FBI Director Says San Bernardino Shooters Not Part of Terror Cell, Hung Jury in Freddie Gray Case, Parrots Can Use Tools: P.M. Links

|

  • Pinterest

    FBI Director James Comey said there was no evidence the San Bernardino shooters were part of a terror cell, but that both that and the Chattanooga are terrorist attacks being investigated as such.

  • The Fed has increased interest rates by a quarter of a point, the first time it has done so in nine years.
  • The judge has declared a hung jury in the trial of the first of six officers charged in Freddie Gray's death in Baltimore. The jury deliberated for three days but could not reach a decision.
  • The Cybersecurity Act of 2015 found a place in the omnibus spending bill Congress cobbled together to keep the government funded.
  • The Obama administration continued its spree of arms sales, announcing a package worth $1.83 billion headed to Taiwan.
  • Of the 1,356 bias complaints filed against officers of the Los Angeles Police Department, none were upheld by the department.
  • A ceasefire established in Yemen on Tuesday has already been broken, with reports of ground fighting in one city and Saudi-led airstrikes in the capital.
  • New research from the United Kingdom finds parrots that can use tools.

New at Reason.com:

NEXT: Ferguson Thinks It May Have to Raise Taxes in Order to Stop Abusing Citizens

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. The Fed has increased interest rates by a quarter of a point, the first time it has done so in nine years.

    YOU DIDN’T THINK THE SUMMER OF RECOVERY WOULD BE FREE DID YOU?

    1. This has been a very long summer of recovery. I blame global warming.

      1. Winter is coming?

    2. Hello.

      1. How ya been Rufus

        1. Could be better. The igloo is melting.

          1. blow the bubber lamp out and put your frozen feet up under an old woman’s boosoms.

          2. Doesn’t “igloo” count as hate speech in Canada?

    3. Is that 1/4th of 1/10th of 1/100th? Practically the smallest amount possible?

      1. Wait, I think I’m still off by an order or so of magnitude. This is a really tiny interest rate. Can someone edumacate me?

        1. It’s 1/4th of 1/100th.

          1. of a percent?

            1. It’s 0.25%.

              1. It’s 25 basis points.

                1. On what basis?

                2. Do assists count as points? Because in American sports they don’t.

      2. waffles,

        At 0.25%, it is still large enough to raise U.S. national debt service by (18.8 trillion dollars * 0.0025), or 47 billion USD. Which is roughly what the DOJ spends per year, according to Heritage Foundation. The 18.8 trillion figure doesn’t count unfunded liabilities like future Medicare or SSI of course.

        We, the people owe a metric fuckton of money. Several of them actually, at 1 gram per 100 USD bill. it’d be 188 million kilograms, or a little over 200,000 tons. Your basic giant supertanker, only made out of 100 dollar bills.

        1. It’s cool to see the SI definition of a fuckton explained so clearly.

        2. The added debt service as a result of this hike, if the hike were applied to all of the money the Fed owed, would be a little over 500 tons, which IIRC is around the size of your basic large fishing trawler.

        3. GG,

          Thank you for the explanation.

        4. giant supertanker?

          Is that deadweight or lightweight or ship tonnage ?

          1. I was thinking deadweight tonnage (DWT) when I wrote the comment, as that’s how crude carriers are usually classified. But that properly refers to the mass of the cargo, not the ship carrying it.

            For the largest crude carriers, now the TI-Class supertankers, the difference between DWT and displacement tonnage (how much water the ship itself displaces, without measuring cargo), is gigantic. Kinda like them. TI’s displace ‘only’ 67,000 tons or so, but can carry about 450,000 tons of oil when fully loaded. I can’t find the actual figures anywhere, but I am guessing a VLCC’s ration is something like 45k tons displacement to 200k tons or so DWT.

            So think of it as a VLCC, with its tanks overflowing with 100s, since paper money’s density is less than that of crude oil, and not a tanker made out of money.

            Better?

    4. Also:

      I wanted to give the new Paul Feig Ghostbusters movie a chance… but that first promo pic looks awful. Really awful.

