Don't Count on Rand Paul to Make the Next Debate, Scalia Provokes, Trump's Chances: P.M. Links


  • Experts predict Rand Paul won't qualify for the December 15 debate.

  • Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has drawn heavy criticism for his explanation of the "mismatch theory" during oral arguments in the major affirmative action case this week.
  • New York politician convicted of bribery, extortion.
  • Today, in could Donald Trump actually win the nomination?
  • Mark Cuban says Donald Trump is trying to fuck the country.
  • Ben Carson threatened to leave the Republican Party (oh no, not that…).
  • The trailer for X-Men: Apocalypse is out.

New at Reason:

NEXT: Poor Countries Demand $3.5 Trillion in Climate Finance at Paris Conference

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Experts predict Rand Paul won’t qualify for the December 15 debate.

    Which means the rest will have to be extra interesting.

    1. I’ll go from not watching, to… not watching? Yawn.

      One more week of work for the year…

    2. Rand at this point can’t qualify for 0% APR financing.

    3. I’ll be somewhere warm, drinking cocktails on the beach. Enjoy the debate, suckers!

      1. Meh. Drinking on a beach is meh.


        1. Nothing like sipping from a flask in a cold rink, eh?

          1. Now THAT is class and good living. Midnight winter shinny and alcohol.

        2. Sure, I can see a fat ugly person saying that.

          1. They allow fat ugly people on the beach where you are? Is that how you qualified to be there?

            1. Ha! No, it’s the reason I like the beach.

        3. Phhbttt. Beach drinking is the best.

        4. Meh. Drinking on a beach is meh.

          … says the Canukistani.

          80 degrees at da beach in F L A

      2. meh

        I do that every day.

        I can even do that and still be entertained by the debates.

        /Lives waterfront on the Texas Gulf Coast.

        1. You’re not on vacation until you’re away from the bullshit.

          I’ll be out of the country, so I sure as fuck hope that I won’t see the debates.

    4. Hello.

    5. It took them 5 tries, but they finally found a formula to include Christie and exclude Paul.

      1. Paul has kinda helped them out in the endeavor.

  2. California cop shoots man after accident, paralyzes him for life. But it was totally an accident, he swears! So it’s fine. No charges.

    1. Even if they rationalize the shooting itself, his conduct afterwards is definitely criminal.

      1. I’m sure the goon-pig discussed whole thing with DA over a beer.

      2. But he was in shock! That excuses not saying anything about the shooting for 10 minutes right? There are no double standards.

        1. Ted kennedy would praise his ability to recover so quickly.

      3. But he was in shock! That excuses not saying anything about the shooting for 10 minutes right? There are no double standards.

        1. The server squirrels have a double standard. Or at least a double something.

          1. The squirrels are getting lazy. Usually they triple-post.

            1. False modesty will get you nowhere.. Only the chosen of the squirrels get you a triple post!

    2. Woodchippers for the fuckin’ cop and the fuckin’ investigators. Anyone who uses twitter can now tweet it to fuckin’ Preet Bharara.

      1. Yeh JB mentioned in another thread. As I posted there I will here:

        ” US Attorney Bharara ?@PreetBharara 55m55 minutes ago

        How many prosecutions will it take before Albany gives the people of New York the honest government they deserve? @SDNYnews”


        /turns woodchipper on.

        1. I don’t do the Tweeter, but I hope someone starts a #woodchipper hushtag

          1. I would consider it if I knew how.

            1. I wouldn’t consider it. I’m too afraid of those federal cunts and have too much to lose.

              1. I wouldn’t consider it. I’m too afraid of those federal cunts and have too much to lose.

                You are properly responding to the treatments. Excellent.

                -Preet Woodchipper

                1. It’s a quality system of oppression, what can I say.

                  1. Come back when you are willing to demand liberty rather than pray for freedom.

    3. I saw the video.

      Cold blooded murder, straight up.

      1. He’s not dead yet, though.

        1. He’s feeling better.

        2. “He’s not dead yet, though.”

          And it is reported that he is feeling no pain…..from the neck down anyway.

      2. These videos make me sick. I’ll take your word on it, Suthenboy.

    4. Watch the video. About 1 minute 30 seconds into it if I remember, I cannot get the video to pull up on my cell phone right now. I’m getting fitted for some neutricles. This is the punchiest nut punch of the year so far.

    5. From the same site…

      Florida Cop Murders Pet Dog 3 Feet From Terrified Homeowners in Incident Caught on Video

      Cop shoots dog because training or something. Though I prefer to think it’s a mixture of sociopathy and a narcissistic level of self importance that he think he’s entitled to shoot peoples pets on a whim. I’ve been barked at and charged by dogs and never once did I need to shoot the dog in the head to avoid being bitten.

      1. The shocking part is nobody came out of the house shooting at the cop.

        I never open the door until the dog is secure – so that was dumb.

        1. Every now and then a cop gets what he deserves. And the guy who gives it to him gets a life sentence.

      2. Karl got some good shots in on the apologist in that thread. Of course, his comment was misrepresented to the Nth degree by people with chips on their shoulders, but whaddya gonna do?

        1. What kind of chips? Wood chips?

          1. ……..Possibly….:eyes dart back and forth:

    6. “The dash cam video shows Officer Feaster was not prepared for and was surprised by the guns firing.

      +1 passive voice.

      1. Surprised. He looked as casual as could be.

        A surprised person would look at the pistol to understand what the fuck was going on. He just holstered it without breaking stride. Most casual attempted murder / successful maiming ever. The video quality is crap, but that looked like 2 shots.

        1. BTW, the ‘stutter step’ the DA used in determining that he was ‘surprised’ by the gun firing itself… I use that ‘stutter step’ in Battlefield 3 to kill my opponents and not get hit if they shoot back. Just sayin’.

        2. That’s what I noticed too. I watched the video several times and there was definitely 2 shots. There were 2 clear muzzle blasts then he simply holsters the gun and goes on like nothing happened. I don’t see how they can say he was surprised (as if thats even a reason not to charge him) and only shot 1 time from the video I watched. It clearly shows the exact opposite. The da and investigators nonsensical story about him being surprised is clearly a FUCK YOU THAT’S WHY to their subjects.

  3. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has drawn heavy criticism for his explanation of the “mismatch theory” during oral arguments in the major affirmative action case this week.

    Thank GOD. I was afraid I’d have to wait for the outcome to be outraged.

    1. This *is* about the outcome – they’re working the refs.

      1. No shot. Kagan’s recused and Kennedy already used his cop-out in Fisher I. This will be a narrowly tailored 6-2 or 5-3 easy. It’s my big play on fantasy SCOTUS.

        1. fantasy SCOTUS.

          We have this?

          How do I get onboard?

          1. Lexis did one when I was in law school, I think the Harlan Institute might run one as well (ours is just a friends thing so we do it via e-mail). Depending on the interest/my free time I might be able to set up one for the Reasontariat.

        2. Against racist I mean “race-conscious” admissions I hope you’re right.

          How do you get 6-2 though? Sotomayor and Ginsburg will definitely vote in favor of racist admissions, and I assume Breyer will too. Or is Breyer not as thoroughly perverted by his ideological preferences as the other two?

    1. Here we go

      1. I’m shocked, shocked!

        1. Your winnings, Mr. Zagloba.

          1. Thank you. EVERYONE OUT!

      2. Surprised, yes. Surprised they managed to keep a lid on it this long.

        I am still waiting for my photo of the cops displaying all of the guns confiscated from the bikers at the scene.

    2. According to TFA there is still some wiggle room. The bullets haven’t been confirmed as ballistic matches for the police rifles, only confirmed to be the same caliber. Apparently some long guns not (claimed to be) owned by the cops were recovered from the scene. It will be interesting to see how they try to spin this.

      Pre-emptively: Fuck you, Dunphy.

