Rand Paul Out, Coffee Combats Liver Cirrhosis, Record Number of Exonerations in 2015: A.M. Links


  • mckaysavage/Flickr

    Update: Rand Paul announced this morning that he's dropping out of the 2016 presidential race. "It's been an incredible honor to run a principled campaign for the White House," Paul wrote in a statement. "Today, I will end where I began, ready and willing to fight for the cause of Liberty."

  • Last year saw a record number of criminal exonerations in America, 149, with the average time of wrongful imprisonment at 14 years. Five had been sentenced to the death penalty. 
  • President Obama makes his first visit to a U.S. mosque with a trip to the Islamic Society of Baltimore Wednesday. 
  • The District of Columbia has approved a bill that would pay "at risk" youth not to commit crimes. 
  • A former Yahoo editorial director is suing the (majority male and overwhelmingly male-led) company for gender discrimination against men, claiming that female bosses at Yahoo "intentionally hired and promoted women because of their gender, while terminating, demoting or laying off male employees because of their gender." 
  • An NYPD officer was arrested for running a prostitution business in New York and New Jersey and charged under the federal Mann Act for "transporting women in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution." 
  • After initially suing vegan-condiment line Just Mayo over calling an egg-free product mayonnaise, Hellman's mayo will now introduce its own egg-less, mayo-like condiment. 
  • A meta-analysis of nine studies covering nearly half a million people has found that higher coffee consumption is linked to much lower chances of liver cirrhosis. 

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

NEXT: Phoenix Open Billboard Says Buds Are Safer Than Bud (or Coors)

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. [drinks a toast to Rand Paul with Van Gogh vodka]

    1. Really? If any Republican candidate was going to come out, I’d expect it to have been Lindsey Graham.

      1. Nice.

    2. Hello.

    3. If he runs as a libertarian he has my vote.

      Run Rand Run!

      1. LOL – he’s about as libertarian as Gary Johnson.

        Oh. wait. Johnson’s the one we’re stuck with.

        1. I don’t care. The other candidates suck. I desperately want to see a viable third party in my lifetime and Hillary vs Trump/Cruz will propel Rand all the way to 7-8% in a GE.

          1. If the Libertarian Party candidate couldn’t break 1% in 2012, it never will.

            1. I still don’t get why people thought Obama was vulnerable in 2012. It never looked that way to me.

          2. Won’t you be in debtors prison by Election Day?

            1. Possibly. My coke and stripper habit is bankrupting me. Plus I am down on a few stocks! Oh the pain!

              1. Yes, Playa has been keeping us informed.

              2. Did you pay off your bet yet, assnugget?

            2. He spent the last month in jail on vagrancy charges and never actually got the chance to blow his life savings.

              1. But he did get the chance to blow a few other things while in Prison

                1. His cellmate was named Lyfe Saveengs..

          3. That would be something. Run as a Republican for Senate and as a Libertarian for President.

      2. Run Rand Run, ’cause he’s got your gun, and he’s aimin’ it at your head.

      3. Got any good stock tips, PB?

        1. I’m still long in Oil & Gas – historic bottom is in at $26. Did I jump the gun? Yes. So what? Didn’t touch O & G for the last five years.

          Reminds me of when oil was $12/bbl in the Clinton strong dollar years – 1997? Clinton and Obama – reducing defict = strong USD = lows in commodities.

          1. Please give us more investment advice.

            1. yeah I need to know what to short.

              1. Right now? Damned near anything.

          2. Well gee, you claim to be so prescient and you didn’t short oil at $100? I’d be disappointed if I didn’t know you are a lying shitbag.

        2. ROFL. Weigel thinks that because he disappeared for a while, everyone has forgotten everything. You would think he would have learned his limitations by now, but apparently he’s too stupid to learn.

          By the way, how’s Jeb Bush looking?

          1. Dude, Jeb’s going to totally run the table from here on out. It’s inevitable.

          2. He owes a $20 bet. Will he squelch?

            TUNE IN TO FIND OUT!

            1. Why? Is he coming in staticy?

            2. Welsh, as in Wales.

              1. Or, Welch, as in the grape juice.

                An early usage:

                “1860 Racing Times: The plaintiff denied that he had ever..’welched’ a man named Williams at Worcester in 1854.”

    4. and there we go… it was a good run, peeps. And I mean the last chance for the U.S.

      Ah well – suppose one shouldn’t put that kind of faith into any politician.

    5. Tell me who to vote for Fist, and I will do it.

      1. Me, dummies. As president I won’t give a fuck what you people do.

        1. YOU BASTARD!


          The money I wasted donating to ‘Stand with Rand’ could have productively been used for the ‘FoE Hookers n Blow’ tour.

        2. “It’s time to Fist America.”

    6. And with ENB’s update, I now have legit firsties.

      1. I do not see you credited with a hat tip.

      2. You really should have the Mother of All Hat Tips.

        1. I heard Fist has the Mother of All Hat Tricks.

  1. 143) A scene from JATNAS’s car:

    JATNAS parks car, surveys backseat, sees floor is littered with wrappers for cheesesticks, Capri Sun, potato chips, etc.

    JATNAS: Okay, everybody pick up five pieces of trash and throw it away in the house.

    Daughter: How about if we pick up as many pieces as our age?

    JATNAS: Great. Everybody pick up as many pieces as your age.

    Son, to daughter: What’d you do that for? Now you have to pick up one more piece than you would have had to before.

    Daughter: Yeah, but you have to pick up five more. Ha, ha!

    JATNAS smiles to self at this little display of human nature, though tinged with a bit of sadness as he realizes his daughter would be a perfect Democratic voter. Wonders if six years old is too early to start reading Rand, Hayek, Friedman, etc. as bedtime stories.

    1. I’m trying in small ways to begin to turn my 6 year old daughter libertarian.

      1. My mom got my 3 year old son one of those mail order frogs for Christmas. The first frog was DOA, because the the USPS screwed up and sent it to Utah, where it sat for 2 days before being shipped to SC. Now he thinks the government killed his frog*.

        *We did end up getting a replacement that I mostly take care of. Thanks mom.

        1. Mail order frogs? When I was a kid we caught tadpoles and raised them until they turned into frogs. Your 3 y/o is old enough to appreciate this “Wonder of God’s creation”.

          1. Oh, we catch all sorts of little animals near the inlet behind the house. But yeah, the thing came as a tadpole, after the government killed the first one.

          2. I heard ENB likes tadpoles.

        2. Are you going to boil the frog?

          1. Frog legs should be breaded and deep fried.


            1. Or roasted over a fire when the fish aren’t biting.

          2. Perhaps lightly kill it and cover it in Belgian chocolate?

            1. Pairs nicely with lark’s vomit.

              1. Lark’s tongues in aspic?

            2. Wouldn’t you take the bones out first ?

              1. If we took the bones out, it wouldn’t be crunchy, would it?

                1. Boneless stewed chili chicken feet.

    2. The open acknowledgment of why she’s doing it will probably prevent her from actually going Democrat. She’d be kicked out for admitting that its about screwing over the other guy not ‘fairness’.

  2. President Obama makes his first visit to a U.S. mosque with a trip to the Islamic Society of Baltimore Wednesday.

    You can’t spell mosquito without mosque more or less. Think about it.

    1. Also, quemso

      1. I’ll subscribe to your newsletter if you subscribe to mine.

    2. And mosquitos are responsible for Zika…

    3. And no slaughter without laughter.

  3. …higher coffee consumption is linked to much lower chances of liver cirrhosis.

    Irish coffee.

    1. say no on black.

      1. Problem is, if you mix it with cream that’s almost like integration.

        I’ve always had a tough time reconciling my bigotry with coffee.

        1. Irish likes his coffee like he likes his big black cocks.

          Wait, I fucked that joke up.

          1. He likes to secretly have his coffee in rural Red Roof Inn’s?

          2. In his wife while he watches?

          3. Irish likes his coffee Irish.

          4. Three times a day?

            1. Only before noon.

          5. Keeping his hands warm on a chilly day?

          6. giggling uncontrollably

          7. Filling the room with a signature aroma?

          8. Moistening his donut?

            Oh, god. Ok, I will stop now.

        2. Hmm, now that gives me an idea….oil-based cream. It might emulsify for a bit, but it’ll straighten itself right out after a while.

        3. He miscegenated !

    2. Well, if you drink coffee instead of beer….

    3. Cancels out, right?

    4. Oh thank gawd. On a related note for the roasters here, I got a Behmor 1600 plus for my birthday. If you are looking for a small (1lb) indoor roaster I can recommend this one. I’m drinking a Ethipian coffee from the Illubabor Baaroo Co-op this morning. I did a FC+, and it is one of the best cups of coffee I have ever had.

      1. Coffee nerd!

        1. Check out Mr. Big Shot with his coffee snobbery.

        2. Great! Sarc can hijack an entire thread to talk about making apple cider and if I so much as mention coffee roasting I’m the hipster!

          /considers throwing hot coffee in LH’s face, drinks it instead

          Mmm. That’s good Joe.

          1. /considers throwing hot coffee in LH’s face

            This is what the Foldger’s is for.

            1. Crystals. I have a device all rigged up with the coffee, a bottle of water, and a turbocharged heat pack. It’s like a fire extinguisher, but for putting out faces. with coffee. expect it on shelves for xmas 2017.

        3. I just drank that civet shit coffee for the first time yesterday. It wasn’t shitty.

      2. Ever try a really hot, dark, strong cup with just a pat of butter?

        And yes, damn you, I am only talking about COFFEE!

        1. I’ve meant to. I’ve heard grass fed butter is the best. I usually just drink my coffee black, so I don’t really think about adding things to it.

          1. Cannabutter was interesting. Just a touch of nutmeg.

          2. I like Kerrygold or Plugra. I have not yet tried the new LOL European.

            The pleasantries of the coffee seem to linger longer on the palate.
            Not an everyday thing, reserved for the weekend, the french press and some thick-cut bacon.

            Plus: Slickery!

            1. I’m going to the grocery today. I will try it tonight and report back.

          3. Black and bitter, like my women.

      3. I use a French Press – bought from Ikea for $6. Coffee is whatever is on sale.

        1. Do yourself a favor. If you can find blue mountain Jamaican, give that a try. It’s worth the extra money, especially if you take your coffee black.

          1. Blue Mountain is worth the extra.
            Just make sure it is not one of those ubiquitous “blends” where every 14,000th bean is Jamaican.

          2. A local coffee roaster has that. I’ll give it a try.

            1. Just got a free bag of Starbuck’s Park Place roast from my GF today. That’ll last a month.

        2. The beans matter to me a lot. Meh wife bought some really bad ones, and that pushed me to only use the good stuff. Gevalia is my current favorite, but I’ve only found it pre-ground in stores.

          1. When I’m making big pots for guest, I use Illy’s medium roast whole bean. It’s pretty good for a crowd pleaser and you can get it at publix.

          2. Costco has (or used to have) a big-ass bag of whole bean Blue Mountain for not too bad a price.

            Hell, even 8 O’clock is decent as long as your are grinding fresh yourself.

            1. I used to grind my own until I realized I can’t tell the damn difference and life is short.

              1. To each his own …
                I can tell the difference between freshground and not … volatiles? Coffee dust?

                Reminds me …
                I used to have this Toshiba Mill-n-Drip with a gold filter … just add good water, whole beans, hit the delay button … mill went off at the same time as morning alarm. Fresh ground, fresh brewed …

                But then again I cannot tell one vodka from another, they all taste like ditchwater.

