Social Justice Classes, New Zelda Game, Was Omar Mateen Gay? P.M. Links


  • Link
    Screenshot via Nintendo / Youtube

    A black sixth grader is suing her school after a group of boys put a rope around her neck and dragged her, causing scars.

  • FBI investigating Omar Mateen's sexuality.
  • President Obama calls Donald Trump "dangerous."
  • At UMass-Amherst, "social justice training" is a prerequisite.
  • Read Popehat (and Reason contributing editor) Ken White on why Peter Thiel's crusade against Gawker is worrisome.
  • Nintendo unveiled the trailer for the next installment of the popular Zelda franchise—The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild.

NEXT: Common Core Fails to Prepare Students for College and Workforce, Says New Study

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. FBI investigating Omar Mateen’s sexuality.

    Is this better or worse than investigating his faith?

    1. [narrows gays]

      1. Oh, you are going to be in so much trouble when Swiss gets home.

        1. What’s he gonna do, come after me with a halberd?

          1. Don’t get him angry or he’ll turn into SCHIL-TRON: VANQUISHER of the UNWORTHY!

            1. Wilhelm don’t-ask-don’t Tell.

              1. He’s a crossbow dresser?

          2. Maybe even a +3 halberd!

    2. Why not both? It’s better because a latent homosexual having a hatred toward other homosexuals fits our narrative (see Milk). It’s worse because there’s nothing larger and still existing onto which we can focus our blame and anger.

    3. Is it still a hate crime if he’s gay?

      1. Everything is a hate crime.

      2. Technically, a “self-hate” crime.

      3. Yes, but he is one of the victims now, too.

      1. Not gonna click on a shortened link.

        1. I clicked, but as I scrolled down I saw the phrase “common sense” one too many times, and didn’t read.

          I’m sure if the left writes another million articles repeating the same few stupid gun control clich?s, it will be Different This Time.

        2. Serious question: why?

          1. Someone pulls up in a plain white van and tells you to get in. Do you?

            1. Many times people link to Youtube URLs. I don’t know what’s in them but if I recognize the poster, I trust that there’s no unannounced NSFW material. Maybe I’m a moron? It wouldn’t be the first time.

              1. Here we don’t even know that it’s going to YouTube or whatever other media outlet.

                It’s, which could be anything.

          2. Serious answer:

            For those who started with the internet, clicking on links in discussion sessions has a sketchy history. First there was goat sex. Then there was Tub Girl. Then when people who weren’t hopeless shut-ins and nerds joined the internet, we got the Rick Roll.

            Click on a couple of times and you learn to check the url before clicking.

            In fact a lot of sites added a feature that showed the domain of the link inline in response to this issue.

            (If you don’t know what the things mentioned above are, consider yourself lucky and move on. Definitely do not google that shit)

    4. In a previous thread, someone brought up how the only time they needed an official document stating their gender was for Selective Services.

      It got me thinking, has any non-active military civilian ever tried to count themselves as being one of the “exemptions” to any of the BS federal or state gun restriction by using their Selective Service registration?

    5. Hello.

      1. Group F is interesting.

        1. I thought we HERE AT REASON were GROUP #1!

          1. You are Group #6.

        2. +1 Larry Storch

    6. Omar? Oh, he a faggoty fuck.

      1. How dare you equate this man with that great man.

    7. I always wonder with things like this what the hell the point is of all this investigating. Obviously whether he was involved in some deeper terrorist organization or whether he had co-conspirators should be investigated. But I’m not sure what the FBI is supposed to do with information on whether he was a self-hating homo as well as a radical Muslim nutcase.

  2. More Zelda?

    1. It’s Nintendo, dude. They don’t have to come up with original ideas. They just need entertaining ways to play with the IP they’ve already got.

      1. It’s been generations since they’ve had a new idea or an entertaining way to use their existing IP.

        1. You’re not wrong; maybe “gimmick” is a better word. But who the hell am I kidding, the fanboys are gonna eat this shit up anyway.

          1. Yeah… fanboys. Screw those guys.

            ::bookmarks Amazon page for game, waits to preorder::

          2. Fuck that, I’ll keep playing Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time. The newer 3D Zelda’s are garbage.


        2. Wii Fit? May not like it, but if there’s a “new idea” in gaming, that was it.

          1. Exercise games existed before Wii Fit, though none with a scale/balance board.

          2. Millennials don’t know ’bout Dance Aerobics for the NES Power Pad.

            1. Hence “new idea” in quotes, because no, there are no new ideas in gaming if you go back far enough

              1. So, the reason you put it in quotes was because it wasn’t a new idea?


          1. Mario Kart 64, Bitches

            1. 8 has some of those courses, as well as some SNES

          2. Mario Kart 8 was a lot of fun. As is Splatoon.

            1. Just got the Wii U. What is this?

              1. Splatoon is a first person shooter, except it’s paint and not bullets. And there are a lot of very unique game mechanics, such as the way you reload your gun. It’s pretty fun, especially in multiplayer.

              2. Splatoon is an Internet-based FPS that doesn’t have voice chat. So you can actually play and have fun because the entire match isn’t dominated by 14 year old Russians screaming at the top of their lungs.

              3. Splatoon is an Internet-based FPS that doesn’t have voice chat. So you can actually play and have fun because the entire match isn’t dominated by 14 year old Russians screaming at the top of their lungs.

                1. Squirrels love it, too!

          3. SNES Mario Kart was as good as video games need to be. Sadly, last time I tried to fire up the SNES, it was not working.

        3. They’ve done pretty great things with Mario. Mario Sunshine, Paper Mario, Mario Galaxy, and Luigi’s Mansion were all great takes on old ideas. They may not be your cup of tea, but they were far from same old same old.