      1. Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd are irreplaceable.

        1. And Harold Ramis and Ivan Reitman.

          That movie was great entirely because of the people who made it. I see no point at all to a reboot/remake.

          1. It’s also a product of its time. The same movie wouldn’t have been nearly as much of a hit if it was released 5 years earlier or 5 years later.

            It’s like trying to remake the Wizard of Oz.

    5. Does Fist work for Reason, it’s the only logical explanation for his reign of firstism. But which of the Reasonoids could he be.

        1. Matt Welch = Fist of Etiquette = Palin’s Buttplug

          Amazing, one man can do all that? He’s like the Seth MacFarlane of libertarian chat.

      1. Fist has a time machine.

        1. Look, Fist may be many things, but he is NOT Warty.

  2. FBI Director James Comey said there was no evidence the San Bernardino shooters were part of a terror cell…

    HAS HE CHECKED THEIR PINTEREST PAGE YET?

    1. It was baking recipes and wedding dresses all the way down.

      1. Yeah, all the way down TO JIHAD.

        1. Jihad me convinced for a minute there

      2. Way to other cats there.

        1. How do Bayern fans feel about the draw?

          1. I’ve been too busy to talk to any.

        2. You’re thinking of Tumblr, but cats always deserve a good othering. Soulless husks they are.

          1. Betty will maim you for that. Betty will maim you anyway, but you’ll think it’s for that and that’s what matters.

            1. But I thought she was presenting her belly for a good rubbing!

              1. Well, now you know what happens when she retroactively retracts continuous enthusiastic consent, don’t you?

          2. Whatever, my cats are wonderful, loving companions. Who vomit just, like, everywhere.

                1. That is why doors have a “close” function.

              1. Ah! There you are, CJ…

                So, what do the rankings look like for today?

  3. New research from the United Kingdom finds parrots that can use tools.

    That explains some of our trolls.

    1. That crackered, um, CRACKED me up!

    2. I always thought Shriek was the result of somebody trying to prove the “infinite monkeys” theory, except they only had enough money for 3 monkeys.

      1. Hey, at least they could afford to get those three monkeys liquored up.

        1. But why couldn’t they afford diapers? The monkeys just end up throwing shit at the keyboard half the time.

    3. And apparently their language skills are not the mere “parroting” of human speech as was long-thought. We are fast approaching the day when we will finally acknowledge that intelligence and language skills fall in a continuum, no bright dividing line between humans and other animals.

      1. Uh oh. 3, 2, 1…

        (You like the whining, don’t you? You can tell me the truth, Tonio.)

        1. Crikey, she’s on to me! BTW, that “fist” joke the other day was hilarious.

          1. Aw, thanks. Yeah I don’t know when I’m going to get the chance to top that.

            1. [narrows gaze]

              1. [kicks sand]

      2. Not gonna lie, i cried at the end of that documentary about Alex the Africa Grey parrot.

        1. I’m glad I’m not the only softie.

      3. We are fast approaching the day when we will finally acknowledge that intelligence and language skills fall in a continuum, no bright dividing line between humans and other animals.

        I think there is dividing line; but it is in human capacity to remember things beyond a couple generations through abstractions like writing etc. – which itself is extension of language, something humans are best at among land dwellers. That is the difference that makes the disparity between a human being and a bright animal like a chimp or parrot seem so severe.

        But if one compares such critters to people living prehistorical style without millennia-long cultural memory, like Bushmen, there is intelligence gap to be sure but the continuum you speak of becomes readily apparent.

        1. And I acknowledge that a fully functional person of even very modest intelligence is going to be smarter than the smartest chimp or parrot. But that doesn’t mean, for me anyway, that the non-humans are the moral equivalent of lumps of clay. Nor does it mean that a blastocyst-stage embryo is a person.

          1. And I acknowledge that a fully functional person of even very modest intelligence is going to be smarter than the smartest chimp or parrot

            If you see some parrots building a particle collider or working on nuclear fusion, let me know, that might mean something.