                Bourbon, on the other hand … they all taste like different little places in heaven.

                1. Maybe I could tell the difference if I had the same beans side-by-side, one fresh ground and one pre-ground. But I’ve never had that opportunity.

                  But then again I cannot tell one vodka from another, they all taste like ditchwater.

                  It comes with practice. At this point, I can probably tell you what the weather was like outside the day my vodka was distilled.

      4. I roast and I’m hooked on Hawaii red catuai. That stuff is ridiculously good in a french press going to the second crack.

        1. What roaster do you have?

      5. Florida Man, welcome to the wonderful world of home roasting.

        I assume you are using Sweet Maria’s for your green beans?


        I use the Gene Cafe, myself. The Behmor was my second choice. Can’t remember why I picked the one I did; its been awhile.

        1. Yup, SM’s. I’ve been roasting for about a year using a propane stove and popcorn popper to see if I like the hobby. My birthday was in January so I treated myself to a proper drum roaster. The Behmor was exactly what I was looking for, 1/4 to 1 lb drum roaster with smoke suppression.

      6. Is it drum or air? I roasted coffee in a Sivitz 5lb as a second job for a few years. Owner was an aerospace engineer, which means we had a perfectly consistent product and worthless marketing and sales.

        1. The Gene Cafe is air, although it uses a rotating drum. I roast outside (Tucson, so why not?) so smoke suppression isn’t an issue for me. The Behmor is radiant, also using a drum, I believe.

          1. Yes the Behmor uses a drum.

  4. “President Obama makes his first visit to a U.S. mosque with a trip to the Islamic Society of Baltimore Wednesday.”

    Of course he is.

    He’s deranged.

    1. The major problem this country faces is bigotry against Muslims!

    1. Puppetry major Isaac Bloodworth told Daily Campus that opposition could be rooted in racism.

      Wait, WHAT?

      1. “My immediate thought was ‘What?'” Haddiyyah Ali, an Africana studies and political science major, told Daily Campus. “

        Comparatively, puppetry is a more serious major.

        1. “Africana studies”

          Wait, WHAT?

          Shouldn’t that be Africana-Americana?

          1. Don’t be silly, she’s studying authentic africana, which doesn’t include long traditions of slave-trading, child soldiery and tyranny.

            1. They learned all that from the Europeans, I’m sure.

              1. They had a thriving technologically advanced society before the Europeans wrecked it and stole all of their technology for themselves.

      2. If he goes on to get a graduate degree in that field, does that make him a Puppet Master?

        1. No, it means he’s finished tying the strings to his own limbs and let academia drive.

        2. *Looks around nervously for Swiss, then applauds.*

        3. Come crawling faster!
          Obey your master!

        4. Last time I pulled on a string I got my Bloodworth, too.

          1. Pull the strink! Pull the strink!

      3. One of the “I’m the 1%” dorks had like 40K from a Puppetry Masters. He’s an idiot, but even offering a Puppetry degree is damn near fraud.

        1. Trying to sell it to the poor or middle class kid could be considered pretty close to fraud. Selling it to the trust fund baby that will never need to work a day in their life is just what college has been about for hundreds of years.

        2. Come crawling faster
          Obey your master
          Your life burns faster
          Obey your master, master

          Master of puppets, I’m pulling your strings
          Twisting your mind, and smashing your dreams
          Blinded by me, you can’t see a thing
          Just call my name, cause I’ll hear you scream
          Master, master
          Just call my name, cause I’ll hear you scream
          Master, master

          1. Apparently you tripped over the puppet strings running over here, because you’re two minutes slow.

        3. “He’s an idiot, but even offering a Puppetry degree is damn near fraud.”

          Depends. If you claim there are job opportunities that don’t actually exist. If you just offer the thing and don’t pretend it’s marketable, it’s the fault of any idiot who actually goes to school for that.

          1. All colleges fudge placement stats. And juke retention and graduation rates. I’d just like to see a lawsuit splay out the guts and look at the inner workings.

            1. Speaking of mail-order frogs.

            2. But you know that those lawsuits will only be brought against for-profit colleges which the government doesn’t like.

        4. It’s only fraud if it is misrepresented as something that is likely to be of any productive use.

          There’s room in the world for arts majors like that. People just need to understand that it probably won’t help your job prospects too much, even in the area of your expertise.

          1. I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be a puppetry degree, but if you are going into debt to get one, maybe you are being sold a bill of goods.

            I mean, no sympathy for the dipshit at all. But his dipshittery was facilitated by people I can’t imagine offered a 40K Puppetry Masters program in good faith or even a straight face.

      4. Dance on his strings, you bigot.

    2. ScHOLA?RS House ? which stands for “Scholastic House of Leaders who are African American Researchers and Scholars”

      and which is pronounced “bullshit”.

      1. Adjacent to the department of redundancy department.

    3. Wait, so have we decided that separate IS equal, after all?

      That seems….I dunno…troubling…

      1. Yes, and also apparently that MLK can suck it. Good to see progs returning to their roots, I guess.

    4. You know, if colleges actually cared about preparing kids for the real world instead of making them feel comfortable, they would mix liberal arts and hard science majors, honors and non-honors, foreign and native, greek and non-Greek, and Freshman and Seniors throughout all the dorms with no distinction. Segregating students into these bubbles is about maintain the artificial division students have adjusted to through years of public school age segregation. Shuffling them all together would promote actual learning about social interactions and different lifestyles (plus maybe liberal arts majors would stop bitching about their three essays a semester if they saw what real homework looked like).

      1. That’s how it was when I was in school, and I graduated a mere decade ago.

        1. Mine was all segregated. Freshman engineering/honors dorm was kept away from the rest of the riff raff. Which was nice for us (no one cared if we drank because we were the good kids), but meant that the poli-sci majors didn’t realize their inability to do basic pre-algebra meant they were stupid.

          1. Maybe that’s because it doesn’t mean that.

            1. Also, according to my dad you don’t even use most of the math you learn in engineering classes in an engineering career. It’s probably satisfying to feel smarter as a STEM grad than many lib arts students. But that doesn’t make it anymore relevant to real life. College is an inefficient and bloated training system for your job, regardless of the subject

              1. I agree that for the vast majority of engineering jobs, that require BS or MS degrees, knowlege of solving PDEs is not required at all. Hell, calculus isn’t even “required”, though if you do any design work with numerical analysis, engineers should know the basics of what the code is actually doing.

                But, having worked as both an engineer and an AP Physics teacher, I still say that calculus (at least 1 and 2) are absolutely necessary to understand the mathematical concepts behind the stuff you are working with. Also every engineer should be exposed to linear algebra.

                1. ^^This. Day to day, engineers don’t have to do the math because shit like CAD does it for them. But all the concepts and results are math based and an engineer that doesn’t understand the math and underlying concepts is just a monkey puhing buttons.

                  1. The same goes double for probability and statistics. The computers do all of the grunt work but, if they are used incompetently, their results are garbage. A fairly deep understanding of the logic and the mathematics is necessary for all but the most elementary applications of probability and statistics. (I’m not saying that one must be able derive the Central Limit Theorem on the spot, but one should understand what it is, why it is important, and how it applies to the problem at hand.) Lots of people — even engineers who have completed formal coursework in statistics — think they understand statistics, and produce impressive-looking statistical analyses that are, in fact, utter nonsense.

                2. I still say that calculus (at least 1 and 2) are absolutely necessary to understand the mathematical concepts behind the stuff you are working with. Also every engineer should be exposed to linear algebra.

                  That’s sort of what I’m getting at. While very few people need to be able to do complicated integrals or solve differential equations, knowing what those things are and how they work greatly improves one’s ability to understand what they are doing.

                  I’m sure I couldn’t get a 5 on the AP calculus or physics exams today, but having once been able to helps me in my work and also in my ability to enjoy and understand the world.

                  I think too many people go to traditional college. But those who do should learn more than just what they will use in a career. Both because you never know what exactly you will need to know and because it makes life more interesting.

                  I often think I should have done something more career focused in college. But I would still have wanted to have the broader liberal arts stuff as well.

                  1. Boolean math. Seriously, one of the most useful skills I ever learned. Linear Algebra is good, too.I liked calc 1,2, and 3 but use has been somewhat limited to me.

            2. Well, they are at least stupider than the similarly talented poly-sci students who can do basic math.

            3. If you xant do pre-algebra, you can still be aborted.


            4. “Maybe that’s because it doesn’t mean that.”

              It might mean that….

              1. Isn’t just like a girl to come on here and femsplain to us why math doesn’t matter.


              2. I would not hesitate to question the intelligence of anyone who can’t do basic pre-algebra.

        2. Same here. At least in our freshman year we didn’t have much choice on where we lived or who we lived with and diversity was the norm. By our sophomore year, though, everyone was pretty thoroughly self-segregated along a number of different lines.

          1. Oddly enough, nobody but fellow rugby players wanted to live with us…

      2. (plus maybe liberal arts majors would stop bitching about their three essays a semester if they saw what real homework looked like).

        If you actually do all the reading, humanities sorts of majors have a pretty big homework load. One of the big attractions to the math major for me was that you just had to understand the stuff and do the problem sets and didn’t have to read thousands of pages of boring stuff every semester.

        I also feel compelled to point out that math and science are part of the liberal arts.

        1. Math and science used to be part of the liberal arts. Now days they essentially don’t get taught to those students (except in bullshit classes like the science of global warming).

          I know how much reading the humanities have to do. I was going for a poli-sci minor in college. The reading is less a day than I spend reading reason, and it has the bonus of being written fairly interestingly. Plus, having taken those courses, I was often the only one who had actually read the material. The rest of the class was still passing.

          1. Now days they essentially don’t get taught to those students

            If you define “liberal arts students” as the ones who don’t study math and science.

            I’ve mostly just got my own experience at a small liberal arts school to go on. But there there wasn’t any sharp division of the students into humanities and quantitative things, or however you want to put it, either in housing or socially. I’m sure it’s different at bigger schools with big engineering departments.

            Math and science definitely should be part of liberal arts. How the hell can someone graduate college not even knowing some basic calculus?

            1. I’ll give people a break on Calculus. Some people can never really wrap their head around algebra. You put in variables and they just don’t get it. Perfectly intelligent otherwise and more than capable of being a productive individual. I draw the line at college graduates who can’t read x-y graphs, though. No sorry, turn in your degree. That is a basic life skill.

              1. Yeah, I suppose I underestimate how difficult math is for some people. I don’t get it, but I suppose I have to accept it.

              2. There’s plenty of basic life skills that a lot of folks don’t have, present company included. I’d hardly say it’s grounds for not pursuing a higher education.

                1. Of course they should pursue the higher education. The problem is when they graduate with a liberal arts degree and still can’t read an x-y graph. College is there to teach you, you aren’t expected to know everything going in (hell, I’d never had physics before starting my mechanical engineering degree), but you are expected to have an understanding of a few core subjects upon leaving.

                  1. See Lap83’s response below.

                    Not everyone needs to know those things. It might be prevalent in your career and my career, but I think it’s obvious that engineers and liberal arts have a different curriculum.

                    People thinking that everyone going to college MUST have a well-rounded education that includes a bunch of garbage they’re never going to use are part of the reason colleges are so goddamn bloated these days.