          1. Enlighten quest was the best one. Although it was hard to know exactly when to take the Pope pill and become the Pope. Equally tricky was knowing the right time to take the de-Poping pill to change back, so as to avoid dangerous schisms.

          2. Mario Sunshine well and truly sucked and you know it. The Mario Galaxy games were fantastic.

            1. Sorry, I enjoyed that game. My siblings did too. It was just a fun puzzler.

    2. Yup. In this one you play as Link! You must venture across the world to dungeons, collect the item in the dungeon, then use that item to defeat the monster in the dungeon. You will repeat this a dozen or so times until you complete the game! If it sounds formulaic, it’s because it is!

      I want to be wrong but the ideal audience for Zelda games is 8-12 years old. Any other value is just nostalgia and that just leads to disappointment.

      1. I’m not interested unless I get to break innocent folks’ crockery.

      2. I wasn’t a Nintendo kid, but one of the things that I’m told about the original LoZ was that you didn’t have to do dungeons in order. It’d be easier because you get more hearts and upgrades in lower-difficulty ones, but it was up to you to find them in the overworld and figure out how to handle them.

        Maybe if Nintendo would stop with “like Ocarina, but put dumb shit in it” and go back to the original two games for inspiration?

        1. It was up to you to subscribe to Nintendo Power and find a way to cheat.

          1. Or call the Nintendo Game Counselors.

            1. Don’t do that. Mom will take it out of your allowance.

        2. I think MineCraft executes the original Zelda gameplay architecture better than any modern Zelda game.

        3. You still had to do the dungeons more or less in order. Most couldn’t be accessed without an item from another one.

        4. So, Link Between Worlds?

          1. There’s so many I haven’t played by now that it doesn’t really matter. My last Zelda was Twilight Princess in 2009 and it just made me wish I was 12 playing Ocarina for the first time again.

            1. LBW is really great. Nostalgic feel in a new game.

        5. It looks like they’re going that way. Twilight Princess was just a pretty version of Ocarina. Skysword Bird was a silly version of the same thing. At some point I just have to say it’s fine for them to do whatever they want with it. I was 12 when Ocarina came out and that was probably the best video game experience I will ever have. You never get to be 12 again. And that’s OK.

          1. I played Ocarina for the first time when Gamecube remaster came out and I was…30 or so? It was still a great experience. I loved Windwaker, too. But damn, Twilight Princess was reduced ROI and Skyward Sword – ugh.

            This is why the concept of Zelda 2 (sidescrolling, leveling) is interesting – their next game, they should do a similar break with style and see what happens. Maybe make it like Dark Souls – exploration, combat, multiple routes, but scale down penalty for failure and PUT GOOD CONTROLS IN.

            1. No love for Hyrule Heroes then?

              1. Not a Nintendo product, was it? But yeah, that’s the kind of thing I want them to look at. On a system I want, though – loved Gamecube, am a Wii fanboy to this day, GBA and DS were gift of gods, but what the dick were they thinking with WiiU?!

            2. The Zelda’s that are a little bit different have held up better in my esteem (Majora’s Mask, Windwaker). My first experience was Link’s Awakening on the gameboy in 1993. I thought I disliked the new games because I’m getting older. Maybe I’m fine, the rest of the world sucks.

        6. You can totally do the Fire Temple before the Forest Temple. It’s more about snagging the item than completing them if doing it out of order is your thing. Also you can beat Turtle Rock before Eagle’s tower. I actually watch an Ocarina of Time speedrun and apparently the deku tree is the only mandatory dungeon. Some weird glitch transports young link to the top of Ganon’s castle reducing the whole game to some 17 minutes. Speedrunning old games is an arcane and deeply nerdy thing.

    3. Zelda and The mario bros one are probably the only two multi-level video games I ever finished.

    4. I had no idea millennials were into Zelda.

      1. Was visitting my lil cousin (12yo), and he asked me to bring my nintendo 64 and super nintendo, so he could play link to the past and ocarina of time. Even he is bored of all the new Zeldas and likes the old ones much better

      2. They are but they never played even the SNES version (omg it’s so low res and pixelated).

        1. Pixel art games are in, if Steam is anything to judge by. Stardew Valley, for instance.

          1. I wish I could find a good Q-bert clone.

            1. I miss Dig Dug.

        2. Greatest game of all time. LTTP is basically the definitive version of Zelda. Before Navi and Fi and playing as a wolf and all that other stupid crap.

      3. I just got around to running Emulation Station on a Raspberry Pi. Am I behind on things or back up to speed?

  3. President Obama calls Donald Trump “dangerous.”

    Military assault style dangerous?

    1. We are to blame for Trump…

      1. No, I’m pretty sure Bush, Bush, and McCain are to blame for Trump.
        Continuing a trend that goes back at least as far as Nixon — traditionalists the lot of them, in the very worst ways.

        1. Eh. I was trying to riff off Obama’s we are to blame for gay muslim shooting people.

          1. Gay Muslims are to blame for Trump.

          1. Welcome to the 34th Poe Law extravaganza!

    2. Extra-judicial execution dangerous?

      Clearly it’s posturing as Obama has arrogated to himself the right to terminate dangerous individuals wherever they may be found whenever he chooses.

      1. +1 Drone strike coming your way.

      2. Well, see, Obama expanded executive power to king-like levels, and now someone he doesn’t like might get that kind of power. Therefore, dangerous.

    3. He’s got the hair thing that goes up.

      1. I know I’m late to the party. But, LOL

    4. Weapons-grade hair.

    5. He does have that little thing that pops up.

  4. President Obama calls Donald Trump “dangerous

    I’m sure this will in no way work the opposite of what it was intended to do, and convince Trump supporters that they are wrong.

    1. Did Clinton stump this hard for Gore? Seriously, I can’t remember. (Probably because I was 20 and drunk all the time).