      1. These motor clubs rode in with long guns? On their motorcycles? Uh huh….

        1. Perhaps I should have put “recovered” in quotes in my first post.

      2. Dunphy is a troll account and nothing more. He responded to himself with a sock puppet handle months and months ago which is why he stopped coming around so much. Doesn’t seem like enough people noticed, though, and he’s popped up back of late.

        1. Correction to that. He got caught not changing to a sock puppet handle and responded to himself ripping his own argument and talking in the third person.

          1. Ha. Caught red-handed lol. Though sometimes I suspect at least 2/3 of the people who post here are actually just Agile Cyborg.

        2. I suspect he still lurks.

          1. I wonder who else lurks around here.

            1. H…Hitler?

        3. Wait, so that whole bit about Morgan Fairchild was fake?

          1. Only her tits.

    3. I don’t believe that the pigs only fired 12 bullets.

      1. Pigs were really accurate that day. 4 kill shots out of 12 fired.

        …ballistics reports show that four of the dead and at least one of the wounded were struck with bullets from .223-caliber rifles ? the only type of weapon fired by police that day.

        1. Do we believe that’s the only type of weapon they fired?

        2. It’s kind of tough to miss with a shotgun.

    4. Its amazing how these types of stories only come out on Fridays. Its almost as if they try to bury the story.

      Someone should start a news service which only covers these kind of Friday stories

    5. And still they’ll charge 80 or 90 innocent bikers with those murders and casually ruin their lives, just because they fucking can. God damn it I hate that whole criminal organization.

    6. This article says that 2 people were definitely killed from the caliber rifle cops were using that day. That’s pretty much all it says that’s newsworthy. We are still missing WAY too much information for even that tidbit to mean anything “big”. And we don’t know for sure whether some of the information we do have (that cops were only using .223 caliber and they only fired 12 shots) is even accurate.

    7. Cops fired only 12 times? That seems very restrained of them for a “chaotic” scene which they “swarmed” where they were all armed with semi automatic rifles.

      Also, what? The cops were ALL armed with .223 rifles? If THAT is true… wow.

  4. The trailer for X-Men: Apocalypse is out.

    Huge Jackman’s last turn as Wolverine?

    1. He’s not in the trailer, only a bald James McAvoy.

        1. He has beautiful hair and a slappable face.


          1. You ruined the trailer for me, you bastard!

  5. “Mark Cuban says Donald Trump is trying to fuck the country.”

    So, he’s just like every other politician after all.

  6. Are ‘Sexy’ Buses, Tunnels and Tolls the Answer to L.A. Traffic?

    What, like the bus goes into the tunnel, backs out, and goes in again?

    1. +1-1+1-1+1-1+1-1 YEAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

    2. Is a ‘sexy’ toll some form of state prostitution?

      Or a boner tax?

    3. Moving out of LA and California altogether is the answer.

    4. Are there gonna be strippers or something on the buses? I’d get off, but not at work.

  7. Mark Cuban says Donald Trump is trying to fuck the country.

    To death?

    1. Donald Trump is Warty? That… explains a lot, actually.

    2. There’s no evidence that Trump is a reaver.

      1. He just might be Mr. Garrison, though.

    3. As long as he doesn’t skullfuck the country we should be OK.

    4. So he did end up being just another politician…

      1. I laughed at every single one of those jokes. Never got old.

  8. Jimmy announces ban on Iranian immigration – tape discovered.

    1. That’s different, they were bad Muslims, trying to get away from Glorious People’s Revolution.

    2. Oh, that’s going to cause some butt-hurt. Are they going to go with “that was different” or throw their oldest surviving US President under the bus?

      1. I love that ‘argument’.


      2. Obviously, his brain was affected by the undetected micro-tumors that would eventually develop into the brain cancer he recently defeated.

          1. “Jimmy, what did you do after you shot that cat?”

            I ran.”

      3. To be fair, it’s not quite the same. Trump said “all Muslims.” If he had said “all Syrians,” then it would be similar to “all Iranians.”

        1. That’s what I was thinking.

          1. I’m not sure Trump understands or cares about that distinction.

        2. It doesn’t matter. Trump will use Jimmy’s ban as a precedent.

          Every time one of these fucksticks push the power limits just a bit it gives the next piece of shit an excuse to push it a little further.

          I gather the dems are shitting their pants now over the precedents Obumbles has set and how they are going to be used by the R’s.

          1. Every time one of these fucksticks push the power limits just a bit it gives the next piece of shit an excuse to push it a little further.

            This is why Bush didn’t prosecute Clinton, and Obama did not prosecute Bush. When one of them goes to jail, all of them have to go to jail.

        3. If only Jihad was just a Syrian thing.

          1. You’re wrong! I read in the New York Times that Jihad has nothing to do with Islam, Shariah, Islamic cultures or Muslims themselves. Fact.

          2. How about limiting it to a ban on immigration from batshit crazy Wahhabi countries. Problem is that that includes Saudi Arabia and Qatar, so the ban would still cause a shitstorm.

            Islam in general is not the problem. The problem is with batshit crazy Wahhabi jihadis who interpret the Koran to mean what it clearly says.

            1. who interpret the Koran to mean what it clearly says.

              This sort of undermines your assertion that it’s not Islam itself. It’s not only the Wahabis, but even still in their absence it’d be some other batshit crazy group racking up the body count.

              1. Depends what you mean by Islam itself.

                There are quite a few people who swear allegiance to the US Constitution and have no problem living their whole lives interpreting it to mean something other than what it clearly says. I don’t think most followers of religions are any different.

                1. There are many interpretations of the Koran. Not all of them are literal, and not all of them take the Koran’s violent commands to be applicable in the present. Very much like Reform Jews don’t take Old Testament’s commands as instructions to go out and smite the nations, either.

                  1. Actually hardly any Jews take that position.

          3. DESERT ONE!!11!111!1!111111!1111111!11!111!1

        4. If he had said “all Syrians,” then it would be similar to “all Iranians.”

          And he would catch the same amount of hell he’s getting now.

      4. They are going to ignore it, the way they do when you note that their hero FDR had concentration camps of his own.

        1. Everyone knows that Mr Korematsu was an infiltrator.

    3. I thought this was a big deal, but Iran is a state that has citizens that has state actions that other states can address. ‘Muslims’ come from all over.

    4. All legal.

      (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
      Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

      1. I don’t think it’s legal for Congress to write a law that imparts the authority to POTUS to discriminate based on religion. I think there’s an amendment that addresses this. Legal scholars may disagree, I guess, but to me the reading is clear.

        1. …after all, if authority to do what’s forbidden by the bor may be conferred in law to a proxy (in this case POTUS), then what water does any amendment hold? Congress need only to anoint their proxy, and thy will be done, as it were.

  9. “New York politician convicted of bribery, extortion.”

    Dog bites man?

    Or does “dog bites man” refer to New York politicians *committing* bribery and extortion?

    1. The latter, since that was Shelly Silver’s lawyers’ argument in court.


      Silver’s defense is that corruption is the bread and butter of New York politics ? so how can it be a crime?

      The prosecution says Silver, for decades the state’s second-most-powerful official, “picked the people’s pocket to line his own.”

      To which Silver’s team answers, So what?

      “It’s impossible, absolutely impossible,” argued defense lawyer Steven Molo, “for a member of the Assembly to .?.?. do the job that a person in the Assembly does and not have some sort of conflict of interest.

      “That may make you uncomfortable,” he added, “but that is the system New York has chosen, and it is not a crime.”

      1. When will they indict Cuomo?

        1. When will they indict Cuomo?




          Oh, Super Cereal?


          1. I read that as induct, to mean into a hall of fame.

      2. That is actually one of the more brutally honest arguments I’ve seen a politician make. The whole system is corrupt and the NY voters have silently supported it for decades.

        1. Though it is hard to voted the corrupt out of office when they are all corrupt

      3. “That may make you uncomfortable,” he added, “but that is the system New York has chosen, and it is not a crime.”

        The truth, he speaks it.

