap and dishonest to try to paint the whole group with it, whether the group is a pro-life org or BLM or whatever.

    2. Or maybe individuals are responsible for their own actions?

      This is a naked attempt both to stifle free speech and smear pro-lifers.

      One lunatic goes nuts and kills a bunch of people and its an indictment of all pro-lifers, conservatives, and small-government types, but science forbid anyone apply that same reasoning to Islamic extremists.

      1. Given the choice, I’d prefer that type of reasoning be abandoned altogether.

        1. Agreed. Just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy.

          1. I also love how confident the leftists are that their own standards will NEVER be applied to them… Kind of like how every gun-banning pol in New York has a concealed carry permit…

    3. That is the BEST part about this PP shooting for the left and why they are doing fucking cheetah flips over it : it fits the narrative – THEIR narrative – perfectly!

      So they get to double up and NOT ONLY call for more gun control, but also for more restrictions of the first amendment!! YAY!! The COTTAGE FUCKING INDUSTRY of the left is calling for restrictions on free expression, and now they have MORE justification!!

      Imma go build another AR….

    4. I’m cool with that.

  21. Jabari R. not Dean.

    He is just a student.

    1. How could any Dean be so mean?

      1. What you have done, I have seen.

  22. You know who else was like Hitler…

    Spike Lee Doesn’t Hold Back: On ‘Chi-Raq,’ Laquan McDonald, and How Trump Is ‘Like Hitler’

    Who hunts with a semi-automatic weapon? Is it for hunting human beings? I don’t understand that! There’s a scene in the film where John Cusack’s character delivers a sermon/eulogy about the NRA, and government officials. That scene is really the manifesto for the whole film. [Co-writer] Kevin Willmott and I wrote it with Father Pfleger and Cusack in mind, and instead of saying, “Patti could have been this and that,” let’s deal with why this little girl ended up dead. Let’s deal with the systemic issues in society that led to us being here at this eulogy for this 11-year-old girl.

    America’s had a long love affair with guns. Look at the art, the TV shows, the movies, the video games. We need to title guns like cars, which is something that Father Pfleger talks about a lot. There are many different things that can be done that will not injure American citizens’ Second Amendment rights. Even hard line NRA guys know that it has to be harder to get a gun. They even admit it

    1. NRA guys know that it has to be harder to get a gun.

      More herbal viagra!

    2. Who hunts with a semi-automatic weapon? Is it for hunting human beings? I don’t understand that!

      With derp like that I had to click. So far I’ve found food deserts, blaming Chicago on the Republican governor and guns from Illinois. And this:

      I’ll tell you, that scene about the massacre in Charleston, Dylann Roof, that was not in the script. When that happened, I thought we have to write a scene about this. We were in the middle of filming and thought we couldn’t overlook it. And there are many lines in the film that we put in during the ADR process because things just kept happening?there’s a lot about Sandra Bland, a lot about Ben Carson that we put in.

      Great cinema is made by an incredibly ignorant person bloviating on today’s least important issues.

      1. I hunt with my porcelain Gock 7.

          1. *look of intense concentration while milling out the lower for an AR*….

    3. Who hunts with a semi-automatic weapon?

      Uh, yeah. Just about everyone I know who hunts does. But they have wood stocks, so it’s OK.

    4. I’m not RTFA because I’ve had enough from that racist to last a lifetime.

    5. Stick it up your ass and pull the trigger.

    6. Hitler 2: Electric Boogajew?

  23. Sheldon Silver, the former speaker of the New York Assembly, has been found guilty on all seven counts in his federal corruption trial.

    When word came that a verdict had been reached, Mr. Silver fidgeted in his chair, clenched his jaw, shook his head, sighed and glanced toward Preet Bharara, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, who had taken a seat at the rear of the courtroom just before the verdict was read.

    PREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET!

    1. PREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET!!!!

    2. Mr. Silver’s lawyers argued that in charging him, Mr. Bharara’s office had sought to criminalize the kinds of activity in which state legislators routinely engaged.

      “They look at conduct which is legal,” Mr. Molo told the jury in his opening statement, “conduct which is normal, conduct which allows government to function consistent with the way that our founding fathers of the State of New York wanted it to function, and they say this is illegal.”

      1. It’s just the guido ol’ boy network, the “you scratch my back, I won’t have your legs broken” sort of thing that pols have been using for centuries – what’s the big deal? You should have to judge these pols using the “reasonable pol” standard just like you use the “reasonable cop” standard to judge cops or the “reasonable pedophile” standard you use to judge pedophiles.

      2. That standard should release every convicted Harlem heroin dealer.

  24. Police beat,wrong man to the point he is paralyzed and will soon be a vegetable. Get 15 days, which is reduced to five…use accrued PTO instead of actually being suspended.

    http://www.kens5.com/story/new…..=hootsuite

    1. Let me get out the script…

      OK, here it is… If the vegetable is a black guy I’ll complain that no one pays attention to black on black crimes and if he’s a white guy I’ll complain that no one cares because he’s not black.

      How did I do? Did I deflect blame away from the cop that beat him into a coma yet?

      1. You failed. He’s Hispanic.

        I don’t even know what the acceptable talking points are for when cops kill or disable a Hispanic.

        1. Hispanic-Hispanic or White-Hispanic? This is important.

          1. Aww… missed it by two minutes.

            1. That’s what she said!

        2. Was he a white hispanic or a brown hispanic?

        3. “Top Five Reasons LA Cops Beat Rodney King – #3 They thought he was Mexican”

          From an old Chris Rock routine

        4. “Hispanics are just Negroes that eat tacos.”

          -policeone.com

          1. From Sidney Lumet’s “Q & A”:

            (Black guy to latino) “Boy, you ain’t nuthin but a n****** with straight hair!”

    2. Well that is a nut punch.

  25. Sheldon Silver, the former speaker of the New York Assembly, has been found guilty on all seven counts in his federal corruption trial.

    What will happen to his sterling reputation?

    1. Tarnished, certainly

      1. Tarnished? Blackened.

    2. He’ll need a good PR firm to polish it up after this.

  26. Could an ‘accident’ by Janet Yellen derail Clinton?
    A likely December interest-rate hike has Democrats feeling nervous, and analysts divided on the economy.

    The general election is still almost a year away. But much about the economic picture that will frame the 2016 presidential race will come into the focus in the next two weeks as the Federal Reserve prepares to raise interest rates for the first time in nearly a decade and the job market improves to levels not seen since 2007.