        2. Are animals aware of their own mortality? Does a parrot ponder deep thoughts like:

          Who am I?
          Why am I here?
          What does it mean to be a parrot?
          Why must I die?
          What happens after I die?
          Why do I or anything else exist at all?
          What are those glowing things in the night sky?
          What is out there?
          What is that thing on Donald Trump’s head?

          Let me know when parrots start pondering deep subjects such as that.

          1. And right on cue there’s the false dichotomy.

            1. Nobody expects the false dichotomy. Its chief weapon is fear and surprise.

            2. Explain why it’s a false dichotomy, Tonio. I like this conversation. I like science. I freaking love science!

              1. Were you the one who told me there was D-D fusion in Jupiter’s core? Cause I went on a tubes hunt, the only thing I found was “Hot Jupiters” of mass about 13-30 times that of our Jupiter are suspected of it but every article says our Jupiter is an entire order of magnitude away from even the easiest of fusion. It DOES have a metallic hydrogen core though which is super awesome.

                1. Big shit like Sun uses catalytic fusion reaction where the confinement part of Lawson Law is long, but the temps/pressures are actually low (2.0x^7 atmos/degrees both) by nuclear standards. If it was D-D in objects like that, there would be a runaway reaction and a boom I think.

                2. I’m not sure if that question was to Tony or me. It wasn’t me that told you that, though.

                  1. Tonio, sorry.

                3. Yeah. Just imagine having a metallic hydrogen motorcycle.

          2. Does a parrot ponder deep thoughts like: What is that thing on Donald Trump’s head?

            Oh, come on now. Do you really think that any bird would have difficulty recognizing a nest?

            1. Yes, I have a planter outside that they constantly mistake for one for some reason.

          3. Are animals aware of their own mortality? Does a parrot ponder deep thoughts like:

            Who am I?
            Why am I here?

            I think you are thinking not of a parrot, but of a whale, who briefly materialized and pondered these as the result of an Infinite Improbability Drive.

            1. Was the improbability drive built by parrots?

          1. Mr Gussie H. Bondy, call your office.

          2. Oh yeah, can dolpins 3D print one of those sponges? Huh, huh, can they?

            1. I’m going to assume you’re just trying to nettle Tonio and not actually being serious, but in case you aren’t

              FTA:

              The findings, published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, offer the first direct evidence that dolphins’ use of tools can help them to exploit new food environments in their ecosystems. Which would be a form of environmental engineering.

              These dolphins exhibit tool use that’s passed down within families and developed only recently which has significantly changed their diets even in comparison to other dolphins in the same group who don’t use tools.

              From you:

              You know, humans have evolved over at least a couple hundred thousand years after they basically become the only real creature to start evolving based on tool making. The way I see it, the future of human evolution is technology.

              I don’t see where any other animal currently on that path.

              Well, now you have, just a few hundred years into the process instead of a couple hundred thousand of years.

              1. Global warming, Jesse, the dolphins behavior is caused by global warming. Duh!

                And no, I wasn’t trying to mess with Tonio, I was trying to start an interesting conversation. But my opinion is that there are no animals currently on a path to start becoming creators of advanced technology. A lot of animals use primitive technology, but there’s no proof that I know of them moving on to use more advanced technology. In this case, they are using simple items that they found in nature. I mean birds do that all the time, so do beavers, and other animals. I don’t see any evidence of anything beyond that.

              2. Well, now you have, just a few hundred years into the process instead of a couple hundred thousand of years.

                Why do we think that dolphins are only a few hundred years into the process and not hundreds of thousands?

                The problem with living in the ocean is it’s really hard to remember where you put something down. Even if dolphins are as smart as people, the lack of hands and the basic impossibility of having a permanent physical dwelling really makes material culture and technology a lot more difficult.

                1. The article specifically mentions that based on the population distribution and how the specific technique of sponging is passed down that they believe there was a single dolphin that that developed the technique and started passing it down approximately 180 years ago. I could speculate about other things, but 180 years was the time frame I felt confident about referencing.

