It's the Worst Day on the Internet, Reddit Removes 'Warrant Canary' From Transparency Report, Milo Yiannopoulos 'Does Not Exist': A.M. Links



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

NEXT: The Chalking Continues: U. Mich Students Call Police Over 'Trump 2016' and 'Stop Islam' Messages

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. For the first time since it went public, Walmart's annual revenues have dropped.

    Time to unionize.

    1. Hello.

      "Around a fifth of the world's population of obese adults live in the United States, the U.K., Australia, Ireland, Canada, and New Zealand."

      Well, I'm lean and fit.


      1. Lies! No one without an insulating layer of blubber could survive the great white north.

      2. Well, I'm lean and fit.

        But you're also Canadian, so swings and roundabouts...

        1. My God.

          The privileged racism.

      3. So maybe it's the English language causing the "obesity epidemic".

        I'm very lean and fit-ish, so I probably cancel out at least one fatty.

      4. First World problems.

        1. English speaking privilege.

      5. I'm 6',180,fit. Weigh the same as I did 20 years ago,I have a good diet,I'm very active and I drink plenty of lager,stout and porter.

        1. Pics or you don't exist.

          Except in Crusty's perverted and polluted mind.

    2. "Time to unionize"

      Wrong order

      First unionize, then revenue drops, then go bankrupt, then ask for a bailout. You can't just drop all the cards and pick them up in any old random order.

  2. 'Oh s**t that was Jacob': Lapel camera captures the horrifying moment a cop accidentally shoots undercover colleague NINE times

    Lieutenant Greg Brachle shot Detective Jacob Grant during a drug bust
    The officer's lapel camera captured the disastrous episode
    Brachle believed Grant was 'one of the bad guys' when he opened fire
    This week the lawsuit was settled for $6.5million (?4.5million)
    The lieutenant has since retired before be could be fired

    1. Ah ha ha ha! ROLFMAO
      Long overdue and hysterically funny.
      But why was the murderer allowed to retire? Shouldn't he be in prison?
      Oh, right. Rulers vs the ruled, two laws, and FYTW
      Thus, my laughter does, sadly, have a bit of graveyard overtone.

    2. Yeah, not a lot of sympathy except for the taxpayers who have to pay that settlement and keep paying the shooter's pension.

    3. Brachle didn't kill Detective Grant.

      Grant, a narc, ended up with $6.5 million, full medical retirement, and medical bills paid for life -- all compliments of taxpayers.

      This is not a happy story though the fact that the shooter was a lieutenant illustrates that trigger-happiness is a matter of policy rather than the random actions of a few incompetent cops, that the war on drugs is worse than drugs, and that cops lives matter.

      1. "Grant, a narc, ended up with $6.5 million, full medical retirement, and medical bills paid for life -- all compliments of taxpayers."

        I wonder* if a trash collector, whose job is more dangerous than a policeman's, would receive similar compensation if he were to be injured by a fellow employee.

        *not really

    4. And it isn't the first time he wet his pants and started shooting - check out the end of the article. The guy should have been tossed off the force and thrown in jail a long time ago.

    5. The lieutenant get increasingly hysterical as he backs away yelling to others, 'Jacob's been shot!'

      That's some fine passive voice.

      1. He looks at his gun and shrieks at it, "What have you done? Be gone foul thing!" and flings it across the room.

    6. I watched every episode of The Shield. So I know this was a Hit Job

    7. Cops should be stripped of their sovereign immunity, a jury/citizen board should be convened everytime a cop uses their gun with their recommendation binding the DA to prosecute. Police unions should be eliminated and finally there should be a don't be a pussy campaign with posters and instructional videos on why shooting puppies means your a fucking pussy.

  3. 158) The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), a law enforcement think tank, has put out a paper suggesting an approach to policing that stresses the sanctity of life. Police officers and departments around the country have rushed to embrace this new approach. Ha, ha, just kidding, they're not at all! As the Washington Post reports today, Protocol for reducing police shootings draws backlash from unions, chiefs group.
    They think it's "claptrap", that police are doing fine and don't need to change, that horrific incidents are anomalies, and anyway there was this one time when an unarmed guy actually turned out to have a gun and shot an officer, so clearly de-escalation doesn't work.
    The article mentioned something I'd never heard of: a "21-foot rule" that apparently many police are trained to use, which isn't really explained but seems to be that officers should shoot when someone dangerous comes within 21 feet. (But wouldn't nearly any suspect inside a home be within 21 feet of an officer?).
    A sidebar article does note that the new-ish police chief in Fairfax County, VA, has worked closely with PERF in developing the protocol and is implementing its recommendations it in his own department.

    1. There's a video somewhere that has some dude launch a lightning attack with a knife from a distance of around twenty feet, and so now everyone must be treated as if they are that person. Because an old lady with a remote control could, in a matter of a second or two, use it to kill a police officer from twenty feet away.

      1. It's not that they have to be, it's that cops now have an excuse. It's like the crybully phenomenon -- it's not that they actually feel like someone saying they like Trump was effectively punching them in the face, they just say that to make the case that punching the Trump supporter in the face is just self-defense and entirely proportionate.

      2. Or, some where some guy painted his gin to look like a toy so now any and all object that might possibly resemble anything close to a gun are GUNS!!!!

        1. Painted a bottle of Bombay Sapphire?

        2. I read once that dogs only understand two states of being: "yes" and "no." That's why if you ever feed a dog from the table, even once, he'll forever after beg for food, because you did it once so obviously the answer is "yes."
          Cops seem to be the same way, "gun" or "not gun." There's no such thing to them as toy guns, water pistols, etc. Is it a gun or not? Obviously there's no in-between state, so best to shoot anything that's in doubt.

          1. There are two things going on with regards to cops. The first is zero tolerance for non-compliance. The second is zero tolerance for anything that might possibly be unsafe for an officer. Put the two together and you've got police officers who will initiate violence against anyone who doesn't immediately obey their every whim, and then respond with deadly force against anyone who defends themselves from this initiation of force. Because of this whenever a police officer is killed, I assume it was self defense unless it can be proven otherwise.

          2. The five-year-old kid who wielded the poptart gun in school is lucky that its "resource officer" wasn't in the room.

          3. My labs only came when called if I wanted to give them a little table scraps.Then again,they were,are ,better trained and smarter the the average cop.

            1. Just like the one I have now.

            2. I have decided that I will no longer believe a single word of your humblebrag. Just because.

              1. Like I care what a socialist says

          4. I don't think that's true. About the dogs, I mean, the cops thing is probably accurate.

            My own dog understands who in the house is more likely to give food, and will "strategically beg", going first to the person who always gives food (me, trait inherited from my grandmother. Crazy Latvian impulse to feed hungry people.) and begging there. After that person is out of food, he'll move on to the person who sometimes gives food. After "Sometimes" is out of food, he moves on to the person who rarely gives him something. And after "Rarely" is out of food, he'll finally camp out and beg at the person who never gives him food out of some sort of misplaced sense of hope.

            So for my dog, it's more complex then Yes/No. He's got "Yes", "Probably", and "Maybe" down, and apparently doesn't understand "No" at all. Also my dog's a total idiot, so it's not just like I have the one dog clever enough to figure this out.

      3. The principle is that someone with a knife in hand can close the distance and cut/kill someone before they can draw their gun, aim, and fire effectively if the attacker is inside 21 feet. Obviously this does't apply when the gun is already in hand.

    2. #policelivesmatter

      1. No. No they do not.

        1. That was sarcasm, Shirl. See, you can tell that because the commenters with meritorious opinions didn't come down hard on me as they would have an actual cop sucker.