    The overall backdrop ? an economy that is strong enough for the Fed to start hiking rates ? should favor Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.

    But the first Fed move, which is widely expected to come on Dec. 16, presents a potential wild card that could roil global markets, slow U.S. growth and provide an opportunity for Republicans in an economy that retains significant structural problems that have left many voters deeply frustrated and casting about for tough-talking outsiders like Donald Trump.

    1. Department stores are also hurting pretty bad right now. Amazon has eaten their market. Really the only reason to go the mall anymore is for clothes, and the small niche stores often have higher quality and better looking stuff than the big diverse department stores. Also easier to get customer service, though you do pay through the nose (but the dep. stores charge you outrageously too).

      1. Penney’s always has deals. But my god I walked thru Macy’s recently and I couldn’t believe anyone would pay those prices.

        1. They don’t. In case you didn’t notice, it wasn’t very crowded.

    2. job market improves to levels not seen since 2007.

      What? This implies that we are still not “recovered” to even 2007 levels yet? I thought the lightbringer had ended unemployment.

      1. The bubble isn’t completely reinflated, no.

  27. Woman faces 10 years for giving water to pigs:

    http://www.theguardian.com/wor…..pigs-water

    Gotta love Guardian commentators missing the point. ‘Of course’ it’s ‘ridiculous’ but you can’t do stuff like that. It’s private property. Also, notice the people who push the nanny-state most through the precautionary principle totally ignore it in this case. They conveniently overlook the fact these pigs were to be sold at market and she could have contaminated them that ‘could’ have led to sick people – or worse.

    1. “You know what? These are not humans, you dumb frickin’ broad.”

      And that’s from the article, not the comments.

      1. Ah, another member of the animals are mere property, no morally different than a lump of clay, brigades.

        1. BINGO!!!!

          *crunches pork rind*

          Now, if you are charismatic mega-fauna, like a lion, well, we can talk…

          1. Or a charismatic huuuuge fauna.

  28. Joint Staff Warns Islamic State Terrorists Travel to Europe Unimpeded

    The briefing last week by the J-2, as the joint staff’s intelligence directorate is known, outlined both legal and illegal methods being used by terrorists to gain access to the continent.

    The briefing included a title slide that read “ISIL traveling to Europe mostly unimpeded,” and warned that European security measures have minimally impeded the flow of terrorists. ISIL is an alternative name for the terrorist organization, which is also known as ISIS.

    Additionally, the refugee flow from Syria to Europe is overwhelming counterterrorism efforts there, raising new fears that refugees from Syria being settled in the United States pose a security threat in this country.

    1. Have there been any warnings from the Bong Staff?

      1. “We’re running low on chips.”

  29. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel will announce the formation of a police accountability task force for the city today.

    Let the Rahm Emanuel’s grandchild deal with the unaccountable police accountability task force.

  30. So. Is Reason gonna accost me all day long begging for coin?

    Will Reason subsidize the exchange rate difference? I mean, 75 cents on the dollar is not exactly on par.

    1. Is that what that is? I thought I was getting epilepsy.

    2. Holy crap, when did that happen?

      Maybe it’s time for a trip to Canada. (maybe not in wintertime)

  31. ISIS’ Grip on Libyan City Gives It a Fallback Option

    MISURATA, Libya ? Iraqi commanders have been arriving from Syria, and the first public beheadings have started. The local radio stations no longer play music but instead extol the greatness of the Islamic State’s self-proclaimed caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

    When the Libyan arm of the Islamic State first raised the group’s black flag over the coastal city of Surt almost one year ago, it was just a bunch of local militants trying to look tough.

    Today Surt is an actively managed colony of the central Islamic State, crowded with foreign fighters from around the region, according to residents, local militia leaders and hostages recently released from the city’s main prison.

    1. SMART POWER AT ITS BEST!!!

  32. TPP TRADE
    U.S. says TPP will eliminate 18,000 tariffs on exports

    http://www.efe.com/efe/english…..65-2733381

    This is a big fucking deal.

    We don’t need any crazies popping off CT about it.

  33. Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

    History is not always written by the victors. In a Nov. 20 letter to the Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, House Democrats urged repeal of the 1996 ban on funding for gun control advocacy at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). But nowhere does the letter mention the abuse of authority and misuse of tax dollars that prompted Congress to act.

    Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

    In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.

    1. CDC should be restricted by law to only study and give advice on things caused or related to Bacteria, Viruses, Parasites, or Nanobots. Fetuses resulting from human intercourse should be explicitly excluded from the definition of parasite (you know someone would try to use it to push their views on abortion). Anything else is outside the scope of their organization and should be prohibited.

      I’m sure they’d still figure out a way to mission creep, but it would significantly slow them down.

      1. ^This. If I were in Congress, I would propose a bill to cut CDC funding in an amount equal to anything not dealing with bioterror or epidemics. No more gun studies, no more smoking studies, no more exploring the merits of trans fats. Sunlight and a budget cut are what’s needed to get this department back on point.

      2. Don’t forget prions.

        Maybe let them research cancer and genetic diseases too so they have something to do when there isn’t an infectious outbreak.

        1. Nope, because then they’ll quickly expand back into fatness is a dieses because of genetic predispositions.

          What are Prions? I’ve heard that word when playing Plauge Inc, but I don’t actually know what it is.

          1. Prions are the weird infectious proteins that are thought to cause things like BSE (mad cow).

            1. It’s pretty definitive at this point that prions are responsible for BSE, scrappy, kuru, and a host of other neurodegenerative diseases.

              1. I thought that they still hadn’t isolated the specific proteins. Not that I really keep up with it that much.

          2. Wow, Illy, you said “no” without knowing what you’re talking about. [puts Illy on list of non-credible commenters]

            1. She does that fairly often. I’d be more generous and say “with-a-grain-of-salt commenters”.

            2. The no was referring to cancer and genetic predispositions Tonio, not to Prions.

        2. Oops, didn’t read down.

      3. Prions, don’t forget prions. These are the things that cause spongiform encephalopathy like mad cow disease and Kreutzfeld-Jacob.

    2. House Democrats urged repeal of the 1996 ban on funding for gun control advocacy

      It boggles the mind that anyone thinks that government funding advocacy for any kind of legislation or policy is not something that should be banned completely.

