A.M. Links: Terrorist Attacks in Brussels, Obama Speech in Cuba, Trump and Clinton 'Viewed Negatively at Historic Levels'

|

  • Multiple terrorist attacks have struck the Belgian capital city of Brussels. At least 15 people were killed by an explosion at a Brussels subway station and at least 11 people were killed by two explosions at the Brussels airport. Many more people are injured. At least one of the airport explosions is believed to have been the work of a suicide bomber.

  • According to a new poll, "Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton register net negative ratings in double digits, indicating the front-runners for each party's presidential nominations are viewed negatively at historic levels."
  • Bill Clinton: Hillary can "put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us."
  • Edward Snowden: "I didn't use Microsoft machines when I was in my operational phase, because I couldn't trust them."

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

Advertisement

NEXT: At Least 130 Injured and 31 Dead In Brussels Airport, Metro Explosions

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. Multiple terrorist attacks have struck the Belgian capital city of Brussels.

    Workplace violence or youtube video?

    1. Hello.

    2. The Confederate flag did it

  2. Voters head to the polls today in Arizona, Idaho, Utah, and American Samoa.

    Trump won’t count those last votes

      1. I see you saw fit to tag along.

        1. Neither of you will earn any brownie points from Swiss.

        2. Look at all you thin men slagging on Girl Scouts. You should be ashamed.

  3. “I didn’t use Microsoft machines when I was in my operational phase, because I couldn’t trust them.”

    LOOK WHO’S TALKING ABOUT TRUST ALL THE SUDDEN.

  4. Bill Clinton: Hillary can “put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us.”

    Hilarious!

    1. He continued “and get down to some really legendary levels of awful.”

    2. The backpedaling was a hoot.

        1. It’s in the CNN article linked from the mourning lynx.

          1. Thanks.

            Angel Urena, Bill Clinton’s spokesman, did not directly explain what the former President meant by the “awful legacy of the last eight years,” but reiterated that Bill Clinton thinks “President Obama doesn’t get the credit he deserves for setting us back on course for economic prosperity.”

            “Obama doesn’t get the credit he deserves for setting us back.” Gold, Angel!

            1. He means the Bush hangover. Obama just wasn’t up for the job.

            2. For Clinton to describe the Obama legacy as such might mean that he has leaked knowledge that an indictment is in Hillary’s future.

      1. The fact that he then called the previous 7 years (Bush Administration) a time of trickle down economics just underscores what a political dinosaur he is. The Clintons are trying to lock in voters with the same verbiage that they were using against HW Bush.

        (Let’s not also forget that if any presidential term will be characterized as “Trickle Down” it would be the last seven, where we shoveled money to keep banks solvent so that they could periodically give a loan to the middle class.)

    3. By making the next 8 infinitely worse. So technically correct.

  5. Bill Clinton: Hillary can “put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us.”

    Oh yeah, this is going to get good.

    1. Why does he hate Hillary?

      1. Why do you think he hates Hillary?

        1. Why wouldn’t he is the proper question.

        2. “Familiarity breeds contempt.”

          At least, that’s what my ex-wife said (and come to think of it, so does Mrs. Dean).

  6. “Arab Spring”.

    1. Well, it is spring now.

  7. Ovarian Psycos: A bicycle crew that rides for feminism

    They ride by night. Once a month a couple of hundred female bicycling enthusiasts gather for a “Luna Ride”, in which they take to the streets en masse to reclaim parts of Los Angeles that have been traditionally dangerous for women to be alone after dark. They’ve appropriated gang-style imagery, but with a feminist twist ? their bandannas and scarves bear white-on-black images of uteruses and Fallopian tubes.

    They call themselves the Ovarian Psycos, and though anyone is allowed to participate in their Luna Rides, membership in the crew itself is limited to women of colour. The women are largely Latina and many have been victims of domestic violence. For them, riding a bicycle is a political act, because in many Latino families bicycling is thought to be a male activity. When they ride across Los Angeles, the Ovarian Psycos are protesting what they feel are the limited expectations for women in their community and in society at large.

    1. Go on…

    2. Bicycle seats injure 600,000 men a year. Some permanently.

    3. ..membership in the crew itself is limited to women of colour. The women are largely Latina

      Shakira would like a ruling on whether she is sufficiently Latina-colored.

      1. Of course she is, her hips don’t lie

    4. The Ovarian Psychos are on their way to the White House in a few more months.

    5. the crew itself is limited to women of colour. The women are largely Latina

      Latina is a “colour”?

        1. Who are you calling off, hombre?

          /psyco-sis

      1. largely Latina

        racist codeword!

        1. Was she a big girl?

      2. No white Hispanics allowed.

      3. There you go, WTF, expecting words to mean things.

    6. I have a friend who invited me to a similar ride in Chicago. It’s naked biking though? So maybe it doesn’t have a feminist twist.

      1. Naked biking just sounds painful.

        1. I’d wear some form of bottoms. I’d hate to get a wedgie from the seat in my . . . uh. . . personal area.

          1. Pictures please, pretty please with sprinkles…

            1. LP, I have a collection of tasteful, unicycle nudes I can share with you. Let me know.

            2. When you ask so nicely . . .

    7. My favorite was a San Fran bicycle delivery service, all lesbians, that called themselves “Lickety Split”.

  8. What does it say about me that after an attack like this, I’m less scared of the terrorists and more scared of our government’s response to the terrorists?

    1. You’re a sensible person with some awareness of history and a working knowledge of incentives?

    2. I agree but we can’t meet this with a simple shrug either.

      Back in the day, terrorist acts were limited to outside our borders. We were told it could *never* happen here. Looks like it’s happening here.

      1. Who is “we,” and what are you doing in Belgium?

        1. The West, pal. ‘WE’RE’ all on the hit list. Even Canada.

          1. Canada is not west, it’s NORTH.

            1. Yeah but Canada has it’s own problems with all those Wildlings and the Boltons running the show so they don’t count anyway

      2. In Montreal? I mean, obviously it can happen anywhere. But the situation in North America is rather different from that in Europe.

        This is definitely a big fucking deal. But is there really any good to come from anything other than a shrug? The world is run by assholes and that’s not going to change. I guess I’m feeling particularly cynical this morning.

        1. Of course Montreal. My friend is in the RCMP. He can’t give details but we’re a target.

          1. By the way, a lone nut acting on behalf on these assholes did kill a soldier in Quebec City and another went on a rampage in Ottawa.

            I notice the attack on Belgium came rather soon after Paris. I wonder if the frequency will rise.

          2. If they are anything like US police, they think everything is a target.

            1. Not sure. Judging by how they act with gun control, maybe they exhibit the same ‘fears’ as U.S. cops?

        2. Terrorists have been operating in western Europe for decades. And not just the usual suspects. Yeah there has been something of a lull in recent years but this shit was pretty commonplace back in the day.

          1. Yeah, between ETA and IRA and others including earlier Islamic terrorists, Europe has seen a lot of this sort of thing. They really have types of nationalism and immigrant ghettoization that we don’t really have in North America so much.
            I don’t doubt that there are people planning nasty things here. But I don’t think we are about to see much like what has been happening in Europe.

      3. Rufus, unless you’re in Brussels, there isn’t here. I haven’t heard of anything like this in Ottawa or Philly recently, have you? There are very large differences between the Islamic terrorist problem in Europe and the one here. What might be appropriate for the Euros, given their lack of our Constitution, probably won’t fly here. And shouldn’t.

        When we start seeing airports blow up in the States, or assholes walking into a Starbucks in Chicago and blowing themselves sky high, then it’ll be time to start worrying about how much of our 4th Amendment et al, is going to be sacrificed out of a feeling of safety. I just don’t think we’re there yet.

        1. We’re on the list.

          And it did happen here (as I just explained on top) and we also prevented a plot to put bombs in the Toronto airport. As for the U.S., they keep foiling plots, Hassan was a terrorist attack, Boston and never mind about 9/11.

          So yes, there’s a ‘we’ here because they’re making it a ‘we’.

          1. Outside of 911 it was all amateur hour. Not that that isn’t a problem. But I’m not sure there is anything to be done about it that won’t infringe on our liberty.

            1. Yes, it is amateur hour but tell that to the family who lost their little boy in Boston. Those two assholes did enough damage in my view.

              That’s step one. Then they learn to be more sophisticated. It’s the home grown aspect to this that’s problematic. I’m not worried nor do I feel this is a reason to go full blown police state some more but it definitely merits attention. For example, Apple is doing right to fight the FBI – though I admit not knowing the full details regarding their true motives. But the sentiment is the correct one I think.

              1. Well, to be fair, I think what Brussels has seen is a bit better than amateur hour. Maybe as good as “JV Level” to quote a noted Constitutional Law specialist.

                Two separate but coordinated attacks to stretch CT resources, where one of the targets was hit with a followup detonation (if we can believe the reports) a few minutes later, with the assumed intent of immolating rescue personnel attending the victims of the first blast.

                While this kind of coordination may seem innovative in recent European history, it wasn’t so long ago that the IRA were doing exactly this kind of thing in the mainland UK.