  4. In fatal shootings by police officers, one fifth of officers' names go undisclosed.

    80% of law enforcement have weak union contracts.

    1. Same ratio when the fatal shooting victim is a cop?

  5. Terrifying moment Florida woman on an early-morning nature walk is charged at by a PANTHER

    Tina Dorschel was on the nature walk at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary
    She suddenly heard a thumping sound and started filming
    A wild panther then appear in front of her and quickly ran straight by

    "Here kitty, kitty!"

    1. Darnit, it's an ordinary tawny mountain lion. I can't make the "Racist Floridian" joke I was composing.

      1. A tawny cougar in Florida? [schoolboy snicker]

        1. I also skipped that joke...

      2. Black panthers are Leopards or Jaguars.

        1. And here I was thinking they were militant racists.

          Anyway, I wanted to rail against the very imprecise term "panther" being used at all. It can refer to three different species of big cat, which look nothing like each other.

          1. Well that's what they call them in Florida. There are an awful lot of names for mountain lions. Puma, Cougar, Catamount, big giant kitty, etc.

            1. While on a wiki dive on the subject, I stumbled onto the Pumapard

          2. Three species across two genera. The American Mountain Lion, aka Cougar, is felis concolor, which is the same genus as housecats, bobcats and most other smaller wildcats. The Jaguar is panthera onca. Panthera is the genus that contains the traditional big cats - lions and tigers. The Leopard, panthera pardus is not native to the Americas.

        2. If you mean the actual feline there are indeed melanistic (dark-colored) cougars (felis Concolor). Melanism and albinism occurs in a small number of individuals in a lot of species (perhaps all mammals, IDK).

          1. Wikipedia told me that there are no confirmed melanistic cougars. Could be wrong, I suppose.

    2. Did she scrawl something in chalk to scare it away?

      1. Nice. Going to start using that on progs.

        But, iirc, wiccans and other neopagans believe that chalk circles have protective properties.

        1. Trump2016 has a few circles. Maybe they're on to something.

        2. Works for Sam and Dean all the time

          1. And they always bang hot chicks!

        3. "But, iirc, wiccans and other neopagans believe that chalk circles have protective properties."

          Only works if the thing is a spirit. On that topic, ghost panthers would be terrifying.

    3. Yes, when you are in the swamps and hear a strange noise you should immediately get out your phone and start filming. Getting eaten by a big cat makes an awesome Youtube video.

      Panthers (mountain lions, cougars) and other big cats have been known to actually stalk and attack humans. You should know this just the same as you should know about earthquakes if you live in California or tornados if you live in Oklahoma or hurricanes if you live in Florida.

      1. Earthquakes in California. Also, when hiking in California be on the lookout for mountain lions and coyotes. Also, I nearly stepped on a giant rattlesnake a couple weeks ago. It was just sunning itself in the middle of the trail. Scary.

      2. When I lived in Colorado I remember some jogger being stalked and/or mauled by a mountain lion being a yearly news event.

        1. People always used to carry guns into the wild for a reason.

      3. Also, if you get attacked by one, you should always try to fight it. Fighting is the only chance of surviving the attack. Running away never works. The cougar is faster than you, and can climb.

  6. Around a fifth of the world's population of obese adults live in the United States, the U.K., Australia, Ireland, Canada, and New Zealand.

    When they sit around down under, they sit around down under.

    1. So, the remaining 4/5ths live where? Europe?

      1. Mexico. Aren't they supposed to be the fattest country now or something?

    2. In related news, the Lancet says there are more people now obese than underweight. Among all the pearl-clutching, no-one seems to reflect that this is also great news, given humanity's long struggle to get a meal on the table.

      1. no-one seems to reflect that this is also great news, given humanity's long struggle to get a meal on the table


      2. Hmm, a solution occurs to me. May I make a modest proposal...?

        1. Donner party, BYOB?

          1. BYOB = Bring Your Own Body?

      3. Yeah, it sounds to me like we've made great progress conquering one of the great struggles in human history. But this is apparently bad because of some combination of "MURKINZ AR FAT!!!!" and "OVERPOPULAYSHUN IZ BAD!!!!" or something.

        1. This time it's the left pining for the good old days of 1950 when everyone was skinny except a few plutocrats.

      4. Yeah, the 1% is threatening to eclipse the 99% in sheer numbers. THAT NEWS IS SO GREAT I FORGOT TO DANCE.

      5. the Lancet says there are more people now obese than underweight

        The headline should read:
        "Fewer people hungry than fatties: thank you Ingo Potrykus."

      6. That headline is terrible. More people being obese than under-fed does not mean that obesity is a bigger problem. Unless we are talking morbidly obese land whales, being undernourished is definitely a bigger problem for an individual than being fat.

        And the fact that we have problems associated with an abundance of food is a pretty amazing and good thing.

      7. IFH, the people bitching about this have never been hungry and don't know what it means to be hungry. Also, most of them are fat by historical standards.

    3. And obesity is determined by BMI (weight divided by height). That works fine for certain body types, but not for others. And also doesn't take muscle mass into consideration.

      1. I would estimate that 50-75% of the people I grew up with are wider than their same-sex parent, though not really fatter. I don't know what would cause such a thing (dietary changes and an increased emphasis on strength training during teenage years are my best off-the-cuff guess), but it feeds my suspicion that BMI needs a serious upward readjustment, especially for people under 45.

  7. Mother Jones: Marriage Is Declining Because Men Are Pigs
    ...I know, I know: #NotAllMen blah blah blah. That said, let's unpack this a bit. Basically, an awful lot of men are?and always have been?volatile and unreliable. They drink, they get abusive, and they do stupid stuff. They're bad with money, they don't help with the kids, and they don't help around the house. They demand subservience. They demand sex. And even on the one dimension they're supposedly good for?being breadwinners?they frequently tend to screw up and get fired.

    In other words, marriage has been a bad deal for women pretty much forever. But they've been forced into it by cultural mores and economic imperatives, and that's the only reason it's been nearly universal in the past....

    1. Someone is a little bitter.

    2. All women are either frigid bitches or shameless sluts
      /evil cis-hetero example of patriarchy

      All men are drunk thugs just waiting to rape someone
      /enlightened progressive modern woman

      1. Check the article, that part was written by a "man."

        1. He has some hilarious views on Hilary...checks date on articles...wait...

      2. "The problem with the Democrats is that they believe 2+2=6. The problem with the Republicans is that they believe 2+2=16. The problem with American voters is that they are convinced one of these is correct."

    3. marriage has been a bad deal for women pretty much forever

      Pretty much all poverty and happiness statistics disagree with this statement.

      1. Those poor, miserable women just don't know how poor and miserable they are!

      2. You have to consider that it's a bad deal compared to a fairy godmother appearing and granting you an unlimited number of wishes. If you compare it to the actual alternatives available in the real world, yeah, it's not quite so bad. Kinda like child labor in third-world countries - it would be better if the children were in good schools getting a good education while their parents were off making good money at good white-collar jobs, but that's not an alternative that's actually available to them.

    4. Chances this person's parents, or they themselves, had a horrible marriage?

    5. So I guess that means that (straight) women are pig fuckers.

    6. One big strawman argument with no supporting data.

    7. "In other words, marriage has been a bad deal for women pretty much forever."

      As a species, marriage would never have occurred if this was the case.

      Basically exists because it made good economic sense to get married in the traditional sense for a long time in history. Without marriage women would have to pay for their children themselves. With marriage, they could shift the economic burden of children onto another person, and thus didn't have to enter the high-paying, dangerous career choices themselves. And in most cases, if your husband died you could get another, even if you were old and decrepit, because society traditionally expected one of your husband's male relatives to marry you. Of course, not the case in all cultures, like India, where the wife was sent into the funeral pyre with the husband.