                  And always appropriate:

                  For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much?the wheel, New York, wars and so on?whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man?for precisely the same reasons.

                  1. So, is there a link to the excavation site and a carbon dating for these 180 year old tools?

                    We can’t just speculate on this stuff. Well, I mean we can, but that it all it will be, speculation.

                    No one is questioning that animals are intelligent and some use primitive tools. But we need hard evidence that some animals have just recently began using more advanced tools. There’s the key, a progression from more simple tools to more advanced tools. This is where you find that the animal is actually self aware that it’s using tools to it’s advantage and that maybe it can make a better tool. That shows cognitive thinking and self awareness. I need to see this before I can take it seriously.

                    1. Here’s a question for you, Hyperion. Is the degree of technological advancement that you are talking about something a class of beings needs to be capable of in order to be considered a morally significant creature on the level of humans? Or could that be just one way of telling?
                      If, for example, dolphins were really as described in jesse’s Douglas Adams quote and had the capacity to look at humans and think how silly we are for wasting time building cities and stuff, would having that sort of inner life not be enough? I suppose the problem is we just can’t know until a dolphin decides to (and figures out how to) start talking to us.

                    2. They know how to talk. We don’t know how to listen.

                    3. That’s a good question, Jeb. But I don’t see how that can be answered in a definitive manner.

                      class of beings needs to be capable of in order to be considered a morally significant creature on the level of humans

                      See, I don’t even know how to define what the fuck that means. I was talking only about technological capability and the natural evolution of that capability.

                      Now, you’re going off into philosophical territory.

                      Some humans are definitely immoral to an extent that I’m not sure what it takes to be more immoral. But that’s all a matter of perspective, no?

                    4. Claiming that we can’t make inferences from observable phenomena is just silly. Plenty of received human history is inferred off of fragments of a jaw bone here and a chip of pottery shard there, an offhanded reference in a saga about conquering a people who left little material cultures over yonder. You can only claim that humans developed tools incrementally because they progressed far enough to make arrowheads and stone axes. We can assume that humans dug holes with flat rocks lying conveniently around before getting the idea to shape them specifically to a task, or sharpened sticks before affixing arrowheads because we have the arrowheads and the adzes as a point to speculate back from.

                    5. Well, Jesse, there are a group of people in Bosnia who think some hills there are ancient pyramids. They made that assumption based on an observable phenomenon. The hills look like pyramids.

                      I need hard evidence. Archaeologist and anthropologists don’t decree that a species advanced from one type tool to another with no evidence. That’s my point.

                      I’m not questioning that the dolphins are using those tools. I’m questioning how recently they started doing so.

                      But even then, I’m asking for progression. How have they evolved in the development and use of those tools? Lots of animals use simple tools. They just don’t move on to use more advanced tools.

                    6. Yeah, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say you’re not arguing in good faith at this point.

                      Based on genetics and observed pod dynamics is a wee bit different than “hey that hill looks like a pyramid!” Also did you actually *read* the article or are you just free-handing your understanding of this?

                      Archaeologist and anthropologists don’t decree that a species advanced from one type tool to another with no evidence.

                      I think you might be surprised how thin the physical evidence can be for archeological/anthropological “decrees”

                2. he problem with living in the ocean

                  Yeah, that iron age is gonna be a bitch. Not sure how they get past it.

        3. But I like this conversation. So what are these ‘tools’ that the parrots have been observed using? Did they have little spears and were hunting in a pack, chasing a wildebeest across the savannah? Did they build a fire and cook the beast after bringing it down?

          You know, humans have evolved over at least a couple hundred thousand years after they basically become the only real creature to start evolving based on tool making. The way I see it, the future of human evolution is technology.

          I don’t see where any other animal currently on that path.

          1. The way I see it, the future of human evolution is technology. I don’t see where any other animal currently on that path.