                The Islamists are learning; we can hope they stay suicidey so that on an individual level, they don’t start getting any real “work experience”.

              2. Well, to be fair, I think what Brussels has seen is a bit better than amateur hour. Maybe as good as “JV Level” to quote a noted Constitutional Law specialist.

                Two separate but coordinated attacks to stretch CT resources, where one of the targets was hit with a followup detonation (if we can believe the reports) a few minutes later, with the assumed intent of immolating rescue personnel attending the victims of the first blast.

                While this kind of coordination may seem innovative in recent European history, it wasn’t so long ago that the IRA were doing exactly this kind of thing in the mainland UK.

                The Islamists are learning; we can hope they stay suicidey so that on an individual level, they don’t start getting any real “work experience”.

            2. ‘Outside of 911 it was all amateur hour.’
              It’s always amateur hour until it isn’t.
              The London tube bombing was followed by an identical attack two weeks later. It failed, the explosive had degraded and only the detonators fired. Success and failure often seem to be separated by a narrow margin.

              1. Well the marathon guys did a pretty good job of a homemade bomb. I was thinking more of the lack of organization and “lone wolf” sort of nature of most attacks in the US.

          2. You had a nut who shot up Parliament. So have we. We did not immediately expel all Puerto Ricans after that. We didn’t put all Puerto Ricans under surveillance (though I’m sure Hoover thought about it.) We tried the fucks who shot up the House, convicted them, and sent them away for a very long time. Until that fucker Carter pardoned them.

            You are going to have nuts who can shoot up their local environment. It is inescapable with private firearms ownership, de-institutionalization of the mentally ill, and a general catch and release paradigm when it comes to violent crime. You can reduce the likelihood—which is astoundingly rare—by locking up people when they become violent, and allowing your population to carry means of defending themselves from a nut with a gun. As for bomb plots, maybe it’s different with the RCMP, but most of our bomb plots originate from the fertile minds of agents with the FBI and BATFE, inducing the easily swayed and angered to commit actions in support of massively impractical plans. All at budget time, of course.

            Tossing our classical liberal system of policing and jurisprudence isn’t necessary to stop these attacks. Neither is worrying unduly about the vanishingly small likelihood of being affected by acts of terrorism.

            1. We did not immediately expel all Puerto Ricans after that. We didn’t put all Puerto Ricans under surveillance

              Perhaps because “Puerto Rican” is not an ideology whose practitioners largely agree about who their enemy is and what they should do about them.

              1. Puerto Rican separatism was, Free. And practitioners of it were difficult to ferret out from other Puerto Ricans. It wasn’t the only attack they pulled on the U.S. Gov’t either. Further, as barbaric as parts of Islam are, Islamicists do not “largely agree about who their enemy is and what they should do about them.” Extreme Salafists do. But how do you screen them out from a larger pool of American Muslims? (This of course assumes they’re already citizens. I don’t see why the U.S. is obligated to take in a bunch of foreigners poorer than average, less skilled than the average American worker, and not sharing in American cultural values.)

                Similarly, a very small percentage of gun owners will snap and kill someone with their legally owned firearm. Their boss, their cheating spouse, a bunch of people who were talking to them through an Uber app, whatever. I think you need to try and screen the nutbags from the much larger pool of people trying to just get through their day, rather than adopt a prophylactic view of simply expelling all of them. Or denying everyone firearms ownership.

                Europe’s got a much tougher, larger problem to deal with than we do. They also don’t have our system of limited government and enumerated powers. Solutions that might be appropriate in Belgium’s situation: expelling every sympathizer from Molenbeek might be a good start—shouldn’t be done here.

                1. urther, as barbaric as parts of Islam are, Islamicists do not “largely agree about who their enemy is and what they should do about them.”

                  61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans
                  32% of Indonesians approve of attacks on Americans
                  41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans
                  38% of Moroccans approve of attacks on Americans
                  83% of Palestinians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (only 14% oppose)
                  62% of Jordanians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (21% oppose)
                  42% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (45% oppose)
                  A minority of Muslims disagreed entirely with terror attacks on Americans:
                  (Egypt 34%; Indonesia 45%; Pakistan 33%)
                  About half of those opposed to attacking Americans were sympathetic with al-Qaeda’s attitude toward the U.S.
                  http://www.worldpublicopinion……09_rpt.pdf

                  26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
                  35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall).
                  42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).
                  22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.(13% overall).
                  29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.(25% overall).
                  http://pewresearch.org/assets/…..df#page=60

                  1. And since I’m talking about American Muslims, everyone of those figures you quoted is irrelevant, other than the 25% of younger Muslims in America, which admittedly is awfully damned troubling. I’d be interested in the exact questions they used, as well as clarifying among that population what they feel are valid reasons for suicide bombing.

                    I am not talking about importing Palestinian Muslims, or Pakistanis, or any of the other countries you list. For about the fifth time in this thread and in the Brussels attack thread, we aren’t Europe. Europe is having to contend with new immigrants from the countries you mention, and is having to deal with the problem of a homegrown Islamic terror movement. Europe’s problems and solutions are not going to be ours.

                    I’m talking about the Muslims who are citizens here. Those Muslims do not largely agree that we secular Americans suck and need to die. Though they probably would prefer if our culture was a bit less libertine. Big deal, so do the Southern Baptists and other evangelical sects. So long as they aren’t head cutting, or supporting head cutters, I don’t care about. And neither should you.

                    So far, here: any cure for the few cases of Islamic-inspired attacks in the States will be worse than the disease. Import a decent group of e.g., Quds (yes, I know they’re Shia) trained terrorists, who can pass for American, with funding and ordnance, and my view might change.

                    1. And since I’m talking about American Muslims, everyone of those figures you quoted is irrelevant, other than the 25% of younger Muslims in America, which admittedly is awfully damned troubling. I’d be interested in the exact questions they used, as well as clarifying among that population what they feel are valid reasons for suicide bombing.

                      Since Muslims don’t immigrate to the United States from the United States, those numbers are perfectly relevant. Those countries are where Muslim immigrants are pooled from and the political culture and moral philosophy in those places are atrocious.

                      and is having to deal with the problem of a homegrown Islamic terror movement.

                      The Muslims in Germany are not indigenous peoples of Germany. The younger generations of Muslims born there tend to be even more radical than their parents. Having them make up a greater and greater proportion of the population through further immigration and welfare payments should not be viewed as a good or neutral thing.

                    2. So long as they aren’t head cutting, or supporting head cutters, I don’t care about. And neither should you.

                      That’s profoundly naive. It’s like saying the only problem with Islam is the tiny proportion that are actually setting off bombs and pulling triggers, while utterly ignoring the vast swathes of the population that support them, without whom they could not carry out their attacks.

                      Pew Research (2011): 21% of Muslim-Americans say there is a fair to great amount of support for Islamic extremism in their community.
                      http://www.people-press.org/20…..gn-policy/

                      Wenzel Strategies (2012): 58% of Muslim-Americans believe criticism of Islam or Muhammad is not protected free speech under the First Amendment.
                      45% believe mockers of Islam should face criminal charges (38% said they should not).
                      12% of Muslim-Americans believe blaspheming Islam should be punishable by death.
                      43% of Muslim-Americans believe people of other faiths have no right to evangelize Muslims.
                      32% of Muslims in America believe that Sharia should be the supreme law of the land.
                      http://www.andrewbostom.org/bl…..xpression/

                      There is clearly a common thread between the opinions of all these nationalities and immigrant groups in different countries, that common thread is Islam.

                    3. Now see, those are better numbers for your position than the set from foreign countries. I’d heard before of these particular Wenzel polls but I don’t know how much faith to put in them.

                      The 1/5 of Muslim Americans who say that there’s fair-to-great support for extremism in their community, like the one you posted previously on the 20 some odd percent of teenagers being ok with suicide bombing, those are troubling numbers. Again, I’d be interested in Pew getting more incisive with just how/when/why this group supports Islamic extremism. You can get 20% of the American public to believe damned near anything, and talk is cheap, but it’s still higher than I’m comfortable with.

                      Unlike Europe, the U.S. isn’t being inundated with Muslim immigrants. We are taking in some, and I’m not thrilled about that. But my ire is due to a cultural and economic problem with the immigrant pool as a whole—they’re often broke and uneducated—not because they’re Muslim. Should a Muslim doctor, IT guy, scientist, businessman: richer than the average American, more educated than the average, less criminal than the average, who wants to come and be a citizen and join in this great experiment of liberty and freedom, have at it.

                      I don’t think our positions are very far apart. I think Europe is going to have a buttload of issues very soon, for many of the reasons you cite. I just don’t think the U.S. is in a similar situation yet.

                    4. You can get 20% of the American public to believe damned near anything, and talk is cheap, but it’s still higher than I’m comfortable with.

                      If the litany of polls conducted in quite nearly every country where Muslims are to be found, that indicate that Muslims are disproportionately supportive of the conquest, subjugation and/or murder (or worse) of their non-Muslim neighbors won’t convince you that Islam at it’s core is a barbaric belief system, then I don’t know what will. I just hope it won’t take some unfortunate anecdotal experience to teach you.