    3. The committee members were not amused.

      The royal we should always be used with royal pains in the ass.

    1. “All we are is dust in the wind.”

    2. I had a brief moment where clicking ‘close’ did nothing. I thought my Reason commenting days were over.

      1. I had to reload the page from the main page to get that one to go away.

      2. Me too! I thought I went crazy.

    3. Will I get another chance at buying my freedom?

      1. Nope, you’re in chains for the rest of your days.

    4. Good thing too, the last time it popped up for me, I couldn’t make it go away, even with the “close” link. I had to leave reason and come back.

      1. I had that problem, too.

        1. At that moment you should have realized he was working on removing it. It’s always darkest before the dawn.

          1. You know. That has racist overtones. I call nanoaggression.

            1. Isn’t nanoaggression when someone tries to use an iPod as a flail?

  34. Hillary Classified email count reaches 999 with 7800 new ones released.

    The documents released today are mostly from 2012 and 2013, but include others that span her tenure as Secretary of State. The State Department has not been able to release the email in chronological order because much of it had to be set aside to be reviewed by other government agencies. Officials say many of those pages of email that have been held up were in today’s release.

    One email from November 2010, titled “Follw up,” was just recently cleared by the Director of National Intelligence and deemed unclassified. The DNI had previously made public its decision to flag that email for further review. Although the content of the email was unknown until today — it was a discussion between a New York Times reporter and a spokesperson at the State Department — it and others still under scrutiny by government agencies have been seized upon by those critical of Clinton’s use of a private email server.

    Ultimately this email was not deemed classified, but many other have been. A State Department official tells ABC News that in this release alone 328 documents were upgraded to a classified level, meaning that they were redacted and are unavailable for public review. So far 999 have been graded as classified.

    1. A State Department official tells ABC News that in this release alone 328 documents were upgraded to a classified level

      Disingenuous fuck is disingenuous. They weren’t “upgraded” to a classified level. They were finally correctly classified after not being done so before because they were stored on a private server outside the normal procedure for classifying material.

      1. If you thing that’s bad the new york times article I read doesn’t even mention why the 328 document were redacted. Whats lost in all of this are the thousand of emails she actually deleted.

    2. How many salaries are involved in this “investigation”? If there isn’t enough to convict this woman right now, there never will be.

      1. Seems like they are going full on by the book on this one. Gather every scrap of evidence humanely possible then dump it all so something has to stick.

    3. So when shallshe be indicted for her crimes?

  35. Creating isolation, not assimilation
    The current refugee resettlement program needs reform

    Speaking of the contractors running refugee resettlement, David M. Robinson, a former acting director of the refugee bureau in the State Department, wrote in 2000, “The agencies form a single body [that] wields enormous influence over the Administration’s refugee admissions policy. It lobbies the hill effectively to increase the number of refugees admitted for permanent resettlement each year and at the same time provides overseas processing for admissions under contract to the State Department. In fact, the federal government provides about ninety percent of its collective budget. If there is a conflict of interest, it is never mentioned.”

    Today, the money is even better and for many of the private contractors the taxpayer portion of their income tops 95 percent. They are free to lobby lawmakers with what little money they raise from donations. Quarter million dollar executive salaries are the norm at the roughly 350 organizations affiliated with the nine major contractors. There are additional hundreds of supporting NGOs ? most started and staffed by refugees and recent immigrants ? soaking up grants from every agency of government except NASA.

  36. Obama: ‘I’m Confident in the Wisdom of the American People’ to Not Elect a Republican President

    Obama sighed.

    “Just with respect to my successor, let me first of all say that I’m anticipating a Democrat succeeding me,” Obama said, to laughter from the assembled press. “I’m confident in the wisdom of the American people on that front. But even if somebody from a different party succeeded me, one of the things that you find is when you’re in this job, you think about it differently than when you’re just running for the job.

    “And, what you realize is what I mentioned earlier, that American leadership involves not just playing to narrow constituencies back home, but you are now at the center of what happens around the world.”

    oh you…

    1. Given that Obama seems to have a brain from bizarro land, I’m unsurprised that his words reflect a complete disconnect with reality.

    2. but you are now at the center of what happens around the world

      Obama’s life statement?

      1. Come on man, he is like Galileo…in reverse.

    3. “Obama sighed.”.

      Heard the actual sigh on the radio during my work commute.

      The most contemptuous effing sigh ever uttered from a human.

    4. Sir, does this explain your failure to close Gitmo, ask for Congressional Authorization for various acts of war around the world, or why you didn’t leave Iraq in 2009 as promised?

    5. I heard that. Yeah, he’s a uniter alright. And why the fuck is he discussing American electoral politics at the Climate thingy? What a dick.

      I don’t want a fucking leader. Why are so many people surprised to hear me say this?

  37. Judge Richard Posner says the same-sex marriage decision is justified by changes in public opinion.

    “Federal constitutional law is the most amorphous body of American law because most of the Constitution is very old, cryptic, or vague. The notion that the twenty-first century can be ruled by documents authored in the eighteenth and mid-nineteenth centuries is nonsense.”

    1. “Living document” here we come!

      1. Here we *are.*

        1. true that… *kicks stone down the road*

    2. The notion that the twenty-first century can be ruled by documents authored in the eighteenth and mid-nineteenth centuries is nonsense.

      Judge Posner must be reading from the secret Constitution, because I’m going through my copy and don’t see an expiration date anywhere.

      1. haha. The notion that someone can have any authority as “A Judge” based on those same documents is clearly…nonsense.

      2. If there wasnt an easy to understand amendment process, he might have a point.

        But it exists.

        1. Not only an easy process but one that has been used successfully a number of times.

      3. What happens when he dies?

    3. What a load of bullshit.

    4. Copies of that very old, cryptic, or vague document were printed on hemp paper.

    5. “The Law is what I say it is!”

    6. How can a document that is supposedly “cryptic and vague” then overturn law that was approved by the people of the states directly or by their duly elected state legislatures? What Posner is saying does not make any sense unless he is positing that unlected judges are somehow better barometers of public opinion than elected legislators.

      1. And we’d all be singing a different tune if this were a state law that interfered with 1A or 2A rights. And you know that.

        1. I was pointing out that Posner’s argument makes no sense in light of what the court actually did. Kennedy found that the 14th Amendment spoke clearly on the issue (despite it not doing so for 150 years), and not “cryptically” or “vaguely” and ignored actual expressions of popular opinion on the subject.