  10. Ben Carson threatened to leave the Republican Party (oh no, not that…).

    Ben Carson on Friday blasted the Republican National Committee following a Washington Post report that nearly two-dozen establishment party figures were prepping for a potential brokered convention as Donald Trump continues to lead most polls.

    Truly a deranged monster living in cookoo land.

    1. I refuse to look at Trudeau in Vogue.

      1. Pfft, he doesn’t want your male gaze anyway!

        1. Eww. Gross!

          1. Come on, Rufus, it would be hate fuck of your life!

            1. I have enough pent-up hate in me. Potsie may put me over the top.

  11. Experts predict

    Stop right there!

    1. I gotta know right now
      Before we go any further

      Do you love me?
      Will you love me forever?
      Do you need me?
      Will you never leave me?
      Will you make me so happy
      For the rest of my life?
      Will you take me away
      And will you make me your wife?

      Do you love me?
      Will you love me forever?
      Do you need me?
      Will you never leave me?
      Will you make me so happy
      For the rest of my life?
      Will you take me away
      And will you make me your wife?

      I gotta know right now
      Before we go any further
      Do you love me?
      Will you love me forever?

  12. It’s dumping snow in the sierras and I’m sitting here at work like a jerk.

    And they dropped the rope on my favorite boulderfield diamond run.
    Those powderwhores better leave something for me.

    1. 1% of skiers are skiing 99% of the powder!

    2. I’m in the Great “White” North with no snow and these people get to enjoy it?

    3. It’s dumping, but blizzard conditions. You don’t want to be on the road or the slopes right now.

      1. You fair weather people are awesome. Don’t change. I was born in the cold of New England. Now in California I get the goods while the natives freak out about driving in snow.

        1. Chain control.
          Are your chains already on?

          I’m going by Mammoth, so maybe Tahoe is more sheltered.

          From Blackuweather:

          UP TO 115 MPH.

          When I’m at Mammoth, I live on the ridge line between chairs 9 and 23. PASS.

          1. Subaru driver with snow tires and a manual transmission. Chains are verboten by the manual, it fucks the transaxle.

              1. Unless it’s glare ice, that doesn’t happen if you know how to drive in the snow.

                If you don’t have to drive to work in a snowstorm several times a week all winter, you don’t know how to drive in the snow.

                How much snow on the road are we really talking about on the passes in the West where you are supposed to have chains with you?

                1. In the Eastern Sierras (where the good skiing is), the weather is either perfect or horrible. No middle ground. Waffles skis the Tahoe area (think Donner Party), and I ski Mammoth Mountain. I’ve had days where it takes me 5 hours to drive what would normally take 30 minutes.

                  Keep in mind that 90% of the people on these roads are weekend warriors who wear shorts in the winter.

  13. When I got my car in March I transferred the plates, paid the excise tax, and then forgot about it. I was supposed to register it again in June. Got caught today by a cop. $140 fine for an honest mistake, and another $138 to register the damn car. They get your money no matter what.

    1. anytime you interact with cops I pray for you. and I aint that religious.

      1. This guy obviously had a room temperature IQ. Very…. simple. He was friendly enough, but you could tell that the sadistic animal was one disrespect away.

    2. And you lived to tell the tale.

  14. I just got served a recruitment ad for DC Metro Police here. The irony is delicious. Glad that Reason is profiting from that.

    1. Do they want you to go on bear patrol?

  15. Michael’s Superior Days of Star Wars Celebration: this.

    Possibly NSFW.

    1. Careful. Lady B will block you.


      Also, Slave Leia cosplay is played out. Especially shitty Slave Leia cosplay.

      1. I saw a fat girl in a Slave Leia costume once. I wanted to ask her if she was dressed as Jabba dressed as Leia.


        Yet another of the debilitating ailments to come from playing professional football.

        DAMN YOU, NFL!!!

  16. OT: One of the best tweets, ever.

    Guys, we all know how that can happen, am I right?

    1. That is the kind of shit they are used to getting away with.

      Now, who was it that mocked me when I said you can’t leave them alone with a woman even for a minute because it is a certainty they will rape her?

      1. them… they

        Saudi millionaires?

  17. Spiked Online has an awesome interview with Camille Paglia.

    ‘Yes means Yes’ laws are drearily puritanical and literalistic as well as hopelessly totalitarian. Their increasing popularity simply demonstrates how boring and meaningless sex has become ? and why Hollywood movies haven’t produced a scintilla of sexiness since Sharon Stone uncrossed her legs in Basic Instinct. Sex is always a dangerous gamble ? as gay men have known and accepted for thousands of years. Nothing in the world will ever be totally safe, even the plushy pads of an infant’s crib, to which feminist ideologues would evidently wish to reduce us all.

    I may not agree with her on everything, but damn, that’s what a “public intellectual” should be like – erudite, fearless and well-spoken.

    1. Sex is always a dangerous gamble ? as gay men have known and accepted for thousands of years.

      This part is annoying because she choses to use gay men as an example over the very obvious danger sex was to women in the form of pregnancy pre-birth control.

      1. As I said, not everything she says I agree with. Also this

        The corporate business model invented in northern Europe after the Industrial Revolution is hyper-efficient but also vampiric. Too many people, both men and women, have foolishly conflated their personal identities with their jobs. It’s a bourgeois trap and a distortion of the ultimate meaning of life.

        But I’d much, much rather read her than any of the shit that is spewed by Klein, for example.

        1. I don’t know about “vampiric”, nut the part about conflating personal identities with jobs can be true. Depends on what you think the meaning of life is (or if there is one), I suppose.

          But everyone gets to decide what’s important in life for themselves, so it’s pretty meaningless at best.

          1. “everyone gets to decide what’s important in life for themselves”

            WRONG!!! CONAN, WHAT IS BEST?

  18. New York politician convicted of bribery, extortion.

    US Attorney Bharara ?@PreetBharara 3h3 hours ago
    How many prosecutions will it take before Albany gives the people of New York the honest government they deserve? @SDNYnews

    A few sample replies…

    .@PreetBharara @SDNYnews I know! More harassing subpoenas to news sites! That will help! @reason

    Rebecca Throckmorton ?@Rebecca_Throck2 3h3 hours ago
    @PreetBharara @SDNYnews You should ask the All-Seeing, All-Knowing Woodchipper

    Rebecca Throckmorton ?@Rebecca_Throck2 3h3 hours ago
    @PreetBharara @SDNYnews @ron_fournier Give me a REASON to ask the WOODCHIPPER, Preet

    and I liked mine

    Andrew S. ?@wildcatlh 3h3 hours ago
    @PreetBharara @SDNYnews Depends. Are woodchipper purchases a good use of government funds? @popehat @reason

    1. Day-um. Well-done, people.

    2. I don’t know Twitter. I can’t seem to find those replies. How to get to them?

      1. Forget it. Figured it out.

    3. Man, there sure are a lot of people who view him as a corruption fighter. Scary.

    4. I hope we don’t get in trouble for our tweets.

  19. GOG is giving away one of the under-appreciated classics: Giants: Citizen Kabuto.

    I don’t know if online multiplayer is still possible, though I’m sure some nerds out there have figured it out. Playing as the giant was some of the most fun I’ve had in an online match.

    1. The only problem with GOG winter sale is that I have most of the stuff already! They are good people, rescuing some amazing classics from obscurity and putting out best written RPGs on the market.

  20. Because who doesn’t keep a ten-spot up their ass?

    Cops Find “Wad” Of Cash, Drugs Inside Alaskan

    1. Here’s my rule:
      If it’s inside you, you get to keep it.

      1. Please revise the rule.

        Signed: all males everywhere (gay and straight).

        1. If you’re inside it, you have to put a ring on it keep it.

          1. I had it, you caught it!

    2. But the real question is would you…. “make furtive movements toward her vagina”

    3. A spring in your step, and a sawbuck in your brown-eye.

      She’s livin’ the life!

