A.M. Links: Ann Coulter vs. Donald Trump, Earthquake Death Toll Climbs in Italy, Gary Johnson Blasts Clinton Foundation

|

  • Gage Skidmore / Flickr.com

    Gary Johnson on the Clinton Foundation: "There is a big pay for play out there."

  • The death toll from the earthquake in Italy has climbed to 252.
  • At least 13 are dead after a gunman opened fire on the campus of the American University in Kabul, Afghanistan.
  • In Trump We Trust author Ann Coulter is now attacking Trump for being untrustworthy on immigration.
  • According to U.N. investigators, both the Syrian regime and ISIS have used chemical weapons inside Syria.
  • "Scientists just discovered humanity's best shot at seeing life outside our solar system."

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

Advertisement

NEXT: Nate Parker's Critics Are Convinced He's a Rapist, But It's More Complicated Than That

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

  1. …Ann Coulter is now attacking Trump for being untrustworthy on immigration.

    When you’ve lost Ann…

    1. Ayn…

    2. Hello.

    3. “In Trump we trust… kinda… maybe… well it depends on what your definition of ‘in’ is.”

    4. Lost an what? An anorexic? An umbrella? An aardvark?

      1. An Adam’s apple according to some accounts.

    5. In Trump we trust

      What an awful title.

      That’s like elevating Trump the same level as God.

    6. Team trumps trust.

    7. I looked at the article to confirm my suspicion – yep, she actually said she thought it was a mistake for Trump to say what he was obviously told to say by some consultant. She didn’t attack Trump and she doesn’t believe Trump meant what he said. No follow-up on why she trusts Trump when he apparently trusts bad advice and, by her own admission, says things he doesn’t believe.

      1. To be fair, it was the same thing with Obama and gay marriage. “Oh, we know he said that he doesn’t believe in it, but we know he’s just bullshitting the rubes to seem more moderate.” Hell, Hillary had statements against it going back 20 years before having a “change of heart” in 2013.

        It’s like people continually forget that politicians will say whatever they believe will give them an advantage, irrespective of actual principle.

        1. Not all of them. Mostly it just the the ones who get elected.

  2. I know this comment is going to cause me to receive a flood of hate, but I’m used to that kind of treatment from the Reason peanut gallery. So be it.

    I was bothered by the terrible arguments coming from both sides re: the Hogan/Thiel/Gawker Sullum article from yesterday.

    Yes Sullum’s piece had issues, but neither side seemed to be making a very great argument.

    It seemed to be nothing but people shouting over each other heads and a lot of strawmen.

    True, Gawker was not censored in any way as it was not a criminal charge. But the real question should be, why should someone receive compensation for damages done to their reputation when the information released was entirely true?

    Furthermore, was it the sex in the tape that truly damaged his reputation, or the racist rants? Not that that it would matter particularly to me, but it seems as though people are focusing on the sex tape aspect of it and ignoring that it was likely the racist rant that actually caused damage to his reputation more than anything.

    If they had only published the audio of the rant, would you claim he still should have been awarded damages?

    Either way, Hogan’s reputation was “damaged” through his own actions and his own words.

    Just because it’s a civil case, and a jury found one way, does not automatically make it any more right than if it were criminal.

    As far as I’m concerned the only people who are victims are the people who had the physical tape stolen from them.

    1. Just some of the sophistry put forth by the other side:

      “Why don’t you take nude photos of yourself and your entire family and post in the internet then?”

      Seriously? So just because someone doesn’t want something to happen and will try to prevent it from happening, is suddenly entitled to damages when it does happen?

      “Doxxing is a violent act because people have acted violently in response to receiving this information.”

      So now the person releasing the information is responsible for how people act on said information?

      “Muh medical records!”

      In libertopia this would be handled entirely by contractual obligations.

      1. Of course it’s a dick move to do such things, but I’m failing to see how this should even be a civil matter and how anyone should be awarded damages because of truths about themselves coming out they didn’t wish to become public.

        I would not be pleased if something similar happened to myself, but I also would not sue and actually believe I was entitled to anything because of it. If I did it would be purely out of wanting the money and/or petty revenge.

        I can see the appeal of poetic justice, karma or whatever you want to call it, but stop pretending there is a principled libertarian rationale for this verdict.

        As far as Thiel’s role goes, it is irrelevant other than proving he is a hypocrite if he considers himself a libertarian.