    8. "In other words, marriage has been a bad deal for women pretty much forever."

      If marriage is such a terrible deal for women, why are they always pressuring their boyfriends to "put a ring on it"?

    1. Stop triggering me you monster.

    2. I, for one, am thrilled to see Trump show his Republican bonafides in the truest way possible: by coughing up an easy victory in the last stage of the campaign through self-inflicted injuries.

      1. He really is part of the Republican establishment!

    3. Trump is going to be a totally kick-ass President when they hook him up to that new DARPA mind control contraption!

  8. Private universities should stop wealth-hoarding and share

    In fact, because the overwhelming majority of people who go on to postsecondary education attend public community colleges and state universities, it should be applied to public schools at all levels. Clearly, there is enough wealth for all; it is dispersal that is the problem.

    Our modest proposal, then, is that the University of Chicago and similarly well-endowed private institutions should share their assets with Chicago State, Northeastern Illinois and other struggling public schools. Our students are incredible. They can also conduct exemplary research and can offer the best solutions and policies for the communities in which they live.

    Or, better yet, why not nationalize the private universities so that all students in Chicago, from all communities, can benefit from their excellent resources?

    1. Because wealth is money and money is wealth.

    2. How about we dock the salaries of the people making the proposal and give it away to people of different political bents.

      1. Erica R. Meiners is a professor of education and gender and women's studies at Northeastern Illinois University. Therese Quinn is an associate professor of art history and director of museum and exhibition studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

        They're already working for free.

        1. Absolutely no self-interest or envy in their recommendation, no sir!

      2. Or to people who are earning less? Feed the starving Kulaks?

        1. Redistribution is supposed to stop at them.

    3. What a great idea! Let's destroy the one institution left in America that is actually better than anywhere else in the world, even despite all it's faults: the private research university.

      1. I think that progressives, in their innermost thoughts, break down into two groups: The economically naive who believe this will actually work. The cynical who know this will not work, but are willing to destroy the opportunity for excellent educations for a few to provide mediocre educations for all.

        1. The cynical who know this will not work, but are willing to destroy the opportunity for excellent educations for a few to provide mediocre educations for all placate their insatiable envy.

          1. This a hundred times over. I read Bernie's economic plan last night and holy crap it's all ignorance and envy. Government control is better than free market and rich successful people are bad, bad, bad!!

            1. But they are only rich and successful because they steal from the poor!

          2. Good correction. Basically, they are holding the private schools ransom until the public schools improve, yet will not support accountability for employees of public schools. This is a common pattern of prog behavior.

      2. How fucked up is higher ed in the rest of the world, if it is actually superior here?

    4. This would seem to be the natural next step of what's taught in modern academia.

    5. "Our modest proposal, then, is that the University of Chicago and similarly well-endowed private institutions should share their assets with Chicago State, Northeastern Illinois and other struggling public schools. Our students are incredible. They can also conduct exemplary research and can offer the best solutions and policies for the communities in which they live.

      Or, better yet, why not nationalize the private universities so that all students in Chicago, from all communities, can benefit from their excellent resources?

      Research isn't necessary to understand that sharing, not hoarding, is central to solving the "urban problems" of the day."

      Modest? Nationalizing private universities is a modest proposal? I love how she then wants to plunder such institutions so people can get to their excellent resources. Once nationalized, those 'excellent resources' may disappear.

      Oh, the floccinaucinihilipilification of it all.

      1. And what's all this I hear about "admissions qualifications"? If someone wants to go to Northwestern or the University of Chicago, the mere fact that they made D's and F's before dropping out of 10th grade shouldn't matter. Their feelings should be enough, by God!

      2. the University of Chicago and similarly well-endowed

        You know who else was well-endowed.

        1. Bend over. I'll show you.

          1. If he has to bend over to see it...

            1. No, the proper answer is:

              "Ben! Good to meet you!"

      3. It's like they've never read the fable of The Goose that Layed the Golden Eggs.

      4. "Why not nationalize everything?! It's the obvious next step!"

      5. Let me get this straight. Private schools are doing very well. Public schools are not. So the "solution" is to take money from those who know what the hell they're doing, and give it to those who don't.

        1. That's called "progress"!

    6. struggling public schools

      Building all those new state-of-the-art athletic facilities and hiring hordes of vice presidents of diversity is a real chore.

      1. Yep. Public college could be easily affordable... if they weren't solely focused on their school's "prestige" and trying to make college "an experience". When I was in college, I wanted education in my chosen field. I didn't want to pay for other people's student housing, sports teams, gym facilities, and the countless other useless crap that public colleges force you to buy.

        They probably wouldn't even BOTHER with all the expensive nick-knacks, but because of the way-to-easy-to-obtain student loans, they KNOW all students can AFFORD to pay for the pointless prestige shit, so they charge for it. Giving MORE money to students for MORE education will just have them increase their prices further so they can afford MORE fancy shit they don't actually need.

        1. Shorter EBS: You get more of what you subsidize.

        2. ^This. Very well put.

    7. The funny thing is, they can't confiscate wealth and actually do anything with it. If the stored-up wealth was McScrooge Duck pools of cash, it could be spent once confiscated, but everything else (yachts, jets, mansions, cars, jewelry, furs, not to mention stocks and outright company ownership) must be converted to cash, and the only buyers are the very rich people whose wealth was just confiscated.

      These clowns sure can't think very far ahead.

    8. You know who else made a Modest Proposal?

      1. Sollozzo?

    9. April Fool's? Oh wait, the dateline is March 31.

    10. Bernie supporters, no doubt.

      Go play in the freeway Erica and Therese. Really, I'm not kidding. Go play in the traffic.

      1. Why do you hate the motoring public, Suthen?

    11. Erica R. Meiners is a professor of education and gender and women's studies at Northeastern Illinois University.

      I am shocked. Here is my shocked face.

  9. Evolving Hypergamy
    ...I should note here that while there is a definite social structure built around various strategies of mate guarding, these social mores and familial repression of women's Hypergamous impulses does, in fact, stem from evolved, behavioral adaptations.

    Kin Affiliation Across the Ovulatory Cycle : Females Avoid Fathers When Fertile Consider that girls will make subconscious efforts to avoid their fathers during the proliferative phase of their ovulatory cycle. Also, consider girls enter puberty at an earlier age when their fathers are not present in the family. Both of these are examples of phenomena that have a physical manifestation and a latent evolutionary purpose, but socially we build moral/social frameworks around buffering for (or sometimes accommodating) them...

    1. So are these guys embracing the cuckold fetish or reacting in horror trying to stop it?

    2. I think you need a new hobby, JL.

    3. I am more than a little bit skeptical.

  10. A sex worker was sentenced to a year in state prison after a busybody with a drone filmed her meeting with a client and turned it over to police.

    The video or the drone?

    Also, that's where you put human trafficking victims. State pen.

    1. Who watches the watchmen?

    2. that's where you put human trafficking victims. State pen.

      Shouldn't that be Penn State? Although Sandusky may have moved.

    3. In a bit of karmic turnabout, he was promptly arrested for piloting an unlicensed drone.

      (I wish.)

  11. It's April Fools' Day! Be careful out there today, folks.

    Most jurisdictions have outlawed it as discriminatory against the feeble-minded.

  12. Mom and son 'stoners' are ruining our Central Park West pad

    The board of 400 Central Park West is suing the residents of Unit 1S, occupied by Josefina Henriquez-Berman, saying the apartment is a virtual smokestack.

    Henriquez-Berman, 65, who lives in the building on West 100th Street with her son Charlie Berman, 33, has been fined 20 times for marijuana smoke and loud noises since 2011, according to court papers.