                    1. Being able to read a graph is necessary in every career that has business reports. Basic mathematic is necessary in managing a household. I’m not arguing that everyone needs to take calc or even algebra, but yes, everyone needs to understand pre-algebra. Even dance majors will need to understand what their boss is telling them.

                    2. OK. You clearly have all the answers. Carry on.

                      This is what I get for actually trying to talk to you sensibly. Back to interacting with you as per usual.

                      Nevermind that plenty of peons at work never even look at a business report, and you don’t have to go to college or learn to read graphs to manage a household. It’s not like hundreds of thousands of people everywhere were doing that before college was the popular option right out of high school. Oh wait.

                    3. No you don’t have to go to college to learn those things. They are things that you are supposed to learn in high school. Unfortunately, high school has failed to teach a lot of students these basics.

                      Also, are you really arguing that we don’t have an epidemic of poorly managed households? We are still getting over the bubble of people who didn’t understand what those big numbers on their mortgage meant as far as repayment went.

                    4. Also, are you really arguing that we don’t have an epidemic of poorly managed households?

                      Where did I say that, you disingenuous dingus*? I said a lot of people manage their households fine without a fancy college education. I said absolutely nothing about the housing bubble, etc. We weren’t even talking about that.

                      I know your works, Illocust. And I’ll thank you to argue on the points we’ve established, to what degree you’re able to do so. I mean… if you’re not, you know, able, that’s fine. Just say so.

                      *not my first choice of words

                    5. Good thing I addressed your point.

                      “No you don’t have to go to college to learn those things. They are things that you are supposed to learn in high school. Unfortunately, high school has failed to teach a lot of students these basics.”

                      You don’t have to go to college to learn these things, but if you go through college and haven’t learned them then your college education has failed you.

                      Also, what the hell is your problem today Riven? You aren’t normally one for the personal insults.

                    6. I guess that depends on your expectations for college education. When I went, I didn’t expect to pay them a premium to teach me basic life skills that I could learn for free from the school of hard knocks. I suspect people who go to trade schools to learn to swing wrenches also would rather learn skills directly related to their trade, as opposed to a lot of irrelevant “higher education” that they likely won’t ever use. According to most techs I know, knowing how to properly calibrate a torque wrench is a “basic life skill.” Did you learn that while you were in college? If not, your college education has failed you.

                      My problem is I’m constantly disappointed by your lack of critical thought before you post. I’m more of a lurker than a poster these days because I figure it’s not worth posting just to argue with someone whose entire premise is poorly conceptualized–and our “discussion” here today has only further cemented that in my mind.

                    7. People thinking that everyone going to college MUST have a well-rounded education that includes a bunch of garbage they’re never going to use are part of the reason colleges are so goddamn bloated these days.

                      I think that the problem is more that many colleges promise a well rounded education. And the entire point of “liberal arts” is a diverse and well rounded education. So the fact that people come out of that kind of college program without basic math skills is pretty pathetic.

                      Part of the reason most people go to college is to get a broader education than simply what you need to know for a trade. If that’s all you want, then go to a technical school or an apprenticeship.

          2. You seem to think the problem with college is not enough math and science. But why should people pay so much money for something that would be in no way relevant to their career? The problem with many lib arts students is that they don’t have a cogent plan, not that they’re avoiding subjects they aren’t interested in.

            1. Not to mention the easy loans which make the lack of a plan seem like a better idea.

            2. If you want your education to be entirely relevant to your career, then college is not the place for you unless you want to be a college professor.

      3. This was one of the benefits of going to a small college. Two dorms for freshman, one for sophomores, upperclassmen live in apartments on the other side of campus.

        People still manage to segregate themselves, but that’s life.

    5. According to snopes it is false. Can anyone confirm yay or nay, or have a better break down of the details?

      1. Sounds like the participants will all live in the same dorm building and floor, but they won’t be the only people living on that floor. So it’s a group that resides in a particular place, not a particular place where only that group lives.

        That’s what I can make of it.

    6. Cornell had a black-focused dorm, one of the demands of a black students’ group when they took over the administration building at some point. But anybody who wanted to could live there; it wasn’t all that popular.

    7. White-only dorm….to promote scholarship.

      See how that goes over in the media.

      Over to you Whoopi because our intellectual discourse is poorer when you don’t offer gems like ‘it wasn’t rape-rape’.

    8. Faced with alarmingly low graduation rates for black males, the University of Connecticut is trying something it calls bold — and critics call segregation.

      Perhaps that graduation rate isn’t caused by proximity to white people so much as it’s because many of these black students are only at a university because leftoid policy makers have tax money to back-up their wishful thinking. Between that and grading standardized tests on racial curve that sees blacks gets bonus points and Asians taking a penalty, they’re putting students into academic environments where they’re more likely to fail than succeed in addition to the fact they’re unjustly taking those spots away from higher achieving students, on the basis of race.


      1. Yeah, that’s sort of the thing. If a private school wants to have some kind of affirmative action to get more poor black students to enroll, that seems OK. But you shouldn’t be surprised that many of those people don’t succeed at the same rate as the general student population. It’s as if they think that affirmative action can magically erase every cultural and educational disadvantage.

        1. Well there seems to be a genetic component to cognition as well. I’m not saying one group is fundamentally superior to another in all regards, or that all members of group match the trend. But there are studies showing that Asians have a higher than human average capability in fields like engineering and mathematics while whites (and European Jews) have a higher than average ability in fields like law and abstract thinking in general, and indeed these groups are over-represented in those fields.

          1. Yeah, I’m sure that there are differences among racial groups, on average, in certain abilities. It would be more of a surprise if there weren’t any, really. And those will manifest as disparate outcomes. There is so much cultural and environmental stuff involved as well, that it is hard to tell just how much genetics has to do with any of it, though.

            And even if genetics had nothing to do with it, I would still expect, on average, lower performance from students who get in because of affirmative action. Just the lower quality secondary education alone would make a difference. You just aren’t going to do as well if you have to spend your first year catching up because your high school was terrible.

    9. This bigotry of low expectations is as bad as that Jimmy the Greek stuff that was posted yesterday.

      Goddamned fuckin’ SJW’s really do have shit-for-brains.

  5. A meta-analysis of nine studies covering nearly half a million people has found that higher coffee consumption is linked to much lower chances of liver cirrhosis.

    So does that mean if I get drunk on coffee liqueur, I’ll never have problems?

    1. My girlfriend is a lush, but also drinks a lot of coffee. I guess she’s cancelling them out.

      1. I drink coffee all day and whiskey all night. I’m assuming this makes me immortal.
        /hold muh coffee and whiskey and watch this…

        1. Everyone knows that Florida Man is immune to normal threats and can only be killed by muttering those last three words.

      2. The window between coffee consumption and wine/booze consumption narrows swiftly.

    2. This study was funded by the Buena Vista Cafe.

  6. …with the average time of wrongful imprisonment at 14 years.

    It’s better for one innocent man to be jailed than one prosecutor to fail to pad his resume.

    1. It’s about the win-loss record, not justice.

      1. It’s easy to pad those numbers when you can scare so many people into plea deals.

  7. Obama makes his first visit to a U.S. mosque

    He’d jolly well better take his shoes off.

    1. And use tags properly.

      *** gets coffee ***

      1. May I Irish that coffee up for ya, Rich?

        1. You want to make his coffee racist?

          1. Irish likes his women like he likes his coffee: bitter, blonde, and served at room temperature.

        2. Hit me, Swiss!

          1. *swings halberd at Rich*

            *Misses, tumbles off stage*

            1. Whew! That was close.

              1. *lunges with pike, but is already drunk and falls on face*

  8. “The District of Columbia has approved a bill that would pay “at risk” youth not to commit crimes. ”

    OK, I actually read the article, and there is no way this is ever going to popular, despite the fact that it seems to have worked well when tried previously in a California city.

    1. I thought Danegeld always worked

      1. It’s framed more as providing support to at-risk youth while they get their lives together. But nobody’s ever going to see it as anything but rewarding crime.

        1. But nobody’s ever going to see it as anything but rewarding crime.

          Including, probably, almost all of the recipients.

          1. That’s a good point. May be effective in the short term as the first generation gets money and support, but fails in the long term when every youth in DC decides to get in on the deal.

    2. there is no way this is ever going to popular

      LOL. Not very familiar with DC, are you, JATNAS? The population who live in DC tend to be welfare recipients or government employees. This is going to be extremely popular with the youth and their parents, also with other random welfare recipients (moar free stuffs!).

    3. How about this: If you don’t commit crimes, we’ll reward you by not putting you in prison.

      Of course, I’m not claiming that the criminal justice system, as currently constitutted, operates on this basis.

  9. “A former Yahoo editorial director is suing the (majority male and overwhelmingly male-led) company for gender discrimination against men,”

    Melissa Mayer has a sad.

    1. A former Yahoo editorial director is suing the (majority male and overwhelmingly male-led) company for gender discrimination against men, claiming that female bosses at Yahoo “intentionally hired and promoted women because of their gender, while terminating, demoting or laying off male employees because of their gender.”

      That’s called “Affirnative Action”, and is required for any kind of government contracting, and to avoid crap from the EEOC.

      1. “Affirmative Action” is facially discriminatory and a violation of the spirit of equal opportunity.

    2. Harassment education is very important in my line of work.

      “Listen, sugarbutt, if you call the guys pet names, you get called pet names in return. Don’t mention Midol or periods unless you can handle what you unleash. And never, never participate in the nut tap game unless you’re willing to get your tit twisted, because if you’re not willing to offer up your own personal tits then you’re just sexually harassing them. Now put an apron on.”

      1. That should be in every company handbook.

      2. And get me a beer.

        1. You’ll have to wait for your break and get it from the walk-in yourself, princess, like everyone else. Your Mommy doesn’t work here!

      3. Where’s the sammich clause?

    3. The more interesting aspect of this lawsuit is that the plaintiff says these layoffs were hidden in the quarterly review process at the company to avoid WARN Act statutes that require 60 days notice (and pay) for mass layoffs. He is saying that managers would give ratings and then management would lower the ratings of undesirables after the fact so that they would fall below the line and get laid off. This will be impossible to prove unless managers a part of the process come forward and say that they lowered ratings of people based on corporate direction to target males (discrimination) or specific business functions (in which case it is a targeted layoff that should invoke the WARN act).

      1. This will be impossible to prove

        Oh, I would be shocked if there isn’t a paper trail.

  10. A meta-analysis of nine studies covering nearly half a million people has found that higher coffee consumption is linked to much lower chances of liver cirrhosis.

    Is there nothing coffee cannot do?

    Coffee for president!

    1. Is there nothing coffee cannot do?

      Have an odor which doesn’t make me retch? Be drinkable? wipe the smug of the faces of the drinkers?

      1. You’re right. Coffee is completely incapable of that. I’ll just be over here, plotting my next hangover. Now with extra smug!

      2. Where are you smelling your coffee, the local dump? My wife doesn’t drink coffee, but she likes the smell.

        1. Seriously. Coffee is second only to bacon in the “Amazing Smell” department.

          1. You’re delusional. Bacon is a wonderful aroma.

            But every cup of burnt bean juice that wanders past kills my appetite with the stench.