      1. Pretty sure Gore rejected Clinton’s stumping.

        1. It was just a little frottage.

        2. Clinton’s stumping

          Ew. I’m going to have nightmares tonight.

      2. I think Obama is yet again blazing into unknown territory.

      3. Bill was still fairly toxic. He did a few campaign events, but only in places already in the bag for Gore.

        1. There was a lot of concern that charismatic / narcisstic Bill would outshine stiff Al Gore.

    2. Obama wants tens of thousands of Muslim refugees and millions of illegal aliens, but they guy who objects is the one who is “dangerous.” Yeah, right.

      1. To be fair, there’s a rather important middle between Obama’s “Let all the refugees in” and Trump’s “deport all the Muslims”.

        1. No, you have to choose one extreme and defend it by pointing out that the opposing extreme is bad. Don’t you know how to politics??

        2. Trump never said he actually wants to deport Muslim citizens without cause. He primarily just wants a temporary moratorium on their import. Which is probably a good idea.

      2. Projection, noun: The unconscious transfer of one’s own desires or emotions to another person.

      3. Obama wants tens of thousands of Muslim refugees and millions of illegal aliens has launched undeclared wars, assassinated American citizens without due process and without regard to collateral damage (including the victim’s minor son), used the NSA to spy on every citizen in the country, and weaponized the IRS, DOJ, and EPA (among others), but they guy who objects is the one who is “dangerous.” Yeah, right.


        Not that what you said was incorrect.

    3. Yo, you think you got that troll game but I’m here to tell you–you ain’t got no troll game

      1. Even better: “Gay Muslim Democrat anchor baby commits the worst terror attack on U.S soil since 9/11.”

  5. At UMass-Amherst, “social justice training” is a prerequisite.

    Prereq to realizing you picked the wrong school.

    1. My son goes there. They call it social and cultural diversity. The mention social justice but they don’t call it training. Now the teachers are a bunch of fucking communists.

      1. I hope he has a strong critical mind, because those people can apparently be pretty persuasive.

        1. He has no problem. And uses the phrase “dumb fucks” quite a bit.

          1. “They’re a bunch of wicked dumb fucks here, Dad. Go Sox!”

            1. We’re not natives.

          2. Well, don’t let him get himself failed by hurting their feelings. Those are prerequisites and he’s paying for those classes.

      2. I hate faggot cookie professors.

    2. I’m not sure this is news. In the 90s, my liberal arts college had a social justice course requirement. In related news, I’ve sort of soured on American liberal arts colleges over the last 20 years.

    3. No joke: my cousin goes to this school. He’s a sophomore who transferred in from UMass-Lowell. I wonder if he had to undergo this brainwashing valuable educational exercise.

      I hope it backfires

  6. FBI investigating Omar Mateen’s sexuality.


    1. I mean, he obviously identified as an Islamist.

      1. You cis-Christian trash. Just because he verbally identified doesn’t mean he actually identified, in his heart.

        1. Cistian??

  7. Somewhat OT: My progressive acquaintances are trying to convince me that while the word “arms” in the 2A should be strictly limited to what existed in 1791, “well regulated” should be given its 2016 meaning.

    1. Ask them if “freedom of the press” should only apply to lead type.

      1. I already have. I have never gotten an answer.

      2. Good grief, that rationalization has been around so long it is part of why the FCC is not considered unconstitutional.

    2. Ah, yes, of course. Make sure to remind them, then, that free speech is only limited to the printing press and criers in the town square.

      1. This is going to work even less well when the Facebook arguments make it clear they don’t care about the 1A either.

        1. Dammit, Hamster, stop poking holes in my thought-balloons.

        2. I’ve had my Prog friends say that to my face, and be totally serious about it. “I guess I don’t find the constitution as important as you do.”

          1. “I guess I don’t find the constitution as important as you do.”

            Most people don’t. A government actually delegated by the people is more the exception than the rule. Most people want government to “do what is right”.

    3. Well, of course they are.

    4. And abortions should only be legal by punching the mom and throwing her down the steps.

      1. Abortion is completely morally and logically different from everything else because shut up yes it is.

      2. something something this is why there are no libertarian women.

      3. +1 Leave Her to Heaven

      4. Abortion was fairly common and accepted in the early 1800s US. It only became illegal as Protestant leaders got scared of Catholic Irish and Italian immigrants outbreeding the white Protestants.

        1. I’m going to need a cite for that.

      5. I’ll just throw up on your shoes

    5. So… weapons of war.

      Got it.

      1. /Begins underground ballistic missile program.

    6. I love the elasticity they accord themselves.

    7. So I can have a cannon?

      1. Technically you should…. or…one of these.

    8. It should be limited to what “arms” meant in 1791, not specific examples of such.

    9. “My progressive acquaintances are trying to convince me that while the word “arms” in the 2A should be strictly limited to what existed in 1791″

      And yet when /I/ carry my scimitar and recurve bow on my walks through the city streets, /I/ get arrested.

    10. Oh shit, my religion was founded in 1863… well, I guess I don’t have the rights to practice it…

    11. Did they have coathangers and baseball bats in 1791?

  8. …Peter Thiel’s crusade against Gawker is worrisome.

    Oligarchy? Corporatocracy? Velvet mafia?

    1. Reading Ken’s column, I was reminded of a scene from the movie Reversal of Fortune. Alan Dershowitz is telling one of his law school classes that he’s taking on the Claus von B?low defense. Some ditzy blonde chastises him for taking a rich guy’s defense, when normally he defends the downtrodden.

      Dershowitz points out all the ways in which Sunny’s side of the family used the legal system to screw Claus’ rights, and that if they can do it to somebody as wealthy as Claus, think what they can do to the little guy.