                      Unlike Europe, the U.S. isn’t being inundated with Muslim immigrants.

                      Thankfully.

                      But my ire is due to a cultural and economic problem with the immigrant pool as a whole—they’re often broke and uneducated

                      I agree with you here too. The problem is that these low skill folk are subsidized once they’re here, which allows them to more easily (And artificially) out-compete the domestic workforce and incentivizes even the most undesirable immigrants to stay here. In a rational world, Consuela wouldn’t be able to justify immigrating from rural Peru to work for minimum wage in New York City where the cost of living would make that proposition prohibitively expensive relative to the potential gain. But the welfare state changes that calculus.

                2. But how do you screen them out from a larger pool of American Muslims?

                  You screen for zealotry, but given that lying to infidels is no sin in Islam, it makes the whole group less than trustworthy from the point of view of non-Muslims. And you’re right about one thing, we’re not obliged to take in any particular group of foreigners. The West is not the world’s refugee camp.

                  Muslim-Americans who identify more strongly with their religion are three times more likely to feel that suicide bombings are justified
                  http://pewresearch.org/assets/…..df#page=60

                  Similarly, a very small percentage of gun owners will snap and kill someone with their legally owned firearm.

                  And vanishingly smaller percentage of gun owners materially or morally support the violent gun crimes committed by others. Not true of Muslims who afford their jihadis tons of support from a wide swathe of Muslim society as evidenced by opinion polling data done in the Middle East and in the West.

                  1. I don’t have faith in our screening procedures one bit. Russia did everything but put a sign on Tsarnaev’s head that read “Terrorist!”, and we ignored it. Underwear bomber’s dad ratted him out before he got on that flight. Didn’t matter. The wife of the San Bernardino shooters came into this country with a name that is extremely rare for women, yet is a reference to one of the leaders of the Muslim fight against the Spanish. For cryin’ out loud, Fletch came up with less insulting aliases.

                    Our investigative agencies have not exactly covered themselves in glory.

                    My two cents is that, in this country, you treat it like a police problem. And you drop the hammer of liability on the churches and other institutions that may turn a blind eye to one of their flock going radical. Hit the mosque in the pocketbook for sheltering a jihadi and ignoring that Abdul talked all the time after prayers about killing some infidels at the Catholic women’s private school, and other Imans will notice and hopefully start ratting some of these guys out. Send some of them to jail too, if their involvement constituted conspiracy to commit the offense.

                    1. I don’t have faith in our screening procedures one bit. Russia did everything but put a sign on Tsarnaev’s head that read “Terrorist!”, and we ignored it.

                      I agree. The government is simply not capable of rooting out only the “bad” ones whom are far from a minority of Muslims when we consider the level of support that Muslims generally give Islamists.

                      And you drop the hammer of liability on the churches and other institutions that may turn a blind eye to one of their flock going radical. Hit the mosque in the pocketbook for sheltering a jihadi and ignoring that Abdul talked all the time after prayers about killing some infidels at the Catholic women’s private school, and other Imans will notice and hopefully start ratting some of these guys out. Send some of them to jail too, if their involvement constituted conspiracy to commit the offense.

                      I would agree here too. Take it a step further, and legalize free association. Let society itself deal with Muslims by having the option to not sell them goods and services, to not rent them an apartment to not give a home loan or whatever. The trend will be that undesirables will not be tolerated, and the “moderates” we hear so much about will tend to be tolerated since money is green. I always prefer a social means of immigration control to government ones.

            2. It was a one shot deal. If we had undergone a sustained terrorist campaign at the hands of radical Puerto Ricans, we would have rightly done all of those things. And if there hadn’t been a Islamic terror attack in this country since the first WTC bombing, no one would be talking about doing it to Muslims.

              1. It would be a bit tricky as Puerto Ricans are US citizens.

            3. We did not immediately expel all Puerto Ricans after that. We didn’t put all Puerto Ricans under surveillance (though I’m sure Hoover thought about it.)

              And rightly so. Stopping (presumably, temporarily) all immigration from Puerto Rico could have been justified, though.

          3. I think we don’t have the same kind of migrants from muslim countries too. Europe has had migrants for a few generations, while we, in North America, have mostly first generation migrants. They usually are older people and just try to build themselves a new life. It’s mostly the second generation that is a problem.

            So we don’t have a problem right now (except from converts) but, judging by the amount of day-care center in my mostly muslim neighborhood, we’ll definitively have one later on.

        2. It happened down the street from me a while back, in the real-world basis for Hank Hill’s neighborhood.

          Regardless of the proximity and frequency of such events, if you aren’t concerned about how the BoR is being trashed already, you never will be.

          1. Texas cops can shoot pretty straight, can’t they Cato? Even when they’re not hunting over bait.

            1. Wow. Bad. Ass. Good shoots, both of them.

        3. When we start seeing airports blow up in the States, or assholes walking into a Starbucks in Chicago and blowing themselves sky high, then it’ll be time to start worrying

          No–it won’t. Because by that time you assholes will have come up with a new level of acceptable terrorism. You’re already dismissing successful terrorist attacks here.

          I just don’t think we’re there yet.

          What was 9/11? A lucky shot? If we’d treated fighting fascism like we’re treating fighting terroristic Islam we’d all be ‘seig heiling’ today.

          How big a pile of corpses is enough for you?

          1. Assholes? Have I insulted you in this thread, or anywhere else for that matter? What the fuck?

            So far…all they’ve done in the States is shot up a few places, and had two successful large scale plots (WTC bomb #1 and 9/11.) OK and a pair of losers managed to bomb a sporting event. We killed or imprisoned everyone involved with those two plots and the Boston Marathon bombing. And if not, it’s not been through lack of trying. Decent police work and cross talk may even have stopped the last two plots.

            While it’s tragic that Muslims in this country have shot innocent people, we already have nuts that shoot things up here. In fact, we have more nuts that do that because of some other motivation, than we do nuts that shoot things up because Allah tells them to. With the exception of the two big plots, these nuts aren’t the product of a sophisticated terrorist apparatus: they’re just mentally ill people operating largely on their own, who are convinced by others to go do evil in the name of Islam. No different, except in motivation, from any other lunatic who shoots up a supermarket political talk, an elementary school, or a movie theater.

            And you stop those in exactly the same way. You lock up those who are violent felons, who are the violent mentally ill. You try to make sure they don’t possess firearms, and that people don’t sell firearms to them. If you see them getting ready to strike, you arrest them, and send them to jail. What else would you like .gov to do?

            1. For Christ’s sake, we stared across at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, each side with ~5000 megatons of nuclear weapons at each stockpile’s peak. That was an existential threat.

              Do you actually believe that the U.S. is in any way shape or form close to adopting sharia? Or that the U.S. is going to have a domestic terror campaign like the Israeli suicide bombing campaign of the early ’00s? I’m just not understanding the need for a hysterical reaction—‘sieg heiling’, really?—to what are tragic instances of mentally ill American Muslims committing acts of gun violence, that are dwarfed in both frequency and severity to acts of violence committed by non-Muslim Americans.

    3. Standard at this point, though now with the caveat that I’m also scared of my neighbors’ response.

      1. Maybe you should move to a better neighborhood.

        1. Somalia?

          1. Nah, no ROADZ!!!!111!!!

    4. That you are a reasonable person?

      For me it is a toss up.

  9. Cat burglar prefers to take underwear

    A 6-year-old cat burglar with a taste for men’s underwear is terrorising the streets of Hamilton.

    Like many cats, Brigit the tonkinese is a nocturnal hunter – but her prey is specifically socks and boxer briefs.

    The cat, who lives on George St in Hamilton East, has brought home 11 pairs of underpants and more than 50 socks in the last two months.

    And those are just the ones her owner Sarah Nathan has kept.

    “It’s all men’s. It’s really, really weird. She’s got really specific taste.”

    1. Look at all the specists demonizing the cat’s fetish.

    2. Now if you could train them to nick women’s knickers you guys would all turn into cat fanciers.

      1. Knickers? Are you 100 years old? Be honest.

    3. 11 pairs of underpants and more than 50 socks? Must be Tulpa’s.

      1. But only the left socks for some reason

    4. And those are just the ones her owner Sarah Nathan has kept.

      “It’s all men’s. It’s really, really weird. She’s got really specific taste.”

      Riiiiiiiiiiight. Blame it on the cat, that’s the ticket.

  10. “Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton register net negative ratings in double digits, indicating the front-runners for each party’s presidential nominations are viewed negatively at historic levels.”

    Only GOP primary voters could find someone with higher negatives than Hillary Clinton.

    1. I forget sometimes which one is the Stupid Party and which one is the Evil Party.

      1. Look, I’ll draw an analogy. It’s like the distinction between Mork and Gork, one’s Brutal yet cunning, the other’s Connuning yet brutal. With our political parties, one’s stupidly evil, and the other’s evilly stupid.

      2. Why does either have to limit itself to only one? I think of them as the Stupid and Also Evil Party and the Evil and Also Stupid Party.

  11. “Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton register net negative ratings in double digits, indicating the front-runners for each party’s presidential nominations are viewed negatively at historic levels.”