    1. If it weren’t for Carl, we might find ourselves facing a full-on zombie apocalypse – I’m talking vampires, demons, the undead everywhere, its basically Ragnarok – and looking around with that sick uncertainty of where in the HELL, pun intended, we expect to find a virgin sacrifice after bar close.

      We don’t have those worries. We have Carl.

      1. For a few more days, at least.

        1. Keep up the fight, sir! You do God’s work on some of the most dangrous threads on the Internet.

            1. *insert my usual rant about there not being a ‘light’ side*

              1. I am going to eat it out of the container on the couch in my pajamas while I watch romantic comedies because Hamster hurt my feelings.

                1. Sounds like you need some Space Mutiny.

                  That was a romantic comedy, right?

                  1. Samurai Cop is a far superior romantic comedy.

  21. An economics journal is publishing a carefully peer-reviewed study about mismatch:

    “…the resulting article…does not take thundering positions on any of the outstanding issues. Indeed, it finds that on many of the most important questions raised by the mismatch hypothesis, the available data is too scattered and too poor in quality to reach clear conclusions. Moreover, since the authors find there are “positive average effects of college quality” on a host of outcomes, any mismatch effect has to be large enough to outweigh these advantages. Nonetheless, the authors find persuasive evidence that such mismatch effects occur, particularly in law school and in science education.”

    So…if you’re admitting someone via affirmative action, then be sure they have one of the less rigorous majors, preferably at an undergraduate institution, and you should be fine.

    But the attack on Scalia isn’t about evidence, it’s an attempt to bludgeon, not Scalia, but his more squishy colleagues to uphold affirmative action. It’s the same thing they did with the Obamacare cases – “you’re not going to associate yourself with these right-wing extremists, do you? Why not be a *judicial statesman,* and just go along with what we’re doing, because it would be really unfortunate if we trashed you like we trashed Scalia.”

    1. Actually what Scalia said is a truism: if you let a subset of students into elite universities by lower standards, they do worse than other students there, and if one accepts (as has been well demonstrated) that it is far more important to do well in college than to go to a prestigious college, those students admitted under lower standards are better off going to ‘lower tier’ schools into which they got accepted by the same standards as everyone else.

      Furthermore, if one accepts that black students are on average not as good of students as others, it can be positively disastrous to try to force them into higher level universities at similar proportions as whites and Asians, for the reason above. And frankly black students in general aren’t as well-educated or well-prepared for college as white and Asian ones.

      And who the hell actually denies that? Seriously, it isn’t because of racism that black students are under-represented at MIT; it’s because their education prior to college and their upbringing, on average, are not as good as students of other races. That’s the essence of Scalia’s argument. How moronic does someone have to be to find that controversial? This just illustrates that racist admissions criteria are only justifiable if one pretends that the actual problem (that black students tend to get poorer elementary and high school education and worse parenting) isn’t real. Which is what progressives are apparently intent on doing.

  22. “Yes, we’re using racial preferences because we don’t black students can handle traditional measures of ability…why are you criticizing us, you *racists?*”

    1. we don’t *think* black students

    2. Traditional measures of ability are examples of institutionalized racism and sexism

  23. The St. Louis Rams have unveiled the worst jersey ever. This is my first attempt at a link so I’ll probably SF it.

    1. The whole point of these alternative jerseys is to boost sales. What Rams fan is going to buy a jersey of a team angling to move to LA this off-season?

      1. The Los Angeles Rams? It defies possibility!

      2. Not this one (I still run the classic Faulk). Apparently the Buccaneers will be in full red, so it’s gonna be a hot dog condiment ad instead of a football game.

        I do give kroenke a high troll score though

    2. To be fair, the “Color Rush” uniforms are the league’s idea, not the teams’.

      I hope a venerable organization like the Giants or Packers has the courage to tell the league no.

      1. The Pack throwbacks are pretty awful…but at least not league mandated.

        1. The worst are the Steelers throwbacks.

          1. Ben is used to wearing stripes.

            1. Favre/Ben were my fantasy team names 2 years in a row:

              Throwin picks/sextin dicks
              Throwin picks/rapin chicks

              Those like 30s era packers jerseys (I felt itchy looking at them, although that could easily be attributed to the Rams play that day) are just horrid, up there with the puke green the seahawks/oregon like to rock every now and then. The bumblebees are pretty bad too.

          2. I like those blue Packer uniforms, although they’re better with the original size numbers. (The large numbers are league-mandated.)

            U also like the Steelers’ bumblebee uniforms.

    3. It looks like a bruised banana

    4. the worst jersey ever

      Is New Jersey.

  24. ‘Nathan For You’ Renewed For Fourth Season By Comedy Central

    Solid fucking show. Last night’s episode was intense. I wish the seasons were longer.

    1. I agree with you about the show, but this season has been different, writing-wise. It definitely picked up mid-season, but I find the earlier seasons much more enjoyable.

      As for last night’s episode, I thought it was a bust. Not enough of the awkwardness. Or, at least, not in the same manner as I’ve gown accustomed to.

      But, whatevs. Glad to know it’s getting another season.

  25. Dow down over 300. North American trucking industry pulling back and cutting 2016 projections. Banco Del Canada leaves interest rates unchanged, mulls negative rates. Yellen signals American economy is big-pimpin, rate raise coming in December.

    1. *Checks calendar*

      Why, December is today!

        1. Kinda shitty eh?

        2. The stock price climbed steadily throughout this week in spite of that.

          I had a 530 call/ 540 put strangle on them this week, and surprisingly, the call side was the big moneymaker. I blame the jews.

          1. You know who else made money on the call side?

    2. I expect if things keep going downhill she will back out of raising the rates. Though I don’t think it will help much, as rates being too high isn’t the big problem here.

  26. Aren’t open borders grand? These people in England are just pants shitters who no doubt don’t understand the moral imperative of allowing people come and shit all over them.…..Chichester

    Tell us how great this is or shut the fuck up about open borders.…..Chichester

    1. Did you link the same article twice?

      1. Yes. Accidentally. But look at all of the fabulous benefits of open borders

        1. God, John. It was clearly a dying shitty little village of less than 200 people, probably old and white and racist and no doubt colonialists. And now, it will become a vibrant, populous community, with many falafel places and…um….well, falafel places. Because that’s what immigration is about. Foreign food.

          1. Oh, I’m sure there will be a hookah cafe or three.

    2. It took me a bit of time to acknowledge that there is some, how you say, *abuse* of the refugee/asylum system.

      Which sucks for the citizens of the countries the phony refugees/asylees move to, and also sucks for the *genuine* refugees.

      1. Fuck the refugees. Tell them to fix their own countries.

        1. Do you mean the *real* refugees? Because it’s hard to fix a country while your throat is being cut or you’re being kidnapped and sold into slavery.

          Now, I think even *real* refugees need to apply for asylum at the first non-persecuting country the arrive at when they flee. So no matter how compelling their claim, if they passed through another country before getting to a third country they liked better, then no, ship them back.

          And if their home country gets more stable and less oppressive, ship them back once they’re no longer going to get their throats slashed or sold into slavery.

          And as for those whose sob stories are inventions copied off a template provided by some smuggler – until we find a way of sorting these out from the real ones, then apply great skepticism to *everyone’s* story.

          And refugees are those facing religious or racial or political or social-group-membership persecution – not economic migrants, who as mentioned above may try to pass themselves off, falsely, as refugees.

          1. Not our problem. Seriously.

            1. The problem is we’re getting the *wrong* kind of immigrants and would-be “refugees” – not that we’re getting any at all.

              Being the kind of country people *want* to come to could be an asset. If we’re selective about who we let in.

              Fewer possible jihadis, more Christian shopkeepers driven out of their family homes by Muslim militants. The former shopkeeper isn’t going to be singing kumbayah and being naive about radical Islam. And he’ll contribute to the economy once he gets back on his feet.

              Traditionally, America *benefited* (at least long-term) from persecution and turmoil abroad, as the people with any get up and go got up and went…to the U.S.