            Wolves-to-pugs did not evolve naturally, for instance. Lots of creatures have been, and ever more will be, driven by human inputs from evolutionary perspective – some consciously by people (fucking pugs?), others passively. For instance pigeons, kudzu or boa constrictors, just from the Columbian Exchange of past 500 years.

            1. People evolved naturally through our own technology until we are getting the point that we’ll be able to advance even more rapidly … yeah, we’ll probably make all sorts of animal hybrids, some of them far more intelligent than any currently. But like the pug, that won’t be them advancing naturally, that will be a more advanced species fucking with them genetically. Frankenpugs, OH NOES!!!

              1. good. I want a miniature Rhino about the size of a medium sized dog.

                And a monkey butler. I will pay the monkey, but not $15/hr.

                1. I see a budding animal lawyer business.

                2. And a monkey butler

                  How many monkey butlers?

      4. Yeah, some birds are pretty incredible.

        I don’t think too many people (at least those who don’t think that humans are the special work of a divine creator meant to rule over all other life) really think that there is a clear bright line. The main reason I object to certain laws regarding animal cruelty or some notions of animal rights is that until we find an animal that we can actually converse with, it’s all mostly projection of human characteristics onto animals. And when it comes to livestock, strong property rights are important.

        I guess I am sold on the idea of the continuum and that some animals probably have some sort of complex inner life. But I’m not at all sold on making laws about it.

        1. I don’t think too many people (at least those who don’t think that humans are the special work of a divine creator meant to rule over all other life) really think that there is a clear bright line.

          I, as somebody who thinks “that humans are the special work of a divine creator meant to rule over all other life,” have a really hard time drawing a clear bright line. It’s like things built with Legos. Sure, a 1:10 scale fully-equipped skyscraper built by a team of professionals is different from a crude house built by a 4 year old, but it’s still the same basic building blocks assembled in similar ways.

          Similarly, animals (sans people) are constituted by the same “building blocks” and the same “techniques” as humans. I think it’s really hard to just draw a line in the sand and say “this level of brain complexity” or “this type of cognition” or “this action” gets you in the “morally significant entity” club.

          1. I didn’t mean to imply that all believers in a creator can see a bright line. Just that most people who do see one believe something along those lines.

            And yeah, it was probably a lot easier to be certain that people were uniquely created in the creator’s image before we knew about biology an dhow similar all complex life really is.

            1. it was probably a lot easier to be certain that people were uniquely created in the creator’s image before we knew about biology an dhow similar all complex life really is

              That’s a little bit of a different question, but a fun one. Do we have to be categorically different than animals to exert dominion over them? What does dominion mean (we normally think killing and eating them, but a large part of dominion is domestication in a symbiotic relationship)?

              I think that one can believe that man and animals are categorically similar in design without giving up on the idea of a Creator. Especially in certain Christian circles who believe that “image of God” means the soul, not the body.

    4. They do squawk a lot.

      1. And they shit everywhere.

        1. So there are a couple similarities with humans.

      2. And they can yearn intensely for a favored place, such as an inlet body of water.

        1. Pining for the fjords?

  4. Of the 1,356 bias complaints filed against officers of the Los Angeles Police Department, none were upheld by the department.

    Boom. Perfect score.

    1. Procedures were followed.

  5. Sure, you could read the stupid PM links. But how about a guy getting stabbed by a porcupine just because?

    1. Was it in a porcupine-free zone?

      1. Most likely not, but in the spirit of objectification, I will answer “would” for jesse.in.mb. (The safari man, of course.)

        1. Really?

            1. I mean, I wouldn’t NOT, but nothing about him makes me want to put effort in.

              1. Well I’ll be, I never thought I’d use the words “picky” and “Jesse” in a positive sentence.

                1. That’s hurtful. I bet you won’t be able to do it with “very picky” though.

                2. I’m not sure that that qualifies as a ‘positive sentence’?

                  Just because it’s not as negative as normal, doesn’t make it positive.

                  1. I simply meant I wouldn’t use Jesse and picky in a sentence with a (grammatically) negative word like “no” or “not.”

  6. New research from the United Kingdom finds parrots that can use tools.

    Polly wants a Black & Decker.