        What if someone anonymously published this information on a TOR hidden service? Who are you going to sue then?

        inb4 accusations that I’m Mary or a convicted sex offender as if it mattered even if it were true. Or thinly veiled threats about how I’ll regret crossing a “regular” or “respected member” of the commentariat.

        1. If I was respected I would threaten you for acting like a whiney child, but lucky for you I am not respected.

          1. At this point I don’t really care that much. I’m more poking fun than anything.

            I did get seriously butthurt before over it though.

            1. “Reason peanut gallery”

              Geez, I can’t imagine why you would get any hate around here.

        2. The one time you show up in a thread for any reason besides being a pedophilia apologist and it’s to autistically dredge up a week old comments section of an unrelated article. And you wonder why people don’t like you.

          1. And it’s no surprise the first butthurt comment in reply to these would be from you, PM.

            1. You snivel like Hihn…say, has anyone seen them at the same time?!

              *squints suspiciously*

              1. I bet he has folders on all of us.

            2. You come here begging for attention like a crack addict needing a fix, I have the courtesy to indulge you and this is how you show your appreciation? You’re welcome.

          2. This is not going to end well.

          3. What’s the ‘statues on limitations’ on that anyway? One day? Two?

            /Kramer

        3. The two of you need to calm down.

        4. tl;dr

        5. What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know that I’ve been named a top commenter on Hit and Run and I’ve been involved in numerous thread discussions with Tulpa, and I have over 30000 confirmed posts. I am trained in memes and I’m the top twerk video poster in the entire Libertarian Party. You are nothing to me but just another commenter. I will fucking reply to you with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of blowhards across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can post in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in internet combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the Copypasta Archive and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it.

          1. Marked as spam.

          2. But did you escape from Warty’s dungeon or survive a Steve Smith encounter?

            1. Fake question! No one ever has!

          3. I imagine him saying all that in one continuous breath.

      2. You have to understand that sometimes the Commentariat seems like they are engaging in sophistry, but they’re really just bein perverts.

    2. why should someone receive compensation for damages done to their reputation when the information released was entirely true?

      Because people had a right to privacy. The tape was stolen. Had the tape not been stolen, it would be a completely different story. But Hulk had a right to keep that video private. When it was stolen that was not just theft but a gross invasion of his privacy. Gawker knew the tape was stolen. Hulk asked them to not publish it. They published it anyway. Hulk then went to court and got a temporary injunction ordering them to take the tape down and Gawker refused.

      Gawker had no right to publish the stolen tape. They published it over Hulk’s objection and he was damaged by that. That creates a legitimate right of recourse for Hulk against Gawker.

      It is really that simple. Remember, Gawker was free to report about the existence of the tape and its contents. It just couldn’t publish the tape itself. So the public’s right to know and Gawker’s freedom to publish news is not infringed. The only thing Gawker can’t do is purposely humiliate Hulk by publishing a stolen tape.

      There really isn’t two sides to this. There is no defense of Gawker here and the judgement is in no way a threat to actual free speech and public inquiry and debate.

      1. Where is this right to privacy derived?

        It doesn’t seem very much like a negative right to me.

        A right to not having trespassers on your property. A right to not have the tape stolen, sure.

        But I’m failing to see how once the tape has been leaked that somehow Gawker is responsible.

        I fail to see how he was damaged in any way further than simply reporting on the contents of the tape would have.

        1. The right to privacy is derived from your lawful possession of the tape. I own the tape and lawfully have a right to determine who can and cannot see it. When you steal it from me and start showing it to people you are committing a tort. You are showing something you have no right to show and doing that is damaging me.

          Take the sex aspect out of it. Imagine if instead of stealing a sex tape, they had stolen the secret formula to coke and Gawker published it. That would of course do tremendous damage to the Coka Cola Company and that formula is the property of Coke. Coke would have one hell of a claim against Gawker. This is the same principle. “Trade secrets” are just a fancy way of saying privacy.

          1. If the Cola company didn’t patent the the formula (patents being a positive right as far as I’m concerned) then I’m not sure what claim they would have?

            As far as the ownership of the tape… Without copyright law I’m not sure how the copied contents can still be considered property of the original owner of the tape. (Copyright also being a positive right)

            I can see the case for trademarks though, because if you’re pretending to be another company that would be fraud.

            1. Well I should have said:

              “I don’t know what claim they would have other than if someone violated an NDA, and then I’d only see the person violating the NDA as punishable.”