              ISIS is advertising for immigrants and begging people not to leave. I’m glad we’re not that kind of country.

              One of the Declaration of Independence’s complaints against George III was: “He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.”

              And yes, I know that Ben Franklin worried that we were getting too many criminals and Germans.

              Maybe there’s a middle position between open borders and sealed borders?

        2. If refugees want to come, and work, and assimilate to our culture, that’s okay. Here in Texas, the Mexicans and Arabs are okay. It’s the damn Yankees and Californians that cause all the trouble.

        3. You’re retarded. If you were to decide to fuck up this country, it wouldn’t be my obligation to stay here and fix your mess and watch my children starve or be murdered in the process. I’d get the fuck out as soon as possible; especially if I had a family, and I’d be a piece of shit to stay here with my family if things were so fucked up. You’d do the same god-damned thing. You’d run away with your family to the first civilized country that would take you if things went down the shitter here. As anyone should. Just because someone is the same nationality as me doesn’t mean I have any obligation to fix their fuck ups.

          Go ahead and bitch and moan all you want about how we shouldn’t let them in, but don’t for a second pretend that the refugees aren’t making the right and logical decision for themselves and their families.

          By the way, you’re sociopathic fucking retard. Did I mention that, retard?

    3. I think the boats up on blocks are a nice touch.

    4. The entire article is a bunch of hyperventilating over nothing. How predictable.

      1. It’s nothing. Totally. what could possibly be wrong with a bunch of violent bums taking over your tow.

        1. Muslims could blow up Cytotoxic’s neighborhood and he’d still claim that immigration is always and forever a good thing in every way.

          1. Please tell me that your girlfriend is asian.

            1. ? No, never had an Asian girlfriend, and I’m actually between them at the moment.

              1. Between them is quite cozy.

          2. Cytotoxic would cheer the blowing up of any neighborhood, even his own.

          3. And I expect if the US should some day become a war-torn wasteland, John will gladly stay here and fight the good fight up to the point where his children starve to death and he has to eat them to survive, instead of up and moving to New Zealand or wherever, because it’s his obligation to ‘fix his own country’ or some other collectivist nationalist bullshit.

            I can respect selfishness as a motive, but a selfish person should at least have the decency not to judge others for being selfish. And if you were John had the misfortune of being born in Syria, you’d be getting on the first boat to here or Canada if you had two brain cells in your head, country be damned.

    5. Yes, because we’re exactly like England. Or was it Denmark. No wait, that was Bernie.

    6. You know it’s bad when the journalist couldn’t find one orphan or grandmother in the bunch to photograph. They might’ve found the next Rolling stone cover model though


    I am sure he is just kidding about the number of cells. Only a pants shitter would think there is any reason to do anything.

    1. Aren’t they already doing everything they can to get us?

      It’s like being threatened by Al Qaeda with jihad–again.

      What, have they been holding back? Why hold back?

      1. No. There is nothing to say they are not conserving their assets for one really big hit rather than a series of small ones.

        1. Well if John and the other crazy insane asshole say so then that’s all the evidence I need.

          1. Sure he is lying. If it doesn’t fit your fantasy it must be a lie.


              1. It is a fantasy that Muslim terror is a problem. There is no such thing and it could not possibly be true that there will be more attacks

                How many people have to die so retards like you can feel good about themselves?

                1. It is a fantasy that Muslim terror is a significant problem in the US.

                  Now that makes more sense. You just need an editor, John.

                2. “It is a fantasy that Muslim terror is a significant problem in the US.”
                  How far down the list is Muslim terror on the causes of homicide and injury in the US, John? You may as well be shitting your pants about getting kidnapped by the Ukrainian Mafia and sold into sex slavery. I’m sure it happens, but not as often as you’d probably like it to happen.

          2. I will admit…

            There were a ton of pipe bombs that apparently went unused. They must have been intended for something more than raiding a Christmas party.

            If this guy lost his temper and jumped the gun, I suppose it’s possible.

            But listening to Al Qaeda threaten us always makes me shake my head. As if they weren’t really trying before? Now we’ve really made them mad?

            They were taking it easy on us?


            The powerless make threats. Even in bar fights, it isn’t the guy making the threats that you have to worry about. The scary guy don’t make threats. They just do it.

            You think Longmire ever made a threat?

            1. Idiots make threats. But that doesn’t matter when the people they are threatening are as stupid as Cytoxic and won’t believe them.

            2. I think it’s bizarre that you think that someone making threats somehow proves that they are not to be feared. Lots of bad guys make threats and follow through, from Hitler on down.

              1. “I think it’s bizarre that you think that someone making threats somehow proves that they are not to be feared.”

                You’re missing the point.

                Al Qaeda has been making threats for 15 years now.

                They would have hit us again if they could.

                They’re not holding back for strategic reasons. The reason they haven’t hit us with another spectacular attack like the one on 9/11 is becasue they can’t.

                Not becasue they don’t want to. They’re always trying to hit us–as best they can.

                At some point, their threats become ridiculous. Like a overly lenient mother who threatens to spank her out of control son–but threatens to spank him every five minutes. At some point, it is quite rational for the kid to presume that he’s never going to get spanked.

                It speaks to the credibility of the threats if they can never follow through. If someone threatened to punch you in the mouth every day for 15 years–but never did. wouldn’t you at some point start to question whether he can punch you anymore.

                We’ve had some copycat style attacks, where people got the idea they wanted to play at terrorism–went and contacted terrorists, etc. But those were lone wolves, not coordinated attacks. Those are like the two weird tween girls who stabbed that other girl a dozen times for Slender Man. You don’t blame the Slender Man Network for that.

            3. A guy I grew with is in prison for shooting a guy outside a bar. This happened about 2 minutes after threatening to shoot the guy inside the bar.

              1. Yeah, I’d take that guy’s threats seriously.

                How seriously would you take it if he’d threatened you every day for 15 years and failed to follow through?

                The guys you need to worry about generally don’t threaten you if you’re disrespectful and crude to their girlfriends. They just punch you in the mouth.

                1. So the moral to the story is is that we should wait to see of their first couple of threats are serious before we take action to defend ourselves and if not then just don;t worry about them ?

                  1. No, that’s when we call them pussies. Tease them in front of the world “Hey big tough terrorist guys, I thought you were gonna ‘ get’ us. What’s the matter? No balls? Oh, look at the little ball-less terrorist pussies…”

                    1. OR better yet, Denver, maybe we should ban “assault weapons” because there might still be sleeper cells out there waiting for the right moment.

                      Maybe we should keep the NSA sifting through our phone calls and our emails–because no one’s proven yet that there aren’t any sleeper cells out there waiting for the right moment.

                  2. “So the moral to the story is is that we should wait to see of their first couple of threats are serious before we take action to defend ourselves and if not then just don;t worry about them?”

                    The moral of the story is that assuming Al Qaeda, specifically, is holding back their sleeper cells is pretty far fetched.

                    They have been doing everything they could to hit us with a coordinated attack every single day for fifteen years–and they have failed every single day for fifteen years.

                    The idea that there are Al Qaeda sleeper cells that have been waiting for years for the right moment to attack is far fetched. There isn’t any moment coming tomorrow that was better for a terrorist attack than any other moment over the past 15 years. They want to kill as many American civilians in as spectacular a way as possible every chance they get.

                    All we get is lone wolves. That is not a coincidence. There is a reason for that. The reason they haven’t hit us with a coordinated attack over the past 15 years is becasue they can’t.

                    It is not becasue they’re holding back. It is not because their sleeper cells are waiting for the right moment.

                    I don’t know how to be better explain it.

                2. There’s also the point that Al Qaeda made threats in the 1990s and carried some of them out, rather spectacularly.

                  1. The people who made those threats are dead.

                    That’s the best thing about dead terrorists. They aren’t a threat to anyone anymore.

  28. “Scalia may have been referring to the so-called mismatch theory, which contends some minority students are harmed if they are admitted to a college or law school when their test scores are considerably below their classmates.”