      1. Santa Claus shot Sunny Von Bulow up with an insulin overdose?

    2. I choose to self identify this as problematic, rather than worrisome.

  9. You had Zelda, or you had the announcement that Curb Your Enthusiasm is returning for a new season. You chose Zelda.

    I’m disappointed, Robby.

    1. Zelda haa had a much more far reaching influence on the country, and the world .

      1. Most libertarian game ever? Discuss.

        1. Zelda? Defending/restoring a monarchy. Hardly libertarian in any sense of the word.

          I would be inclined to say anything by Bethesda, since their whole gaming philosophy is about doing what you want.

          1. I was joking, but I am not funny so you are forgiven.

    2. He bears a strong resemblance to Link, and he doesn’t want you to forget it. But yes, I just hope the great Marty Funkhouser has a big role.

      1. I am posting to acknowledge your joke, Crusty.

        1. You could have just said you were not amused.

    3. “You had Zelda, or you had the announcement that Curb Your Enthusiasm is returning for a new season. You chose Zelda.”

      Maybe you should… curb your enthusiasm.

  10. Omar Mateen? Gay as a picnic basket.

    1. That reminds me: turns out there’s a store in SF that sells… artisanal picnic blankets.

      Just thought I’d rile up the commentariat with that….

      1. Sooooooo gay.

      2. How much does an artisanal picnic blanket set you back? Like, $100 or something?

        1. Only if you’re Gay Rainman.

        2. $100.00 in San Fran. $29.99 at Kohl’s.

          1. Three bucks on eBay. Free shipping from China, 4 to 6 calendar weeks delivery time.

            1. How dare you suggest that cheap Chinese junk is in any way equivalent to the artisinal baskets! Artisinal picnic baskets are made by people who care about picnics and the whole picnicing experience! Buy two and get a free log of artisinal firewood!

              1. Huh. Coulda sworn the last one I bought had a tag on it saying “Proudly made in the Shenzheng Special Economic Zone exclusively for the Gay Artisanal Picnic Blanket Co. of San Francisco, California. Contains 100% unknown fibre.”

      3. Is it woven with millennial pubes?

      4. It already has the poop stain on it? (sorry, not sorry)

      5. OK, here’s the store I mentioned. They sell more than just artisanal picnic blankets, but check out this review:

        A perfect symbol for the new San Francisco.

        If you’re looking for some cool kit to hang out with your friends at Dolores Park?

        If your idea of a strenuous hike is 2 miles at Stinson Beach?

        If you’re a faux lumberjack looking to decorate your $5000 a month apartment with color-coordinated outdoor gear?

        This is exactly the place for you.

        Need a set of three bungee cords for six dollars?

        Can’t live without a 3 inch French picnic knife for $16?

        A $22 flask to store your small batch single cask grappa made by blind French Trappist monks?

        Well it’s all there!

        Now if you need equipment for a five day hike through Glacier National Park carrying almost 70 pounds on your back, this is definitely is not the place.

        Forgot to mention they have a coffee bar there. Where the clerk regales you about how they oxygenate the water and a cup of coffee cost more than a sixpack of beer.

        It’s easy to mock a place like this. But honestly this is the perfect store for what San Francisco has become…a land of dilettante.

        I predict Alite Outdoors will be a smashing success.

    2. Wait, picnic baskets are gay? When did that happen? What if you score afterwards?

      1. Score who? *raises eyebrow*

  11. “social justice training”

    such classes teach students “to engage with others to create change toward social justice,”

    AKA Easy A, just sell a little bit of your soul.

    1. My son took History of Architecture for one. Didn’t have to sell his soul on that one.

      1. What does that have to do with SJW? If anything, I thought it could be a micraggression given its mostly white Europeans who were masters of that art.

        1. Not only that, architects are known to create monuments to the patriarchy – like that vaguely phallic Chrysler Building or the nothing vague about it phallic Ypsilanti Water Tower.

    2. My idea of change is to convince DJW’s that their lives are valueless and suicide is the answer for them.

      1. ‘SJW”s’.

  12. NYT: Time for a ‘No Buy’ List on Guns
    …Congress should authorize no-buy lists but mandate that appropriate protections be put in place. If the attorney general believes a suspected terrorist should be added to the list, she should have to go to court first and offer up evidence. Only after concluding that the attorney general has probable cause should the court approve the denial of the suspect’s right to buy a gun.

    This court proceeding, of course, would be secret. Although that denies the person included on the no-buy list the opportunity to rebut the attorney general’s evidence, we do the same thing every day with search warrants and wiretaps for criminal suspects. Our right to bear arms is no more fundamental than our right to privacy, and treating them similarly can help keep us safer from terrorists….

    1. To ensure that the no-buy list isn’t being abused, the law should also require that the attorney general file periodic, confidential reports to an appropriate congressional oversight committee where pro-gun lawmakers can police any executive branch abuses.

    2. If you have intel leading you to believe someone is a suspected terrorist, then there are more productive measures you could be taking than adding him to a no-buy list.

      1. Yeah. If we know a guy is a terrorist, maybe we should be arresting him. The same is true of “no fly” lists.

    3. Although that denies the person included on the no-buy list the opportunity to rebut the attorney general’s evidence, we do the same thing every day with search warrants and wiretaps for criminal suspects.

      “Well, secret courts are bad and all, but we’re already past the point of no return! Might as well go full retard!”

    4. Appropriate protections means that people the Times likes still get to buy guns.

    5. “Our right to bear arms is no more fundamental than our right to privacy”

      Somebody needs a civics refresher.

    6. I want to thank them for bravely promoting an even bigger black market in firearms.

    7. So NYT supports the government’s stripping people of constitutionally protected rights by way of a secret, unchallengeable list by unelected bureaucrats without due process? Good to know they won’t be complaining when speech comes next.

  13. If I score a 4 on the Social Justice Training AP test, does that fulfill the requirement? Or do I still have to take it as a freshman?