            2. You don’t have to patent something to own it. You have to patent or trademark something to keep other people from developing it on their own or people you show your idea to using your idea. If you break into Coke’s offices and steal the formula, they have a right to stop you from publishing it or get damages from you if you do, even if they haven’t patented it. Patenting it means they can stop you from reconstructing the formula chemically on your own and selling coke. They don’t need a patent to stop you from using something you have actually stolen from them.

              If Hulk had given the tape to someone and they had started selling it on the internet, he would need a patent or use his right to his likeness to recover damages. He didn’t do that. The tape was stolen. So he doesn’t need a patent to keep it from being published and nor should he.

              1. Yes, I get that. But we’ll just have to agree to disagree that anyone but the person who stole the formula or had conspired in the first place with them to do so would be responsible.

                If someone who never conspired to break into Big Cola’s offices and comes upon the formula, I’m failing to see how it’s anyone’s right to limit them from using it however they wish.

                That’s the danger of keeping it a trade secret, and it’s not like nowadays you couldn’t figure it out anyway through various forms of analysis.

            3. Coke didn’t patent the formula. It’s a trade secret. If they patented it, they would have to disclose what’s in it.

              I don’t think they would actually have a case against someone who published it, unless it was someone who worked for Coke and had contractual obligations to keep it secret, or if the publisher obtained it through some criminal act. I’m no lawyer, so I could be missing something, but I think trade secrets have to be kept through ordinary secrecy.

              1. If the person had stolen it from their office, they most certainly would Zeb. They own the formula. They don’t stop owning it just because some jerk breaks into their office and steals it. You can’t publish information that is both not public and not yours.

                There are tons of examples of this. Take tortious interference with contract. You are in negotiations to sell your business to Giganto corporation. I hack into your computer and find an email where you make fun of the Giganto CEO and publish them. The CEO gets pissed and calls off the deal. I stole your email and my publishing it killed your deal. You can sue me for that. But if I find information publicly available and give it to Giganto, you cannot.

                1. Did you even read Zeb’s or my comment John? What was said was that someone involved in the theft or violating an NDA should be held responsible.

                  But if I find information publicly available and give it to Giganto, you cannot.

                  That’s basically my point…

                  And see below with my “other way to look at it”, comment.

                2. What I said: I don’t think they would actually have a case against someone who published it, unless it was someone who worked for Coke and had contractual obligations to keep it secret, or if the publisher obtained it through some criminal act.

                  1. Then you agree with me Zeb. And you should understand why Gawker deserved what it got in this case.

        2. “Privacy concerns give way when balanced against the interest in publishing matters of public importance,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the Bartnicki opinion. “One of the costs associated with participation in public affairs is an attendant loss of privacy.”

          The only question is whether Bollea’s private sex life is of public importance. I argue that it is not.

          1. I debate the existence of this right to privacy in the first place. It is on the same level as patents or copyright. Which is something I’ve only really seen defended on utilitarian grounds.

            1. So, you’re OK with the local rag doing an expose on your private sex life?

              1. I’m not “OK” with the local rag doing that, but I also don’t believe I should have any legal claims against them unless they violated my property or conspired with someone to do so.

            2. Right to “privacy” is nothing but an extension of your property rights. i own my computer. I and only I have a right to the contents on it. You reading it without my permission is no less of an infringement of my ownership of it than your stealing it. If you don’t believe in the right to privacy at some level, you don’t believe in property rights in their fullest sense.

              What is the point of owning something if I can’t determine who sees it, who uses it and how?

              1. I only have the right to access my computer.

                If someone else who was not responsible for breaking into my house and stealing the information publishes it I fail to see why I should have any claim against the person publishing it unless they had actually conspired with the person who did break into my house.

                1. One way to look at it is this:

                  You’ve lost any sort of reasonable expectation of privacy for one. The reason being that with the modern internet and tools such as TOR etc, once any information is stolen and obtained by other parties you literally can’t have any expectation of privacy in that matter anymore.

                  It’s just not possible.

                2. You fail to see it because you either can’t or refuse to understand that you can own information just like you can own tangible things. At this point, I don’t know how I can explain that point to you anymore clearly. We are just talking past each other. I am operating under the assumption that you can own information and other intangible things. You reject that. There is really no way to reconcile our positions other than to say the law agrees with me not you. Should the law agree with me? Depends on how much you value information and intangible things. i value them a lot.