    This should give us some hope, right?

  12. Bill Clinton: Hillary can “put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us.”

    Not only is he sexist, he is also RACIST!

    1. He can’t be racist, he was our first black President!

  13. Why do women age so fast in their fifties? FEMAIL investigates why gender age gap problems increase the older you get
    …He was 49 and I was 54 at the time.

    I’ve always looked young for my age and when we met I didn’t look five years older than my partner. However, as the years slipped by, well, I did.

    And then, as time seemed to slow down for him, it somehow sped up for me. The truth is I suddenly feel as if I’m ageing faster than my partner and now that age gap shows.

    We met through online dating. He was one of the few men in my age group who deigned to go out with me. Most of the fiftysomethings, even those with comb-overs and anoraks, were looking for bendy 35-year-olds willing to squander the last of their good years on an over-the-hill couch potato…

    1. Maybe it’s the bitterness.

      1. Dude, you don’t go there after she’s 50.

          1. TBF I could’ve said “he” and it’d still be true.

        1. My subscription to Granny Gash Guzzlers says different

          1. How does one guzzle a gash?

      2. Meh, there are plenty of women over 50 who are quite beautiful. Looking at the photos, she just got fat.

        1. Replace “plenty” with “some”. It’s unusual for a woman to be sexually attractive at that age.

  14. At least 15 people were killed by an explosion at a Brussels subway station and at least 11 people were killed by two explosions at the Brussels airport. Many more people are injured.

    At some point Europeans are going to go absolutely apeshite over this.

    1. Brussels sprouts a pair?

      1. [golf clap]

      2. Two hours on here without a gaze narrowing?? Must be some record. (or Swiss must be on a bender)

        1. *narrows gaze*

          I am very busy today, in the Hidden War Gold vault.

    2. Sorry. They can’t have Trump. He is ours.

      1. If they had a Trump, they’d have tarred and feathered him for hate speech violations long ago.

      2. There’re lots of new Trumps waiting in the wings, of that you can be sure.

    3. I don’t know Fist, cultural propriety is a hell of a thug…

  15. President Barack Obama will deliver a speech today in Havana, Cuba.

    If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it does it still make a sound?

    1. Him and Castro should battle-speech: who can drone on for the most number of hours.

    2. I predict simpering sycophancy to both communists and terrorists.

  16. Anti-Trump Group Runs Facebook Ads Seeking To Rally Mormon Voters

    Liz Mair, a Republican strategist whose anti-Trump super PAC Make America Awesome launched the Facebook campaign last week, said each ad is expected to reach around 10,000 Mormons of voting age a day. The goal is twofold: increase turnout among LDS voters, and urge them to strategically consolidate around Ted Cruz, who is close to the 50% winner-take-all threshold in Utah.

    The group is running three ads: one that features Mitt Romney, one that emphasizes Trump’s past support for pro-choice policies, and a third that shows Melania Trump posing nude. The Melania ad, which is by far the most provocative, invites viewers to meet “your next first lady.” Mair said that one is being promoted on Instagram as well, but only to LDS women.

    Warning: not quite SFW pic of Melania Trump.

    1. I don’t see how said picture counts as a negative.

      1. Then you, sir, are no Mormon.

        1. You don’t know that many Mormons.

        2. She drinks coffee.

    2. Somehow my wife has fallen in with a group that has a large number of Mormon women in it. They and their families are all nice and polite to a fault, and always willing yo help if we need kidcare or something else. Maybe they’re just waiting to achieve global domination before executing their evil plan, but I would happily live with a bunch of Mormon neighbors.

      1. Mormons have strange beliefs, but I can’t say I have any Mormon enemies. They’re generally very nice and polite people, which I greatly appreciate as a Midwesterner that seethes with rage just about any time I speak with someone at a New Jersey call center.

      2. That’s been my experience with Mormons too. Crazy religion though.

        1. As a libertarian, calling anyone else’s belief system crazy invokes a pot and kettle metaphor. Er, similie?

        2. I haven’t been cheek-by-jowl with a large group of Mormons, but the general impression I get is that they are nice neighbors, but still kind of tribal/clannish – if you ain’t Mormon, then you’re not quite a full member of their circle.

  17. Edward Snowden: “I didn’t use Microsoft machines when I was in my operational phase, because I couldn’t trust them.”

    You just can’t trust those guys who dropped out of school, can you?

  18. Report: FBI ‘increasingly certain’ Clinton broke the law

    “FBI chief James Comey and his investigators are increasingly certain presidential nominee Hillary Clinton violated laws in handling classified government information through her private e-mail server,” Charles Gasparino said career agents had told him.

    “Some expect him to push for charges, but he faces a formidable obstacle: the political types in the Obama White House who view a Clinton presidency as a third Obama term,” Gasparino added. “With that, agents have been spreading the word, largely through associates in the private sector, that their boss is getting stonewalled, despite uncovering compelling evidence Clinton broke the law.”

    1. I’d be hard-pressed to find someone who couldn’t have predicted every single part of that.

      1. I don’t know if I could have predicted that the FBI would leak their certainty or that anyone would report it. [mouses over LH’s link] Oh, the Examiner.

    2. It’s obvious she did break the law. If there were any question about it, they wouldn’t be leaking suspicions because of the political retribution risk.

      1. In addition to the gross injustice of Hillary getting away with all of her crimes, she’s going to owe huge favors to some of the worst fascists in the US government when she is elected president. This investigation will be hanging over her head continuously for the next four or eight years.

        1. Not only that, but my working assumption is that she will be at the beck and call of any foreign government that hacked her server. And I would be shocked if that didn’t include the Russians and the Chinese.

    3. But don’t expect anything to come of it…

    4. “Some expect him to push for charges, but he faces a formidable obstacle: the political types in the Obama White House who view a Clinton presidency as a third Obama term.”

      Well, he can jolly well charge them with obstruction of justice, then, can’t he?

      1. You know who could use that information to his advantage?

        1. Are the initials D. T.?

          1. Delerium Tremens?

    5. Translation: we are warming people up to give us political cover…and arranging flights for our families.

    6. This is a story based upon emails Charles Gasparino says he received from FBI agents? What happened to the good old days when you met FBI sources in parking garages?

      1. Gasparino as Deep Throat. Fitting.

    7. I’d think this was going nowhere—the FBI can investigate all they want, but who’s going to issue an indictment, in an Obama-dominated DOJ? But then if that were the case, who did the FBI find to give a grant of immunity to Hillary’s IT guy?

      Is there a US Attorney who has aspirations for higher office and is in a state with an opening in either the Senate or the Governor’s office in 2017 or 2018? Because that might be who will be issuing the indictment for Hillary.

      1. Loretta Lynch will squash any attempts by her underlings to issue any indictment.

        1. And Comey will very publicly and loudly resign. He has threatened to do so once already and seems like a guy who does not take shit.

          Might not be as bad as an indictment for Hillary, but would ensure a giant shitstorm during the last months of the Obama Administration.

        2. Then why give the IT guy immunity in the first place, WTF? Unless I’m mistaken, that requires someone in the DOJ to sign off on it. The FBI cannot, by themselves, give a grant of use or transactional immunity in order to secure someone’s testimony.

          If Lynch has the power and desire to do so, and I agree with you on both, then why give the immunity grant?

          1. Loretta don’t like Hillary?

            1. More importantly, Jarrett doesn’t like her.

          2. That is a hell of a great point. I had not thought of that Ghost. DOJ had to sign off on the immunity deals. And if DOJ wanted to kill the investigation, they could have done with the did with the IRS investigation and just refuse to grant anyone immunity knowing that without testimony the case goes nowhere. The fact that they didn’t do that and gave immunity is pretty telling.

            1. I think we’re going to see an indictment. Whether that happens after July 28th, and Hillary’s presumptive nomination, I couldn’t tell you, but I think we’re going to see something, from someone in DOJ.

              You’re the gov’t criminal lawyer: what USAs may indict here? Any in the US? Only those that have some nexus with the criminal acts charged? And of those jurisdictions where indictment would be proper, which ones have a Senate or Governor’s seat coming open in the next year or two? That’ll be where the knife comes from.

              I still think Obama pardons her preemptively, the second an indictment issues. She’s got too much crap on him for Obama to let her go to jail.

              I’m just surprised the investigation was allowed to stretch out as far as it has. I mean, what did the Obama Administration think would be found in an investigation like this? Christ, how many other Gov’t officials either had a similar server set up or noticed that Hillary was sending a lot of classified crap from a non @State.Gov address?

              1. I still think Obama pardons her preemptively, the second an indictment issues.

                And if he does, well, there’s his legacy, in one sentence. And she loses the election. To anyone.

          3. Could have been an AUSA who gave immunity without getting permission from Lynch. Once the deal is signed, what’s she gonna do?

            The AUSA may have calculated that Lynch is gone in a year anyway, but he will have to work with the FBI and his fellow prosecutors the rest of his career.

    8. ” view a Clinton presidency as a third Obama term,”

      Didn’t they just hear what Bill said?