  38. Iowahawk is trolling on Twitter over the Amy Schumer Pirelli calendar photo.

    And why do you get to decide who’s attractive and who’s unattractive? https://t.co/pt2Q0FyHQH

    ? Aparnna (@FuschiaScribe) December 1, 2015

    .@FuschiaScribe Nobody “decides” feminine beauty standards. Evolution wired them in the primate brains of people with penises. #science

    ? David Burge (@iowahawkblog) December 1, 2015

    Hahahahahaha sure. Maybe you should refrain from using attractive and unattractive henceforth. #HeilDarwin https://t.co/AXwoDdt1mr

    ? Aparnna (@FuschiaScribe) December 1, 2015

    1. And because you cannot make this up, Aparnna (arguing with Iowahawk) retweeted this tweet before arguing with him over beauty standards:

      The dashing @RandeepHooda on the cover of #Stardust magazine. pic.twitter.com/dh2oshKhLj

      ? Movified Bollywood (@MovifiedBolly) December 1, 2015

      1. I liked this one, because it’s true (as I have learned on this silly blog):

        David Burge ?@iowahawkblog 16h16 hours ago

        .@Nero Whether they’re Westboro Baptists or Jezebel feminists, some people just get mad about what gives other people boners.

    2. Saw the photo, threw up a little bit. It looks as though she’s posed to appear as unattractive as possible. It’s just a lot of controversy-baiting.

      1. Did they Photoshop her head to look smaller?

      2. It looks as though she’s posed to appear as unattractive as possible. It’s just a lot of controversy-baiting.

        Yet another body positive denier.

        1. She’s lumpy, but if we were both drunk in a bar I would.

          Calling her beautiful and breathtaking is really taking it far though.

          1. I think she looks perfectly fine, however I agree that the beautiful and breathtaking is a little too much, but that is what those dorks get off on. It is so strange.

    3. The thing is she isn’t ugly. She’s just a soccer mom with a soccer mom body. She’s at the point were attractive isn’t the point anymore (at least not any farther than her current sexual partner, who has love and history to help smooth over flaws). I don’t get why folks are so caught up on the fact that not every female celebrity is attractive.

      1. Because there is half a country full of rotund, portly women who want to identify with celebrities, and having someone who is high profile that struggles with their weight is somebody they identify with. If they convince people that Schumer is hot, then maybe, just maybe, somebody will think they are hot and their self esteem will be higher.

        The reality is there isn’t any guy 17-34 with pictures of Schumer or Lena Dunham on their dorm wall or man cave – unless they are being ironic.

        1. The reality is there isn’t any guy 17-34 with pictures of Schumer or Lena Dunham on their dorm wall or man cave

          Yet many men would be quite happy with a woman who looks like Schumer. I wouldn’t kick her out of bed (in fantasy land where there are no attachments or consequences and I can make her go away when I want). The problem is that some people don’t seem to get the difference between a woman you would be personally attracted to in the right context and a woman you want to hang up on your wall because she’s exceptionally hot.

          1. This really gets ignored a lot, and the thing is, it’s true for women too. Vin Diesel makes it to the bedroom wall. That doesn’t mean I can’t find any guy less hot than him attractive. There are degrees, and most people are smart enough to realize the fantasy isn’t a requirement to be met.

            1. There are degrees, and most people are smart enough to realize the fantasy isn’t a requirement to be met.

              Not in the derptastic world of progdom.

            2. VIN FUCKING DIESEL?!?!?!

              Christ, I would be your dream man. That dude is as ugly as a pile of moldy mashed potatoes….
              I will give you CHARISMATIC, but I will not give you handsome. I will not even concede the code for “ugly” – “ruggedly handsome”…

          2. Yet many men would be quite happy with a woman who looks like Schumer.

            This so true (have you seen what people look like? We are a disgusting bunch). I don’t understand why she is the example of an unattractive woman because she is a little chubby (which isn’t a bad thing. I also do not understand why calendar girls, formerly the domain of fantasy, have to look like “normal” people.

            1. Exactly. I enjoy pictures of semi-nude supermodels as much as anyone. But there is nothing wrong with a woman with a little meat on her bones. Especially considering that Schumer is still a bit on the thin side of things these days.

      2. All I can see is Chuck Schumer’s face mounted on her neck.

          1. Such a naggy schoolmarm if ever there was one.

    4. Jonah Wallace ?@JJBoomBoom1776 20h20 hours ago
      @NYMag @amyschumer that’s what the average female body looks like. I think she’s beautiful.

      Fetty Slop ?@fettyslop 20h20 hours ago
      @JJBoomBoom1776 @NYMag @amyschumer maybe you should stop dating 3s

      1. Average and beautiful have lost their meaning, then.

        Also, apparently they don’t want to sell any calendars this year. Yoko Ono is in it.

        If you want to see something more titillating, look for the video of the making of the 2010 Pirelli calendar. When you’re not at work.

        1. Yeah, the average female body looks a lot worse than Amy Schumer. Just consider the average age and obesity rates for starters.

    5. And why do you get to decide who’s attractive and who’s unattractive?

      Uh, because attractiveness is subjective and I get to decide who I find attractive. And when it comes to calendars, what iowahawk said. People generally do agree on what is attractive (though I think it does depend more on culture, in addition to evolution, more than he suggests).

      I don’t even find Amy Schumer unattractive. But in a pinup calendar, I want to see exceptional specimens of the human form, not realistic “normal” bodies. Sorry.

  39. Rupert Murdoch unloads on Kerry, Obama, the left

    He then offered a brief tour of 20th century diplomatic and military history, hailing the U.S. role in defeating Japan during World War II and standing up to North Korea ? fortitude he said the United States had lost in recent years in favor of a culture of self-obsession.

    “The left seemed to be happy for the incarceration of millions, whether in Vietnam under Ho or in China under Mao,” he said. “Why agonize over inhumanity when you could blithely celebrate yourself?”

    Praising Kissinger’s role in nudging China toward a market economy, which he called “a modern miracle” that had lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, Murdoch said, “this fundamental, irrefutable truth must be denied by those who despise America and detest economic freedom.”

    “The soft left,” he added, “cannot countenance that remarkable human success.”