    1. FreshPERSON dammit.

      1. Those aren’t women, Tom. Those are womynists.

      2. ^^This. There is no way xe would ever score a 4. Besides, tests are patriarchal!

    2. If you actually WANT to opt out of indoctrination class, it just goes to show that you aren’t indoctrinated enough to opt out in the first place.

      1. I’m tempted to go back to school, and attend these sort of things and go all Rodney Dangerfield in Back to Achool on them. I suspect I would quickly have a lawsuit for having my civil rights violated. I could get some SJW’s fired/expelled, and the university would learn an expensive lesson after my payout.

        Everyone wins!

    3. If you actually WANT to opt out of indoctrination class, it just goes to show that you aren’t indoctrinated enough to opt out in the first place.

  14. Reason should create a pamphlet based on Hayek’s demolition of the concept of “social justice” and encourage all students to print a copy and take it to their indoctrination sessions.

    1. Road to surfdom might not have the result you want.

      1. Hanging ten in the USSR was totally different than in the US.

        1. Those Moscow girls really knock me out.

  15. “FBI investigating Omar Mateen’s sexuality.”

    I was warned that this sort of thing would happen if I didn’t vote Democrat.

    1. You didn’t though, did you. THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT.

      1. Way to go, Libertarian.

  16. Russia to release hacked Clinton emails. This should be fun.…..ivate.html

    1. Yeah, let ‘er rip. I also hope the rumours that they have a copy of her 33,000 e-mails and are thinking of leaking ’em turn out to be true.

      1. One would think that such an event would completely destroy her candidacy. However, the democrats are such total scum that I don’t think it matters to them.

    2. I think this is bullshit. Those emails are a treasure trove to Russia’s foreign policy aims. Why should they give away something they could still use?

      Of course, Clinton could have refused some extortion attempt and they are going to make an example of her, to encourage the others.

      1. How can she prove that they aren’t her emails? They can put anything they want in there.

        1. And that’s the beauty of it!

          1. “huma something is gone wrong in libya. can u call some1 to find out. also i need a fresh lemon for my tea.”

            I’d believe it.

            1. “Gum.”

            2. If that’s the worst exchange between Hillary and Huma that we see in the emails, I will be relieved.

              1. I’m ok with almost anything that destroys her candidacy.

        2. My thoughts exactly. Unless they could use some third party to verify authenticity, there’s no telling what’s real or made up. Even if they released the full text of all the emails, all Hillary would have to do is say, “Nope, it’s all lies and you can’t prove that it’s not.”

          1. I was saying that she has no way of proving that what Russia releases isn’t real. If they did their homework they could festoon those emails with believable quid pro quos and side deals and whatever the hell else they want.

            She could say “it’s not real,” but no one would believe her anyway.

            1. Ah, solid point. I was taking the more cynical stance that nothing would stick to her because fuck me we’re doomed.

            2. “She could say ‘it’s not real,’ but no one would believe her anyway.”

              I mean she’d CERTAINLY deny at least some of the real stuff wasn’t real anyways…

        3. I think there’d be a lot of back pressure for her to miraculously find some restored copies of emails she thought she’d lost.

          1. Exactly. It would be interesting.

      2. Perhaps Putin prefers the idea of President Trump.

        1. They’re pretty hot for each other, from what I’ve heard.

          1. Reading too much SugarFree, are ya??

            1. It’s my go-to source for both news and erotica.

      3. According to the article it’s because the Russians are concerned about how long the DOJ investigation is taking. Which seems…odd.

        I don’t get it either–why not have a US President you can reliably buy versus one that’s unpredictable? This makes little sense to me.

        1. It absolutely astounds me that, even with all the spying, how downright primitive Putin’s/Russia’s grasp of the USA is. From just eleven years ago:

          “President Bush may try to manipulate, work around and undermine the American press — but he certainly doesn’t have as much control over the media as Russian President Vladimir Putin apparently thinks he does.
          In an odd exchange during the private meeting that preceded their joint news conference on Thursday, a defensive Putin reportedly expressed his belief that Bush fired CBS News anchor Dan Rather.”


          1. So, from Putin’s perspective, the DOJ is slow-walking this because Obama’s in charge and wants Hillary installed as his successor to continue his policies. Coupled with tarran’s take below about Putin disliking Clinton (and Obama who made her SoS), that would make some sense that they’d prefer Trump. The unknown devil in this case.

        2. Perhaps Putin sees Hillary as a meddling do-gooder, and Trump as a pragmatist.

      4. If Putin thinks that Trump really could be his buddy, then this would make sense. I’m gonna need more popcorn.

      5. Maybe Trump gave Putin a better offer and the Russians decided they would rather have him in the White House.

        1. Actually, that might be the case.

          One thing about the Clintons; they really stuck it to the Russians. This business in the Ukraine became a crisis (for the US) because of U.S. meddling: the treaty binding the US to guarantee Ukraine’s borders (Bill’s work) and the U.S. involvement in the ousting of the pro-Russian PM (Hillary’s work).

          And it may be that Puting thinks Trump is a guy he can deal with and that Hillary is an enemy who would blunder into war. (BTW, if you are afraid of people blundering into a war, Hillary is the person you should fear most of the Trump/Johnson/Clinton set)

          1. And don’t forget the Russians still hate Clinton for the war against Serbia.

            1. Actually, I would be grateful to Clintons if I were a Russian, since Clinton’s nation building allowed the Russians a chance to show their might; the capture of the Pristina airport by the Russians was a brilliant bit of strategic surprise. It reversed 10 years of the Russians looking like chumps in the military world and demonstrated that they were still quite capable of long range force projection.

              1. But yes, I had forgotten about Clinton’s war of choice.

              2. the capture of the Pristina airport

                It’s too bad that whiney Brit James Blunt didn’t follow Wes Clark’s orders to go in there and kick some ass.