  19. British Socialist Politician Says Eating Disorders Are Caused By Female Narcissism
    Baroness Joan Bakewell has excoriated young women, including teenagers, for their narcissism, which she claims is the root cause of eating disorders. Bakewell, who sits as a life peer in the British House of Lords, is a Labour Party stalwart, one of the people you would least expect to come out with these kinds of comments. Now in her eighties, a lifetime of experience and the knowledge that she has probably few years left on Earth has allowed her to speak the truth….

    …A particularly astute point of Bakewell’s that critics are having a hard time countering is the lack of anorexia in places like Syria or Africa. Unlike narcissism in the form of materialism, you do not need an abundance of food to be anorexic. Instead, eating disorders, with few exceptions, are a sign of women finding “liberation” and exercising self-direction by starving themselves and spending hours in front of mirrors. Incidentally, despite some evidence that there were anorexics and bulimics in previous decades, the decline of patriarchal conceptions of society has coincided with a massive growth in eating disorders. Why is that?…

    1. I’ve heard Arabs like fat chicks. And the African-descendants in USA certainly like “thick.” Is anorexia a problem in the US black population?

        1. One of my favorite running jokes from Scream Queens is the sorority girls pretending to eat and/or eating cotton balls. It was weird when they beat down the bro for telling the one girl she should smile more while they were pretending to eat at the cafeteria. Apparently, violence is okay if women do it. It’s an uneven series, but great when on.

    2. I’d say it has a lot more to do with being fucking nuts than anything else. Culture certainly seems to have a lot to do with it. It’s some bizarre version of narcissism where you make yourself look like shit.

      1. You leave my style until I was 30 alone!

  20. New Republic: Here is a picture of the president of the United States in front of a massive monument to Che Guevara, aka the right wing’s giddiest nightmare brought to life.

    It is especially eerie given Barack Obama’s own attempts to become the Che Guevara t-shirt of presidents. He is probably wearing such a t-shirt underneath his dress shirt, with his all-time favorite Che slogan?I know you are here to kill me. Shoot, coward, you are only going to kill a man?inscribed across his heart.

    1. I think he’s trolling the right. He has nothing to lose at this point.

      1. The problem is that he’s going to troll American right into a Trump presidency, the greatest troll of them all.

    2. Oh, is that supposed to be a monument? I thought is was graffiti.

    3. Conclusion: Felix Rodriguez should become president?

    4. Is that the nicest building in Cuba? Looks like a really shitty public housing dump.

      1. The problem is that the actual nice places are reserved for the party elites, so they couldn’t have a photo in front of party apparatchiks housing and not have a bunch of people start question the equality of Cuba.

    5. Here is a picture of the president of the United States in front of a massive monument to Che Guevara Lenin, aka the right wing’s giddiest nightmare brought to life.

  21. U.S. sets up firebase in Northern Iraq

    The existence of the firebase had not been made public. The Pentagon had planned to acknowledge the firebase this week, a defense official tells CNN.

    The rugged location for now has a “couple of hundred” Marines living in tents near Makhmour in northern Iraq. It’s assumed ISIS observed the Marines moving into the area and saw them firing practice rounds with their howitzers, the official said.

    ISIS on Saturday fired two rockets from about 15 km away. One fell inside the base killing one Marine and wounding several others. The Marines returned fire with their artillery.

    Jeebus…

    1. The important part (in the government’s mind) is that the boots are not on the ground in Syria

    2. The Marines are there just to protect the advisers. Other then some of them dying, what could possibly go wrong? I am sure the president will explain everything to us in full detail very soon.

      1. …as soon as he reads about it in the newspaper.

      2. And it could never happen that mounting casualties would result in an increase in troops for force protection purposes. Because we’ve never seen that happen before.

  22. Belgium ‘beefs up security’ at nuclear plants

    Well, at least it’s not ‘porks up security’. That would be provocative.

    1. …and effective.

        1. +1 British Native Troop Mutiny

    2. They should just rely on the wall France has built. Worked well last time.

      1. +1 Maginot Line.

        D’oh!

        1. Hey, it never occurred to them that someone might just go around it!

          1. Or fly over it!

            1. Or just toss their passports in the Med. “I not be ze German”.

    3. Secret Service Agents, call your office!

  23. Exclusive: Marco Rubio rejected ‘unity ticket’ with Ted Cruz

    The motivation, hashed out in conversations among Cruz’s top aides and donors: to find a way to halt Donald Trump’s march to the Republican nomination.

    It’s unclear whether Cruz’s campaign brass views a partnership with Rubio as realistic or quixotic. In Rubio’s orbit, according to three sources, it’s seen as an outright nonstarter ? with Rubio telling his team he isn’t interested.

    Yet in recent weeks, within Cruz’s camp, talk of a joint ticket has run rampant. Utah Republican Mike Lee, one of two senators to endorse Cruz, has emerged as an outspoken supporter of a unity ticket ? and as a potential broker. The freshman, according to several sources briefed on the talks, has reached out repeatedly to Rubio to gauge his interest, but has been rebuffed.

  24. Punk Was Rubbish and It Didn’t Change Anything: An Investigation

    If you can remember 1977 ? and I just about do ? then you’ll have noted that the radio wasn’t actually filled with the Sex Pistols and Siouxsie and the Banshees. My parents, or your parent’s parents, were listening to Radio 1, and it was all Boney M and David Soul at the time. When punk was first born in the UK, there was indeed some outrage, and perhaps a torch was passed reluctantly from the old to the young, but to write off that period as some sort of national awakening which rendered all other music produced in 1976 and 1977 useless is ridiculous. Lou Reed, Bowie, Queen, ELO and Dylan all had fine albums out in 1976, and 1977 saw Kraftwerk as well as Giorgio Moroder and Donna Summer produce some of the most seminal and forward-thinking records ever made.

    The other big myth concerning the concept of punk was that it was actually good, when in many ways it was not. The Sex Pistols and the Banshees were alright, but in all honesty, the former was essentially a glamrock boyband assembled by Malcolm McClaren, and the latter was a gang of goths. Who else was there? The Clash? A bit blokey. The Damned? They were okay, but they didn’t get really good until much later.

    1. I was listening to 1st Wave on Sirius the other day and The Bangles came on. I thought to myself, ‘hm. They weren’t considered new wave back in the day, were they?’ Like Billy Idol. U2 I *get* because they did start out ‘underground’ and even then it’s borderline. At one point, I remember Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers being considered ‘New Wave’ (a tag I think he rejects) and this was the late 70s.

      Just found it interesting. How bands from one era shift into another genre in another time or era.

      1. Elvis Costello was considered “punk” when he came out. And how Tom Petty, who was basically just a rocked out and well played version of The Byrds was ever considered “New Wave” is beyond me.

        1. I’m as big a Tom Petty fan as there is. I have absolutely no idea how he could ever be considered to be “New Wave”.

          1. Saw him in Montreal last year or 2014 – I forget.

            Really good show.

            Too bad he didn’t play ‘Don’t do me like that’.

            1. First time I saw him in concert was in 1994, which was the first time I ever went to a concert “myself” (with friends, as opposed to with parents). I’ve seen him 6 times since. Always a great show.

              1. In a just world Tom Petty would be much bigger than Bruce Springsteen ever was. They both came out around the same time and both claimed to play roots American rock. Petty was just a thousand times better.

            2. Petty has always had amazing crossover appeal, especially to the ‘alternative’ crowd.

              He certainly plays roots rock with a slightly Southern twist, but I think his vocalization style was considered “new wave” at the time.

          2. I have absolutely no idea how he could ever be considered to be “New Wave”.

            First I’ve heard that proposed.

    2. Of those groups, only the Clash and the Damned could actually play their instruments. The Ramones were good, but they were just rocked out Phil Spechter. Groups had been rocking out 50s and early 60s songs for a long time since the Ramones. Here is what punk rock sounds like when played by actual musicians.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2sTmWr7ISY

      1. I think you are in a minority in considering that punk. Seems like straight ahead rock and roll.

        TO my mind (and I’m sure everyone has a different idea about what punk really is), punk was an attempt to reject the increasing complexity and commodification of popular music and create more DIY, individualistic sort of styles. So perhaps is does hark back to early rock and roll more than I initially said.

        1. Seems like straight ahead rock and roll.

          That is all punk ever really was. How is that any different than something like Blitz Krieg Bop? Its a bit heavier and better played but it is still three chord straight up rock that swings. Punk was a rejection of prog rock and a return to short songs that swing. Last I look, that was called Rock and Roll.

        2. Seems like straight ahead rock and roll.

          That is all punk ever really was. How is that any different than something like Blitz Krieg Bop? Its a bit heavier and better played but it is still three chord straight up rock that swings. Punk was a rejection of prog rock and a return to short songs that swing. Last I look, that was called Rock and Roll.

          1. I’va always sort of thought that losing the swing and or backbeat from rock and roll was a big part of the punk thing. But again, no one really agrees on what “punk” is supposed to mean. And many of the more talented bands called “punk” did return to more what you are talking about.

            1. Or in the case of the Clash went off into reggie. I really like The Clash. So much so, I don’t really consider them to be a punk band. They were too good.