    One-bedrooms in the 414-unit building go for around $1.5 million.

    The suit says there's so much pot smoke coming from the apartment that the odor "infiltrates other areas of the condominium building, causing ? among other things ? a nuisance to other occupants."

      1. They are smoking all that pot to help cover up the smell.

    1. Someone needs to chill. Say...

    1. Unfortunately, the whole bunch was run over by a train.

    2. It's good to keep spare food for the dogs around. Never know when you might need it.

    3. Meh, it's no Caucasian Ovcharka.

  13. The report last year stated that "if we ever receive such a request"?which of course the company would not be able to explicitly mention?"we would seek to let the public know it existed."

    The omission is your answer.

    1. No shit. That's clear as day.



  14. Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare
    One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

    So what is the goal of environmental policy?

    "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.

    For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn't really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that "the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated."...

    1. There was a writer for The National Post waayyy back in the early 2000s when it was still called global warming and the cult was still in its infancy stage who warned readers to not be fooled and that the movement was just a ruse to uproot capitalism.

      Man oh man is she being proven right with each passing day. It's too bad I didn't keep a copy or remember her name.

      1. Was it still in its infancy in the early 2000s? Waterworld came out in 1995, and I thought that was all about how the world would look when all the glaciers melted.

        1. I'm going from memory admittedly but it seemed to gain steam around then...?

        2. Waterworld came out in 1995, and I thought that was all about how the world would look when all the glaciers melted.

          I am still waiting for human-gill technology to develop.

          1. You mean the behind the ear vagina?

            1. I have the best link for that, but you may see a ole straffinrun banned.

            2. Dude, you seriously need a new hobby that doesn't involve vagina-obsession.

              1. In Longtorso's defense, Kevin Costner's Waterworld ear gills do look suspiciously like a vagina.

                1. Anything not look like a vagina to you?

                  1. Anything not look like a vagina to you?

                    Yes, your mother's vagina.

                    1. 6 kids and is 75 years old. You're probably right, but...

      2. The IPCC was formed in 1988.

        Its first COP meeting was held in Berlin, Germany in March, 1995.

    2. I'm pretty sure that every single person here except Ron Bailey knows this.

    3. Nooooooo shit. Who'da thunk it?

      Every goddamned one of them should be hanged.

  15. Bread, yogurt, milk, butts and farts: Boy, six, obsessed with toilet humor becomes an internet hit after he hijacks his parents' grocery list to add his own 'essentials'

    Shopping essentials include pears, yogurt...and butts?

    A cheeky six-year-old boy covered his parents' grocery list with the words 'Butt,' 'Butts' and 'Farts.

    1. He was swiftly offered a contract writing for Buzzfeed

  16. ISIS Is to Islam What Same-Sex Marriage Is to Christianity???

    ...The state of the mainline church is pretty deplorable when the head of an Islamic University makes more sense than all the "Christian" moderators, stated clerks, presidents and poobahs put together. One wonders, indeed, how little of the gospel is left to them.

    1. So, Muslims should not be allowed to refuse to bake ISIS a cake?

      1. And they have to cater imaginary ISIS pizza weddings

      2. And they have to cater imaginary ISIS pizza weddings

        1. Cater it twice, apparently. Thanks, squirrels.

    2. His response is that Islam has no prescribed age barriers, and that those outside Islam have no business judging something happening within Islamic practice

      I don't care. All this sex with 80 year old women has to stop.

    3. I don't give a flying fuck what Jesus worshippers choose to believe or not believe. But FFS, what your beliefs and practices shouldn't be dictated by how they allow you to interact with people of other faiths. If X is wrong (in a given belief system), then so be it. If the people who are responsible for deciding dogma decide X is now ok, fine. Either agree or disagree, and if it bothers you that much, go somewhere else.
      But it isn't right or wrong based on how interfaith relations are going to be affected.

      My belief regarding whether or not the Valkyries take me to Valhalla isn't dependent on what a Xtian or a Muslim thinks about it.

      1. Wait a second... do those Valkyries count as virgins? *eyes BearOdinson suspiciously*

    4. Consider that Marquette University - the one firing a professor for arguing that it's okay to be anti-gay marriage - is a Catholic university. A Catholic university firing a professor for daring to suggest it's okay to support Catholic teachings. What a world we live in.

  17. Watch Matt Welch discuss the "libertarian moment"


    1. "ENB tries porn and works the street for one night."


      1. "Donald Trump says something outrageously stupid"

        APRIL FOOLS!


        Also, January, February, March, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, and December fool.

  18. CIA left explosive material on Loudoun school bus after training exercise

    The CIA left "explosive training material" under the hood of a Loudoun County school bus after a training exercise last week, a bus that was used to ferry elementary and high school students to and from school on Monday and Tuesday with the material still sitting in the engine compartment, according to the CIA and Loudoun County officials.

    1. The intelligence service said that both CIA and Loudoun County experts said the explosive material did not pose a danger to passengers on the bus.

      Sheesh, what good is it, then?

    2. And nothing else happened (they apologized after all).
      Remember Bath! [too obscure?]

      1. +1 burning farm house

    3. I thought that the CIA pretended job was foreign intelligence, what does that have to do with school buses and explosives in Loudoun county?

    4. First of all, explosive training material isn't dangerous. It is usually a harmless substance (like putty) with a trace of nitrates that can be detected by dogs (or bomb-sniffing portals). It won't blow up. They aren't using actual C-4 for training. Though, it still shows a high level of incompetence (or indifference).

      The thing that bothers me is why is the CIA doing this? They are supposed to be our foreign intelligence gathering service. Not a security or counter terrorist group. And why use school equipment?

      1. Maybe because the CIA has found that going overseas is dangerous.

      2. Paragraph 1: Yes, but that's a distinction that will be lost on most of the hysterical mothers and no amount or rational suasion will convince them otherwise.

        Paragraph 2: All good questions. Questions to which we'll never get a satisfactory and truthful answer.

    5. I trust that the Loudon County government is going to stop schools from making their facilities available to the CIA and other police agencies?

    1. That's okay, because they will actually be voting against the Republican!

  19. Watch "Matt Welch" "discuss" the "libertarian moment" with "The" Atlantic's Conor Frieders"dorf", the Cato Institute's David Boaz, and the "National" Review's Ramesh Ponnuru.

    It's April Fool's Day. I am not falling for that one.

  20. Mathematicians map Game of Thrones to reveal the real main character

    Still haven't bothered to watch this. Is it really that good?

    1. I've never seen it either. My impression is it's Lord of the Ring with boobs. Accurate?

      1. Probably. That moob-bearing nitwit Martin couldn't come up with a decent plot, let alone a decent story, to save his lunch.

        1. I never read the books, I heard they were protracted.

          1. Pity; they are far superior to the movies. Until Dance of Dragons, which sucked.

            1. DwD was fine. The way he split up FfC and DwD was odd and messed a lot of people up, including me, because I read FfC without going back and re-reading SoS. So I put down FfC, waited a while, went back and re-read SoS (I had already read GoT and CoK a few times each), and then FfC and DwD, and it all flowed fine.

              You *have* to go and re-read the previous book or two before each new one, or it's going to be too confusing. They're just that dense.

              1. This discussion is not convincing me to read the books at all. I only have to read each super-dense, incredibly long book twice to get the idea? I'll stick to my non-convoluted Dune series, thank you very much.

                1. The first books aren't convoluted at all. He starts with three stories all involving a handful of characters interacting with each other.

                  Then as the war triggered by the execution of Stark expands and grows sucking in additional characters and driving some of the characters to flee farther and farther the scope of the story keeps growing.