            1. If it smells burnt, they’re doing it wrong.

            2. Well, you’re a weirdo. Are you the guy who doesn’t like beer either?

              1. That would be me. Beer is an ingredient. I keep it in the cupboard with the potatoes and spices.

                1. Well, bonus points for those who don’t try to convince everyone that their taste in beverages is the correct one.
                  I can understand why someone wouldn’t like the taste of beer of coffee. Not liking the smell of coffee still makes no sense to me.

              2. Ted S, because of the carbonation, I think.

          2. Coffee smells great, if it tasted less like hobo taint, I’d be interested.

        2. This, I can’t stand the taste of the stuff even a little bit but I LOVE the coffee isle in the supermarket

      3. Coffee is amazing and you’re a broken human being

      4. I know plenty of people who don’t drink coffee, but I think you are the first person I have ever encountered who doesn’t like the smell.

        1. I don’t. Don’t drink it either. Like acid it is. Mah stomach!

          1. Huh. The world contains many mysteries.

            1. What do you expect from a man that is so vile his own pancreas committed suicide to get away.

            2. I can drink cold brewed coffee, but not very much.

              I imagine I just associate the smell with the stomach pain from drinking it. One of the very few things that bothers my stomach.

              1. One of the very few things that bothers my stomach.

                Do tell.

                1. So he seeks to make others suffer in kind by reading his prose.

          2. Well, we already knew YOU were a broken shell of a man.

        2. I love the smell of coffee until some jerk next to me inevitably whips out a cup of Dunkin’s donut-flavored coffee. That crap is not coffee.

      5. Coffee is an American standard. Bacon, coffee, cheese burgers, apple pie. In that order and hold the French fries.

        1. Don’t you mean Freedom Fries

  11. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry…..mg00000063

    Poor Beezow Doo-Doo Zopittybop Bop-Bop just can’t seem to catch a break.

  12. HuffPo: Researcher Says Women’s Initiation of Domestic Violence Predicts Risk to Women
    How can we prevent Intimate Partner Violence and injury to women? IPV researcher Deborah Capaldi, Ph.D., a social scientist at the Oregon Social Learning Center, finds that the best way for women to be safe is to not initiate violence against their male partners. According to Dr. Capaldi, “The question of initiation of violence is a crucial one… much IPV is mutual, and initiations — even that seem minor — may lead to escalation.”…

    …Dr. Capaldi’s research examined the different relationship violence scenarios — violence by him only, violence by her only, violence by both with him initiating, and violence by both with her initiating. Of these, the most likely to result in future injury to women is when she initiates violence against him and he responds, although both mutually aggressive groups were close in danger levels.

    Dr. Capaldi notes that in a study of women who were in a battered women’s shelter, “67% of the women reported severe violence toward their partner in the past year.” …

    1. …The study found that a young woman’s IPV was just as predictive of her male partner’s future IPV as the man’s own past IPV. In other words, whereas we often think of men as the only abusers and also as serial abusers, the OYS found that a woman’s violence against her man was as predictive of his violence to her as his own history of violence….

      1. They needed a study to find out that people who start shit get beat up more often than those who don’t?

        1. “They needed a study to find out that people who start shit with someone bigger and stronger than themget beat up more often than those who don’t?”


    2. This is a Patriarchy conspiracy.

    3. I remember seeing these studies a while back. I’ve had a ridiculously hard time of getting people to internalize them. Even when I can get someone to acknowledge that they are factually true, they memory hole it within a week.

      Also this makes a lot of sense when you consider how much time we spend telling boys not to hit girls, but the opposite is just fine and part of the tomboy image.

      1. Yeah, alot of women seem to think they have the right to commit violence against men without consequence.

  13. After initially suing vegan-condiment line Just Mayo over calling an egg-free product mayonnaise…

    White people problems.

    1. White people haven’t gotten the message that the egg-scare the government had been pushing for decades was complete horseshit.

  14. Hellman’s mayo will now introduce its own egg-less, mayo-like condiment.

    Nothing is more delectable than hedge words.

    1. I can think of many things more delectable. A gelled emulsion of cheap cooking oil and water is not one of them.


      1. I have Miracle Whip on the sandwich I made for lunch today AND I WILL ENJOY ITS TANGY FLAVOR.

        1. You are worse than Nicole.

        2. Are you gonna put Hunt’s ketchup on your well-done steak at dinner time, too? And wash it down with a refreshing glass of Bud Light?

          1. Joke’s on you. It’s Heinz. And I only drink water.

            1. And I only drink water.

              Like i said.

        3. Miracle Whip is the condiment of the Gods.

          1. Miracle Whip is the salad dressing of the Gods, and only the Gods, because no mortal man has ever put Miracle Whip on his salad.

            1. Miracle Whip is the salad dressing of the Gods, and only the Gods, because no mortal man has ever put Miracle Whip on his salad.

              Specifically, the insane god Azathoth, and he only did it that one time.

              1. For he was cast out of the universe for his transgression against lettuce.

              2. Miracle Whip is the salad dressing of the Gods, and only the Gods, because no mortal man has ever put Miracle Whip on his salad.

                Specifically, the insane god Azathoth, and he only did it that one time.

                And eew, yuck–never again. Why would you call that ‘salad dressing’? What foul depths were plumbed to bring forth such putrescence?

                Say…..do you hear that? sounds like……piping?

                1. And eew, yuck–never again. Why would you call that ‘salad dressing’?

                  Well “I” don’t call it salad dressing, but Kraft does. Probably for the same reason that Just Mayo people aren’t allowed to call their product mayo.

            2. Miracle Whip is cake frosting.

    2. Go Hellman’s !!! Crush your puny fraudulent competitor.

  15. ‘He had his empty hands in the air’: Family of killed Oregon occupier LaVoy Finicum claims footage shows ‘FBI execution’

    The family of slain occupier Robert LaVoy Finicum released a statement Tuesday disagreeing with the official account of his killing
    Family claims FBI shot the occupier while his hands were in the air
    Victoria Sharp, 18, says she was present when Finicum, 54, was shot dead on January 26
    She maintains that he wasn’t threatening officers, even after reviewing a video that appears to show the armed Finicum reaching for his pocket
    ‘The video does not show that he’s reaching for something,’ Sharp said


    1. Without audio, he could very well be reactively reaching for a wound after they shot him.

      1. Funny how the audio didn’t work on any of the dashcams. Seems that Chicago cops aren’t the only ones disabling the audio tampering with evidence. Heck, they probably teach a class in the Academy on how to disable the damn things.

      2. Funny, as well, that with all of those cops and cop cars, there wasn’t a single dash or body cam. Weird, huh?

        Yeah, the film the FBI released proves absolutely nothing about exactly when he was shot, but there can be no doubt he did have his hands in the air either immediately before or after he was shot.

  16. female bosses at Yahoo “intentionally hired and promoted women because of their gender, while terminating, demoting or laying off male employees because of their gender.”


  17. Aetna CEO Has `Serious Concerns’ About Obamacare Sustainability
    The head of the third-biggest U.S. health insurer said he has “serious concerns” about whether or not Obamacare’s new markets are sustainable, echoing criticism from other top for-profit insurers.
    “We continue to have serious concerns about the sustainability of the public exchanges,” Aetna Inc. Chief Executive Officer Mark Bertolini said on a call Monday while discussing the company’s fourth-quarter results. “We remain concerned about the overall stability of the risk pool.”…

    1. He’s about seven years too late.

      ObamaCare’s inevitable failure was obvious at the outset. The ACA is so poorly constructed and so poorly implemented that I think that it was intentionally designed to fail.

  18. ‘Got my beach body!’ Ajay Rochester showcases her curves in a low-cut tasselled corset as she rehearses for new web series The Doll… and reveals she has shed 27 kilos


    Looks like she wants to be mistaken for a beached whale. Or John’s ideal woman.

    1. Or John’s ideal woman.

      Used to be, until she lost 27 kilos.

      1. She is a little on the petite side for his taste, but I’m sure he’d be happy to roll her in flour and look for the wet spot.

    2. Hell, if you lose 27 kilos you’re allowed to show off. She may still be fat, but I’m for positive reinforcement in this scenario. She’s going to start wondering how many more compliments she’ll get by dropping down to fit body.

      1. Are the Christian bales?

  19. The District of Columbia has approved a bill that would pay “at risk” youth not to commit crimes.

    If this doesn’t solve the problem it’s because they didn’t toss enough money at it.

  20. The District of Columbia has approved a bill that would pay “at risk” youth not to commit crimes.

    If this creates an incentive to make less things criminal to avoid paying them, that sounds good to me.

    1. I don’t think this will cross anyone’s mind.

  21. A meta-analysis of nine studies covering nearly half a million people has found that higher coffee consumption is linked to much lower chances of liver cirrhosis.

    We really should take up a coffee collection for Agile Cyborg.

    1. That ain’t alcohol that is fueling his muse…

  22. Shouldn’t Bernie Sanders Want to Underpay Teachers?
    …Take public education. There is essentially a “single payer” for education within school districts. The teachers, principals, custodians, textbooks, and school buildings are all paid for by the government. Yet Bernie Sanders would never argue that the government should use its near-monopoly to push teacher salaries below market levels. In fact, raising teacher pay to be on par with the salaries of other college graduates is a perennial goal of progressives. Americans “must do everything we can to support our educators,” Sanders says on his website. “Something is very wrong when, last year, the top 25 hedge fund managers earned more than the combined income of 425,000 public school teachers.” But by Sanders’ own cost-cutting standard for single-payer systems, the supposedly low pay of teachers should be celebrated as a major success of public education!

    1. To see the inconsistency another way, imagine Republicans trying to portray a cut in education spending as merely “savings” generated by “limiting reimbursements to education providers.” Sanders would have an arm-waving fit, warning that education quality would suffer. Somehow he has no similar concern when doctors are the ones being squeezed. So here is a question for a reporter to ask: “Senator Sanders, given the benefits of single-payer systems you’ve described, shouldn’t you want to underpay not only doctors, but teachers as well?”…

      1. It’ll be a great day when schools get all the money they need and doctors have to hold a bake sale to pay for their medical equipment?

        1. I wonder if its because teachers are more reliable Dem voters than doctors.

        2. That is awesome!!

    2. Yes he should. The fact that he doesn’t shows just how far down the left has slipped into insanity. Old leftists at least understood they needed a cheap and efficient government to make their dreams reality. Now leftists don’t even think in terms of reality.

      1. It helps when you have an unlimited credit card and can print money whenever the hell you feel like it. No need to think about the future!

      2. Not only this, but this also goes to prove the lie that teachers are underpaid in the first place. SOME teachers are underpaid. Some are paid exactly what they are worth. And the bottom 10% get paid to pretty much do absolutely nothing (or worse). This one can be blamed on the unions. I finally got sick of the fact that teaching AP physics paid the same as the freshman english teacher who hated kids, the history teacher who had kids just color maps while he planned out his offense (he was the head football coach) and the PE coach.

        The fact is, while a very good teacher can inspire a handful of kids (and this is awesome when I am still in contact with a few of my students from 10 years ago who went into engineering), most kids would probably do somewhere about the same in life regardless if they had crappy teachers, mediocre teachers, or fantastic teachers.

        1. What a lot of people don’t consider about teacher salary is that they are off work for three months of the year, and of course, their benefits continue during this time. So even if they are paid “only” $60,000 * a year, they have a choice of loafing around for three months or getting a job at Sylvan Learning Center or a similar place.

          * $60,000 is the annual starting salary for teachers in Xenia, OH public schools, where my friend worked as a contractor for a while. It’s not exactly a ritzy, super-rich area.