                1. Wesley Clark was quite prepared to fight to the last Englishman in that confrontation.

      6. I think Putin likes Trump, and more importantly doesn’t think he has the money to compete to buy Hillary. Pay to play is well liked by the corrupt until they don’t have the money to pay.

        1. You might be on to something. If Putin believes Trump will get America to stop poking Russia in the chest, he may see him as a more palatable alternative to the screeching harridan that had the genius “Reset Button” idea.

          1. If Trump will stop the US from poking Russia in the chest, maybe we should all want him to be President.

            1. That too. Russia is not our problem. They aren’t on our borders, and they are interfering with our national interests. Let Europe deal with it’s own problems.

              1. They are not an existential threat the way they were in the cold war. And if they fall apart, the country won’t be flooded with refugees. So how are they are enemy?

            2. If Trump will stop the US from poking Russia in the chest, maybe we should all want him to be President.

              We are in full agreement.

          2. I think Hillary thought that’s where the reset button was – on Vlad’s chest.

      7. Of course, Clinton could have refused some extortion attempt and they are going to make an example of her, to encourage the others.

        That’s a bingo.

    3. “Reliable intelligence sources in the West have indicated that warnings had been received that the Russian Government could in the near future release the text of email messages

      1. Hey now, you wouldn’t want us to release those emails would you?

        I wonder what Obama is paying in extortion to keep them from doing it?

  17. McCathern said in a statement that the incident was “racially motivated.” McCathern writes, “Based on the injuries KP sustained, it’s nearly impossible to argue that this was somehow an accident that [sic] could of happened to any child that day, regardless of race. The severity and the specificity of the injury certainly point to this incident being racial.”

    The police just started an investigation, but I am glad the lawyer has determined for the media how this is going to go.

    1. could of happened

      Holy God…. So, is that an example of TDB’s shitty grammar and proofreading, or do they honestly believe the high-profile attorney actually gets that bit of grammar wrong?

  18. How the FBI’s Pursue-Every-Lead Policy Allowed the Orlando Shooting

    Mateen’s transformation from not being a threat in the FBI’s view to carrying out the worst mass shooting in U.S. history can be attributed to what the FBI calls “quick flash to bang.”

    “If the bureau had looked at someone for 60 or 90 days while they were a casual observer of the jihadi world, then they’re going to conclude this guy doesn’t have a big touch,” Danick, the former FBI agent, said. “Then two months later a triggering event.”

    A “quick flash to bang” might never be detectable in the FBI’s view. But Danik cautions that he believes the FBI’s “quick flash to bang” theory also allows federal agents an easy out ? a pass for failing to stop someone like Mateen. “It’s an excuse for agents,” Danik said. “Hey, quick flash to bang. That’s why we didn’t get him.”

    1. So we should overload them with “If you see something, say something” shit?

        1. If you say something, see something?

          1. I don’t know what words mean.

  19. This is an actual tweet sent out by PETA a few hours ago.

    PETAVerified account
    “Discrimination is discrimination, and it’s wrong, whether you’re a woman or a chicken,” – PETA President Ingrid Newkirk #StateOfWomen

    1. I’ll eat both.

      1. I knew somebody would go there.

    2. Newkirk is the one that is insulin dependent. A drug not only created through animal testing, but was an animal by-product when she started using it.

      1. I think that was someone else in a position of leadership.

        But yeah, it’s recombinant bovine insulin.

        1. Wait, no, you’re right that’s MaryBeth Sweetland. Newkirk was author of this little bon mot:

          Even if animal experiments did result in a cure for AIDS, of which there is no chance, I’d be against it on moral grounds.

          1. Damn. That’s an evil person.

            1. Eh, Newkirk sounds like an actual principled person vs. MaryBeth. If you really believe that animal lives are equivalent to human lives then yeah, you should be against animal testing. Swap out a bunch of non-consenting adults for the animals to see how someone who truly believes would view the situation. Doesn’t mean she’s right and that she shouldn’t be laughed out of public, but she ain’t evil.

              1. But Newkirk doesn’t believe that. She has killed more animals than a slaughterhouse.

          2. Even *chicken* AIDS?!

    3. I only eat dark meat and PETA isn’t changing that.

      1. Racist

        1. No, that’s not racist. Now, getting all white meat? That’s racist.

    4. If animals have rights, they also have responsibilities. I’d like to sue the bear that destroyed my bird feeder, thank you very much.

      1. I wonder which sheriff serves summons to bears.

        1. Special Agent Oso?


            THAT’S ALL YOU NEED


            AND YOU’LL SUCCEED

        2. Claude Akins. Duh.

        3. Quick Draw McGraw?

    5. So roosters can use the women’s restroom?

  20. “President Obama calls Donald Trump ‘dangerous.'”

    I can hardly imagine a better endorsement.

    1. Jesus wept. Is everyone in the U.S. to the left of Attila the Hun trying to get Trump elected?

      1. Yes, I do believe the world has gone bonkers. *peddles away on spaceship themed tricycle while kazooing.

        1. *peddles away on spaceship themed tricycle while kazooing*

          Sounds like FUN.

          1. That kid is a weirdo.

    2. Your inability to imagine a better endorsement may say more about you than the American electorate. A significant number of them did vote for a conman, a crook, and a senile old Marxist. And some of them voted for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, too. These are the same people who re-elected Obama so I wouldn’t put any faith at all in my ability to guess what they may find to be a good endorsement.

  21. Cable companies launch court battle against ‘free TV’ Android box vendors

    So it’s no surprise Canada’s cable giants are targeting upstart dealers selling loaded Android TV boxes. The devices enable users to access pirated content with ease for a one-time fee.