    —-LA Times from link in post

    It’s okay to assume that kids with lower test scores (who apparently need affirmative action to get in) will do just as well as those with higher test scores . . . for some strange reason–but it’s not okay to question whether kids with lower test scores might do better in an environment where they aren’t forced to compete with kids with the highest test scores?


    Sounds to me like some people just want preferential treatment for blacks, and they don’t care whether or how it’s justified.

    1. If test scores don’t matter in determining success, why not just admit by lottery?

    2. I wonder how would they react if someone told them that in Great Socialist Europe, your entry to university is usually determined by how well you do on an entry exam. Compared to other people, because there’s only so many spaces, and top scorers will get them.

      1. Tell them that since test scores don’t matter we are going to stop admitting their snowflakes on the basis of scores and grades.

      2. And are not some of those entrances are determined as early as middle school here in the US ?

        1. The prep track is determined at that age. Not entrance.

    3. He cited a brief that, he said, “pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools” where they do not feel they’re being pushed in classes “that are too fast for them.”

      Most black students who are admitted to the UT Austin earned top grades in their high schools and were admitted on that basis. Only a small percentage of its minority students actually benefit from affirmative action.

      This is so damn disingenuous. The first sentence ignores the 10% rule, which is explicitly about legal (after Hopwood) affirmative action. And what little time I’ve spent on the UT campus was in the Northeast corner where the EE, CE, physics, ME, and ChemE buildings are. Rougly 100% of the blacks I saw were walking through or going to the bus stop.

  29. The Hidden Reason Why Americans Dislike Islam

    After a decade and a half of deployments over there, we know them better – and dislike them intensely. I came home from a deployment over there with far less respect for them than I left with.…..vid-french

    1. I read that and it is likely true. It is why I always laugh at the open borders people on here. These places suck and you would never want most of the people who live there anywhere near you.

      1. I just don’t understand those people. Seems like there are a lot of them that just know how to call people names. Though I’ve seen far fewer of them since the Paris attacks.

        1. Speaking for myself, I’ve given up arguing the position.

          1) It’s time consuming.

          2) It never changes minds.

          3) Cytotoxic always splashes down and proceeds to stab the open borders argument by making incredibly stupid (or even false statements).

          If you care to see how an open borders guy views the proper response to the threat of terrorism, I call your attention to a little essay I came out of retirement to publish a couple of days ago. Border control makes an appearance at the end.

          How Anarchists Should Confront the Enemy Within

          1. No I don’t.

            1. It’s so easy to get your goat

      2. “These places suck and you would never want most of the people who live there anywhere near you.”

        There you go, projecting your arbitrary preferences on other people again.

        1. How Cyto how many Syrian refugees are you letting bunk with you? Or does government have to support these people?

          1. He doesn’t want to get in the way of Trudau posing with Syrian babies. He’s big hearted, generous, fake account like that.

          2. I’ve known a few Lebanese and Palestinian people; half Christian half Muslim (by heritage at least; often like in Europe they describe themselves according to religion regardless of what they actually believe). They’ve all been quite nice.

            My experiences with Arabs (and Iranians, usually as cab drivers) have been good. They’re not as polite as East Asians (nor are Indians,in my experience, but East Asians set the bar so high in terms of courtesy), but in a lot of cities more so than the average American.

            I mean, I guess I’m special that way that I don’t wet myself at the sight of a brown person. What a weirdo I am. Just today, I saw this brown fellow walking around, and I didn’t dive under the nearest parked car for fear he would detonate the suicide vest I should probably have assumed he had on. I guess this makes me some kind of a hero, no?

        2. You are an ignorant retard who has never met these people or been to these places. You just fantasize that they are what you want them to be.

      3. These places suck and you would never want most of the people who live there anywhere near you.

        John, next time you’re in town we should hang out.

        We could get a mani pedi at the salon near my house run by a Syrian Woman who got half her family out before ISIS took Allepo. She’s not sure who killed her brother, and has no idea if her parents are alive or dead.

        In five years, her business has gone from a 3 employee show to having 7, and I’m pretty sure I saw some members of the Romney family when my fiance last had an appointment there.

        You could explain to her why she shouldn’t have been allowed in the country to begin with, and why an entrepreneur like her is a bad neighbor. I’m sure you and she would get on like houses.

        1. I would love to. Also, if she is from Aleppo she is likely a Christian. The problem is Muslims so she is likely not what I am talking about

          Even if she is, sorry life sucked for her but it is not our problem. People like her are the minority or she wouldn’t have had to leave. If you could gauaurntee that only people like her got in and not the majority of ignorant backwards fuck, that would be great. But there is no way to do that. So letting her in let’s 4 people you don’t want in.

          If everyone in Syria is like her, why is it so fucked up? Aliens?

          1. But there is no way to do that

            I don’t see why not. We’ve had Hmong wait in camps for 30 years plus before they were allowed to come. What’s so special about Syrians that they get express service?

          2. “If everyone in Syria is like her, why is it so fucked up? Aliens?”

            If this was a leftist site the answer would be colonialism AKA the white man, but sense it’s a Libertarian site I’m guessing the answer is something like government, or not enough free trade.

            For some reason people are never responsible for the governments they have.

            1. For some reason people are never responsible for the governments they have.

              In the two wolves and a sheep scenario, do you blame the sheep?

              1. In the context of the Middle East, it seems that (outside of the religious minorities like the Druze and indigenous Christians) the scenario is more like two wolves and a jackal — not fun for the jackal, but doesn’t mean we should be feeding it.

                1. If we’re going to play with the metaphor, according to MetalBard we should be feeding the alpha wolf.

                  But that is beside the point. Do you blame the sheep for the government of wolves?

                  1. You are aware of something called “culture” aren’t you? It’s not just food, and clothes. Maybe you ask you self why certain cultures produce wealth and prosperity and others produce nothing but shit?

                    Why is the west so successful compared to the Islamic world?

                    1. “Why is the west so successful compared to the Islamic world?’

                      The Reformation and the Enlightenment. Next question.

                    2. Yet you still dodge the question. This is not about the wolves. At no point have I written any defense of anyone’s culture. Do you blame the sheep?

                    3. I’m talking about people, and you keep talking animals. I’m sorry but real life is more complicated then your simplistic metaphors.

                    4. You don’t have any consistency on whether real life should be assessed simplistically or with an eye to nuance. The idea of “culture” is practically totemic in your writings. How is that not oversimplifying things?

                    5. The sheer collectivism in MetalBard is rather impressive. I know a decent number of capable doctors of Middle Eastern (Muslim) extraction. No doubt, though, their professional success is just good luck and within a couple generations they’ll be living in tends and herding camels again.

                      There are people who come to this country from rural southeast Asia that are illiterate, don’t know how to do anything but harvest rice, worship their ancestors, and they work hard and they’re children become respected physicians physicians and engineers. I know I’m throwing a turd on your little paranoia parade, but Middle Eastern immigrants seem to follow that pattern about the same as any other immigrant group. They are probably on average less troublesome in fact than immigrants from Latin America.

                      I’ve pointed this out elsewhere; as far as statistics go, a Syrian immigrant is less dangerous than a Salvadorean or Honduran or Mexican one.

              2. Has Islamic culture produced anything in it’s long history resembling a constitutional republic? I do blame the people, it’s their shitty culture that produces these despotic societies. Compare their society to western ones, where even in the times of kings there were still the idea of individual rights, even before we had modern democracies we still had the foundation for what would be free societies. or at least free-ish

                1. And yet if you were to count the number of people who made genuine intellectual contributions to the Enlightenment and to the post-Enlightenment development of classical liberalism, you would have a statistically insignificant number of people. The building of classically liberal societies largely took place outside of Europe (especially continental Europe), which continued engaging in narcissistic orgies of violence for another couple hundred years. And the most prominent society with classically liberal roots–our own–has been under constant and withering ideological attack from within from day one, having given up much ground over the years.