  23. The District of Columbia has approved a bill that would pay “at risk” youth not to commit crimes.

    Talk about *unfair*! How about us upstanding citizens?! This is worse than *amnesty*!

    1. “You don’t want me to mug people? Fuck you, pay me!”
      “You don’t want me to rob stores? Fuck you, pay me!”
      Sure, what could possily go wrong?

  24. charged under the federal Mann Act for “transporting women in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution.”

    “Was I in possession of cocaine, methamphetamines, amyl nitrite?poppers?at time of my arrest? In large quantities. Did I have consensual intercourse with two women under the age of 18? Repeatedly. I admit this. Did I violate The Mann Act and transport them across state lines for sexual purposes? Alleged but not proven. And boy they tried. They tried.”

    1. that lawyer had some great quotes. have to rewatch that season.

  25. You know who else had a criminal exoneration…

    1. No,he wrote a book in jail.I hear it’s a big seller in ‘certain’ parts of the globe.

  26. This one goes pretty far. I thought it best not to push the limits of tolerance of our kind hosts, so instead of posting it all, I’m providing a link to the 2nd part.

    “I should have done the debate,” Donald whispered into the dark confines of his SEX POWER DOME.

    “That bleeder was going to be there,” the hat said. “You didn’t want to give it the satisfaction.”

    “But Iowa?”

    “Fuck Iowa. Just a bunch of lard-ass Jesus-suckers. If they want to vote for that mouthwhore, who cares?”

    “But I barely beat Marco?” Donald cried. The antennae lining the SEX POWER DOME quivered, eager to drink his tears.

    “He’s barely more than Ted’s cum dumpster. He wears heels, for fuck’s sake!” the hat told him.

    Donald’s hair made a whimpering sound from the non-stick flooring of the SEX POWER DOME. The hat sat directly on Donald’s bald head, the trucker’s mesh gently caressing his scalp. The dead girl cooled where Donald had thrown her when he was finished.

    “Have them send another in,” the hat whispered. Donald’s blood-smeared penis sprang to attention.

    “ANOTHER!” he roared.


    1. Definitely worth the click.

    2. If you consider what you’ve posted previously to not be tolerance-testing, I’m sort of afraid to see what you consider beyond the pale…

      1. Exactly.

      2. I am terrified of what lies beyond that “continue.”

        1. You should be. I can’t help myself, but there’s still hope for you.

    3. I wanted to stop reading, but I couldn’t. I am disgusted with myself.

  27. “A former Yahoo editorial director is suing the (majority male and overwhelmingly male-led) company for gender discrimination against men, claiming that female bosses at Yahoo “intentionally hired and promoted women because of their gender, while terminating, demoting or laying off male employees because of their gender.” ”

    There apparently was a 20% representation of women in one of these groups switching to an 80% representation under one of these female managers (the entire field only has 30% qualified females, so it is statistically unlikely they were the best candidates available). Combined with a lot of peoples open belief that it is alright to discriminate against specific individuals in the name of historical justice, I’d say this guy has enough circumstantial evidence to justify a trial. Hopefully he has the facts to back this up beyond a shadow of doubt and we’ll see a downturn in the discrimination being supported by corporations.

    1. The head of Disney said last week that they were going to create a black only ESPN site. He said in so many words they were only going to hire black people. They don’t even try and hide it anymore.

      1. How about their race surveys?

        1. Charles Barkley said the other day that less than a day after the matchup is set ESPN is already making it a battle of black versus white and good versus evil. You really have to like Barkley sometimes.

        2. Right because NFL fans are so racist that they hate 2/3rds of the league’s players.

          1. The Bananas-on-the-field penalty is now 35 yards!!!

      2. If it means I don’t have to listen to Bomonte Jones or Stephen A Smith anymore I’m all for it.

        Hell does Cuban count as black? Cause it would be great if they could get that Hack Lebatard off the air too. There is nothing worse the a race warrior muscling in on my sports turf

  28. “President Obama makes his first visit to a U.S. mosque with a trip to the Islamic Society of Baltimore Wednesday.”

    Are his wife and daughters accompanying him?

    If so, will they be covering?

    Will they be sitting on the subjugated side of the room with the other women?

    1. I dunno. Do you think they kneel if they visit a Catholic church?

      1. He put on a yarmulke when he was at a shul. Next thing you know, he’ll have the end of his dick cut off.

        1. I thought the wookie already fully emasculated him.

          1. She carries his balls in her purse.

            1. She just uses his ballsack as a purse.

      2. I’ve visited Catholic Churches regularly and never kneeled.

        1. So you were top, not bottom? Well done.

        2. Hell, my GF is Jewish & she doesn’t kneel when we attend mass; they don’t kick you out for that (though pretty sure they might if I refuse to wear a kippah in the temple).

        3. You weren’t an altar boy.

          1. I’m an atheist, my wife is Catholic. I attend church with her when she goes.

            1. I’m an atheist, too, but my wife is Buddhist. She’s always asking what’s that noise coming from my computer room at home. I tell her it’s the sound of one hand clapping.

              1. Buddhism and atheism aren’t necessarily incompatible, are they?

              2. Masterbation is the answer to that age old riddle? The more you know…

                1. I thought the answer was 42?

                2. No, grasshopper. I was fingering her sister.

      3. It’s an interesting question, though, isn’t it?

        Mrs. Obama, did you cover and why or why not?

        Is this one of the mosques where the sexes are separated but the men’s and women’s sections run side by side? Or is it a mosque where the men’s section is in the front and the women’s section is in the back?

        I’ve been to mosques where they do both.

        Where did Michelle sit?

        Is she accompanying the President?

        Why or why not?

    2. I found this story, where she boldly refused to cover on a trip to Saudi Arabia.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/ news/worldviews/wp/2015/01/27/ michelle-obama-forgoes-a-headscarf- and-sparks-a-backlash-in-saudi-arabia/

      But that wasn’t going to a mosque.

      The article also mentions that she covered on her trip to Indonesia.

      I wonder if Obama made her cover on the trip to Indonesia.

      If Michelle doesn’t go to the Mosque in Baltimore, is it because Obama told her she can’t go?

      Which side of the room will she be sitting on?

    1. One might argue that Europe today is sort of a collective Alex.

  29. There is a mainstream Washington Republican media. It is small and you don’t notice it as much as the Democratic media but it is there. It is basically Nation Review, WSJ, Fox News and The Weekly Standard. This election is showing them to be the same ops with biline toadies to the party that the Dem media is.

    Last week they all simultaneously had a case of vapors over Trump not being a real conservative, never mind that had Chris Christie been the front runner they would all have happily fallen in line even though Christie is by any objective measure just as or more liberal than Trump. Now Trump loses Iowa and they are all falling in behind Rubio. And NR publishes an article assuring its readers that amnesty is dead so there is no reason to worry about Rubio selling out n the issue, convenient that. These publications have a complete lack of diversity on the issue. When Trump was the enemy of the day, not a single staffer made the contrary case. Now that Rubio is the choice, there are all Rubio backers. No one on the staff is a Cruz guy or a Paul guy or a Jeb Bush deadender. Nope, Cruz is now the choice.

    It is all so pathetic and transparent. I don’t think they even realize that. I think they have their heads so far up their asses and are so immersed in the Washington culture, they honestly think they are all free thinking opinion leaders who just happen to all arrive at the exact same self evident position.

    1. Secret video of Lowerly at an NRO staff meeting


    2. This election is showing them to be the same ops with biline toadies to the party that the Dem media is.

      Someone set up us the bomb.

    3. …are so immersed in the Washington culture,

      Right on the money.

  30. I’d like $10 for every robbery I don’t commit. And $100 for every murder. Also $1 million for every ponzi scheme I don’t implement.

    I believe I’m owed a $billion. Give or take.

    1. Great. I get nothing. I hate this game.

  31. A ‘Dwarf Toss’ in a Strip Club Still Draws a Big Crowd, Apparently

    After ten tosses, Mike takes a break and heads into the club’s back room to rest his back. He’s no stranger to the entertainment industry, having toured with Britney Spears, acted on American Horror Story, and performed as Mini-Elvis and Mini-Eminem. His website calls him “Entertainment’s #1 Little Person for World Tours.” He’s avid about staying in shape in order to protect his body from being injured by each toss.

    “I work out. I have a strong will. It’s not just something where it’s pick up a midget and toss him. I have a strong torso. If you land wrong, your back gives out, so you’ve got to have a strong physique,” Mike tells me.

    In an average night in this line of work, Mike will be tossed between 50 to 60 times, occasionally at a distance of eight to ten feet.

    1. Cats and Corgis own the interwebs and midgets apparently own the strip clubs.

    2. Every effort at banning dwarf-tossing is most stringently opposed by the dwarves, since it puts them out of a job.

      1. When life hands you lemons…I mean, you’re going to get stared and gawked at anyway, why not cash in?

      2. Well, since mining becomes more dangerous each year and toymaking is done in factories in China these days, what are Thorin’s people to do?

        1. They have a kingdom in China.

  32. Australia court: Imprisoning refugees offshore is legal

    The verdict, announced on Wednesday, paves the way for 267 asylum-seekers currently in Australia to be deported to the Pacific island of Nauru.

    The group includes 39 children as well as 33 babies who were born in Australia.

    The legal case was brought by a Bangladeshi woman whose lawyers said her imprisonment on Nauru had been “funded, authorised, procured and effectively controlled” by the Australian government, without the constitutional power to do so.

    Reacting to the decision, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said the court’s decision was “significant”.

    The government will keep Australia’s borders secure and stop drownings at sea, he said, continuing the official line that offshore processing acts as a deterrent for asylum-seekers looking to make the dangerous crossing to Australia from Indonesia or beyond.

    1. As long as I don’t have to live like one.

    2. If they are free to leave and go back home, they are not “imprisoned”. You can’t be imprisoned if you choose to be there.

    3. Top Comment

      Colin Gardner

      Thank you, Colin. You really get to the heart of this issue.

      1. Colin has a kidney-bean shaped head, shpeeks shlowly and with a lisp while collecting TV Guide.

    4. The thing is, the policy works. The number of people making the attempt has dropped, as have the deaths resultant.

      1. Now, now. This is a libertarian site: do you think anyone cares about results?

    5. You wouldn’t think Australians would have much of an issue about shipping people off to islands.

    6. I wish I lived on a Pacific island. That would be sweet.

        1. (part of the Aleutian chain)

        2. I want to see the battlefield there, which is supposedly fairly untouched.

  33. St. Cloud homeowners find catfish in mailboxes

    “It starts with the catfish in the mailbox, but then it starts with breaking into a car. You never know where things escalate to.”

    To the catfish in the car?

    1. Sexual molestation of yard plants.

  34. Explosion forces plane to make emergency landing in Somalia

    An explosion and fire blew a gaping hole in a commercial airliner, forcing it to make an emergency landing at Mogadishu’s international airport late Tuesday, officials and witnesses said.

    The pilot said he thought it was a bomb. An aviation expert who looked at photographs of the hole in the fuselage said the damage was consistent with an explosive device.

    Two people were slightly injured as 74 passengers and crew of the plane were evacuated after the plane made a safe landing, Somali aviation official Ali Mohamoud said. It was not certain if all the passengers were accounted for.

    Should have taken the car… something something roads.