    1. Not a cracker?

      1. Polly wants a honkie, not a cracker.

        1. Polly wants a honkie, not a cracker.

          Polly must be an African parrot.

          1. That honkie gotta have junk in the trunk!

        2. And it all went racist from here.

  7. Mountie only guilty of ‘not using enough force,’ judge says in assault trial

    An Alberta provincial court judge said the only thing RCMP Const. Brendon Plamondon is guilty of is “not using enough force” when he arrested a 15-year-old girl.

    Judge Ferne LeReverend acquitted Plamondon of assault.

    Plamondon ordered the girl, who weighs about 100 pounds, to get her hands out of her pockets. She refused, and he approached her with handcuffs. A one-minute, 12-second physical struggle ensued that the judge described as “ugly.”

    Go figure.

    1. Because fuck you, eh?

      1. It’s aboot time for a beat down.

        1. YOU GUYS REALLY NEED TO WORK ON YOUR CANADIAN CLICHES.

          1. Stop poutine me down.

            1. Toque you long enough to come up with that, Fist.

    2. Where is Rufus when we really need him?

      1. Jail, probably.

        1. My wife feels the loony bin is more likely.

          1. Isn’t that where you Canucks keep your $1 bills?

            1. Bills?

              Surely you jest.

              LOONIES ARE COINS.

              Must I teach you people everything?

              1. I’m an American, i ain’t have time to know facts about Canada!

                  1. HOCKEY PUCKS MADE OF MAPLE SYRUP

                  2. Canada’s culottes!

                1. Oh, “Canada.” Like that’s a real place.

                    1. I think I’ve lost the room.

                      I’m just gonna wait for tomorrow’s links.

              2. LOONIES ARE COINS.

                They’re foockin subway tokens.

      2. I’m right here.

        TOWERING ABOVE ALL.

        1. Damn your nimble fingers!

      3. He appeared up at the top of the comments.

  8. A quarter point, eh? Guess it’s time to throw it all into a savings account. At least I will get a free teddy bear out of it, if I pick the right bank.

    1. Or a plushy lion if you pick yet another bank.

  9. The jury deliberated for three days but could not reach a decision.

    On whether he was a great policeman or the greatest policeman.

  10. hung jury

    How hung?

    1. That jury was so hung that it split the city in two.

    2. We’ll have to ask William Hung and his Hung Jury. Only with approval by Judge Reinhold of course.

      1. Truly Diggleresque in its hungness.

    3. Lex Steele was jury foreman, that’s how hung.

  11. “Guy in full camo with camo backpack and long shiny object. could have been a tripod.”

    UTA police say the man had a video camera, not a gun

    “F-stop, or I’ll shoot!”

    1. Looks like this photog…

      [dons sunglasses]

      …developed a negative reaction.

      1. *slowly narrows gaze…then looks around nervously for Swis*

        1. You can’t narrowly gaze a sunglasses quote.

  12. Someone’s already posted this right? Charity is bad cause it didn’t go to TOP MEN…

    http://tinyurl.com/pdqp3gp

    1. I don’t click on tinyurl links because you never know what’s behind them.

      Here’s how you do that properly. Use angle brackets instead of square:

      [a href=”www.somewebsite.com”]this text will appear in orange and be a clickable link[/a]

      1. I’m relatively new at this, thanks for the help. I didn’t know I could just HTML it.

    2. (Chan & Zuckerberg) do not have a sterling track record when it comes to effective charity. One of their previous efforts, a high-profile $100 million donation to fix the schools in Newark, N.J., has been widely criticized as a failure.

      Wow. As if government graft has a good track record. Also, Fuck Peter Kramer.

      1. Yeah, that was one of the saddest wastes of money possible. My only hope is that several years down the road he’ll realize what a mistake he made and go public about that. And I realize the difference between hoping something will happen and it being likely that thing will happen.