                  1. I am operating under the assumption that you can own information and other intangible things. You reject that.

                    Yes, we’ll just have to agree to disagree here.

                    Depends on how much you value information and intangible things. i value them a lot.

                    I don’t think this is fair though. Just because I don’t believe it is property and therefor cannot be owned does not mean I don’t value it. For example, if I value an artist’s work I will buy it from them directly so I can give them an incentive to produce more work. That’s assuming they make it easy for me to do so, though.

                3. Gawker was the knowing recipient of stolen property.

                  1. Was it the actual original tape though? Did they conspire to steal the tape in the first place?

                    Unless the answer to at least one of these questions is “yes”, then I would see this fact as irrelevant.

                    John and I already had to simply admit that this is due to a fundamental difference of opinion about the nature of information as property.

                4. If you accept stolen goods you break the law, same scenario here. Gawker used stolen goods for their own purpose knowing that they were stolen. End of story.

                  1. Again, that assumes you believe information is property… See above and below.

                    1. Ideas are property. Information is property. Knowledge is power. You are a troll.

                5. “I only have the right to access my computer.

                  If someone else who was not responsible for breaking into my house and stealing the information publishes it I fail to see why I should have any claim against the person publishing it unless they had actually conspired with the person who did break into my house.”

                  I own a widget, said widget is clearly and permanently marked indicating my ownership of it.

                  You break into my house and steal the widget and then deliver said widget to John in some way.

                  Does John now own the widget? Is he free to do with it as he wishes? Or knowing the widget is stolen property and who it was stolen from is he obligated to return that widget unused to it’s rightful owner?

                  While your arguments against IP have some validity to them this isn’t a pure case of IP as the same scenario can play out with a physical object and with a physical object your argument would imply that you can gain ownership of an object by having a 3rd party steal it from it’s current owner.

                  So no in this case the IP law aspect of it is a red herring. Gawker recieved what it knew was stoled goods and was asked to return them to the rightful owner without using them, instead of doing so they distributed the contents of them for public consumption for the purpose of earning a profit and in doing so destroyed the value of the stolen object (it’s value was solely in it containing exclusive copy of information).

                  1. One can argue whether Bollea was harmed by the release of this information in any way that deserved financial compensation but you cannot legitimately argue that Gawker didn’t do anything wrong, they quite clearly committed an aggression against him when they published the contents of the tape.

                  2. I’m not sure how IP is a red herring. If you don’t believe information is property then only the original tape would be property of someone (not even Hulk Hogan’s but the people who recorded it).

                    So if Gawker didn’t actually conspire with the person who stole the tape and it wasn’t the original physical tape they had in their hands then it can’t be a red herring.

                    If they did either of these correct me, but I’ve already been over this once and no one said anything.

                    1. Rasilio,

                      Link me directly to somewhere it says that Gawker dealt directly with the original thief and/or actually had the original physical tape in their possession, and not simply a copy of it.

                      If you can do this then I admit the IP thing is a red herring.

            3. I debate the existence of this right to privacy in the first place.

              Well, by that logic all abortions should be outlawed since they were legalized under a non-existent right.

              1. Never claimed most jurisprudence made any sense.

                1. Never claimed most jurisprudence made any sense

                  So you’re basically admitting that you don’t have an argument here.

        3. But I’m failing to see how once the tape has been leaked that somehow Gawker is responsible.

          Except, Gawker was “selling” stolen property by using it on their site. More than the physical tape itself, it’s accepted that the contents of the tape were Hogan’s property.

          1. That’s assuming you believe that information can be property.

            I’ve thought long and hard about what I believe on that particular subject and I can only defend it on utilitarian (and then I’m still not convinced), and not at all on moral grounds.

            We’ll just have to agree to disagree on that as I have with John.

            1. If you can place a monetary value on something, it’s property.

              1. I don’t see why this is necessarily true. One can value something and not believe it is property.

                Just because I don’t believe information like words in a book or a recording of a song is property does not mean I don’t value the author/artist’s work. It doesn’t mean I can’t donate to them directly instead of simply downloading a copy without giving them any money.

                If they want to sell physical albums with their own trademark on it, then the media it was recorded on and packaging it came in would be property and that’s what you would be buying when you bought it.

                1. And yet you wet yourself over NSA collecting metadata which is exposed, i.e. public in transmission.

                  1. The NSA has been twisting people’s arms on that one.

                    I’m not wetting myself over Google, because they don’t have a good reason to do anything but try to make money off of me. They have no reason to hurt me.