  35. Pope Francis is entertained by troupe of American cheerleaders before his weekly public sermon at the Vatican

    The pontiff smiled as he watched the group carry out a brief dance routine while he held court at St Peter’s Square.

    The dancers, from the American Circus, were dressed in the colours of their national flag, while the women donned pom poms and the men carried juggling sticks.

    Cool Pope, or creepy Pope?

    1. I am not fan of this pope but that is definitely not creepy.

      1. Especially since he’s nowhere near Borgia levels.

      2. Just because you get shade from the redwood is no reason not to look at the apple trees.

        1. Peace be with you, and also with dat ass.

            1. If it is a sin, why did God make that ass? I say he made it because he loves us and wants us to be happy.

    2. The British hate American culture and rarely miss an opportunity to show Americans it in a ridiculous light.

      Cheerleaders are Americans being silly in their eyes.

      The article isn’t really about the pope. It’s about Americans embarrassing themselves in front of the pope.

      1. Nobody tell Crystal Palace fans.

        1. They seem like very nice girls.

          I’m sure their parents are proud of them.

    3. Dressed in the colors of their national flag? Well sure, but do they not recognize the Captain America suit?

  36. French adviser? Is that like a kissing coach?

    End to Schengen deal would cost Europe 110 billion euros – French adviser

    The Schengen agreement is a centrepiece of European integration. But, under pressure from voters alarmed by an unprecedented influx of migrants from Africa and the Middle East, several governments have already temporarily reintroduced controls at their borders with fellow European Union states.

    A study by France Strategie, a think-tank directly attached to the prime minister’s office, said the drop in cross-border tourism and trade brought on by a permanent end of the free-travel area would cost Europe 0.8 percent of economic output over 10 years.

    For France alone, the cost would be 1 billion to 2 billion euros in the short term and 10 billion euros over 10 years, equivalent to 0.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the authors said.

    “Over the long term, the generalisation of permanent border controls would be equivalent to a 3 percent tax on trade between countries in the Schengen area, which would lead to a structural decline in trade of 10 to 20 percent,” they wrote.

    1. How about the kick out the countries who refuse to enforce their borders instead?

  37. Former German Broadcaster Admits State-Operated News Organization ZDF Takes Marching Orders from the Government
    I guess this is sort of a no-brainer, but it’s useful to know for certain.

    Here’s a story I assume ZDF won’t be publishing. At a town hall in a town called Bad Schlema, some citizens complained of “harassment” of young schoolgirls by migrants, as those girls passed the hostels and buildings the migrants were housed in.

    He asked, what will happen in the summer, when the girls wear less clothing?

    The mayor said, “That is simple to solve, just don’t walk by those places.”…

    1. Goose stepping orders?

    2. Time for ABC, CBS, and NBC to admit the same.

  38. Nobel Peace Prize: Donald Trump Among Those Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize, Report Says

    The GOP presidential candidate was among nominations to the five-person Norwegian Nobel Committee, Kristian Harpviken, director of the Peace Research Institute of Oslo, told AFP.

    1. They gave one to the Black Jesus in hopes it would inspire him to do better, why not try the same with The Donald?

    2. And why not?

    3. Haha not sure if serious

  39. Choose Your Heresy
    …Donald Trump’s response to this dilemma is protectionism, immigration restriction, and a big helping of his own often-claimed superhuman toughness and competence. It’s maybe not a very adequate answer, but it’s an answer. What’s Marco Rubio’s answer? What’s Jeb Bush’s? What’s Chris Christie’s?…

    1. Oh FFS.


  40. St. Cloud homeowners find catfish in mailboxes
    Residents trying to determine if it is fishy prank or something sinister


    If it was swordfish I’d suspect the Dead Milkmen, but at this point I’m stumped.

  41. Rand Paul announced this morning that he’s dropping out of the 2016 presidential race.

    And yet New Jersey Democrat Chris Christie is still in it.

    1. Perhaps HnR commenters should all vote for Almanian this year.

  42. Germany Considers $5,450 Limit on Cash Transactions
    BERLIN ? The German government is considering introducing a limit of 5,000 euros ($5,450) on cash transactions in an effort to combat money laundering and financing of terrorism….

    1. Germany is socialism by other means.

      1. Capitalist America allows cash transactions up to $10,000.

        1. We’re doomed.

      2. You know who else was a German socialist?

        1. Friedrich Engels?

  43. Hey, Rand. Now that you’re out… is there anyway I could, like, get my 25$ back?

    1. His campaign thanks you for that pizza.

  44. Deodorant: Antiperspirants Reduce Natural Microbial Bacteria on Human Skin, Researchers Say

    A North Carolina State University study published Feb. 2 in the journal Peer J says that deodorants cut down the microbial life in a person’s armpits. Much of that bacteria is considered beneficial.

    1. “One exciting finding was that the non-human primates were more covered in fecal and soil associated microbes.”

      You can’t fool *me*, lafe.long. That’s from The Onion.

      1. I used to work with a nursing student who said similar things.

    2. Great, more ammunition for Bernie Sanders.

    3. There is a difference between deodorants and anti-perspirants. Deodorants are just perfume. Anti-perspirants contain aluminum chlorhydrates, salts which cause the pores to close and reduce sweat production in the areas to which the product is applied. Almost all anti-perspirants also contain deodorants, but there are many deodorants which do not contain anti-perspirants.

      All this subject to change under President Sanders, of course.

    4. As opposed to the macrobiol bacteria?

    5. I am shocked to find that my anti-bacterial anti-perpirant kills bacteria.

  45. Serfs up with California’s new feudalism
    …Rather than a land of opportunity, our “new” California increasingly resembles a class-bound medieval society. The proportion of aggregate income taken by the top 1 percent is greatest in a couple of Californian metros, San Francisco and San Jose, as well as New York. California is the most unequal state when it comes to well-being, according to the report by Measure of America, which is a project of the Social Science Research Council….

    …This inequality is being justified ? and made worse ? by attempts to turn California into a mecca for the most extreme measures to reduce greenhouse gases. Like a good medievalist, Brown blames this one phenomenon for virtually everything, from wildfires to the drought and mass migrations. Like a medieval cleric railing against sin, Brown seems somewhat unconcerned that his beloved “coercive power of the state” is also largely responsible for California’s high electricity prices, regulation-driven spikes in home values and the highest oil prices in the continental United States….

    1. Progressive paradise. I am beginning to wonder if progressivism is really driving inequality and the progs are too stupid to make the connection. With the enormous amount of regulations, taxes and laws making it harder for ordinary folks

      1. If it is they will deny it as intentions matter more than results.

  46. Free food and rent for poor people

    Because subsidizing things never makes them more expensive *cough*collegetuition*cough*

    1. Oh, look. A completely useless “experiment.” A self-selected control group for GMI will prove absolutely nothing, mostly because the participants will be completely isolated from the worst potential effect: GMI-driven inflation.

  47. Speaking of Trade. For some reason this 2004 paper showing how FDR’s National Industrial Recovery Act prolonged the depression resurfaced on the web last week.


    This is old news to anyone who follows these things. But it got me to thinking what does this say about the effects of Smoot Halley and the benefits of free trade. For my entire life mainstream economists have lauded the unqualified benefits of free trade and pointed to Smoot Halley and its contribution to the great depression as evidence. I have always agreed with them. This paper makes me wonder about that.

    If it is true that the economy was as these guys put it poised for a beautiful recovery until FDR imposed his insane economic policies, then how can we blame protectionism for the Great Depression? Sure, it still can get the blame for the initial downturn, though even that is debatable since a lot of other things contributed to it. If the economy was at the end of that downturn, poised to have a beautiful recovery, doesn’t that mean that although the protectionism caused an initial downturn the economy adjusted and would have fully recovered had FDR not been such an idiot? And if that is true, then what does that say about the case for free trade?

    I am still believe in free trade but I am starting to wonder if it is the issue is as clear cut as I have always thought it was.

    1. Does anyone find it odd that the folks who say WWII ended the great depression are the same ones in love with the New deal? Wouldn’t this make the new deal look bad since it didn’t end the great depression?

      1. I do and always have. Their answer is usually something to the effect that FDR through his benevolent policies kept the country fed and prevented the rise of fascism until the war could end the depression.

        In reality, the economy boomed after the war because the war had, by rationing everything and ending the production of most commercial goods, created four years of pent up demand and an entire population that had nothing to do with their money but save it ready to spend it. If you don’t let anyone buy so much as a new refrigerator for four years, sure the economy is going to boom when you finally let them start buying again.

        1. The untold story is that the new deal was largely undone during WWII for the sake of efficiency, and then the war time rationing was lifted in 1946. That’s why the post war economy boomed. No economist at the time predicted the boom, instead they all forecast a return to depression.

          So in a way, the people saying that WWII ended the depression are correct. Must not in the way that they think it did.

          1. I know the employment % was high during the great depression but living standard low. I am thinking the New Deal made it worse.

            Just like our massive government spending and regulations have led to a low recovery. But you have idiots like Ryan Cooper claiming our economy would have been much better without all the austerity of past few years.

            1. Austerity?

              1. Yea he claimed our economy was sluggish due to republican austerity (600B+ deficits are apparently austerity)

            2. Sorry not great depression but i meant the war…employment was high during WAR but living standards low

              1. By what measure were living standards low?

                1. My understanding is during WWII most resources were diverted to the effort and thus standard of living wasn’t great

                  1. In terms of material goods, yes that is probably correct.

                  2. No, but it was still a decent standard. You could still get things like butter and eggs, they were just rationed. Somewhere I still have one of my grandmother’s old ration books – a book of coupons that you tore off and gave to the vendor when you purchased rationed products.

                    1. And, it was likely a high standard of living compared with every place else on Earth.

          2. Yes. The only thing that is left from the New Deal is Social Security. Everything else was either repealled or amended to something entirely different.

            1. Wickard is still with us.

              1. But that wasn’t The New Deal. That was the courts.

            2. The only thing that is left from the New Deal is Social Security.

              And FDIC. And FHA. And SEC. And TVA.

              Not to mention the labor laws…

        2. Coupled with that pent up demand was the fact that the entire industrial base of the rest of the developed world was a pile of rubble.

          1. But the economy didn’t grow from exports. It grew from domestic consumption. So the rest of the world being rubble didn’t really help us.

            1. Perhaps but there was also nothing to import.

              1. Yeah but the global economy was less connected back then. And remember, the economy was very protectionist throughout the entire last half of the 19th Century. That didn’t seem to slow us down much.

            2. Actually, it seems there was a bump in export activity following the war, from $3.1B in 1938 to $12.5B in 1948 and $20.3B in 1960.

              On a CAGR basis that’s 15% annually from 1938 to 1948 – and may be misleading low as there were several years during that period where export activity was minimal.

              From 1938 to 1960 that’s 9% annually.

        3. In the same breath, they can also now argue that Eisenhower’s high top tax rates didn’t matter.

          1. But they really didn’t matter right since no one paid them due to all the exemptions and deductions?

          2. I think the progs want the 90% tax rates to actually “work”

      2. They’re government worshipers, not compassionate. They don’t really care whether it’s slaughter or welfare that justifies faith in Gov and its clerics and prophets, so long as people have faith.

      3. What ended the great depression was the END of WWII.

    2. Part of me thinks the issue is the change. The economy can adjust to a fixed set of rules and people will find ways to thrive. Each time you change the rules, you upend those people and organizations who’d managed to adapt to the rules and force the rest to start over with adapting.