              Same thing with The Replacements. Their first EP was punk if there ever was such a thing. Gradually, however, Paul Westerberg turned out to be too talented to keep making punk and the band turned into a great rock and roll band.

              Ultimately, if you have any talent, you move on from punk pretty quickly I think.

          2. Yes, the Ramones, particularly, are late 50s pop-rock with grittier lyrics and different guitar filters. They could cover any faster Buddy Holly song and their fans would recognize it as a Ramones tune.

    3. The Sex Pistols and the Banshees were alright

      The Sex Pistols were the shittiest band ever. They had a few amusing songs and John Lydon turned out to be fairly interesting.

      I think this guy sort of misses the point of punk.

      1. You called it Zeb. The whole thing was a joke. And Lydon, the one guy in the band who turned out to have any talent, knew it and hated it. The last thing Lydon said on stage at the last Sex Pistols show was “ever feel like you have been cheated?”. He wasn’t talked to the audience. He was talking to himself and the band. Malcome McClaren made them into a circus freak show. That is all they ever were and Lydon knew it.

    4. That excerpt was one long confession that the writer is gay

  25. Belgium’s appeasement is paid back in bombs and murder.

    1. “Appeasement is the man who feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”

    2. Didn’t work any better for the Goths.

    3. Belgium’s appeasement is paid back in bombs and murder.

      See: London, 1940.

  26. My favorite bit of information from the Gawker-Hulk Hogan lawsuit was the revelation that AJ Daulerio is flat broke. If ever there was a blaring klaxon of the horrible career that a new media journalist can be it is the 40 year old with no assets to his name, carrying $27k in student loans, and all of this despite a relatively “successful” career where he’s been a paid writer and editor for one of the more valuable brands. The guy actually managed to get a paying job in journalism and he is poorer-than-broke. Oh, and he’s also currently on the hook for $100k in punitive damages.

    I’m sure the damages will eventually be lessened on appeal if not completely over-turned, but in the meantime the journalists who manage to make it are still completely, totally boned.

    1. Since he was one of the people who made the actual decision to publish a stolen video with what the jury found to be a reckless disregard for Hulk’s privacy, I don’t think his share of the punitive damages will be overturned. Saying someone who did that deserves 100K of punitive damages is not so far out of line that an appeals court would overturn it. There were multiple parts to that verdict.

      From what I have read, I don’t think Gakwer has a very good case on appeal. Their alleged trial errors are that the judge didn’t allow them to introduce a few racist statements Hulk made on the tape. I fail to see how the fact that Hulk might be a racist is probative to issue of whether Gawker invaded his privacy. It is also not probative for damages since the statements were not publicly known when the video was published.

      All Gakwer has on appeal is one big “t’aint fair!!” about the damages. To win that the court will have to conclude the award is so out of proportion to the actual damages that no reasonable jury could have awarded them. They might win that but that is a very high mountain to climb.

      1. I agree with your guess, Juan. The appeal looks flimsy. How likely is the possibility of appellate fiat over there in the West?

      2. IANAL so I have no idea how solid the verdict was or how an appeal will go, if one even happens. I was more surprised at just how broke Daulerio was. Whatever the media-quality of Deadspin and Gawker are, they both actually make money. He wrote and edited the former for 4 years, and was the editor of the latter for a year. He had a career that anyone graduating college and hoping to get into journalism would probably kill for (he actually had a paying job!). He’s owes almost $30k and owns nothing.

        He lacked the common-sense to not be a snarky ass when giving a deposition in a case where the only way they lose is if they showed total indifference to what they were doing so he probably hasn’t made the smartest decisions. Still, he managed to “make it” as a journalist and he’s completely and totally boned regardless of how the appeal goes.

        1. They have to be the worst clients ever. Their lawyers had to have wanted to stab their eyes out during those depositions. At some point, I bet they pissed off their own legal team so much, their lawyers probably threw up their hands and said “okay, have fun” and stopped trying.

        2. As a reminder, this was actually part of his testimony. In court. Under oath.

          In that testimony, Mr. Daulerio was asked by the plaintiff’s lawyer if he could imagine a situation in which a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy.

          “If they were a child,” Mr. Daulerio replied.

          “Under what age?” the lawyer asked.

          “Four.”

          Gawker’s lawyers and Daulerio were scrambling to say he was being “flippant”. Which may mean he’s just dumb, rather than vindictive. He’d have to be dumb to give testimony like that.

          1. I’m going with “dumb” because I can’t imagine a sex tape that would be more newsworthy than to find that some celeb was banging a child. It is a criminal act and hell-yes news worthy. The video itself unpublishable, but reporting it existed hell yes newsworthy.

            That a mid 50s guy was consensually banging a friend’s wife? Who cares?

            1. The video itself unpublishable, but reporting it existed hell yes newsworthy.

              Precisely the case with any stolen sex tape.

          2. Just reading that gives you a visceral urge to punch Daulerio. I can’t imagine how infuriating that must have been to a jury to hear it in person.

            I would say he is stupid. I would say he is just arrogant and thinks there are no consequences to anything he says or does.

        3. If there’s anyone who embodies the utter bankruptcy and hypocrisy of clickbait media, it’s AJ Daulerio–a grown man who spent his 30s, which for most people is the beginning of their prime earning years, writing for sites that specialized mostly in left-wing middle school snark and Gen-X/Milennial social signaling. And not only is he not relatively financially secure, he actually owes $27K in student loans at the age of 40. When you’re trying to argue that publishing a sex tape of a pro wrestler is newsworthy (while gasping in utter outrage over Jennifer Lawrence and other female celebs having their nude pics from the Cloud released), don’t spend your deposition joking about child pornography. He’s the perfect example of how emotionally retarded and clannish today’s media has become.

      3. Isn’t a giant issue on appeal (and one that may already have been disposed of on interlocutory appeal—I hadn’t checked), the issue of whether Hogan was properly determined to not be a “public figure” for purposes of this lawsuit? And if a public figure, isn’t actual malice one of the required elements of the tort?

        Though I think you have to have the factfinder explicitly find that the defendants acted with malice, as bad as Gawker’s people came off in their testimony, I can see an appellate court ruling that those employees did act with malice.

        Holy shit was that a bad job of witness preparation.

        1. The issue is not whether he is a public figure, it is whether there is any news value to a private sex video. If it does, then Gawker can publish it even if it was stolen. The courts rightfully take a very broad view of what is “newsworthy”. I think the law is behind the technology here. The news here is that Hogan was having fun banging the wife of his best friend while said friend filmed it. If Gawker had just published that and not the video, there would be no case. I think people confuse the “news” and the tape. Why do you have to actually publish the stolen tape to report the newsworthy aspects of this story? I don’t see how.

          1. Thank you. This is the point. Publishing the news that Hogan was having sex with another man’s wife and even the lurid details that the husband filmed it and may have been okay with it — that’s protected by the public figure doctrine. Making the tape available without the permission of the participants is not.

          2. The issue is not whether he is a public figure, it is whether there is any news value to a private sex video.

            i’m not even sure that’s the issue. I think the issue is that the sex tape was stolen, and publishing it was an invasion of privacy, regardless of “newsworthiness” – a term that I think is completely undefinable and thus should not be any kind of legal standard.

      4. Their alleged trial errors are that the judge didn’t allow them to introduce a few racist statements Hulk made on the tape.

        Wow, even their arguments in the courtroom boil down to shouting “RACIST!” at the other side. Good thing this argument only works in the court of public opinion, and not in the actual court system.

    2. “If ever there was a blaring klaxon of the horrible career that a new media journalist can be it is the 40 year old with no assets to his name, carrying $27k in student loans, and all of this despite a relatively “successful” career where he’s been a paid writer and editor for one of the more valuable brands.”

      You can make a career in new media, but you pretty much have to turn yourself into a ‘brand’ or publish books. Mark Steyn is doing fine, as was Christopher Hitchens (who published a lot of his later work online). You can’t just write snarky bullshit for Gawker like all the other snarky bullshit published on Gawker.

      “all of this despite a relatively “successful” career where he’s been a paid writer and editor for one of the more valuable brands.”

      The problem with Gawker is that all of their writers are interchangeable so they can basically be swapped out for any other mediocre 20 or 30 something willing to debase themselves so that Nick Denton can buy another yacht. Since they’re all interchangeable, there’s no reason to pay them much since they bring nothing to the table.

    3. I’m sure the damages will eventually be lessened on appeal if not completely over-turned,

      Not sure if the appellate court can reduce a damage award. Maybe. Just can’t recall.

      The trial court can, and will. But I doubt they will reduce the damages to a token amount. And I bet they don’t reduce Denton’s personal share much at all.

  27. Vice: The Revolutionary History of the Pantsuit

    Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is so closely associated with the silhouette of a two-piece, it could probably be her Bat Signal. There’s certainly no coincidence that she is the only first lady to ever wear one in her White House portrait and the only first lady to ever run for president. The pantsuit embodies her ambition to be taken as an equal force?to carve her own space in a place where few women have been before. Unfortunately, her affinity for pantsuits has also garnered her a great deal of criticism, especially from asshole style guys like Tim Gunn, who once flippantly described her as being “confused about her gender” because of her “big, baggy, menswear tailored pantsuits.”