    1. The soft left obviously needs more herbal viagra.

  40. A late entry in the daily quest for peak derp:

    Thom Yorke: YouTube steals art ‘like Nazis during second world war

    Thom Yorke has shared his views on YouTube, suggesting that the corporation, along with parent company Google, have “seized control” of art in the same way Nazi Germany did during the second world war.

    Yorke, who famously called Spotify “the last desperate fart of a dying corpse”, shared his thoughts on the video-sharing service during an interview for Italian newspaper La Repubblica.

    The Radiohead frontman claimed that he “definitely doesn’t use YouTube” and instead finds new music through online music shop Boomkat.

    1. “So yeah, go to Boomkat and don’t use youtube. Boomkat. Boomkat is where it’s at. Thom Yorke, a musical legend, uses Boomkat.”

  41. If you haven’t read the Atlantic piece about the Chicago police department, you should.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/pol…..ld/417723/

    Be prepared for a long form kick in the nuts. But it should be read and disseminated. One of the many issues the piece addresses is the culpability of the media in law enforcement corruption and abuse. The article names names of journalists who mindlessly repeat cop talking points in the aftermath of obvious cases of abuse and misconduct.

    1. “The Independent Police Review Authority, the civilian board that handles the most serious cases, doesn’t take into account previous complaints against the same officer when investigating a new one,” according to a Tuesday editorial in the Chicago Tribune. “11 officers racked up a combined 253 complaints that resulted in a single five-day suspension. Come on. What does it take to flag a problem cop?”

      1. Hey just because this guy has been caught abusing people fifty times before doesn’t mean he is guilty this time. Why do you hate due process and second chances Juggler?

        1. Speaking of due process, I saw one of the badge-lickers on CNN arguing that there’s no way in hell the Baltimore cops in the Freddie Gray case can get a fair trial because practically everybody in Baltimore has had some negative interaction with the police. Did not address the question of why the hell he’s only now concerned about fair trials when presumably every damn trial in Baltimore prior to this one has been using the exact same jury pool. Has nobody in Baltimore ever been convicted of a crime because every single person in Baltimore hates cops? If that jury pool is fine for all the alleged criminals who came before, why isn’t it fine for these particular alleged criminals?

          1. That is a good point. If everyone hates cops, why are juries so willing to believe their testimony?

            1. Also, doesn’t practically everybody in Baltimore having negative interactions with the police set off any alarm bells with them?

    2. good article – my mom is from Chicago and I’ve gone there many times. I’ve always noticed that the police there are smug little pricks.

      1. Agreed, it is good.

        to be, why not?

        The practice of quoting this man as the most definitive voice in stories on police shootings was always dubious. Now, every news outlet in Chicago is on notice: He led them egregiously astray on one of the highest profile killings in recent memory. Surely the local press won’t continue behaving as if his credibility is undiminished?

        I think we sadly know the answer to that one.

      2. My God is Rahm Emmanual a lowlife prick. He has been mayor for over four years and now when his ass in the fryer and the city is about to explode he decides to form a a police accountability task force. What he didn’t know the police were totally unaccountable and out of control? No, he like everyone in the city knew. He just didn’t give a shit.

        1. I think just about everyone in the country knew about the Chicago police.

    3. Then, in 2011, he admitted to robbing criminal suspects while serving in an elite police unit and ordering a hit on a fellow police officer he thought intended to turn him in. He was sentenced to 12 years in prison. “My bosses knew what I was doing out there, and it went on and on,” he said in court when he pleaded guilty. “And this wasn’t the exception to the rule. This was the rule.”

      good lord.

      Although very few officers were disciplined in the years covered by the data, African-American officers were punished at twice the rate of their white colleagues for the same offenses, the data shows. And although black civilians filed a majority of the complaints, white civilians were far more likely to have their complaints upheld, according to the records.

      wow. Unions are a terrible thing.

  42. Pearl-clutching and pants-shitting; high times in DC!!

    “The potential benefits and ethical implications of gene editing”
    […]
    “Hundreds of scientists and ethicists from around the world gather in Washington this week to debate the boundaries of human genome editing, sort of a biological cut-and-paste tool that allows researchers to spot a gene defect inside living cells and swap it out.

    It’s all experimental so far, but the promise for new treatments is huge….”
    http://www.foxnews.com/health/…..iting.html

    Precautionary principle to get a full work-out!

    1. I don’t think it is unreasonable to worry about the second order effects of fucking with genes. Unless you know 100% for sure there are no side effects, you are effectively doing experiments on human beings without their consent.

      And even if you do know it will work, that doesn’t get you around the consent issue. It sounds great to edit the genes of some child to make them whatever, but who says they want that? Human beings are not and should never be considered means to an end. Humans are the end. It sounds nice to say you are going to gene edit your kid to be super smart or whatever. But the kid never consented to that. To say you can do it without their consent is to say that the purpose of their existence is to be smart or fast or whatever you want.

      I don’t think the consent issue is there for curing disease. I think you can say that a person shouldn’t be sick without viewing them as a means to end. But if you start editing genes to make people fit whatever tastes society or their parents have, you are dehumanizing them in a profound way. What if therapy fails and the kid who was engineered to be smart turns out not to be? Isn’t he then automatically viewed as defective and a failure? Yes because by editing his genes you have deprived him of his humanity and made him a means to an end.

      1. “But if you start editing genes to make people fit whatever tastes society or their parents have, you are dehumanizing them in a profound way.”
        Bull
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        shit.

        1. How are you not? I edit your genes to make you a great athlete. I was never a great athlete so damn it my son will be one. All I am doing there is making my son into a means. His purpose in life is not to be himself, whatever that is. His purpose is to be a great athlete. If it is not, why am I doing it? And if he decides he hates sports or the therapy fails, then he has failed, at least from my perspective. He was created to do something.

          You don’t create people like you are forging tools or breeding animals. You can, but when you do understand what that means for those who don’t make the cut.

          1. “All I am doing there is making my son into a means.”

            The same idiotic ‘argument’ against GMOs. We already do that and we do it crudely. This just means that those who wish to do so do it better.

            1. No it is not. Maybe you missed this but plants are not people. Plants are a tool and do exist for a purpose. People do not. If you think plants are like people, then why are you a libertarian? I don’t see how you can be if you don’t view the individual as the highest end.

              1. “Maybe you missed this but plants are not people. Plants are a tool and do exist for a purpose. People do not. If you think plants are like people, then why are you a libertarian? I don’t see how you can be if you don’t view the individual as the highest end.”