        1. They already did admit it was a failure.

    3. Kr?mer: I find the US initiative highly problematic. You can write donations off in your taxes to a large degree in the USA. So the rich make a choice: Would I rather donate or pay taxes? The donors are taking the place of the state. That’s unacceptable.

      Uh… fuck you Kramer

    4. So the rich make a choice: Would I rather donate or pay taxes? The donors are taking the place of the state. That’s unacceptable.

    5. The donors are taking the place of the state. That’s unacceptable.

      Dude. Try to sound a little less fascist.

      What legitimacy do these people have to decide where massive sums of money will flow?

      I dunno, the money “legitimately” flowed to them.

      In this case, 40 superwealthy people want to decide what their money will be used for. That runs counter to the democratically legitimate state.

      What a fucking tool.

      1. “people want to decide what their money will be used for. That runs counter to the democratically legitimate state.”

        This was my favorite. Not even trying to hide it anymore.

    6. “It is all just a bad transfer of power from the state to billionaires. So it’s not the state that determines what is good for the people, but rather the rich want to decide. That’s a development that I find really bad. What legitimacy do these people have to decide where massive sums of money will flow?”

      What legitimacy? It is their money, you fucking asshole. Not the state’s. Not yours. It is theirs and they can dispose of it as they see fit.

    7. The critique is that this system affords too much power to the rich, whose decisions may not align with what’s best for society. This is not to say that the government is a paragon of efficacy either, but it risks a lot to depend on a handful of mega-billionaires to be prudent, effective philanthropists.

      I’m no fan of the likes of Zuckerburg or Buffet, but there’s a hell of a lot less risk associated with forty or so families allocating their own money for charitable disposition than a giant, amoral bureaucracy led by the likes of a Clinton, or Bush, or Trump.

      It’s amazing that somebody could be so deluded about the nature of the state to think otherwise. Well, unless their idea of “what’s best for society” is war and wealth destruction.

      1. war and wealth destruction

        “Go on…”
        Kramer

    8. Damn, that Kramer guy is a fucking idiot.

  13. The judge has declared a hung jury in the trial of the first of six officers charged in Freddie Gray’s death in Baltimore. The jury deliberated for three days but could not reach a decision.

    “They said you was hung”

    “And they was right”

  14. Russia says Turkey should pay compensation for downed jet

    and provide guarantees that it will never happen again.

    Good thing Russia’s not asking certain GOP presidential candidates.

    1. How much has Russia paid to Malaysian Airlines and the families for the 777 they shot down over the Ukraine?

  15. Goddamnit, of course it’s a hung trial. Some people can’t control their urge to lick that jackboot.

    1. 11-1 against the government thug is considered close enough to be a “win” for the government thug.

      1. Look, we know that was the Ukranian airforce being used as a catspaw by the CIA.

        /RT

  16. Hung jury? Something tells me a majority vote would have let the cop walk.

    1. Anything other than “unanimous guilty” lets the cop walk.

  17. Charity is bad cause it didn’t go to TOP MEN…

    NGO parasites have bills to pay.

  18. Today is a red letter day: higher interest rates & Congress To Lift Oil Export Ban

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/br…..xport-ban/

    Unfortunately this will mean some extensions for renewables tax breaks.

  19. New research from the United Kingdom finds parrots that can use tools.

    Why the hell is that a story at Valuewalk? Can the parrots now use a stick to dial their stock brokers?

    1. Something was going to fill that ecological niche left vacant by the British.

  20. Talk about small comfort! “Don’t worry folks, they weren’t part of an ISIS cell! They were just ordinary Muslims who… oh, um, let me rephrase that… aahhhh… *cough*….”

    1. Two or more people is the definition of a cell in this context, right?

      1. Sort of. My sense of the term “cell” is that it generally means more than a married couple. The Rosenbergs count as a cell, because it was more than the two of them. If it was just the two of them… maybe. I think a married couple is an edge case.