      The more changes you make, the more you prolong problems, especially when people begin to expect irrational changes and act to avoid the risk associated (ie stop entirely until stability resumes)

      1. That is certainly part of it. The issue is is free trade something that automatically and in all cases makes you richer, as pretty much every mainstream economist claims or is it something that may or may not make you richer depending on the circumstances. If the net result of protectionism is sometimes just the economy adjusting and going merrily on, then the issue might not be as easy as “all free trade good”.

        1. It depends on your point of view.

          If you look at it from a consumer point of view, and we are all consumers, then free trade is always good. It means lower priced goods for everyone.

          From a protectionist point of view, free trade is terrible. It means furriners stealing murkin jerbs. The solution then is to make foreign goods more expensive. Sure that helps domestic producers and their employees by shielding them from competition, but it also means more expensive goods for everyone.

          Here in Maine there is a New Balance shoe factory. To protect this factory and the several hundred people it employs, the government adds a tariff to imported shoes. This means that everyone in the country must pay more money for shoes, just to protect one little factory. I’m sure the people in that factory think that this improves the economy by giving a few hundred people more money to spend, but the millions who have to spend more money for shoes far outweighs that little protectionist benefit.

          1. The problem with the consumer vs producer dichotomy is that the overwhelming majority of people are both producers and consumers. The only people that ar pure consumers are trust fund babies and wards of the government.

            1. So what? If you both are a consumer and a producer, and as a producer you don’t need protection from competition because you can produce your widgets more cheaply than foreigners, then you aren’t going to go to the government and beg for them to make foreign goods more expensive. Besides that, in an economy dominated by services, the argument doesn’t even apply. It’s not like my plumber has to worry about a plumber in China undercutting him.

              1. Except that sometimes that “expense” is due to ethical lines that we don’t want people to feel tempted to have to cross to be able to complete, like using slave labor or dumping the waste products onto orphanage playgrounds. There’s a reason we don’t consider fences to be a valuable part of a free economy. Unlike intranational trade, international trade also carries with it the impacts of variations in laws between societies.

                1. Way to move the goalposts.

                  1. How is it moving the goalposts? We’re talking about objective reality, the only goalpost is correctness.

                    If a fence is able to operate freely in his society (say, he has the support of his government and steals only from the right people), he has a comparative advantage relative to those who actually to work to create goods.

                    Anyone who deals with him is an accomplice (even if perhaps an ignorant one); the lower prices they are negotiating are taken from someone else’s property rights. The same concept applies to other violations of property or self-ownership — slavery, pollution, etc.

                    Were such a thing to be tolerated, the general tendency of free markets would be to put those without comparative advantage (that is to say, honest people) out of business. With fences, at least, there is the limiting factor that someone has to actually produce goods for them to be stolen, but the same doesn’t apply to slavery or pollution.

                    A country cannot rationally set legal restrictions on economic conduct, yet trade freely with those that violate them. It would be like declaring your code of ethics forbids you from hurting animals, but working around it by buying meat in stores.

                    If economic practices are tolerable, then they should be tolerated domestically. And if they are not, it is reasonable that trade be restricted. White markets are based on rule-of-law; where there is significant legal conflict, there is no white market.

                    1. More often than not, the term “slave labor” does not mean actual slavery. It means “people working for less money than I feel they should be getting paid.”

                      The workers do not consider themselves to be slaves. Rather they are grateful for an opportunity to improve their lives by doing something that pays better than what they were doing before.

                      When you forbid trade with people, you prevent them from improving their lives.

                    2. And sometimes it means actual slave labor, people working under threat of violence (legitimate or otherwise) or other violation of their rights. How exactly do you keep slavers from gaining comparative advantage without restricting free trade? Clearly, within a society, you simply ban the practice. Between them, that isn’t feasible.

                    3. And sometimes it means actual slave labor, people working under threat of violence (legitimate or otherwise) or other violation of their rights.

                      I find that whenever I hear of “slave labor” it is usually exaggerated or downright false. The stories usually come from people who, with a straight face, say minimum wage is “slave labor.”

                      Most if not all of the time, “slave labor” simply means that the people who voluntarily take these jobs aren’t getting paid as much as someone else would like. Some evil corporation is hurting people by giving them jobs and raising their standard of living. It is “slave labor” because the evil corporation is making a profit.

                      That’s the same level of thinking as “not taking is giving and not giving is taking.”

                      Show me some examples of actual slave labor, and I won’t buy their products. Otherwise, I will continue to support free trade, thank you very much.

                    4. How exactly do you keep slavers from gaining comparative advantage without restricting free trade?

                      Be an informed consumer and don’t buy their stuff. Or maybe you could buy their stuff in the hopes that it results in their society becoming rich enough that they won’t need to employ slavery anymore.

                      I’m sorry, but I really have a difficult time justifying the use of force to prevent people from voluntarily exchanging goods. That makes me weird.

            2. And even trust fund babies are producers. Not directly, but unless their trust fund is a swimming pool full of money, it is likely invested as capital and employed in some sort of production.

        2. The issue I have with free trade is that “relative advantage” only works at full employment in both countries. When there is unemployment, it migrates to the country with the highest cost of production, aggregating that unemployment in one location. This is definately not a gain for that country, which tends to be us in a lot of these cases.

          If you want an empyrical example, look at the trade inside the US. We are essentially as close to a free-trade zone as you can get within geopolitics at the moment. The jobs all moved to the places where the cost of production was lowest, aggregating national unemployment in those areas with the highest costs of production.

          As an aside, The standard response of “well move then” when this matter comes up willfully ignores all of the factors in uprooting and going three thousand miles to start looking for a job.

          1. That is an excellent point.

          2. The bigger issue with ‘comparative advantage’ is that today government policies are a much bigger factor than any natural effect.

          3. This takes too narrow of a view. Unemployment only remains (especially at high levels) if those jobs that were displaced by competition cannot be reallocated to some other purpose. The reason is that employment is in and of itself a form of competition.

            A perfect example of how government largesse exacerbates the problem is Detroit. Sure, foreign auto companies caused troubles in that city as domestic manufacturers were forced to cut costs. However, that labor could have been reallocated had the city, state and nation not tried so damn hard to keep that labor from adapting. From unions that forced high wages under the protection of the state, to local governments that squandered public money on programs providing services to auto companies. They basically created a trap for labor that made adaptation of the labor force nearly impossible.

            Protectionism’s cost isn’t just the additional money consumers must pay. It is the camel’s nose in the tent where government decides to use its power to restrict adaptation so that a single producer doesn’t have to adapt. This causes a rippling detriment to the economy as resources face more and more barriers to reallocation. More efficient businesses are crowded out- cannot get access to the public and private services they need. Laborers are incentivised to bet everything on the protected industry.

            1. Put another way, you shouldn’t look at protectionism and the New Deal as two different beasts. They weren’t. They were all protectionism. Tarrifs are price fixing at the international level. And a lot of the New Deal was protectionism at the local level- enforcing price fixing by protection of Unions, price fixing materials like grain, and finished goods (there were prices fixed on everything from meat to manufactured parts) and reallocation of money to favored classes was merely a form of subsidizing labor. Sure this is a dead end job with no real future, but the government is going to handle your retirement and welfare, so you don’t have to choose a more viable (i.e. economically valuable) job.

    3. Hint: there was no single cause for the Great Depression, and only straw men claim that there was.

      1. I never said there was a single cause of the Depression. I am talking about FDR’s role in making the downturn go on so long.

      2. The single cause was structuralracismpatriarchy. That’s the cause of all problems. “Capitalism” would have also been an acceptable answer; I think the terms are synonymous.

    4. The economy could have been poised for a great recovery relative to the clusterfuck we got while it still would have been better off with free trade.

      1. Not necessarily and not according to what these guys have to say. Of course we can’t live the counter factual. But to just automatically say “but the recovery would have been bigger” is just to beg the question. Maybe it would have but maybe it wouldn’t. Moreover, the fact that the economy was poised to return to pre downturn levels makes it very hard to figure out what the long term effects of the act were much less prove they were bad.

        1. Indeed, Michigan would’ve done much better had it decided not to freely trade cars to other states. Buy local!

          The problem with learning economics is that the insane things some people opine on economics don’t sound so insane anymore, just creepy. Because at that moment I realize that they’re lying through their very teeth. Nobody can be that dense and still live.

          1. You missing the point. See uncivil servant’s point above addressing that issue. Trade between Michigan and California is not analogous to trade between say the US and Europe or Japan, because the cultural and legal barriers to the movement of labor.

            And you are doing exactly what I am talking about; begging the question. Economics may not be a hard science, but it is not a religious faith either. i would suggest you stop treating it as such.

            1. Re: John,

              Trade between Michigan and California is not analogous to trade between say the US and Europe or Japan

              Uhh. See what I mean?

              Trade is trade. Only INDIVIDUALS trade, not states or countries. When a government imposes a BARRIER, it is precluding free individuals through an act of naked and unwarranted aggression from trading their goods and services for money or other goods or services. The fact that you would arbitrarily regard one set of borders but not others indicates you still have this twisted idea of trade as a collective effort – it ISN’T.

              Only MAN acts. Not countries. Not states. MAN. Individual MAN.

              1. Did you take a marijuana or something? Did someone give you “the idiot’s guide to macro economics” and you read half of it while on a drinking binge?

                Seriously, you are not normally a crank. What has gotten into you? If you can’t understand how the mobility of labor and capital affects trade and think anyone who does is just “the crazy”, I don’t know what to say to you. I don’t even know how to start to have a conversation without about this subject because you are assumptions about it are so whacked that there is no way we can do anything but talk past each other.

                1. OM is right. Only individuals trade. All governments do is make things difficult by imposing tariffs and regulations on goods that cross lines on a map. But the transactions are all between individuals.

                  1. Sarcasmic,

                    If you have free movement of labor and a common currency, comparative advantage has its full effect. If you don’t, then it doesn’t necessarily. If another country say artificially devalues its currency, its products will be cheaper even if there is in reality no comparative advantage.

                    Moreover, if you have free movement of labor, when the comparative advantage shifts from one place to another, the workers displaced by that can move to the new location. If you don’t have free movement, they can’t just move and their displacement creates a ton of problems that otherwise would be solved by the free movement of labor.

                    Its easy to say “just let the foreigners make it if they can make it cheaper” but in the real world where there isn’t a common currency nor real free movement of labor, it is not that simple.

                    1. If another country say artificially devalues its currency, its products will be cheaper even if there is in reality no comparative advantage.

                      Then consumers win because the other country is in effect subsidizing their exports. Retaliatory tariffs only serve to make those imported goods more expensive, which means less money for consumers to spend on other stuff, and that doesn’t help the economy.

                      If you don’t have free movement, they can’t just move and their displacement creates a ton of problems that otherwise would be solved by the free movement of labor.

                      OK… I don’t see how that is an argument against free trade.

                2. Re: John,

                  If you can’t understand how the mobility of labor and capital affects trade and think anyone who does is just “the crazy”[…]

                  Stop being so emotional.

                  What is it that you were arguing just a few posts ago? If the net result of protectionism is sometimes just the economy adjusting and going merrily on, then the issue might not be as easy as “all free trade good”.