                Maybe you missed the point in your sanctimonious rant: Your ARGUMENT is the same.
                Now, please tell us what this has to do with denying individuality. Or don’t; you’re not looking good here.

                1. It is not the same SEVO. If you want to say GMO is using plants as a means to an end, sure. That doesn’t matter because plants are tools. The two situations are completely different.

                  What the hell are you talking about? You are just making assertions and not bothering to explain them.

          2. Nature composes our genes without our consent. Perhaps we could just limit ourselves to editing out the shittyness that nature hands us in copious amounts?

            We know that won’t be the end of it. All movements go too far.
            .
            .
            .
            The last time I walked in at the local gun shop:

            “Suthenboy! What can we do for ya’?

            “Make me taller, smarter, and better looking. Oh, and younger too.”

            “Cant help you there, buddy.”

            “Well, maybe I will just settle for some coffee.”

      2. Your future children don’t consent to their creation by definition. Editing their genes no more requires their consent than picking a partner that will pass on an ugly nose or an embarrassing birth mark requires their consent.

        1. Picking their partner is not the same as creating them for a specific purpose, which is what editing their genes is doing. Is it possible to pick a partner in hopes of getting this or that kid? Sure. Doing that is wrong. We don’t worry about that because it is unlikely to work. So people generally don’t do it or do it with the understanding that it likely won’t work. Here, the assumption is it will work and anyone who does it is doing it for a specific purpose. That is making the kid a means to an end.

          Again, what do you say to the kid that the editing fails or that on his own decides he doesn’t want to be whatever you created him to be? If you say, well that is okay, then why are you doing it in the first place? It clearly matters that he turn out to be this or that or you wouldn’t be trying to make him into that.

          It is amazing to me how Libertarians are so fucking in love with technology they will completely disregard the sanctity of the individual and the individual’s choice and consent when doing so embraces some shinny new technology. If you don’t think the individual is the ultimate end in life and that individuals exist to serve some purpose determined by society or their parents or whomever, why the hell are you a libertarian? And if you do think that, why are you okay with parents creating human beings to fulfill some purpose?

          1. This is the most idiotic type of equivocation. Like it or not, little people are the result of the decisions of big people, whether that’s you paying a couple million bucks to a man in a lab or you picking an athletic red headed woman to breed with. In any case, genes are not destiny. You can’t will your children into being what you them to be, which doesn’t stop many (probably most) parents from doing so even today without the benefit of technology. Technology that can also, say, prevent your kid from developing cancer or schizophrenia. God knows you wouldn’t want to deprive the darling little individual of those experiences, right?

            1. You can’t seem to grasp that not every decision is the same. Just because you create a child doesn’t mean you are creating them for a purpose. You create a child because you want a child. The child is the end. The child should not exist as the fulfillment of some higher purpose on your part. Do people sometimes try to do that now? Sure. The fact that they do it doesn’t make it right or a reasoning that we should embrace. Yeah, if you married a tall read head because you want tall read headed children, you are stupid and immoral. You should marry and have children for reasons other than to project some goal of yours onto your children.

              1. “…The child should not exist as the fulfillment of some higher purpose on your part….”

                Happy to hear your *opinion*, which I don’t share.
                My view is that people pretty much ‘should’ do exactly as they please, absent coercion.

                1. Happy to hear your *opinion*, which I don’t share.

                  Sure. You can have that opinion. I am not even saying it is a wrong one. All I ask is you live with the rational implications of having that opinion. If you are okay with people being created to fulfill some chosen purpose, then don’t come bitching to me about the government violating people’s rights and taking away their freedoms. The only way that is wrong is if you believe people have a natural and inalienable right to self determination. And if you think it is okay to create people for some chosen purpose, then you don’t believe in self determination.

              2. Yeah, if you married a tall read head because you want tall read headed children, you are stupid and immoral.

                It’s as good a reason as any. What business is it of yours why anybody wants to have children, or with whom they would like to have them? Remember that supremacy of the individual you were just yacking about?

                You should marry and have children for reasons other than to project some goal of yours onto your children.

                A) You’re not obligated to gene-splice your children, so feel free to live the courage of your convictions as far as that goes.

                B) Preventing your child from inheriting your defective gene that gives them a higher propensity for, say, colon cancer, or clinical depression, or Alzheimer’s isn’t “projecting some goal of yours onto your children”. Except, I guess, to the extent that “Gee, I hope my kid doesn’t suffer an agonizing death in his adulthood like the 10 generations of people before him” is a goal, which is an admirable one I think. Just because you can’t envision any use for this technology outside of frustrated athletes turning their children into mutant sports superstars doesn’t mean that’s the only use for them.

        2. According to the article the rewrinting technology currently has only a 20% success rate for an individual sequence rewrite, which means if your goal requires the rewrite of multiple sequences, your success rate is rapidly approaching zero.

      3. I can see where you are coming from John, but the thing is we already do this when we choose the method we are going to have children by. Most of us already decide to roll the dice on our partners and our genetics. Sure it has a broader range of possible outcomes, but it is still a decision made without consent from the future child. It’s results can also end up being disappointing.

        My little sister ended up short with dark skin and eyes and without the rest of the family’s ability to put on muscle at the drop of the hat. I know she wishes she ended up like the rest of the family tall and irish, but my mother’s choice to sleep with her father screwed her in that category (little brother somehow managed to avoid those genes, so random number gods worked in his favor).

        The new genetic therapies won’t be doing anything we don’t already do. They’ll just be better at it, and hopefully able to avoid some of the pitfalls our current method has had.

        Also for second order concerns, due to expense this will be adopted in stages. By the time its widely available to all the problems should be come obvious and have been fixed.

        1. Also for second order concerns, due to expense this will be adopted in stages. By the time its widely available to all the problems should be come obvious and have been fixed.

          That is a big assumption. Maybe you are right but even if you are, how do we achieve that without trial and error? I don’t see how we get there without this process failing and it leaving children who never consented victims of our medical experiments.

          As for your sister. She wishes she were tall and thin but that is her choice. There is nothing that says she has to want that. It is possible that she might have liked not being like the rest of you. Being tall and thin is no guarantee that the person likes themselves. Where do you get off claiming to know better and decide that she must be this or that by editing her genes? And yes the effect of who you sleep with creates your child but that is an effect. You don’t or shouldn’t marry and conceive a child with someone in hopes of creating a certain kind of child. The fact that your union will create some kind of a child doesn’t make your choice of partner automatically the same thing as editing the child’s genes.