                  He's trying to tell a 'realistic' story - some great people die silly or stupid deaths, little events in one place cause big events elsewhere, etc - just as in human history.

                  But I think he's taken it too far.

                  There's a reason most stories are encapsulated. Real life is too messy and confusing.

                2. I just finished rereading the original Dune series including the "concluding" novels that his son and Anderson wrote. And Martin makes Frank Herbert read like my kids Capt Underpants books.

                  Having said that, after rereading the Legends of Dune trilogy as well, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that Brian Herbert is completely full of shit in saying his Dad's notes and the now legendary floppy disk with "Dune 7" stuff led him and Anderson to their books. There is absolutely nothing about Omnius and Erasmus that smacks of Frank's Dune. I did find the Legends stories regarding how the Atreides/Harkonnen feud started to be cool. But the fact that every significant aspect of life in the original Dune (spice, navigators, Holtzmann shields, Great Convention, Bene Gesserit, prohibition on thinking machines) all came about due to 5-6 people, all who were connected by 3 degrees of separation or less is absurd.

              2. I disagree; Dance of Dragons was like a Robert Jordan novel; page after page of things happening a handful of which were meaningful.

                I'm pretty done with Game of Thrones. I will be rereading his short stories about Haviland Tuf this summer.

              3. You *have* to go and re-read the previous book or two before each new one, or it's going to be too confusing. They're just that dense.

                I only read complete series any more.

                1. I only read complete series any more.

                  Well shit. How am I supposed to sell you my books? I could argue that it's less a series than a chain of independant books with the same characters, I suppose.

            2. I was reading them before it was cool. Then the show came out and everybody was reading it, so I had to stop.

          2. I'm not touching them until the series is finished. I made that mistake with Waste of Time back in 1997.

        2. I am more sci-fi (space opera, some hard sci-fi, alt history,etc). But occasionally "fantasy". And I enjoy the depth of the world Martin created, and the fact that literally no-one is safe. However, his choice of including so many minor characters, along with his fucking long-winded prose, make reading the novels quite the chore.

          Sometimes a challenging novel can be fun. But his aren't. When I finished the fifth one, I didn't feel a sense of sadness in missing the characters. I just thanked the Gods that it was over. I would have quit reading them but after watching season 1 on HBO, I felt compelled to read them all. I no longer feel any compulsion to read the sixth or seventh, even assuming the asshole lives long enough to finish them.

        3. How many books have you sold, Shirl? Srsly.

          1. Can't speak for Shirley, but I've sold less than Martin, but more than Cuomo. (both of whom have made a hell of a lot more from publishers than I have).

            On the other hand I never read Martin's work, so I have no opinion on the matter.

            In short, this is just another excuse to shill my books.

            1. Congrats. Srsly. I will get around to reading you one day.

              But the point was to call out Shirl who I find to be insufferable even though I'm pretty sure s/he is a troll.

      2. Not at all. Read the books, they are far better than the boring and tedious LOTR. Vastly so.

      3. Not really. It's more like the anti-Lord of the Rings. With lots of boobs. LOTR takes religion, mysticism and heroism seriously. In Game of Thrones it's self-serving BS. The heroic young prince leading the forces of good ... screws up, fails and dies pathetically. Warring among pretenders to the throne cause death and general misery while ignoring the true common threat. One queen-wannabe has medieval WMDs (dragons) but really has no idea WTF to do with them and falls on her face just in trying to rule a small city state. Nobody will ever write anything like this about GOT:


        1. I think that is about right. i have never been interested in reading GOT because it always seemed like disaster porn with wizards and dragons. From what I gather, none of the characters have any moral worth, no one ever grows or learns anything. There is never any greater meaning or value gained from what happens. It just seems to be one long cynical trail of violence, betrayal and nihilism.

          It would be one thing if GOT were a single novel or a short story. But it is five novels. I would think the base nihilism and cynicism would get old very quickly.

          1. But as a libertarian, that's rather what I like about it. GOT has no use for the silly, dangerous LOTR-ish idea that if we only had the right, heroic, pure-of-heart leaders, then evil would finally be vanquished and everything would be happily-ever-after. But it's not all nihilism. There actually are characters with moral worth trying to do right thing in GOT; they're just stuck in a shitty, clannish, Machiavellian world (like medieval Europe actually was).

            1. To me that is just as cartoonish and stupid than the worst happily ever after fantasies. The world is no more all evil and hopeless than it is all puppies and rainbows. it is a total misreading of medieval history to conclude it was all brutality and evil. It wasn't. There was like any human experience both good and bad and things did sometimes get better. The good did sometimes win out. And more importantly, it is not always obvious at the time just what the "good" is.

              If there is one significant criticism to be made of Tolkien, it is that he doesn't do a very good job of showing how evil actually works. Tolkien's evil is just mindless inhuman monsters doing horrible things. Sadly, evil is much more subtle and sinister than that. The people who do the greatest evil convince themselves that they are in fact doing good. They are not mindless killer orcs. They are rational people who have allowed their vanity to seduce them into evil. Tolkien hints at that with the ring corrupting everyone and all but he doesn't really explain it very well.

              Game of Thrones seems not to understand good or evil very well. It just looks depressing. A world where everyone is either irredeemably evil or good but totally overcome by the evil around them is disaster porn. Some people like that but it seems awfully depressing to me, especially for five books.

              1. That is not what happens in GOT. At least the show, I've only read the first book so I can't speak with any great authority on the books.

                While there are a handful of unredeemably evil characters in GOT most are actually pretty damned nuanced and much of the evil comes not from those irredeemably evil characters but rather the more nuanced characters not being willing to sacrifice some element of their morality or humanity when the situation calls for it.

                For example, Danerys fails as the ruler of Mereen because she was naive about how easy it is to free slaves and wasn't willing to be ruthless enough early enough. She wasn't an evil person, in fact she is one of the more objectively morally good characters in the show but her unwillingness to be a tyrant and desire to make the people free leads her to ruin.

              2. "A world where everyone is either irredeemably evil or good but totally overcome by the evil around them is disaster porn. Some people like that but it seems awfully depressing to me, especially for five books."

                But that's really not it at all. Few of the characters are irredeemably good or evil in GOT. A couple of the evil characters are sadistic psychopaths, but mostly they're garden variety power and status-hungry schemers. As were common in the era being portrayed (and whose heads often ended up displayed on pikes at the end of London Bridge). And of the good characters -- some are honorable to the point of naivete and tend to meet rather quick ends. But some are more adept and manage to maneuver and have survived (so far, at least).

            2. So, it's a kind of Turf and Serf version of James Ellroy's stuff.

          2. From what I gather, none of the characters have any moral worth, no one ever grows or learns anything.

            I wouldn't say all of them are like that. Many, perhaps most are. But there are some characters that (so far) you can actually like. And some do grow and learn.

            But the books are really fucking long and may or may not ever finish in a satisfactory way, so I think you are probably just as well off not getting into it if it doesn't seem like your thing.

            1. Five novels and counting of blood, gore and unhappy endings. Yeah, where can I sign up for that?

    2. Not really, I declared it over when I realized I didn't like any of the characters and the episode felt like a natural stopping point. Sadly, the show kept going unbidden.

    3. Take a good plot and great characters. Now drag the plot out and slowly kill everyone off until people stop reading because there's no damned point.

      1. Or just stop writing the story and wait for the public to lose interest while mediocre TV show runners run the story into the ground.