                    It becomes a problem when the government which often enforces immoral laws gets their hands on it by using force without due process.

        4. I really, really want someone to dox Plopper. My principles are being tested right now.

          1. I was going to add to one of my first three comments “inb4 someone will threaten and/or try to dox me”, but I didn’t want to be that much of an asshole.

            1. Anyway Flanders, if someone can link me to where it says Gawker had the original copy of the tape and/or conspired with the actual thief then I’ll admit I’m wrong and that the decision was just.

    3. Seriously, guys? Just scroll past it and don’t engage.

      1. He’s the pedo-guy right?

          1. Impossible. I’m asexual. Or hypersexual. Whichever one means I get a ton of tail.

            1. Really young tail?

            2. Ox tail?

              1. Curlier than that.

        1. Don’t know, don’t care.

        2. He’s into feet?

        3. I can teach you some interesting things to do with those idle hands of yours.

    4. True, Gawker was not censored in any way as it was not a criminal charge.

      Then maybe the Gawker-tards and concern trolls should stop whining about censorship and the chilling effect it supposedly has on “freedom of the press”.

      If they had only published the audio of the rant, would you claim he still should have been awarded damages?

      Well, that’s two different scenarios, isn’t it? The judge told Gawker to take the tape down and they said “fuck you.” Then when Hogan took them to court, instead of taking the proceedings seriously they acted like the emotionally retarded degenerates that they are and got their ass burned as a result.

      It’s so precious how Gawker’s apologists are employing massive amounts of sophistry to cover for the fact that an amoral gossip site got hoisted on its own petard.

      1. I never said Gawker wasn’t comprised of idiots and assholes.

        Nothing you’ve said is relevant to the above argument.

        1. Your argument tries to separate compensation for damages from censorship, when in Gawker’s case those two are linked. So your argument is mere sophistry and irrelevant to the Gawker case regardless.

          1. But they really linked. Censorship would imply prior restraint.

            Separating the two is what Gilmore was doing over and over in that thread, but you agreed with him there.

            So were his arguments mere sophistry and irrelevant too?

            Not exactly, because again both arguments hinge on a couple of different things.

            Do you believe information is property and did Gawker have the original tape and/or conspire with the person who stole it?

            If the answers to either of these is “yes” then I’ll agree they should be held liable. But if the answer to both of them is “no”, then not.

            1. *But they aren’t really linked. Need edit button.

            2. Also, prior restraint really isn’t the term I should have used.

              Gilmore’s and other’s arguments were (and I agree with this part), that it wasn’t censorship because nothing they did was illegal. It was a civil lawsuit seeking damages. No one was preventing them from releasing the tape, they just paid a civil price for it.

            3. Separating the two is what Gilmore was doing over and over in that thread, but you agreed with him there.

              The only thing I’ve argued is that Gawker got what they deserved, and that whining that they got sued into oblivion as a violation of libertarian principle is a stupid one. You argue from the position that no one has a right to privacy, but if that was the case no one would be able to reclaim damages from violating those rights.

              Do you believe information is property and did Gawker have the original tape and/or conspire with the person who stole it?

              Gawker chose to publish it, which indicts them in the conspiracy. They didn’t choose to publish the pics from the Fappening, so they couldn’t be sued for that.

              1. You completely avoided my question. Just because they published it doesn’t mean they necessarily conspired to steal the tape.

  3. Gary Johnson on the Clinton Foundation: “There is a big pay for play out there.”

    1980’s radio references, that should bring the under 30 demo support out in droves!

    1. He already has the under 30s.

      He needs to target the 80s generation some, we are the ones with low levels of support for him.

      1. *breakdances*

      2. I’m cautiously optimistic that he will make it on to the debate stage.

        If he does, the election will be dramatically different.

        1. Ditto.

          Except for the cautiously optimistic part about the debate.

          I think if he is in the debate, he has a fighting chance at a few western/non-pacific-coastal EC votes.

      3. Colorado youth are pretty much tied clinton and Johnson. Trump is almost irrelevant. Can’t find the link right now.

  4. 220) In Lawrence of Arabia, Lawrence at one point describes England as an easy land where the people are soft. I admire my own country in many ways, but worry about us for the same reason. I don’t begrudge anyone the conveniences of fast food, driving, air conditioning?it would be awfully hypocritical of me to do so?and I understand the appeal of welfare, social security, Medicare. But I am astonished at how reliant people are on these things, and the physical and spiritual state they allow themselves to fall into as a result of this reliance.