          1. You don’t or shouldn’t marry and conceive a child with someone in hopes of creating a certain kind of child.

            I have a modest proposal for you: In the interest of true individuality, we ought to assign people into pairs based on totally random numbers. That way the people with good genes don’t get to hoard them all.

            This is literally how stupid you sound.

            1. Or how about we encourage people to marry based on factors other than what their children will look like? And we tell people that every human being is worthy of dignity and value and just because you are smart or good looking or big or fast doesn’t make you a better or more worthy person than someone who is not? How about that? How about we embrace the dignity of the individual? You might like some of the results of that.

              But hey, feel free to embrace eugenics and the idea that making the human race smarter and stronger is the ultimate end. Good luck with that. What could possibly go wrong?

              1. John|12.1.15 @ 11:15AM|#
                “Or how about we encourage people to marry based on factors other than what their children will look like? And we tell people that every human being is worthy of dignity and value and just because you are smart or good looking or big or fast doesn’t make you a better or more worthy person than someone who is not? How about that? How about we embrace the dignity of the individual? You might like some of the results of that.”

                Did you get a trophy for “Participating”, John?

                1. Sevo,

                  Tell me your plan to eliminate the unworthy?

              2. I don’t know who “we” is. I don’t have any particular interest in what factors go into the marriage and reproductive decisions of other people, and I’m not sure how I’d go about investigating and “correcting” their motives anyway. Regardless of their motives, their offspring deserve the same human dignity as anybody. The two have nothing to do with one another. It is not an affront to human dignity to technologically ensure that your offspring have reduced risk exposure to disease (or even have immunity to certain diseases), reduced or eliminated risk exposure to birth defects, a genetic propensity for higher intelligence, or even something as “shallow” as ensuring they have blue eyes.

                I also have no interest whatsoever in the direction that the human race as a whole takes, nor do I have any delusions of any semblance of control over it. If some banker wants to blow his 10 million dollar bonus check on making sure his future daughter will qualify for the field hockey team at Harvard, I’m not interested in preventing him from doing so, whether his method is a trophy wife with a good pedigree or a gene scientist with a good sequencer. By the same token, if he chooses to marry for love and wants to gamble on his history of male pattern baldness, I’m not interested in stopping him from doing that either.

                1. Letting people purchase things that they want is not quite the same thing as making genetic modification mandatory or gassing undesirables. If wanting to pass on only good genes to your children is “eugenics” in your view, then human evolution itself has been a millions of years long eugenics program.

          2. In my sister’s case I don’t have the right to make that decision for her because I’m not her parent. In my children’s case it will be my job to make these decisions for them until they are of an age to consent. My job will be to make sure they have the best shot at life I can give them. I will make this decision in how I choose to lay down rules, what kind of school I send them to, and what kind of medical care I give them. I will not always make the best of decisions but that doesn’t make it not my decision to make. If I have the opportunity to raise their intelligence and physical prowess and thus make life easier on them, it is part of my job to take that opportunity as their guardian.

            Also, all children that aren’t ‘oops’ are born with a purpose. I want a family, so my children will be born with the purpose of being members of that family.

            1. Sure you have to make decisions. But the scope of that authority last I looked did not include deciding their purpose in life. Saying you make decisions for their health and safety when they are young is not the same as saying you get to determine or would even want to determine what their abilities are.

              I want a family, so my children will be born with the purpose of being members of that family.

              Of course. And if by some accident they turn out to be dumb or ugly or physically deformed, will they not serve that function just as well as if they were not? And if so, why do you want to edit them to ensure they are smart or fast?

              Your purpose is to be a human being and do what you want. And you can be that and be a human being regardless of how smart or fast or big you are. Given that fact, why would you want to edit your children’s genes to be smart of fast unless you view them as having a purpose beyond just being whatever they are?

              1. But the scope of that authority last I looked did not include deciding their purpose in life.

                Remind me John, which gene is responsible for imparting “purpose in life”?

                You ever seen somebody with a natural gift for athletics who worked in an office job? Ever seen somebody with a mind for numbers who worked as an artist? Your genetics are not your purpose in life. And even if they were, people having children as vanity projects is as old as the written word. You’re scapegoating remarkable technology that has the potential to save vast swaths of humanity from misery and suffering for what you perceive to be a moral failing on the part of selfish parents.

      4. Human beings are not and should never be considered means to an end.

        I agree with this. But enhancing your child’s genetics doesn’t necessarily violate that principle. Being smarter or stronger would presumable give the child a better chance at a good life. As long as you aren’t forced to modify your progeny for some supposed societal good, I don’t see a problem. As someone else pointed out, children never consented to exist at all, or to be brought up they way you think they should be brought up. And those things have a big effect on who and what they are too.

        1. Being smarter or stronger would presumable give the child a better chance at a good life.

          So people who are weak or stupid can’t have a good life? Think about what you are saying there. My experience is that having a good life depends on not being sick and the amount of wisdom you have. Being smart or strong may allow you to accomplish a lot but it in no way gets you to a good life, whatever that is. The only way it does is if you define “good life” as fulfilling some purpose or achieving some accomplishment. And seeing it that way is seeing the person as a means to an end.

          1. “Being smarter or stronger would presumable give the child a better chance at a good life.
            So people who are weak or stupid can’t have a good life?”

            Nothing helps an argument like false dichotomy.

            1. There is nothing false about it. Being smart or strong does nothing to ensure you a good life. You are just as likely to have a horrible unhappy or immoral life regardless of whether you are those things. Those things are only “goods” if you see life as being about accomplishing things. And clearly it isn’t. If it were, no one on the bottom would ever be happy or as worthy as those on the top. And that is just plain bullshit. Some of the most accomplished and smartest people on earth are also horrible and evil and unhappy people.

              Why do you think making the human race into a race of strong and smart people is a good thing? And if it is a good thing, then doesn’t that necessarily mean the existence of not strong an not smart people today is a bad thing?

              Gene editing is just eugenics. Since when do you guys embrace eugenics? Just because the parents instead of the government is doing it doesn’t make it any less appalling. Hey, if smart and fast kids are better than slow and dumb ones, then what claim to full rights and humanity do the slow and dumb kids have?