                  You seem to have little regard for the consequences of naked acts of aggression by the government against individuals. You forget that trade is not something people wake up to do one day, forget about it during the night and then wake up to do it again. It is not like drinking coffee. People engage in CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS, which require negotiations, cash advances (sometimes) or credit from the bank, purchase orders, shipping contracts, delivery, handling, invoicing, etc. ALL THOSE THINGS are affected by a simple act of thievery by the government. The government, feeling omnipotent, tells people where they can shove their “property rights”. That is exactly what Smoot-Halley did. It lead to many businesses being unable to import the goods it already contracted for and made it more difficult for exporters to sell their goods abroad. It caused an upheaval the size of which not even God had ever seen. Don’t be so cavalier about it.

                3. If you can’t understand how the mobility of labor and capital affects trade and think anyone who does is just “the crazy”, I don’t know what to say to you.

                  You’re agreeing with OM.

                  Trade between Michigan and California is not analogous to trade between say the US and Europe or Japan, because the cultural and legal barriers to the movement of labor.

      2. There was a pretty severe recession post WWI. The economy bounced back quickly and unleashed the roaring 20’s – in large part due to the government keeping it’s mitts off of things and letting them recover.

        1. The post WWI recession was caused by Wilson’s printing money to fund the war. The recession such as it was was more of a great inflation where the entire country lost most of the gains in wealth that had been achieved since the civil war.

          1. Worse so for Europe that not only suffered huge monetary expansion, but had an enormous amount capital stock wiped out. The world would be momentously more wealthy today if WW1 hadn’t happened or even if Wilson had not inserted the US into that war.

    5. So what actually caused the great depression? What were some of the bad new deal ideas? I know there was excess taxation, the NRA, the burn crops thing, price and wage controls.

      1. His attempt at court packing

      2. This

        President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services,” said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. “So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies.”

        1. Didn’t he also funnel money to preferred groups to votes? i heard blacks got slammed by the new deal.

          1. They did. I forget exactly how but it involved him screwing black farmers in the south in favor of northern white ones.

      3. Technically speaking it was the collapse of commercial banks in 31-32 that made the depression great by shrinking the money supply 25%. A number of bad policies contributed to and prolonged it. One little discussed factor was technological change, specifically farm mechanization which dumped a large number of people into the labor market at the worst possible time.

        1. What people also never mention is that as bad as the downturn was, it was not the worst in US history. Both the downturns of 1873 and 1837 were initially worse. What made the Great Depression Great was its length. It is pretty much beyond doubt that the reason it lasted so long was because the Keynsians showed up to “help”.

    6. Most of you are completely wrong in pointing out Smoot-Halley or the NRA as the causes of the Great Depression. NONE of those things caused the Depression. None.

      The Depression was caused by a rapid expansion in credit. Our monetary system is entirely based on the promise of delivery of future goods and services. FUTURE. As in: they ain’t there yet. For 6000 or 4000 years (depending on when it started) people have traded already-existing goods. Barter goods first, then gold, silver (and other metals) as indirect trade (money). Not so anymore since the current banking system came into existence which monetizes credit, or the promise of future goods. It is no different than a Ponzi scheme except in gigantic scale. And like any Ponzi scheme, it is subject to collapse sooner rather than later.

      That is exactly what happened when the Federal Reserve expanded credit during the 1920s. The scheme simply collapsed in 1929. The money created out of credit for goods that could never be delivered simply disappeared. That’s called a correction. That’s what caused the Depression.

      What made the recovery so long was the series of stupid interventions in the Market by the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations who suddenly felt they were magicians. If you want know what PROLONGED the Depression, then you can name all the programs meant to stimulate the economy and the series of imbecilic protectionist schemes like Smoot-Halley.

      1. I don’t disagree with that. But if Smoote Halley didn’t cause the great Depression, one of the cornerstone arguments against protectionism falls. That doesn’t mean protectionism is good, but it is certainly something to think about.

        1. Re: John,

          But if Smoot?Hawley didn’t cause the great Depression

          I just said it didn’t.

          It helped prolong it, but it wasn’t the cause.

          That doesn’t mean protectionism is good

          I completely agree with you that as an argument against Smoot?Hawley, saying it caused the Great Depression is a total and complete lie.

          The argument against protectionism is entirely based on sound economic reasoning and also morality. The moral judgment against protectionism is based on the fact it is a form of naked aggression by the State against peaceful individuals. The economic reasoning against protectionism is that it is based on the false notion that imports are bad for business whereas exports are good, which is a fallacy that runs contra the Law of Comparative Advantage.

          And yes, it is Smoot-Hawley. I was spelling it wrong and so were many here.

        2. It didn’t cause the great depression but i think it exacerabted it

          1. Yes, it did. Enormously.

            The problem with economists downplaying the effect that the tariff had in the recovery is that instead of looking at the actual effects, they simply average everything (know as looking at “The Aggregate”) so that the effect is spread evenly throughout all areas of an economy to then show just how trivial the effect was. That is what lazy economists do.

            It is obvious bullshit, of course. Smoot-Hawley wasn’t obviously the sole culprit in exacerbating the depression but the effect it had on manufacturing was gigantic. It incited retaliatory action by other governments (which were populated by people as clueless in economics as anybody in the Hoover administration) which paralyzed the export market for most American goods, betraying the very industry the protectionists ostensibly wanted to protect. It also had a ripple effect along the economy as cheaper imports were suddenly not available, which meant that people who were struggling with money now had to contend with higher prices (!)


        3. It didn’t cause it; it exacerbated it. I recall the following book from college doing a good job of laying out the myriad reasons why (it’s been over a decade, so I may be conflating this with another):


          Smoot-Hawley is a good argument against protectionism, but there are scores of evidence against it from throughout human history. Go back to ancient civilizations, through the Dutch, British (particularly the debate over the Corn Laws), and American experiences (domestic specifically: the Constitution turned the US into a huge free-trade zone and we have long reaped the benefits).

          Protectionism only works as a short-term measure to guard specific industries or groups against changes in the global or national economy, and those protections inevitably end up failing due to outside pressures. They are a waste of resources in the best case, and a sever drag on wealth creation at worst.

          1. Kindleberger wrote Manias, Panics and Crashes – a great book that everyone should read.

        4. I’m with OM. Protectionism is bad because it tramples the rights of individuals. I also happen to believe that it is almost always economically harmful, but that’s harder to know for sure.

      2. “Hawley-Smoot”

    7. Hey can someone give me a break down regarding things that depression was really over by definition before FDR and then the New deal kicked in bringing about a major recession in 1937.

      Also how hoover was not actually laissez faire as is claimed but rather was the father of the new deal. Interested to hear your perspectives

  48. I know AM links are about done… but:

    Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: CDC Urges Young Women to Avoid All Alcohol Unless Using Contraception

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says women of child-bearing age should avoid alcohol to reduce babies born with the syndrome. The CDC said half of U.S. pregnancies are unplanned.

    1. A woman has to be a blackout drunk to produce a child with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. What a load of shit.

      1. Oh, but now it’s a spectrum, don’t you know?

        It is totally a bullshit anti-alcohol thing. FAS happens, as you say, when someone drinks heavily, frequently while pregnant. But tons of people have bought into the idea that any drinking while pregnant is completely unsafe and means you are a bad person.

        1. European women never got that memo.

          1. My wife always got enjoyment out of seeing the glaring disapproval of fellow diners when sipped red wine while pregnant. Once even made quite a scene arguing with a waitress that refused to serve her a glass of wine. My wife is like some kind of social masochist.

            1. The fact that so many people think that it is any of their damn business always amazes me when it comes to pregnant drinking. Right up there with people who call the cops because a kid is alone in a car.

    2. “most women do not know they are pregnant until they are 4-6 weeks into the pregnancy. This means a woman might be drinking and exposing *her developing baby* to alcohol without knowing it.” [emphasis added]

      Why is a government Web site carrying this right-wing theocratic propaganda?

      I mean, “baby”? Really? The Obama administration is obviously carrying water for the Religious Right and its anti-choice agenda!


    3. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says women of child-bearing age should avoid alcohol to reduce babies born with the syndrome.

      CDC: “Planned Parenthood wants those baby parts pristine, y’all!”

  49. Interesting comment on TV just now:

    “The Hillary campaign is unnerved by what they saw in Iowa. She was crushed by voters under 35 and by voters that prioritize honesty.”

    There are voters who openly admit that honesty in a candidate isnt an issue for them? I know there are plenty around who feel that way, but they admit it?

    1. As Chuck Klosterman said, “If honesty drove the electoral process… the 2008 presidential race would have been a dead heat between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.”

    2. Wait… who wouldn’t prioritize honesty?

  50. Based on the dialogue above, here is the key question. When are the keynesian policys (new deal, stimulus package etc) going to actually live up to what they claim?

    It seems to me they all fail or do don’t what they predicted…they blame someone else or say more was needed. It must be nice never having to be accountable for anything.

    1. When are the keynesian policys (new deal, stimulus package etc) going to actually live up to what they claim?


      they blame someone else or say more was needed

      That’s why progtards love it so much.

      It must be nice never having to be accountable for anything.


    2. Re: Frankjasper1,

      Based on the dialogue above, here is the key question. When are the Keynesian policies (new deal, stimulus package etc) going to actually live up to what they claim?

      That’s the thing, Frank – those policies can NEVER live up to their promises because they’re completely based on false premises.

      The first false premise is that the economy works by people demanding things and producers conjuring them up from (almost) nothing. The economy is thus modeled as some kind of back box where if you give people money to demand stuff, stuff comes out. The second false premise is the notion that what fuels production is credit. All capital formation is based on credit. Give enough credit and producers will produce.

      Sound economics counters these two premises by indicating that consumption is actually the end stage of production. We produce in order to consume, which means we must produce FIRST, not demand FIRST.

      The second point given by sound economic theory is that capital is not credit. Capital comes from SAVINGS, from postponed consumption, and not from a promise of future goods. That type of credit, the promise of future goods, actually destroys capital by malinvestment, that is when real capital and capital goods are employed on things that will never deliver on their promise.

      1. By way of example, just look at all those articles saying “Just because the stimulus didn’t do anything close to what ‘experts’ claimed it would doesn’t mean we should call it a ‘failure’ because [insert non-provable counterfactual claim].”

      2. We produce in order to consume, which means we must produce FIRST, not demand FIRST.

        You’re suggesting that our production is undirected and irrational. Here’s a simplified version of what happens, with all the interpersonal tomfoolery taken out:

        1. People “demand” (ie, become cognizant of a desire for a good or service)
        2. Producers develop a process for supplying that demand. Sometimes this step comes first, if producers predict future demand before it actually occurs.
        3. They supply it.
        4. People trade them something of value in exchange for the demanded good/service.
        5. People consume the demanded good/service. Return to step 3 as necessary.

  51. Want to go? http://theminaretonline.com/20…..ixon-park/

    Anyone going?

  52. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here…….
    Clik This Link inYour Browser.
    ???????? http://qr.net/bvXsV

  53. Only individuals trade.

    Idaho own all the liquor stores for stuff greater than 32 proof. So when I take in my legal tender in exchange for some Jagermeister, with which individual am I trading? The Clerk?

    1. And say the Hilton Hotel(i.e. a corporation) wants to buy some liquor for its bar? Are the individual shareholders the traders? Are the people of the State of Idaho on the other side of the Exchange?

  54. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    ?????? http://www.Wage90.com

  55. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here…….
    Clik This Link inYour Browser.
    ???????? http://www.Wage90.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.