    Bell Media, Rogers Communications and Quebec’s Videotron have taken legal action in Federal Court against five Canadian vendors.

    The cable companies have already won a temporary injunction to stop the defendants from selling the boxes.

  22. God ken White is annoying. He really doesn’t explain why Theil’s actions are troublesome. He just engages in sentence after sentence of thumb sucking about how this could be a problem without explaining why or what about this case makes it a problem for the 1st Amendment.

    Why anyone would hire that guy as a lawyer or listens to anything he has to say is beyond me.

    1. You should write a blog that exists solely to dox Ken White posts. God knows you have the time and ego to do it.

        1. Although, that is a great name.

      1. Why do something that is that self evident? Read the article.

        Nor should we take for granted that the judge and jury decided the case wisely, because most of our cherished free-speech rights have been recognized by appellate courts after judges and juries erred. The right for high school students to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, the right to burn a flag, the right for Hustler magazine to satirize Jerry Falwell, the right for the New York Times to publish the Pentagon Papers without prior restraint, the requirement that public officials prove that journalists engaged in actual malice before winning a defamation case ? all of these important rights arose from Supreme Court decisions correcting the mistakes of trial courts and juries.

        In short, we shouldn’t just assume that crushing bad people is just or defensible. We don’t need the 1st Amendment to defend popular speech, we need it to protect unpopular speech; our civic obligations are at their peak precisely when loathsome people are on the line.

        There are two paragraphs that say exactly nothing. The whole piece is like that.

    2. You took the words right out of my mouth.

      Here’s the argument I would have made:

      1) Defending yourself against baseless libel suits can be ruinously expensive (case in point Mann v Steyn)

      2) Millionaires can fund libel suits that bankrupt people who did nothing wrong but cannot afford to defend themselves.

      However, then it becomes obvious that #1 is the fucking problem! and Ken wants to make it about #2. Right now, if you are very rich, you can afford the government courts. If you are poor, you… are… fucked! Unless you get a patron.

      1. It is not only expensive to defend lawsuits, it is also expensive to bring them. A lot of people get harmed but can’t show enough damages to make it worth the expense of suing. The expense problem goes both ways.

        If Theil were funding a bunch of frivolous lawsuits in some kind of DNS attack against Gawker hoping to bankrupt it with lawyer fees, the concerns about him would be valid. That, however is not what he did. The cases he funded were not frivolous. And White knows that but is too dishonest to say so.

        1. Personally, I found Gawker’s defeat puzzling (based on what I understand the facts to be, if I were on the jury, I would have ruled for Gawker, and kicked the Gawker CEO in the nads on my way out of the courtroom).

          I could get it if he were to argue that Gawker didn’t have the funds to mount an effective defense. Or if he were to argue that the law was unfair. But it seems to me that the only thing pissing him off is that a rich guy, with an axe to grind, decided to help out someone who had gone to court seeking to be made whole after being wronged.

          1. I can understand why the jury fucked Gawker and Daulerio over:

            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.


            Gawker issued a statement later that day saying Mr. Daulerio was being flippant. On Monday, he told Gawker’s lawyer that he was not being serious when he made the comments.

            In cross-examination, the legal team for Hulk Hogan, whose legal name is Terry G. Bollea, attacked Mr. Daulerio for his seeming insensitivity.

            “You think that’s a funny topic to joke about?” asked Shane Vogt, one of the lawyers for the former wrestler.

            “No, I don’t,” Mr. Daulerio replied.

            A few exchanges later, Mr. Vogt asked Mr. Daulerio, “You were joking about child pornography, were you not?”

            Mr. Daulerio deflected the question, saying that he was being sarcastic, but that he regretted the response in the video deposition.

          2. I’m waiting for the movie 12 Angry Hulkamaniacs to explain it better.

      2. (case in point Mann v Steyn)

        Really? Who had the deeper pockets? Mann?

        1. Mann is being funded by something called the Climate Legal Defense Fund which, as far as I can tell, solely exists to fund Mann’s legal bills.

          Steyn is self funded (if you call selling books that both mock and devastate your adversary’s case to an adoring public self funding).

          Mann has much deeper pockets than Steyn.

    3. White sometimes writes interesting commentary on free speech, but yeah, this piece was weak. He did not bother to say why or even if the verdict was contrary to the 1A. He just said that judges and juries have made mistakes before and left it at that.

      Uh, thanks for your legal wisdom?


    Y’know how, at the end of The Monsters are Due on Maple Street, it zooms out to the aliens talking about how easy it is to get the people to tear each other apart through a simple blackout?

    That’s America post-gun attack. If this had been a bomb or arson, it wouldn’t be this divisive, but because the fucker used a gun, a pile of corpses is climbed onto.

    At the very least, you’d think the gun control crowd would have learned by now that getting red in the face and stamping their little feet changes no one’s mind. Nor does belittling the character and morality of gun owners.

    The nice thing is, the stories are coming out of things like Chik-Fil-A opening on Sunday, etc. Despite all the noise, it does look like a lot of us really do recognize that shit goes beyond politics. Look to the people trying to do good, not the loud assholes, is maybe one of the best lessons here.

    1. One of my all-time favorite shows.

    2. Pretty much, they couldn’t have picked a better target and a better weapon. I don’t think it was done on purpose though. Just the random coincidence that eventually one of their attacks had to hit something that would cause a stir.

      1. Yeah, but what worries me is that if ISUS has half a brain, they will use this as a template. All attacks will use guns from here on out, because they know thaylt delays and muddles the response

        1. If ISIS was smart they’d drop box bombs on random door steps in random cities (both large cities like Houston and small midwest cities with pops of like a 100). To get real terror you have to convince people that aren’t being politically motivated to actually be concerned for their own safety. Terrorists like all criminals are morons.

          1. If you want to REALLY sow terror.

            Strap explosives to hobby drones.