    Not to go all Nietzschean, but I really wonder why more don’t want to be the diamond, rather than the coal.

    1. A German guy in Munich asked me if it’s really true many Americans are obese. He just couldn’t believe people would let themselves go like that.

        1. All that food just magically appeared? Nobody ordered it?

      1. Did you tell him the obesity rate is actually the worst among our poor people?

        1. Actually, I did tell him he should visit Mississippi.

          1. Well that’s just mean. Suppose he actually does it?

            1. I told him my name was “Alan”.

      2. Germany’s not all that far behind us. ~24% in men vs 35% in the US. Did he complain about how much beer we drink too?

        1. At least fat guys in America generally have the decency to not wear tiny Speedos at the beach.

          1. Shhh you’ll make Crusty sad.

            1. The people on the Jersey Shore are much worse than any and all Europeans.

              1. As someone who frequents the Jersey Shore, and has been to Europe, I can assure you that’s not true.

      3. You know who else was obsessed with perfection?

        1. Hasbro? And THIS has already been asked before!

      4. Germans obsess over their relative morality to Americans.

    2. but I really wonder why more don’t want to be the diamond, rather than the coal

      It’s the pressure involved.

    3. “And from…Brittain?”

      “From Oxfordshire”

      “Is that a desert country?”

      “No. A fat country….fat people.”

      “You are not fat?”

      “No, I am…different.”

      1. Thanks for the quote. I was just paraphrasing what I remembered.

    4. Look on the “bright” side: everywhere we look, the Bismarckian welfare is desintigrating, and eventually it will completely collapse under it’s own illogic and unsustainable math. And probably sooner rather than later. It’s not a question of “if”, it’s a question of when.

      Also, there are the Islamonazis. These bloodthirsty psychopaths apparently don’t have much purpose for living other than to kill. Eventually, these raging barbarians are going to commit an atrocity so massive and horrible that the civilized world will no longer be able to ignore them, and we’ll have World War III on our hands and things will go Hobbesian faster than you can believe.

      1. Eventually, these raging barbarians are going to commit an atrocity so massive and horrible that the civilized world will no longer be able to ignore them,

        Like 9/11? Because that seems to have gone down the Memory Hole.

        1. I’m thinking something much worse than even that.

          1. 9/11 times 2356?

            1. 1927.6368?

              1. Hmmm, 6+3 = 9, 6 + 8 = 14, so 9/14/1927? Looks like Bob Jones University was founded then. I predict a horrifying attack on fundamentalists by other fundamentalists! The socons will be so incensed by the lack of media coverage and SJWs cheering the attack that a civil war will erupt!

                /Numerology

        2. Like 9/11? Because that seems to have gone down the Memory Hole.

          You see, people can dismiss that because it can be attributed to “a small number of zealots” the wider abuses inflicted by a larger number of migrants are harder to brush off as aberrant behaviour rather than something acceptable to the population engaging in it.

        3. Like 9/11? Because that seems to have gone down the Memory Hole.

          Uhhh. What? Did you miss how we are still engaged in a “global war on terror”?

          1. Does the “global war on terror’ even reference 9/11 anymore? Because I must be missing that on the news.

            1. I think they changed its name to “Arab Spring” some years back.

            2. Well, that is kind of how it all started. What are they supposed to do? Announce every night on the news that 15 years ago there was a really big terrorist attack? It’s not news anymore. But I see no reason at all to believe that anyone is deliberately avoiding mentioning 911. The fact that something that happened 15 years ago isn’t mentioned constantly means nothing more than that people have incorporated it into their view of the world and don’t need to go on about it all the time anymore.

              There are plenty of reasons to criticize how the press covers terrorism, but I really don’t think that’s one.

      2. I don’t think we’ll see a large-scale land war until civilization collapses and rebuilds – so hundreds or thousands of years. Islamists don’t have much in the way of air forces or navies, and if they did they would have to have permanent bases which would make them easier to take down.

        The problem with fighting people like ISIS is that you’re fighting an ideology rather than a nation state. We can try to contain them, but will never do away with them entirely.