  21. Lost parliament to the opposition? Solution: create new ‘people’s parliament’; continue dictatorship.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..arges.html

    1. Fracking helped kill their oil economy. And the news ofr the future isn’t good for them.

      1. Socialism. Is there anything it can’t do?

        1. Liberty and prosperity immediately come to mind.

          1. Only you selfish rat fucking baggers think about those things. The rest of us just want to live in harmony with the planet.

      2. It fills me with such hope that, even in the era of Obama, with his bullshit restrictions, a glorious new(ly advanced) technology could destroy the left’s New Hope. Their shit has been reckt. Latin America is turning right. We’re winning.

    2. Judge Wopner is the Prime Minister.

    3. OK, now that I can respect. Get your proper socialism on!

      Next up – send the National Boliviarian Militia into the parliament to tell them “Break it up, the Guards are tired.”

    4. Reports in America in the early hours of Wednesday suggested that a New York prosecutor was preparing to charge the head of the country’s border agency with drug trafficking ? a highly significant move, which would be the first time a sitting official has been charged on narcotics offences.

      ??? Ever hear of Manuel Noriega????

    5. Hey, it worked for Andrew Cuomo.

  22. FBI Director James Comey said there was no evidence the San Bernardino shooters were part of a terror cell

    So, how many people does it have to be before they’re a terror cell? More than 2? What are they then, a terror duo?

    1. Husband and wife? I would think a cell would be a group of 3 or more unrelated people.

    2. So they conspired with a brother-in-law to commit similar crimes, but he supposedly pussed out before they could act and their tiny home was described as a veritable bomb factory and they had groups of men coming and going from their place right up until the end, but there’s no evidence for them being part of a cell because there’s no evidence. Go look in their house, you’ll not find one piece of (unspoiled) evidence that they were part of a cell. /FBI

    3. What are they then, a terror duo?

      I think when they are just two, they’re called a “Dynamic Duo”.

  23. The Obama administration continued its spree of arms sales, announcing a package worth $1.83 billion headed to Taiwan.

    Oh. I thought it was going to be some joke about another gun control speech.

  24. 40 superwealthy people want to decide what their money will be used for

    MONSTERS!

  25. 50 Yale students sign a petition to repeal the First Amendment in under an hour.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015…..tcmp=hpbt4

    1. Great comment:

      eureka321 just now
      Yep. It’s definitely time for some fascism in America to right the ship- Trump 2016.

    2. Those students just know in their hearts that the right bare arms is archaic and shouldn’t be in the Declaration of Independence.

      1. Sleeves for everybody!

        1. Burqas or nothing!

  26. A VERY red letter day: Argentina Announces Lifting of Currency Controls

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/ar…..1450286389

    1. Yesterday their central bank increased deposit rates by 8 percentage points. In one day. Eat that Yellen!

  27. You know that Star Trek Beyond trailer wouldn’t have been so stupid if not for the awful choice of music.

    1. Or would it have been more stupid?

    2. The trailer was pretty bad, but to be fair, that music’s already been used in the movie series (in the 2009 first reboot), so at least it’s established that it exists in-universe and that Kirk likes it.

      1. it’s established that it exists in-universe and that Kirk likes it

        I’m sure it had nothing to do with the decision to make the reboot “edgy” and “kewl”.

  28. FBI Director James Comey said there was no evidence the San Bernardino shooters were part of a terror cell,

    “We know this because we basically eviscerated the evidence supporting that hypothesis.”

  29. ‘Of the 1,356 bias complaints filed against officers of the Los Angeles Police Department, none were upheld by the department.’
    Some good news at last!

  30. ‘New research from the United Kingdom finds parrots that can use tools.’
    I for one welcome our new parrot overlords, maybe they can finally subdue the squirrel oligarchy.

    1. And yet, you’d think they’d be able to get get their own damn crackers

  31. lol what the F#@$ do the feds know anyways.

    http://www.GoneAnon.tk

  32. So, the Freddy Gray jury decided they didn’t want the same thing to happen to them. When Al Capone was tried the feds switched juries at the last minute. There is precedent and good reason to use jurymen from an adjoining town when trying a lynch mob of killer kkops.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.