            Fly them into schools in random small towns.

            That’s like a trifecta of fear. Fear for children’s safety. Fear that anyone could be targeted. And fear of a new, violent use of commonplace technology.

    3. My take: Burgess Meredith has become just a fragment of what man has deeded to himself.

    4. The American response to a gun attack is something horrendously wonderful to behold.

      I watched my facebook feed as both sides immediately began politicizing the issue.

      Then I watched as both sides began demonizing the other side, and ONLY the other side, for the crime of politicizing the issue, not realizing that by singling out only one side’s politicization and not the others, they were merely using the issue to demonize the team they were not a part of (in other words, they were also politicizing the issue).

      A wondrous, steaming pile of hypocrisy and faked outrage.

  24. Adrian Wylie, who was the LP candidate for Florida governor a couple of years ago, had a pretty good response to the Orlando terrorist attack.

    Omar Mateen was a native-born U.S. citizen. No immigration law would have stopped him.

    Omar Mateen had a fundamental hatred for gay men, and simply used religion as a crutch. No laws restricting religious practices would have stopped him.

    Omar Mateen was investigated by the FBI and DHS. No additional surveillance laws would have stopped him.

    Omar Mateen was a licensed and employed armed security officer. No gun control law would have stopped him.

    Omar Mateen violated Florida law when he entered a bar with firearms. That law did not stop him from committing mass murder…the most heinous crime of all.

    But, that law did prevent law-abiding patrons of the nightclub from legally possessing the tools to defend themselves. That law left them totally defenseless against the onslaught of a madman. That law turned what might have been a minor tragedy, into one of the most horrible acts of terror ever committed on U.S. soil.

    No law will ever stop a determined killer. New laws are not the answer. Recognizing that all humans have the fundamental right of self defense at all times is the answer.

    1. and completed:

      Some may admonish me for politicizing this horrible tragedy.

      Unfortunately, I am. It saddens me that I must do so.

      I am following the lead of our President, our politicians, and our media. They have already seized upon this tragedy to call for new restrictions of our right to defend ourselves, our right to worship, and our right to privacy.

      Their feckless laws will do nothing to prevent future tragedies. They will only further diminish us as a brave nation of free people.

      1. I was appalled by how quickly people we ready to “wave the bloody shirt”. This response is measured, everyone else is just stumping for their pet cause.

        1. They do it everytime. “Mental health!” “Assault weapons!” “Hate crimes!” “Muslim terrorists!”

          At this point I do my best to just avoid people for the week after every tragedy, especially on social media.

      2. Well said

      3. Well said

    2. Omar Mateen had a fundamental hatred for gay men, and simply used religion as a crutch. No laws restricting religious practices would have stopped him.

      Not to disagree with the second statement, but I think theology played a more direct role than just a crutch. Ignoring any aspects of hate or fundamentalism, there is a notion of redemption through martyrdom which seems to make the least observant Muslims the most dangerous, since martyrdom has been stretched to mean slaughtering random people by the hundreds in order to commit suicide by cop (or skipping the middleman and blowing yourself up among the unarmed and nonhostile). Where Christians believe descriptively in the redemptive power of human sacrifice, Muslims appear to believe in it prescriptively.

      If enough American imams would drill into their followers heads that these sort of acts are simple murder/suicide rather than martyrdom, it might help. Though that will only happen if they believe that.


    Lets talk about conservatives being mean to gays. Anything but Islam.

  26. Devotion to the 1st Amendment should also provoke grave concerns about Thiel’s open-checkbook funding of Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker. What Thiel did wasn’t illegal; he has free-speech rights too. The problem is that Thiel found a way to weaponize the brokenness of our legal system.

    Well then the problem isn’t Thiel then – its the “broken” legal system.

    And when you dig further into Ken’s bitch-moan, it seems its really just that “Rich people have unlimited power to sue”.

    Did i miss anything?

    1. Not really. And the guy who ends three quarters of his sentences with “I am a 1st Amendment Lawyer” never bothers to explain why the judgement is counter to the 1st Amendment.

      1. when a jury verdict bankrupts a media company for what it has published, we ought to examine meticulously whether the company received due process, whether the court applied the correct 1st Amendment principles, whether the verdict was based on mere antipathy rather than law and fact, and whether the damages are proportionate to the alleged wrongdoing. The 1st Amendment does not allow courts to craft new ad hoc exceptions to free-speech principles when speech is sufficiently upsetting. Rather, courts must carefully determine whether particular speech falls into well-defined exceptions to the 1st Amendment, such as obscenity or fraud.

        none of which has anything to do with Peter Thiel

  27. Mentioned in an earlier thread – but worth watching:

    Libertarian Comic, Dave Smith
    , on Joe Rogan’s podcast.

    he talks extensively about current affairs, libertarian politics, the current presidential race, etc. very interesting, funny guy.

    His spin on Gary Johnson i thought was particularly good.

    1. Yeah, that was a good video. Note to self, when on video, try and be flanked by pictures of Elvis and Jimi to add 50 points to your coolness vibe.

      1. Do the Elvis and Jimi pictures stack with Jacket and/or Hair?

  28. AMC thinks copyright law allows you to actually sue people over spoilers:

    AMC Threatens Copyright Lawsuit Over Walking Dead Spoiler

    1. “It was all a dream!”

  29. PM links on time, good job Robbo. Just remember, we will never forget. *hat tip to Injun from India

  30. “President Obama calls Donald Trump “dangerous.”

    You can only curse a man so many times in a day. I’ll just say he’s a hypocrite who is just as dangerous and leave it at that.

    Oh well, at least the Zelda game looks pretty decent.

  31. Am the only one here who, on seeing the drawing, thought it was an artist’s conception (possibly commissioned by her lawyer) of the 6th grader with the rope around the neck?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.