        1. I watched the Red Wedding. Because when you'd read the book and no one else in the room had... I mean, well, obviously I wasn't going to miss that

    4. Way to light the supernerd signal.

    5. I'd say yes. I don't watch very much television, but I never miss GoT. I'm also kinda liking Better Call Saul too.

    6. It's a very well done show. If you like violent and sexy fantasy, you'd probably enjoy it.

  21. PoliceOne and David French join forces to introduce police reforms.


    1. We have an abortion free thread.


      1. Wait. According to the World April Fools Council this is a logic paradox, not a legitimate April Fool joke.

      2. Ooooh!! A free abortion thread? Nice!

        1. We were going to have one of those, then we aborted the project.

          1. We have a thread but no needles?

          2. That sucks.

  22. I really have to give Trump credit for having this amazing gift of getting people to self identify as morons. He did it again with his remarks about punishing women who get abortions if abortions are outlawed. What do the pro life people think an actual ban on abortions would look like?

    Since there is no chance of abortion being outlawed any time soon, I had never really given much thought to how an actual ban would have to work to be effective. Even if you didn't punish women and only the abortionist, you couldn't prove an abortionist guilty unless you proved there was an abortion. And that would mean investigating cases where pregnant woman lost their babies. And that would mean every woman who had a miscarriage would have to be prepared to explain it to the police. Making women who get abortions immune from prosecution would make this problem even worse since it would deprive women of the ability to take the 5th. They would have to answer questions or face contempt charges.

    1. Then of course there is the whole rape and incest exception that pro life people always claim they want. Incest would be easy thanks to DNA testing. Rape would be a nightmare. You could never adjudicate a claim of rape before the pregnancy came to term. So either you would take the woman's word, which would make the exception so big the ban would be meaningless, or make the woman file charges or swear under oath she was raped, which would create the horrific incentive for women to make false claims of rape to get abortions.

      I am pro life. But even I have to admit an actual ban on abortions would either be meaningless or utterly brutal. There is no nice way to do it. And the pro life people pretend otherwise. And Trump's offhanded comment ripped the mask off of this bullshit. You don't want to punish women who get abortions? Really?

      1. We'd just get more false rape charges if one is needed to get an abortion.

        1. Yes. If dim witted feminists ever figure this out, watch them change their position on abortion. Privacy and choice is one thing but the opportunity to harm men something else and much more important.

      2. April Fools!

      3. In practice abortion clinics would close so all that would be done is investigating black market type abortions.

        I don't see how any of the things you pointed out don't apply to bans on late term abortions today or complete bans in the past and elsewhere. I get you don't think it would work, but there's plenty of real world examples showing it worked pretty easily.

        1. It worked in the sense that we pretended that we had banned them. It likely did not work in the sense that it prevented many abortions.

          In practice abortion clinics would close so all that would be done is investigating black market type abortions.

          That is not true. Abortion would still be legal in the cases of incest and rape and where they life of the mother required it. So you would have to investigate those cases to ensure that they were done for legitimate reasons. If you didn't, the ban would be meaningless. the abortionist would just sign off on it being necessary for the woman's health or the woman just say the pregnancy is the result of rape.

          I don't see how you have a legal ban of abortions that isn't either so lax it is effectively meaningless or strict enough to have an effect but results in the harms I discuss. And the problems are equally true with late term abortions. This is why "health of the mother" exceptions are usually poison pills for proposed laws banning late term abortion. Such provisions render the bans meaningless.

        2. so all that would be done is investigating black market type abortions.

          Ask yourself how the police would do that? The only way i can think of to find an abortionist is to find the women that had abortions. It is not like the people doing illegal abortions are going to advertise. So whenever a woman had a miscarriage there would be a chance she would have to answer questions about it from the cops. And remember, if women who get abortions are immune from prosecution, they can't take the 5th.

          Imagine a woman has a miscarriage and one of her friends or coworkers is a nasty sort and doesn't believe her. So she calls the cops and says :I think the woman I work with had an illegal abortion. Unless you expect the cops to not enforce the law, the woman would now have to go through a police interrogation explaining how she really had a miscarriage and not an abortion. And if she did have an abortion and lies to protect the abortionist or refuses to talk, she could be subject to prosecution for perjury or contempt of court.

          Tell me again how banning abortions won't involve serious privacy issues and punishing women who not just have abortions but miscarriages.

          I am pro life. Understand that. But the facts of how an effective abortion ban would have to work are what they are.

      4. What do they do now in European countries that ban abortion after the 1st trimester? What kind of punishment is there for abortions performed after that? What kind of punishment do U.S. states have now for illegal 3rd-trimester abortions?

        1. That is an interesting question. And I have never heard of a case of a doctor being prosecuted for doing an abortion. Sometimes abortions are medically necessary. So any ban is either going to have to investigate every case of abortion or trust the judgement of the doctor. Trusting the judgement of the doctor works if you have a medical community that can be trusted not to rubber stamp abortions. I have no idea if the European medical community can be trusted. No way, however, can the American medical community. Abortion has been too common for too long and the issue is too contentious for anyone to expect that a significant number of doctors won't rubber stamp abortions in the face of a ban.

          I would also say that Europe likely has a hell of a lot more abortions than they admit to having. Banning the abortions likely means the doctors still do them but do them under the pretense of protection of the mother's health. Point being that bans are likely not to reduce the number of abortions nearly as much as the pro life movement thinks.

    2. Trump says if there is a law, there must be a punishment. Leftists find this cruelty unbearable. What's Bernie's tax plan again?

      1. Throwing someone in prison for failing to report the money they made selling the food from their garden is social justice. We can't have wreckers undermining the collective good.

        The Progs are just as mendacious and delusional as the pro life people. Both of them pretend there is some humane easy way to criminalize behavior they find objectionable.

      2. I really do not understand the outrage over that comment. If something is illegal, there should be punishment for committing the illegal act. That's how laws work, right? If not, I've been doing this whole "lawyer" thing wrong for a while now....

        1. The pro life people are outraged because it shows how dishonest they are. I honestly think Trump hadn't given the issue much thought and when asked gave the common sense answer "of course banning abortion would mean punishing women who got them". The pro life people went apeshit because they seem to have built their entire movement on denying that simple truth. And how dare he point it out.

          1. Yeah, they wave around "Abortion is Murder" signs and then we are supposed to believe they will not
            punish women who are complicit in seeking out and planning the murder?

            1. Yeah. Or that you could ban a service without involving the people who are buying it in the prosecution?

    3. So the people critical of Trump's latest remarks would free a person buying drugs, but arrest the drug seller?

      1. Yeah that will happen real soon. And just because there has never in the history of the world been a case where an activity was banned and only those who provide the service were punished and not the people who actually engaged in the activity were punished doesn't mean it won't work differently this time.

  23. Vices are not crimes, but don't forget: neither is photography. Photography is not a crime.

    JohnTV publicizes only the public behavior of street hookers and their johns. It provides a service that its viewers value. If hookers and johns want their behavior to be private, they should conduct their activities in private.

    1. That is a fair point. I also see nothing wrong with banning prostitution that occurs in public. Hookers and their customers doing business on the street is a quality of life issue and there is a legitimate government interest in banning it.

      Of course if the government would get out of the illegitimate realm of criminalizing private transactions done in private, there would likely be a lot fewer people doing it in public.

      1. But a person walking a public street is a taxpayer with as high right to walk it as either of us. The questions they ask passers-by are no more my business than the questions being asked by a panhandler, a street "artist" or someone looking for directions.

        Now, if they were actually conducting the prostitution part of the equation in public, it might be objectionable. But merely conducting interviews with prospective clients? That's no more objectionable than a table full of Girl Scouts asking if people want to buy cookies.