        1. Also, see Martin van Creveld’s essential works: Rise and Decline of the State, and The Transformation of War.

    5. The reality is that freedom, sovereignty and civilization come at the end of a gun. If you do not have the ability and will to kill to keep your civilization, someone else who does will come along and take it from you, eventually. Toynbee famously said that civilizations don’t die but commit suicide. And he is mostly right about that. It is not so much that they intentionally destroy themselves. It is that the people in them lose faith in their own civilization and values and with that lose the will to kill to keep it.

      So I don’t really worry so much about this country being soft. Reality has a way of toughing people up real quick. People will usually rise to the occasion. What worries me is that fewer and fewer people seem to believe in our civilization and think it is worth keeping.

      1. They don’t even do that (commit suicide). Look at Rome.

        1. What happened in Rome was Romans no longer believed in Rome or thought it worth fighting for. Once that happens, you are doomed.

          1. Maybe he meant present day Rome.

      2. What worries me is that fewer and fewer people seem to believe in our civilization and think it is worth keeping.

        Denigration and destruction of Western civilization, culture and values is pretty much the approved educational curriculum these days. As well as being echoed by the ‘news’ and entertainment media. The Gramscian “long march through the institutions” has been largely successful for the left.

    6. Eh, fuck that. I only got so many years on this planet, and I’m fortunate enough to live in the US, so unless there is some catastrophe, I should be able to squeeze by as fat and comfortable.

  5. Gary Johnson on the Clinton Foundation: “There is a big pay for play out there.”

    Which is a wonderful public service.

  6. Rise of the superhumans: Woman has MICROCHIPS implanted in both hands so she can unlock doors without keys and never needs a computer password

    1. If she could open ANY locked door without keys, that would be a superpower. If she can only unlock doors that have been programmed to respond to the chips in her hands, not so much…

    2. And then has a power outage and is locked out of her house for two days.

    3. Just wait until some asshole hacks her hands and makes her hit herself in the face.

      1. “Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself!”

        “Mooommmm!!!”

    4. So Deus Ex is non-fiction then. Way more interesting!

    5. I like how she’s married to a dude named “Skeeve Stevens.” Australia is truly the Florida of the world.

  7. In Trump We Trust author Ann Coulter is now attacking Trump for being untrustworthy on immigration.

    The burning question, though, is should we still buy her book?

    1. She said if Trump is going soft then hers will be a very short book tour.

      1. She said if Trump is going soft then hers will be a very short book tour.

        Trump’s 70 years old – he’s been soft for years. As far as being short – he assures us there’s no problem there and since he lies about absolutely everything I’m guessing cocktail weiner.

        Which, BTW, how come we’re not hearing more about how these are two of the oldest geezers ever to run for President? I remember when Reagan’s age was one of the big issues of the campaign. (I know – Reagan was a Republican running against a younger opponent so the media made that an issue whereas they can’t attack Trump’s age because their candidate is just as old.)

  8. According to U.N. investigators, both the Syrian regime and ISIS have used chemical weapons inside Syria.

    This needs the Blix stamp of approval.

    1. You breakin’ my bawrs, Hans Brix!

      1. Me, upon seeing what’s going on upthread.

        1. Still hilarious.

          1. I love slipping that on Youtube on the large screen TV the local dive bar here. The Japanese businessmen think I’m making fun of them.

            1. The Japanese businessmen think I’m making fun of them.

              That just makes it even funnier.

  9. Scientists just discovered humanity’s best shot at seeing life outside our solar system.

    And you won’t believe how they totally destroy Mars.

    1. It would take many millennia using current technology

      They’re using a pretty restrictive definition of “current technology”. Like basically they’re assuming we pointed New Horizons at Proxima Centauri, rather than built something specifically to get a probe there as quickly as possible.

      I posted about this a couple of weeks ago (when it was rumored that this announcement was coming), and I’m still pretty excited about it. Obviously we won’t be able to get people there for a very very long time, but a probe is actually in the realm of possibility (unlike some decent alt-text).

      1. Obviously we won’t be able to get people there for a very very long time…

        Not with that attitude.

        1. Maybe if we had Warty squat the spaceship to give it an initial delta-v…

          1. Isn’t the bigger problem stopping once you get near where you’re going?

      2. Yeah, possible, but would take forever to get there and we don’t even know if humanity will still care or have the ability to receive the signals at that point. Even one thousand years is a long time in civilization terms.

        Having said all that, it’s worth trying. But also likely that we will send out other probes which will reach Proxima b before the first probe does.