                  Are you responsible for the fact that most people in this country are socialists of one sort or another, and the government reflects that?

                2. Here’s the thing, MetalBard and kbolino:

                  I don’t blame the average Muhammad for how the Middle East is today. I do blame Islam for encouraging at its root level ideals about political organization that are at odds with the Western ideal of libertarian freedom. There is nothing about Arabs at a genetic level which has anything to do with the failures of Muslims at large: indeed, in Israeli society Christian Arabs tend to have higher incomes and levels of education than the (already highly-educated and high income) Jewish population. It is entirely fair to ask why it is that majority-Muslim nations are either a) failing states, b) governed non-democratically, or c) religiously-motivated. Further, why they tend to form up a violent underclass in countries which don’t share their religion. Finally, why Muslims perform so much worse than genetically equivalent Christians and the like, and why they support illiberal responses to questions regarding blasphemy and apostasy even if they have been living in developed countries their entire lives.

                  Those are all fair questions, and the answers should bear on what our immigration policy should be.

                  1. Those are all fair questions, and the answers should bear on what our immigration policy should be.

                    In a polity of conscience, the two are one and the same. In a pluralistic state, the two are almost entirely unrelated. This is the fundamental disconnect we’re at. We don’t live in a single society of like-minded individuals benevolently ruled by the best of us. We live in an amalgamation of many different societies loosely cobbled together by some shared cultural markers and a government of people whose only redeeming quality is that they are more incompetent than they are corrupt.

                    1. In a pluralistic state

                      Even a plurality has to hold values in common in order to hold polity in common — else the rational response is dissolution of the polity.

                      In the case of the US, one of these values is the ability to hold one’s religion and exercise it without harm coming to others, and the ability to criticize other religions — the marketplace of religion is fundamental to our pluralistic values, and the idea of religious oligopoly or monopoly is alien to us. In Islamic cultures, it is the exact opposite: religious monopoly is the norm, and a free marketplace of religion is completely alien. This has been integral to Islam’s politics since Muhammad and Abu Bakr, and there is no sense in inviting another society into our plurality which does not share this value as the most likely outcome is a dilution of this value.

                    2. There is a space between extending an invitation and refusing all comers. But more importantly, to the extent religious liberty is a valid principle, it is valid regardless of whether the religion in question is Islam or Christianity or any other set of beliefs. If the practice of Islam demands that it wield political power in illiberal fashion, then it will find no place in liberal societies. To say that there must exist at the gates of society an arbiter of who is compatible with liberalism is to refute the point I originally took issue with. If one method of organizing government exists independent of the people who live under it, then don’t they all?

                  2. ” Further, why they tend to form up a violent underclass in countries which don’t share their religion”

                    This is something very important to consider. Look at modern day France, I bet they wish they had a time machine and could go back and prevent all that muslim immigration in the first place. It would have been a lot easier then trying to figure what to do when they’re already 10% of your population.

                    When every country in Europe seems to be having the same problem, maybe we could learn from them instead of arrogantly repeating the same mistakes.

                    1. As has been pointed out numerous times, France has a bunch of Muslims because they conquered Muslim countries then integrated them into Metropolitan France. I don’t think anyone except the most fervent neocon (for once, a correct use of the term) is proposing any such thing, arrogantly or otherwise.

                    2. Are you suggesting that if France opened up its borders, they wouldn’t have plenty of Muslims jumping at the opportunity to emigrate? France’s economy may be shit compared to ours, but it’s pretty nice for someone who’s lived in, say, Libya the past 40 years.

                    3. I’m sure there would be a lot of people jumping at the opportunity to collect French welfare benefits, but as I noted above there is a space between invitation and refusal. Moreover, whatever might happen going forward has no bearing on what did happen in the past.

                    4. That is such a non-sequitur. They allowed millions of Muslims to settle there, France’s past colonial history is irrelevant to that.

                    5. They allowed millions of Muslims to settle there, France’s past colonial history is irrelevant to that.

                      That has to be the strangest thing I’ve ever read. While slavery has no practical bearing on modern lives, saying that it has no bearing on there being millions of people of African descent in this country would be absurd.

                    6. So the French brought in millions of Muslim slaves? This is news to me.

                    7. Either analogies are acceptable or they aren’t. My analogy is certainly no less valid for the purpose of the argument I am making than your analogy is for the purposes of yours.

                    8. Or, you know, go back in time and change their economic policies so that immigrants of all types aren’t herded into the banlieues and form a permanent economic underclass.

                  3. There is nothing about Arabs at a genetic level which has anything to do with the failures of Muslims at large

                    Actually, 1400+ years of cousin marriage has damaged their genes. It doesn’t explain the failures of Islam so much as compound them, but it’s actual science: inbreeding increases genetic diseases and lowers IQ.

        2. How come the argument is always something along the lines of “Hey I know this Muslim and they’re really nice I bet you wouldn’t tell them to their face that they shouldn’t be allowed in here.”

          Werner Von Braun I’m sure was a nice guy, without him we probably wouldn’t have beat the Russians to the moon, but that doesn’t change the face that Nazism is a terrible ideology, and letting in thousands of Nazis into the country is a bad idea.

        3. I’ll say it: she doesn’t deserve to be in the country anymore than anyone else from the outside does. The people born here were at the very least brought into being by the people who made this country what it is; those from outside have no such connection to our country and there is no outstanding reason to believe that she would adapt well to our country’s institutions.

          Speaking selfishly, I’m glad that my home island was taken over during one of the US’ imperialist fits; beats growing up in a backwater colony of Spain by a long shot. But had it not been, I don’t see how I would have had any claim to the nice things (institutionally speaking) that the US has. Actualized liberty in the US context and otherwise is the result of institutions rather than mere negligence — and many people are just not cut out to put in the work for it. That group of people has no fealty to us, and we have none to them. I’m sure that your Syrian woman is a delightful person. She might be a liberty-affirming person. It is up to her to show that she is that to the satisfaction of us who live in the country, and I have no problem with saying so. If she’s not, I don’t see why anyone who cares about freedom would want her in the country to begin with. There are options besides inviting the world to live here in cases of refugee and humanitarian crises.

          1. The only thing anyone “deserves” is respect for their life, liberty, and property. For someone who entered this country without government assistance, who obeys the law and pays taxes no differently from a citizen, to talk of whether they “deserve” to be here is nonsense. If they have aggressed against no one, if they have followed the rules, then there is not a soul on Earth with any right to stop them.

            1. The only thing anyone “deserves” is respect for their life, liberty, and property

              Then respect the property of citizens by allowing them say in what people get to use their community property — including tangibles like taxpayer-funded services, and intangibles like cultural and social institutions created by Americans for their children to be able to prosper, hold their property, speak out against other religions and for their own, and to not be treated as second-class within their own country.

              No one deserves to be here if they are not wanted by those who have to maintain that community property, and those who are allowed entrance should be allowed in per whatever the decision-making process for usage of that community property happens to be.

              1. Which is the foundation of this country, classical liberalism or managerial liberalism? You are going to have to sort out which is more important, the ability to criticize institutions or the ability to control them, because the two are at cross purposes.

                1. One’s ability to criticize or control institutions is at terrible odds with an illiberal population which chooses to use violence to forestall the debate, or which supports those who do. Tell me, how good was the ability of Southern blacks to criticize *or* control institutions after Reconstruction was ended? Or the current state of criticism/control in Muslim-majority countries for Christians, atheists, or Ba’hai?

                  Inter-liberal debates are meaningless to an illiberal population. If you want a liberal polity, you need either an intentional community organized around liberal principles which can defend itself from external threats (i.e., the US or Switzerland), or an undemocratic imposition of such from the top (i.e., enlightened nobility). It is difficult as is to keep intentional communities alive among people who are raised in them; it becomes much more difficult when adding members who don’t agree with the charter.

                  1. If we are at such a point that intra-liberal debate cannot be had due to the threat of illiberal people enacting violence upon us, then building a wall, literally or metaphorically, is not going to be enough. At some we will have to sally out and meet the opponent on the field.