    But on the other hand, specifically because the pantsuit is deemed as masculine in Western culture, it can also be seen as incredibly sexy and chic when a women wears it. You only need to look at the runways of Christian Dior or performances of classic artists like Grace Jones and even pop stars like Janelle Monae and Rihanna.

    1. I was thinking Mao myself

    2. The pantsuit embodies her ambition to be taken as an equal force?to carve her own space in a place where few women have been before.

      “The meat dress embodies her ambition to be taken as an equal force?to carve her own space in a place where few women have been before. “

    3. when a women wears it

    4. asshole style guys like Tim Gunn

      Wow. Pretty sure he doesn’t hear that a lot, but look what not being sufficiently praising of Her Nibs gets you.

    5. The pantsuit simply hides her strap-on.

  28. The Hymn of Kassiani is technically designated as a hymn for Holy Wednesday morning, but it is often sun on Tuesday evening Vespers by way of anticipation.

    As explained here, this hymn is about the penitent woman who washed Jesus’ feet (Luke 7:36-50).

    And for ENB – “In some places in Greece, this Matins service and its hymn are popular with sex workers, who often avoid church at other times.”

    1. often “done” on Tuesday evening Vespers

  29. Thieves in Sweden appear to blow up building for ATM cash

    Robbers in Sweden are suspected of blowing up the walls of a building in an apparent effort to empty an ATM. But police say they’re not sure any money would have survived the blast.

    Regional police spokesman Calle Persson says they were alerted to the explosion in the small southern town of Genarp after 3 a.m. (0200 GMT) Monday. They sent a bomb squad to check the site before officers began an investigation.

    He said no one was hurt but the blast destroyed two walls of the red-brick building. People in neighboring houses reported they saw “a few men” at the site immediately after the explosion and heard a car pull away.

    It was not clear if the damaged ATM had contained any money.

    1. See, negative interest rates and these guys saved you money.

    2. “Think you used enough dynamite there, Butch?”

  30. Day 2. Let’s see if I can keep flogging this same gripe. Maybe I can become the new LoneWhacko?

    Nick thinks the 1st Amendment protects Gawker’s publication of Hulk Hogan’s sex tape. Maybe he’s right, or maybe he’s wrong. But he felt strongly enough to post about it.

    But somehow his concerns about Mann v. Steyn haven’t risen to the same level.

    This case is right up the alley for Bailey (Climate Change), Root (1st Amendment & Libel) and Sullum (Anti-SLAPP Laws).

    Is the lack of mention on reason.com, because Steyn has un-PC opinions on immigration and muslims?

    If Gawker had been sued for calling Trump the “Jerry Sandusky of NYC Real Estate Developers” would the Reason staffers then be motivated to comment because Gawker has the “correct” opinions on pot, abortion, gay marriage and deep-dish pizza?

    1. 9-D Chess Master!

      Politico: How Obama set a trap for Raul Castro
      In a historic news conference, Obama not only allowed Castro to be pressed on political prisoners. He joined in himself.

      1. sry, not meant as a reply.

    2. Oh dammit.

      ::takes flask out of desk::

      And Reason did talk about Mann v. Steyn a few years ago when it was first filed, IIRC.

    3. Fuck off, Tulpa. Whiny boring shitfucker.

    4. Have there been developments in the case? Google News doesn’t show anything since 2014, and Steyn Online‘s update is from last summer, and says nothing’s happening. Bailey did cover this back in 2012, not to say that’s enough?but is anything happening?

      1. Nothing *is* happening.

        There was a hearing on a motion by National Review. The judges are supposed to issue orders that either grant the motion (fully or in part) or deny the motion, or somehow pertain to the problem the motion was addressing.

        The judge has not issued a ruling, and it’s been a very, very long time.

        You can’t force a judge to issue a ruling in a timely manner if you are a litigant. So they are stuck in limbo.

        Frustratingly for Steyn, he isn’t a party to the appeal; he wants to move forward with the trial and to crush Mann in court. But he can’t because the court won’t sever his case from the case against National Review.

        So, instead, Steyn is tormenting Mann instead, publishing a book titled “A Disgrace to the Profession”
        The World’s Scientists – in their own words – on Michael E Mann, his Hockey Stick and their Damage to Science – Volume One
        . I highly recommend everyone buy it. It funds a good cause and is highly educational. And it’s Volume One, suggesting that there are more volumes to follow. 🙂

      2. Maybe the fact that it has dragged on for four years is news. Though for all I know that’s normal for the USA.

    5. Forget it. It’s election time.

      Maybe they’ll cover it when it’s settled. It’s not like they covered the whole Hulk/Gawker thing.

    6. Shut the fuck up, MiloMinderbinder.

    7. I think that’s an excellent question, Milo. The Steyn case is just rife with good libertarian issues, and is probably one of the more important real First Amendment cases going on. Plus, its an excellent example of how broken our judicial system is – another issue of interest.

      1. The unconscionable delay by the judge is an excellent example, BTW, of the process as punishment, and how even terrible lawsuits can have a chilling effect, etc.

    1. “You’re not my Pal, friend.”

    2. You are all my friends.

      1. If true, you are a sad, strange little man.

      2. I think a H&R meetup would end up in an epic, drunken weed-infused brawl as we battle with Tulpa’s sock collection.

        1. An H&R meetup is just Tulpa drinking by himself.

          1. true /not a sock

        2. I got Old Man With Candy blasted on homemade edibles and he slobbered on an ambiguously gendered waitperson.

      3. Thanks, Rufus! I think you’re a decent, well, descending, fellow!

    3. I never feel that smart except when I spend a lot of time with other people.

      1. But seriously, I did identify with the part about deiving greater satisfaction from pursuing goals than socializing. My lowest points in life have been when I was just sort of drifting and having fun. I actually kind of suck at having fun and am happiest when doing interesting work. It took me most of my 20s to figure that out about myself.

        1. I totally agree. Socializing always felt like time wasted not making something.

          1. What sucks is I am in a business where networking is valuable, though. It’s frustrating because I am good at what I do, but I am bad at the networking aspect.

            1. Same. I’ve found the best networking for me is volunteering, it takes a lot of the pressure off because you are focused on something outside of yourself, not socializing for its own sake, and people like you because you’re seen as helpful

    4. It’s because all the smartest people are asshole libertarians and their stupid friends just piss them off.

  31. New Zealand migration from Australia highest since 1991

    Those on work visas jumped by 4,700 to 38,600, while student visas climbed 3,100 to 28,100 and arrivals of New Zealand and Australian citizens gained 2,200 to 36,400. India was the biggest source of student arrivals, rising 1 percent to 10,100 from a year earlier, followed by those from China at 5,800 and the Philippines on 2,300.

    Work visa arrivals were led by those from the UK, France, Germany and Australia. The biggest influx was to Auckland, where migrant arrivals rose 12 percent to 52,400 in the February year, of which work visas made up 16,500, student visas 13,000, Kiwi and Australian citizen arrivals 11,600 and resident visas 8,500.

    Strong inbound migration has helped underpin economic growth, which was 0.9 percent in the fourth quarter, for an annual pace of 2.3 percent, on increases in everything from business services to retailing, accommodation and home building. Migration has continued at a stronger pace than the Reserve Bank had expected, keeping wage inflation low even as demand rises.

  32. Michigan Schools To Let Students Choose Gender, Name And Bathroom

    Michigan’s State Board of Education has drafted a guidance that would push the state’s schools to allow all students, regardless of parental or doctoral input, to choose their gender, name, pronouns, and bathrooms.

    Spearheaded by board president John C. Austin and signed by state superintendent Brian Whiston, the guidance informs Michigan public schools that only the students themselves?i.e. not their parents or doctors?can determine what their individual gender identities are.

    “The responsibility for determining a student’s gender identity rests with the student. Outside confirmation from medical or mental health professionals, or documentation of legal changes, is not needed,” the guidance states.

    1. [sound of every high school boy in Michigan opting for the girls’ bathroom]

      1. …until they experience their first bloody tampon

      2. I’m not sure what they imagine goes on in a girl’s bathroom.

        1. Strip down to bra and panties for a tickle fight?

    2. “Oh, boy, is this GREAT!”

      1. “I’m a nubile lesbian undergrad trapped in a middle aged man’s body. Liberate me, U Mich!”

    3. Geez, shocker they aren’t allowing them to choose their race, too.

      1. Well, race *is* a social construct, so you don’t get to pick it; society picks it for you.

        1. Rachel Dolezal haz a sad.

          1. Seriously, Hit ‘n Snideness aside, you don’t get to tell me one of my parents don’t count.

                  1. “One eighth of a Negro, please.”

                    LOL

    4. Why stop there? People should also be legally allowed to change their age and race.

  33. I’m not worried about terrorists in Europe because all is right in Sunny Minnesoda!

    Minneapolis got its mind right and took an important step forward in plastic bags (except for food stamp recipients of course).