        1. It comes down to whether you are a strict libertarian or more of a classical liberal. I am not a strict libertarian. So I see no problem with the government regulating what goes on in public spaces. That is what the government is for, to regulate the commons so we don't start shooting each other over them. So, I don't see a problem with saying you can't run your business on the sidewalk, which is what the hooker is doing here.

          If you are a strict libertarian, you do see a problem with that. I understand why you would think that but there is no way to really resolve the argument. We each have incompatible assumptions about what is and is not a legitimate function of government.

          1. Shooting each other is already a crime. And it's a violation of the NAP. Asking people that are also in the commons a question should be fine, whether it's "how do I get to the stadium?", "can you sore some change for a Vietnam Vet?", "will you buy these cookies?" Or "would you like me to toss your salad for $30?".

            I don't see the difference. No coercion from any of those questions. No violation of the NAP. No need for the state to regulate them.

            1. Asking a question is not running your business. Saying a hooker can't stand on the street and solicit business and not the same thing as saying you can't ask a question.

              Just because you can ask for directions doesn't mean I can set up on the sidewalk selling directions. It is really that simple.

              1. Soliciting =/= engaging. The prostitution happens after a person answers in the affirmative. And it happens elsewhere, usually not in the commons. Therefore, to me, their question is a lot like anyone else walking up and asking if someone would like to engage in a conversation, be it about donating change, giving directions or a million other things.

                And now that I think about, Girl Scouts selling cookies would be a lot more like "The Merchant Of Mayberry" (Andy Griffith Season 2, Episode 22) than a hooker asking questions of people on a public sidewalk she has every right to be on.

                1. That is absurd. That is like saying that if I stood out on the street with a big sign that says "car for sale" I am not engaged in selling my car as long as we walk to the parking lot to exchange the check for the title.

                  1. Oh, you mean it would be like restaurants putting sandwich boards in front of their restaurant on a public sidewalk? Or Girl Scouts setting up tables on a sidewalk between stores? Or a dress shop putting out a table of clearance dresses but having people walk inside to check out?

      2. I understand what you are saying John, and you are correct, but to be pedantic: There is no such thing as a legitimate government interest. There is only the interest of the citizens that the government serves.

    2. "Your wife -- does she enjoy ? photography?"

      1. "She's from Purley"

        1. Say no more, say no more.

    3. I thought JohnTV was a channel featuring nothing but plus-sized models.

      1. Would that make SarcTV a series shows about pre-pubescent boys? Or,would,that be IP infringement on Disney XD?

    1. It responds to a set of programmed verbal commands.
      That is scarily lifelike.

    2. Nice... but I've seen better lip syncing in a Gojira movie

      1. I doubt he built it for its verbal skills.

      2. It talks? They're going to have to fix that bug before I cough up my hard-earned dough.

    3. "...except for the arms."

      Sorry, that is kind of a deal breaker.

  24. Molyneux on the war between rational v. irrational etcl:

  25. Of self-awareness and subtext
    Further proof of Donald Trump's Alpha status:
    Period pants that let women 'bleed on Donald Trump's face' are so popular they're selling out.

    The Fields debacle
    ...But notice how Trump, being a strong Alpha, not only stands his ground, but refuses to even consider sacrificing his supporters. (Supporters, plural, because submitting to the Fields Narrative would not only cost his campaign manager, but all of those who have stood by him since the media kerfluffle started.) This is vital, and it is winning him support for reasons both rational and socio-sexual.

    If you weren't convinced Trump was a true Alpha before, this should suffice.

    1. Speaking of Fields. I have no idea who this guy is and if anything he says is true. If even half of what he says is true, my God are these people disgusting. Reason won't take the link. It is some site called GotNews. The writer is someone named Charles C. Johnson.

      In December of 2015 Fields falsely accused me of hacking her computer and has continued to repeat the lie even after her bosses told her to cut it out.

      She had sent me a LinkedIn request and I called her. We had a friendly conversation before she tweeted out to the world that I had hacked her. Seriously.

      I texted her and said something to the effective of "what the fuck?" and "why did you falsely accuse me of a federal crime?" She insisted I had hacked her.

      I then called her bosses ? Matt Boyle and Steve Bannon ? and told them to stop her and to take down the tweet.

      1. The writer is someone named Charles C. Johnson.

        He is awful, John.

        1. He appears to be a Ginger hipster beardo. So that doesn't surprise. My impression is they are all awful. The whole lot of them are just lying, craven morons who will do anything or say anything to get attention and get ahead. None of them seem to know anything or have much to say beyond self promotion.

          Fields, her doofus boyfriend, this guy, and all the rest of the new media need to go get real fucking jobs and a life. I am offended I have to know who any of them are.

      2. She had sent me a LinkedIn request and I called her.

        Who calls people who send out LinkedIn requests? I have a significant linkedin presence, and I can assure you:

        1) Celebrities don't sent out friend requests to people they hardly know.

        2) Nobody calls a stranger who sends a request. You accept, decline, or block. Why call?!?

        I'm not calling him a liar; it's possible he's omitting material details.

        1. I'm not calling him a liar

          It's Charles Johnson, so you should be.

          1. Isn't he the LGF guy?

            1. No. Same name, different middle initial.

      3. He is completely untrustworthy and was fired from the Daily Caller for making shit up.

    2. I'm convinced he's Alpha Centaurian.

      1. [narrows gaze at JATNAS]

    3. And in England during the Napoleonic War, chamber pots with an image of Napoleon on the bottom were big sellers. Later on, toilet paper with the images of various political figures.

    4. Alpha Fool?

      OK, convinced!

    5. I very seriously doubt he'd be an alpha when he really needed to be. It's pretty easy to be alpha when you are surrounded be goons and living in an isolated environment.

  26. "Around a fifth of the world's population of obese adults live in the United States, the U.K., Australia, Ireland, Canada, and New Zealand. "

    So 2 things seem to cause obesity:

    1. Being rich
    2. Speaking English


    2. I wonder where do the the other 80% live? I saw plenty of obesity when I was in Europe last week.

  27. We've Decided To Give Equal Time To Reporting On The Shittiness Of All Major Party Candidates Still Remaining.

    April Fools! So yeah, it will continue to be a 95/5 ratio of Trump/Everyone Else. After all, our pants aren't going to shit themselves.

    1. First Trump 2016 and now you kick me in the nuts for good measure. You really are the worst.

  28. An ancient site spotted from space could rewrite the history of Vikings in North America

    The new archaeological find, announced Thursday, offers tantalizing evidence of a Viking presence 300 miles from the only place in Canada they'd ever been seen before.

    1. If that article is still around after April 1st, I'd be interested.

    1. but mysteriously they weren't "I [heart] mummy" tatts

    2. It's a mushroom tattoo. Walk it off.

    3. Balmoral-Medina

      8:28 AM MDT [Edited]

      Who is really shocked by this?
      In a country where birth control is made more difficult everyday to obtain, SHE is the face of why retro-active abortions need to be realized.
      But instead we celebrate the "magic of birth" and then leave the hapless children to suffer at the hands of human garbage like this.
      She doesn't need prison time.
      She needs to be STERILIZED, along with her tattoo'd loser boyfriend.
      What a culture!
      We just can't sink low enough or fast enough!
      Those chidren need to be removed immediately from her grasp and placed with loving families that will make sure that they are fed, bathed, housed, educated and LOVED now and not fed into our soul-crushing foster-care system which destroy MILLIONS of kids' lives each year.

      Wow. Talk about a cure worse than the disease. It's people like this who put me instantly on the defense of bad parents. Don't like how they're raising their children? Well, go piss up a rope, fascist.

      1. In a country where birth control is made more difficult everyday to obtain

        Well, this person obviously has a very tenuous grasp of reality, at best.