              1. “You are just as likely to have a horrible unhappy or immoral life regardless of whether you are those things.”

                You seem to think your opinions and claims substitute for argument. They don’t.

                1. You seem to think your opinions and claims substitute for argument. They don

                  Oh really? If being strong or smart makes it more likely that you will be moral or happy, why are there so many strong or smart people who are neither? And why are there so many people who are handicapped or not even average who are both happy and moral?

                  It is not an opinion. It is an observation of reality. There is no correlation that I have ever seen between intelligence or physical ability and happiness or morality. If you think there is, then be honest and just embrace eugenics. And also explain why people who are dumb or handicapped are not less human than those who are not?

                  1. Not embracing restrictions on gene editing = embracing eugenics?

                    1. Yeah.spittoon. What is the point of gene editing other than to create a better human race though the elimination of undesirable qualities? And that is eugenics. Eugenics is evil not because the government does it. Eugenics is evil because it denies the dignity and sanctity of the individual. It says that some individuals are better and more worthy than others. That is all gene editing is doing. The smart child is preferable to the dumb one therefore we will ensure all children are born smart.

                    2. Eugenics is evil because it denies the dignity and sanctity of the individual. It says that some individuals are better and more worthy than others. That is all gene editing is doing.

                      It would be nice to think you’re being a dishonest, obtuse asshole just to jerk everybody’s chain and that you don’t seriously believe something that mind numbingly fucking stupid. I may not agree with you on certain things, but I’ve never thought of you as an idiot. That is some weapons grade stupidity.

                    3. Maybe this is John’s brilliant parody of a bio-ethicist.

                    4. The smart child is preferable to the dumb one

                      Isn’t it? People don’t want their children to be smart? You yourself often express a lot of exasperation and frustration about all the stupid people you have to deal with. And now you are saying that there is nothing preferable about being smart? For real?

                      You are of course correct that people can be perfectly happy without being very smart. But unless you can find some correlation between intelligence and unhappiness or bad behavior, I don’t see how you can get from there to condemning any attempt to improve one’s offspring’s intelligence. Unless it comes from some religious reverence for the “natural” or some SJW “everyone’s a special snowflake” BS.

                    5. Yeah.spittoon. What is the point of gene editing other than to create a better human race though the elimination of undesirable qualities?

                      So, getting rid of all possible birth defects is a bad thing? Editing genetic disease from the human genome is the same as murdering people who are ‘undesirable’?

                      And you gotta clear this up–

                      Eugenics is evil because it denies the dignity and sanctity of the individual. It says that some individuals are better and more worthy than others.

                      Your first sentence glorifies individuals. Your second glorifies a collective ove individuals. Choose.

                      But here’s a simple truth–“some individuals are better and more worthy than others”.

                      You’re in a weird place here, John. Wanting the best for your kid is not predestining their purpose–in any way shape or form. Editing your kids genome to exclude things that will hurt him and accent things that could help him is no different from trying to impart wisdom to him.

                      And none of this ties into state enforcement of the process–a whole other can of worms you’re pre-supposing will go hand in hand with this.

              2. Since when do you guys embrace eugenics? Just because the parents instead of the government is doing it doesn’t make it any less appalling.

                I’d say it makes it a whole lot less appalling. Eugenics is fine if it is voluntary. I have no objection to people selecting mates based on the qualities of the offspring they are likely to produce. In fact, that is a pretty fundamental human behavior. People don’t (for the most part) just go around reproducing with whoever. We choose mates for a reason. It’s often not consciously about what the offspring will be like, but that’s the evolutionary reason behind it. Eugenics is evil when someone else is making reproductive decisions for people.

                1. I practiced eugenics. I tried to find the smartest woman available to make children with. It turned out OK. But Charles Murray was not happy.

          2. I think we all saw Gattaca, John.

          3. So people who are weak or stupid can’t have a good life?

            Not so long as stupid people are told to borrow a small fortune to pursue a worthless degree rather than a lucrative vocation.

            1. Yeah because none of the people doing that are “smart” as in having a high IQ score or meeting the generally accepted definitions of “smart” or anything.

              Your examples points to the larger issue which is that there is a difference between intelligence and wisdom and judgment. You would think that Libertarians of all people would best understand that having a society full of high IQs is in no way a ticket to having a more free or better run society. Yeah, a whole society of high IQ snowflake top men wannabes. I am sure that will work out grand.

              1. It was an off-hand comment, but in point of fact it’s a good showing of why socially conscious meddlers should be allowed nowhere near the levers of power. Individuals making mistakes on an individual level might be local tragedies, but individuals compelled to make mistakes en masse gave us our current higher-ed circus.

              2. You would think that Libertarians of all people would best understand that having a society full of high IQs is in no way a ticket to having a more free or better run society.

                Nobody is proposing a mandate for IQ-specific genetic modification. As it stands right now this is a plaything for the uber-wealthy (who are statistically more likely to be high IQ individuals anyway), and it’s not even mature enough to do relatively simple modifications, let alone something as complex as IQ. You’re presuming a disaster scenario where every baby will be a genetic ubermensch when that isn’t even technologically or financially feasible.

              3. Pinky, check your brain in the cloak room when you come here. The TOP men are short of proles.

          4. So people who are weak or stupid can’t have a good life? Think about what you are saying there.

            Think about what you are saying here. Being smart and strong are desirable things. This isn’t for no reason. Given the choice, who wouldn’t choose to be smarter and stronger? It has nothing to do with seeing a person as a means to an end. Intelligence and strength are characteristics that people value in and of themselves regardless of whether they are any good for promoting any particular end outside of one’s own existence and happiness.
            And where did I suggest at all that weak or stupid people can’t be happy or have a good life? Once again, you are reading way too much into what people write. I really don’t get how you read what I wrote and conclude that I am saying that weak or stupid people can’t have a good life. Try responding to what people say rather than to what you imagine they are thinking.

            1. John’s view of gene technology is like the left wing view of taxation where not giving is taking and not taking is giving. Not preventing wealthy people from using gene modification to prevent their children from getting incurable diseases is exactly like forcibly sterilizing the mentally handicapped, you see.

            2. Being smart (among a certain segment of the population) seems to confer a tendency towards Tay-Sachs.

              1. Not sure if there is some joke I’m missing or if you are saying that smarter Jews are more prone to Tay-Sachs, or just that Jews are smarter in general.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.