    It was a narrow thing. Some upstart suburb tried to pass the first ban, but Minneapolis got its act in gear and is now on track to take its rightful place as the home of double plus good think.

    1. Hey Jimbo Minnesota doesn’t have a fucked up radicalized and growing minority population of refugees from the asshole of the world or anything. Stop worrying.

      1. We have a few, but now I don’t have to worry about a lot of paper bags being blown out into the environment if one of them decides to blow up a shopping mall. So I’ve got that going for me.

        The funny part of it is the fact that one of the inner suburbs (St. Louis Park) talked about enacting the first plastic bag ban in the state and that caused the progs in Mpls to stampede their ban through the process. They were terrified that some other city would challenge their position at the top of Mount Derp.

        1. I had a friend on derpbook that put up a post about how great these bans were. I couldn’t help myself and commented with a couple of links to how unhealthy and unsanitary canvas bags are. Oh my God did those people get angry. They had no response but damn were they angry. They actually called me a racist. No kidding. I guess micro biology is the racist now.

          1. Canvas is a race now?

          2. Please tell me you asked them how the bans effects on the poor differed from giving smallpox infected blankets to the indians! 🙂

            1. No. But I will remember that. “So what is next, giving poor people smallpox infected blankets?” is one hell of a piece of snark.

            2. I love the fact that the nickel fee for a plastic bag won’t be applied to those on food stamps. You know the poor just aren’t smart enough to reuse bags or buy their fancy canvas totes.

          3. “They had no response but damn were they angry.”

            There seems to be a fair amount of that around here as well regarding one issue, sadly from people who otherwise argue rationally.

            1. You can whine about thin crust being pizza all you want Suthenboy, it won’t make it so.

              1. I compromise. I use thin crust and pile on everything in the kitchen.

          4. There were some comments like that in the story I linked to. Someone pointed out how unsanitary they were and got responses like “Well don’t put your tuna salad directly in the bag and you should be fine” which the rest of the pack thought was very witty.

          5. You can wash those bags. Or your unpackaged food. I kind of like the cloth bags because they are big.

            But the bans are utterly idiotic. Plastic bags are a wonderful thing.

            1. You can but people never do. And any policy that doesn’t take that into account is foolish.

              1. Any policy that says you can’t give your customer a convenient bag to carry things in is foolish. I don’t think maintaining sanitary grocery bags is something policy ought to be concerned with at all. If people want to use dirty cloth bags, that’s their problem.

    2. They have that here in the people’s republic of Cambridge MA. The local warlords have banned plastic bags, paper mandated that the grocery stores collect a dime for every paper bag issues to a customer.

      I will, of course, shop elsewhere. The poor will, of course, suffer. And I hope the only victims of food-borne illness this policy will create will be the shitheads who voted for it.

    3. What is the weird obsession with plastic bags? They take very little energy to make, take up very little landfill space and can be reused. Now people in these places will have to go and buy trash bags which are probably more energy intensive to make.

      1. What is the weird obsession with plastic bags?

        They flap in the wind when thown away outside. The flapping motion bothers proggies. Proggies, being very intolerant by nature, want someone to make the annoying bags go away.

        1. Maybe they should pick them up. That’s probably the most reasonable objection to them, really. I hate garbage by the side of the road (though that is a lot better than it once was, thanks crying indian). But I’m pretty sure littering is already illegal.

          1. Pick up someone else’s garbage?!?!? Are you insane? That’s so common!

            1. Hit the nail on the head.

              Like most libertarian ideals, this calls for self-discipline and accountability. Progs just cannot be held accountable for anything and don’t properly hold others accountable as long as they get a good feeling about things.

      2. Progs are animists. Plastic bags are the evil. It is known.

      3. Not only that, they can actually degrade/break down in pretty short order.

    4. “Every morning when I go to school, I drive along Hiawatha and I see trash bags everywhere,” she said. “And it’s really a bummer, because when you think of a beautiful city, you don’t want it to be littered with trash choking on car exhaust spewed by self-righteous teenagers.”

      FTFH

      1. Even the most beautiful city is kind of a trash pile.

  34. Listening to CNN. London is next according to message put out by ISIS as eerily described by Weiss.

  35. Nigel Farage attacked for using deadly Brussels attack to argue for Brexit

    Despite being inundated with criticism, Nigel Farage posted it out to his followers as the tragedy was still unfolding.

    Other social media users hammered the MEP with a barrage of abuse for “scoring cheap political points”.

    One person called the retweet: “The most insensitive thing I have EVER seen.”

    1. “One Person” has never seen Gawker’s video of Bill’s chewed up member after make up sex with his wife.

    2. Yeah, it’s not like the left would ever exploit the deaths of shooting victims to try to score political points for their agenda!

    3. More insensitive than the terrorist attacks? Really?

    4. People whining about ‘politicizing’ tragedies are full of shit. If you think there’s a way to prevent something like this from happening again, you should bring it up.

      I don’t criticize gun grabbers for ‘politicizing’ mass shootings, I criticize them because I think they’re wrong. Complaining about someone politicizing a tragedy is just a way for people to avoid discussing what they don’t want to discuss while pretending their complaints are about ‘morality’ rather than a desire to avoid considering that their policy preferences are wrong.

  36. For the Holy Week Bridegroom services, a reminder to be prepared, and not goofing off. (Matt. 24:36-26:2)

  37. “Recycled water system to be put to test at development near Tracy”
    […]
    “…the Obama administration wants to replicate for water the push it made on solar power nearly eight years ago to jump start new technologies…”
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/art…..933914.php

    So did Solyndra branch out? Which Obo-contributor is getting the taxpayer gelt here?

  38. Voters head to the polls today in Arizona, Idaho, Utah, and American Samoa.

    It’s like the Super Mormon Tuesday primary, since these have some of the highest percentages of Mormons:

    Here are the top ten states with the highest Mormon population by percentage of total population

    1. Utah 68.2%
    2. Idaho 26.2%
    3. Wyoming 11.1%
    4. Nevada 6.47%
    5. Arizona 5.96%

    Top 20 Nations with Highest Proportion of Latter-day Saints in the Population
    Country Percent
    Tonga 32.0%
    Samoa 25.0
    American Samoa 25.0
    Niue 15.0

  39. Victor Davis Hanson: For Obama, And Maybe Trump, The Buck Never Stops Here

    In a cover story in the latest issue of The Atlantic magazine, President Obama offers astonishing scapegoating for his own foreign-policy disasters.

    According to Obama, the deterioration of the ISIS wasteland that is now Libya was not due to improvident administration bombing followed by a hasty departure, but was largely the fault of others.

    European allies, the president complained, did not do any follow-up nation-building despite the proximity of Libya. Obama depicts French President Nicolas Sarkozy as a showboater who tried to claim credit for the air campaign in Libya after the U.S. had done the heavy lifting.

    Obama did not stop there.

    Administration aides told The Atlantic that Obama’s unfortunate quip about ISIS being a “jayvee” organization was really the Pentagon’s fault. Gen. Lloyd Austin, who at the time was leading U.S. Central Command, supposedly misled Obama by describing ISIS as a “flash in the pan.”

    Earlier, Obama had blamed the spread of ISIS on National Intelligence Director James Clapper, who, Obama told “60 Minutes,” “has acknowledged that, I think, they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria.”

    1. Earlier, Obama had blamed the spread of ISIS on National Intelligence Director James Clapper, who, Obama told “60 Minutes,” “has acknowledged that, I think, they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria.”

      Obama also criticized British Prime Minister David Cameron for not getting Parliament on board for decisive action in Syria.

      This blame-gaming is old and tired. After Obama established a “red line” with Syrian President Bashar Assad on the use of chemical weapons, only to see Assad ignore the warning with impunity, Obama denied that he had ever set a red line in the first place.

      Instead, he claimed the United Nations and Congress had set one. Obama has blamed the Syrian fiasco on Congress and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for pressing for the training of Syrian rebels.

      Not long ago, the Obama administration boasted of its swap of Taliban terrorists who’d been imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay for U.S. Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl. But when the public became outraged, administration handlers began blaming then-Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel for the deal.

      When Obama has not been busy blaming former President George W. Bush for various problems, Obama and his handlers have attributed the anemic economy to “fat cat bankers,” the “1%” and “corporate jet owners.”

      1. The ship is on the rocks and the captain is pointing fingers at everyone onboard except himself. The navigator didn’t chart correctly, the first mate didn’t direct the sailors properly and that guy that rigs that one rope that sail thingy isnt in proper uniform. To make matters worse he was the last one to find out the ship was sinking.

        Now that is leadership.

        Is this guy 5 years old? Everything is excuses and someone else’s fault. What a worthless POS.

        1. If the world collapses this idiot will be sitting on a pile of smoking ashes wondering why his perfect plans were sabotaged by some vague boogeyman.

          SOP for the left.

          I am sure they will get it right next time.

        2. You’re being terribly unfair; his intentions were good.

          And that’s all that really matters.

        3. Is this guy 5 years old?

          You are dissing 5-yr-olds. My grandson is 5 and he is learning how to take responsibility for his actions. Obumbles, not so much.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.