                    1. Any defense which successfully forestalls conflict is sufficient — and it would seem to me that countries like Japan and Korea (which plenty of Muslims would like to immigrate to, if given the chance) are doing just fine by not increasing their Muslim population beyond negligible levels.

                      And I would rather not find out how many illiberal barbarians need to be imported before we get to that point. I don’t see the benefit nor do I see it as our responsibility or burden to allow foreigners entry — and as it is our country and we are the ones primarily affected at an aggregate level, we should be the ones who are given deference in this decision using our customary methods for deciding how our community property is used.

                    2. Japan and Korea are not liberal countries. I’d rather visit there than the Middle East, but I would no more want to be ruled by the quasi-fascists of Japan or the semi-reformed junta of Korea than by Islamists.

            2. If they have aggressed against no one

              But what if they believe in aggression against apostates, blasphemers, gays, and Jews, and just haven’t acted on it yet? And note that France’s post-colonial Muslim immigrants were largely fine, but their kids and grandkids are committing terror attacks.

              Libertarianism is not a suicide pact. Importing people who are opposed to libertarian values is suicidal in the long run. And of course, that’s the plan of the Democratic Party: import enough Third Worlders who will vote for more government. Don’t go along with their plan.

    2. After 9/11 I had a low opinion of Islam, then I started reading about the religion, I read about the history of the Islamic world, and I read the Koran, and found out that it’s actually much worse then I originally imagined.

      1. Meet some actual Muslims and it will get even lower.

    3. A quote I got (second hand) from a Bosnian Muslim was “What do Arabs know about Islam? They just come and spoil our peasants.”

      Because I don’t think US troops who served in Bosnia or Turkey would be as disgusted.

      1. They just come and spoil our peasants

        I don’t get this. Do they mean “spoil” as in treat too nicely? Or “spoil” as in change them into rotten crazed zealots?

        1. The second, just not sure which word to use to translate – “ruin” was direct translation, I guess.

          There is a bit of humor in that part of turning them into zealots is that they get crazy notions about all brothers in Islam being equal, instead of proper understanding that, just because we are in the mosque, it doesn’t mean that rules of society stop applying.
          Not sure if that’s something that came with Turks, or just one of the quirks that Bosnians added to Islam in general (like being big on music with singing, drinking certain kinds of alchohol and having latticed windows specially built for courting).

          1. I was in Sarajevo in 1997 – the only thing I didn’t like about Islam there was the giant Iranian Cultural Center being built to try and shit-head these folks up…

    4. It’s the uncanny valley.

      We empathize with things the more they are like us, right up until a certain point, and then the more they are like us, the more our empathy falls off a cliff.

      Absence makes the heart grow fonder on one side, and on the other side, familiarity breeds contempt.

      1. Also, an idealized version of Islam and Islamic history would be a useful stick to beat the West with.

        This actually goes back to the 17th and 18th centuries – even while Barbary corsairs were enslaving Europeans on merchant ships, European intellectuals were contrasting an idealized Islamic world with the abuses they denounced in Europe.

        1. Also, an idealized version of Islam and Islamic history would be a useful stick to beat the West with.

          My favorite is “but they preserved knowledge of Greeks and Romans.”

          Bitch, the knowledge was there for the taking had you wanted it. There was that whole Eastern Roman Empire preserving and studying it, just you bastards were too busy cleaving each other with axes to care.

          1. Plus, the whole bit about the Islamic empires being wholly uninterested in the Greek and Roman knowledge until they started dialogue with Christian Nestorians; ditto medical knowledge in Islamic empires (but add Jews to the mix on that one).

            The early Muslims were genius-level administrators and governors for a good long while, and kick-ass soldiers, but that’s pretty much it.

            1. Did they ever actually invent anything of their own or did they just take the knowledge of the Eastern Roman empire and add an Islamic veneer to it?

              1. Oh, no, they were quite inventive. Lot of stuff in astronomy, math and medicine was done by Arab scholars (or at least, scholars living in various Arab states, ethnicity being more malleable back then). But absent them (and yes, The Franks) wrecking Eastern Empire, and Reneissance could have happened couple centuries earlier.

              2. They invented plenty of shit, but not much more than your usual empire (probably less than the historical average for a Middle Eastern empire, tbh) and not until later in their empire. In all honesty their philosophical period was also quite brief and somewhat overrated. I’d judge the High Middle Ages in Europe as more productive for philosophy and logic than the equivalent epoch in the Islamic world, and the stateless, minority Jews of both regions punched well above their weight on those issues as well.

                It’s hard to tell whether the Roman Empire or the early Islamic caliphate is more overrated for technological/philosophical advancement. It’s all been downhill since the Greeks, in terms of intellectual output per citizen.

                1. The high middle ages gets overlooked far too often. Thats when the concept of natural law developed which would later become the precursor to the scientific method. There is a reason European society started to vastly outpace the rest of the world during a following centuries.

    5. I came home from a deployment over there with far less respect for them than I left with.


    6. If David French wrote it, you know it’s just as reliable as something from Katherine Jean Lopez.

      1. But with less marriage.

    7. Interesting; I’ve experience a parallel. The more time I spend around US military personnel the less respect I have for them.

  30. Derp from my backyard: Tucson Edition

    The controversial university-area restaurant Illegal Pete’s opened its doors Thursday evening with about 50 student protesters, who chained themselves together and chanted slogans, in front of the entrance[…] The protest was organized by several high school and university student groups including the University of Arizona Chicano-rights group M.E.Ch.A., which claims the word “Illegal” in the restaurant’s name is a racial slur.

    1. the University of Arizona Chicano-rights group M.E.Ch.A.

      Wait…what?? Why do they get that acronym? That should be reserved for a Japanese Identity org.

      1. The Chicano org. dates from the late ’60s, so I think it predates the Japanese anime robots. (But I am not an expert on the latter, so I’m not sure.)

        1. Nothing pre-dates Japanese anime robots. They have been here all along.

  31. Rand Paul is the only Republican candidate I would vote for.

    That being said, at this point I don’t see why he’s even staying in. The GOP electorate has made it abundantly clear that they’re not done with the neoconservative big-government thing yet.

    1. “Just one more statist hit, man, then I’ll go clean, I promise!”

  32. Are ‘Sexy’ Buses, Tunnels and Tolls the Answer to L.A. Traffic?: Los Angeles’ city plan wants you out of your car (however unrealistic that is). By Paul Detrick

    Congestion pricing doesn’t work in Puget Sound (thus far).

    Tolls on the new Interstate 405 express lanes hit $10 on Thursday, and traffic was still bogged down. Relentless congestion raises questions about whether the new Lynnwood-Bellevue toll corridor is properly designed, and whether demand exceeds state planning.

    1. A sexy bus? Kind of like a succu-bus?

      /joke ripped off of Pete Abrams

      1. I guess “sexy” bus is intended to fight the perception that (in LA, at least) only poor losers take a bus so they need to spice it up somehow. Make it faster and more comfortable, say.

      2. Matched with dark rail.

  33. This piece of American history will surprise you!

    “God moves in mysterious ways. Who would have thought that an old philosopher, a religious sceptic, a political free thinker, a practising politician would earn the role as Godfather of the Catholic Church in America?”

    1. Godfather II was better

  34. Maybe Ron shoukd have ran instead of Rand.

    1. Flunk 6th grade English?

      should have run

  35. Rand Paul? Oooooh, Ron’s boy, the one who wants to strip women of individual rights if they have sex. Someone expected him to reeeeally impress voters interested in individual rights?

    1. “wants to strip women of individual rights if they have sex.”

      WTF are you talking about – federalized abortion laws?


    2. Oooooh, Ron’s boy, the one who wants to strip women of individual rights if they have sex.

      “Reagan’s teen sex initiative- ‘Hey girls. suck more dick’.” – Richard Belzer


    Update: Rand on the big stage Tuesday:

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.