  29. Watch Matt Welch discuss the "libertarian moment" withThe Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf, the Cato Institute's David Boaz, and the National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru.

    Matt lost big. In fact he lost at least four years ago.

  30. According to Time, FBI director James Comey has had two run-ins with the Clintons before:

    - in 1996, while working as deputy special counsel on the Senate Whitewater Committee, where he found the Clintons engaged in "a highly improper pattern of deliberate misconduct."

    - in 2002, while investigating Bill Clinton's pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich, who Comey had successfully prosecuted

    1. Damn. I bet he still holds one hell of a grudge over the Marc Rich thing. That was one of the rankest cases of corruption in a very long time. Rich is a Bernie Madoff level thief and Clinton and Eric Holder literally, and I mean that as the word actually means, sold Rich a pardon.

      1. I remember being shocked by the sheer brazenness of the Marc Rich pardon - and that was before I even gave a shit about politics. I just hope (and I admit that it's probably just wishful thinking) that the third time's a charm, and that he's dotting his i's and crossing his t's very, very carefully before taking her down hard.

        1. Yeah, I tend to be pretty cynical about these things, but part of me is still holding out hope that some modicum of justice exists for those at the top levels of government. I'm pretty sure I'll be disappointed.

        2. Don't matter how well those i's are dotted and t's are crossed, the Obama DOJ will never go after Clinton.

      2. No question about it. However, I always wondered, is there really anything illegal about it. POTUS power to grant pardons and clemency (to federal prisoners) is pretty much ultimate. He could legally pardon any federal criminal for any reason, right?
        It seems to me that is why he pardoned Rich on his last day. Politically it could be disastrous. But since he was ending his term, there would be literally no negative consequences for him.

        1. Not illegal but immoral and corrupt as fuck.

        2. There was nothing reviewable about it. It was, however, illegal. The president has the power to pardon and no one has the power to undo one he has granted. The President is still, however, subject to the laws and the influence and corruption laws in particular. So, the President can't sell pardons. He could grant a pardon for even the most irrational reasons. He could roll twenty sided dice to determine who gets a pardon if he wanted to. He cannot however sell pardons. The Rich pardon can't be undone. But in an ideal world Bill Clinton could have and should have been prosecuted for influence peddling in giving it.

          1. Kind of like a jury that's bribed into rendering a not-guilty verdict: the acquittal can't be reversed or reviewed, but the jurors could be prosecuted - right?

            1. Yes. That is a very good analogy.

          2. Is that accurate, though? There's nothing in the Constitution that explicitly limits the president's pardon-power, and while I can certainly see the benefit of restricting it through normal public corruption laws, I'm not sure that they would withstand scrutiny by a court, as they would be trying to limit a constitutional power. It seems to me that'd be analogous to trying to expand the definition of treason or something.

            1. There is nothing in the Constitution that limits the reasons Congress' can pass laws. Congress can pass laws for any reason it liked no matter how silly or irrational. Same thing with the courts, Nothing in the constitution requires them to make decisions for any particular or even rational reason. Yet, it is still illegal for a Congressman to sell their vote or a judge to sell their decision. Same thing here.

  31. But I thought that was rape-rape.

    Guess the badge makes it different.

  32. Posted late last night, but hey.
    Your tax dollars at work!

    "Tesla unveils Model 3, Elon Musk's electric car for the masses"
    "All would get at least 215 miles on a charge,"

    First, we know that "215" is a lie; no Tesla ever went as far on a charge as Musk claimed. And who is the last person you ever met who ran a car until it was empty? Your idiot BIL?
    So LA to SF means two 4-hour charges along with 6-7 hours driving. Hello, TSA!

    1. It would work as a strictly commuter car that you ran back and forth to work. Even then, however, what is the life of the batteries? The article doesn't mention that.

      Even if you bought it as a commuter, the thing is going to die like a bic lighter at some point and have no resale value. When those batteries die, it is almost certainly going to cost more to replace them than the car will be worth. Also, what is the life of the electric motor? Electric motors have a long life but they don't last forever, especially ones put under the kind of stress it takes to run a car. Again, when the motor burns out, the car becomes yard art.

      The whole thing is stupid. Only an idiot would buy one of those instead of an efficient gasoline powered car.

      1. Only social-signaling progressives would be interested, and maybe folks who have interests in the coal mines that produce the fuel that ultimately power these vehicles.

    2. Oh, but they have those battery swap stations. Right? ... Right?... What's that, it was just a carbon credit scam? Fuck Musk.

  33. Around a fifth of the world's population of obese adults live in the United States, the U.K., Australia, Ireland, Canada, and New Zealand.

    In fatal shootings by police officers, one fifth of officers' names go undisclosed.


    .... So, you're saying they're *fat*?

    1. It would only be worth it if it came with the divine right to rule the town. What is the point of owning a town if you can't rule it like a God?

    2. I wonder if there are any unpaid taxes owing...

      1. I suspect the regular taxes due in Italy would be a couple mil a year and the historical preservation laws would mean there's a six-month process involving lawyers every time you want to wash the dishes and the whole thing would be a huge money pit, but still - that amount of property at that price would bear looking into. If nothing else, it's got fortified walls, a water supply and vast underground storage space and the barbarian hordes are coming....

    3. Although, having the right to choose who can live in the town, which you would by virtue of ownership, could have its advantages.

    4. I'm always looking at real estate (on ZIllow, etc.) and doing the math. I've come to the sad conclusion that even if someone GAVE me my dream house, I couldn't afford maintenance, taxes, and insurance on it. So I'll do you the favor of NOT giving you this castle.

      1. Yeah, the maintenance on that money pit would be brutal. The fact that it is for sale does, however, show what a bunch of soulless and tasteless morons our current generation of super rich are. If you were one of these internet billionaires and really had the money, how could you not want your own medieval Italian castle and town?

        Instead of buying these or running a Formula 1 team or running horses in the Kentucky Derby or doing any number of things that have real style, these ass clowns are out flying around in private jets campaigning for global warming or giving their millions to corrupt school districts in New Jersey. We live in dark times.

  34. Federal Communications Commission: FCC Approves Internet Subsidy for Low-Income Americans

    In a 3-2 vote, the FCC approved a $9.25 monthly household subsidy to benefit those who are eligible for federal assistance programs. The subsidy program is set to launch in December.

    1. Fuck you, assholes! You want internet, fucking pay for it yourselves! Where does the FCC get the power under the constitution to just unilaterally levy new taxes and dole out handouts?

      1. Take solace WTF. It is not like this is a subsidy for poor people. They already have internet. This likely won't save them any money. It will just cause them to stupidly buy more internet over and above the subsidy because who wants shit internet when you can pay just a bit more for something better?

        This is a subsidy for internet providers. All of that money is going straight into the pockets of cable and telephone companies. So there is that.

        1. This is a subsidy for internet providers.

          Well, yeah, that too. Fuckers.

      2. If we have learned anything in this country, it's that you do NOT need to levy new taxes in order to provide handouts.

        1. I think the "one neat trick" is to give the handouts first, then later cry that somehow funding has dried up and that society must act together and contribute their 'fair share'

  35. Around a fifth of the world's population of obese adults live in the United States, the U.K., Australia, Ireland, Canada, and New Zealand.

    A fifth by head or by weight?

    1. Okay that is funny.

  36. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ?

  37. 8"Once I saw the draft of 6274 bucks,,, I admit that my friend's brother was like really generating cash in his free time with his PC. His uncle's neighbor has done this for only 9 months and by now repaid the loan on their home and bought a new Car ...

  38. atm machine added Suspension, Crossfire, Cliffhanger maps Doodle Army 2 Mini Militia that has all unlocked store product and also.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.