        1. But also likely that we will send out other probes which will reach Proxima b before the first probe does.

          Many, many years ago I read a s-f short story that had a theme like that. The basic storyline was that a guy was sent out in suspended animation timed to wake every few years (decades?) to test this as a way of interstellar travel. By the time he got to his destination, humanity had developed FTL drives. In one scene he awakens to see on his view screen another spaceship in the process of exploding. When he got to his destination, he learned that his ship had been so unexpected the other ship malfunctioned.

          No idea what the story was called or who wrote it or even how it finished. But of the thousands of the short stories I’ve read, that scene still sticks in my mind,.

          1. I think that was one of Larry Niven’s stories, but I can’t find the title.

            1. Thanks.

            1. Yup, by Kevin O’Donnell

              1. Sounds interesting, but not the one I was thinking of. The one I was thinking of was a short story and it was a one-man ship.

          2. There was an episode of Babylon 5 that was similar to this as well

        2. Humans are still going to care in several decades. I feel like you completely ignored my first point: it wouldn’t actually take thousands of years to spend a tiny, one-way, fly-by probe.

          1. Yes, sorry. Would it have to be flyby? I realize the planet might not have the mass to capture it at that speed, but would Proxima Centauri have the mass to capture.

            1. It doesn’t have to be a flyby, but if it isn’t it’s going to take longer to get there.

              You can make the probe bigger, you can make it stop, and you can even make it a return trip, but those all add to the weight, making the travel time much, much slower (particularly the last option: I don’t even want to try to figure out how long that would take with our current tech, probably hundreds of thousands of years round trip).

              1. The only ‘fast’ option today would be some sort of electric thrust.

                It’s 4 ly away so lets say .04c so we get there in 100ish years.

                Specific impulse of about 3000 sec and a deltav of .04*3e8=1.2e7 means your dry weight fraction is the inverse of e^400.

                Yeah, we’re not getting there soon.

  10. The 21st Century’s 100 Greatest Films

    “They don’t make ’em like they used to.”

    How often have we all heard that resigned expression? How often have we said it ourselves? ‘The death of cinema’ is debated in university film studies programs worldwide. Critics lament the loss of ‘small movies’ in favour of superhero spectacles. Box-office analysts look for signs of an industry on the brink. Studio executives fear that video-on-demand may destroy the idea of going to the cinema more than broadcast and cable TV ever did.

    And what can we really call a new classic? What in recent vintage can hold its own on the big screen with the likes of The Searchers, The Godfather, The Rules of the Game, Seven Samurai or Citizen Kane? Some film journalists even think the movie star is a thing of the past.[…]

    We believe that the new classics on this list are destined to become old classics. Whether or not that happens is ultimately up to you, the moviegoers. But one thing is certain: cinema isn’t dying, it’s evolving.

    1. Thanks to kids, I don’t see nearly as many movies as I used to, but I’ve seen quite a few on that list. I think Pan’s Labyrinth and Spirited Away will still be watched 50 years from now. I like the West Anderson films but aren’t so sure they’re going to be around for a long time–they’re awfully…um, mannered? Don’t know if that will hold up.

      1. *Wes* Anderson

      2. I really liked “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” as well, it’s actually a personal favorite, but I’d never gotten the feeling a lot of other people liked that one much.

        1. That’s one of the few movies i can watch over and over again. Ditto The Big Lebowski and, actually, most of Wes Anderson’s films, especially the earlier ones.

        2. I think most people who saw it enjoyed it. I did, definitely not my top 10 though. David Cronenberg got fucked, Eastern Promises was fantastic.

          1. Shit didn’t see a History of Violence, I enjoyed that movie immensely.

        3. I have a similar, um, problem with “The Village”.

          1. I love how the movie takes down the prog/paternalist mindset but not enough to watch it repeatedly for entertainment. Happy to sit through it to make progs squirm, though.

            1. There’s lots of other philosophical stuff going on, too.

              Good for “checking your premises”.

        4. I really liked “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” as well, it’s actually a personal favorite, but I’d never gotten the feeling a lot of other people liked that one much.

          Same. Also agreed on Pan’s Labyrinth and Spirited Away. The latter I’ve probably watched almost once a year since it came out.

          I like that they have a few Pixar films on the list, but Wall-E is only so high on the list because of the environmentalist aspect. Take the politics away and they would recognize it as a good film, not a great one. Also, why is Up not represented?

          1. I would venture to state that Up was a superior film, and certainly had a stronger impact as a viewer.

            1. I’d agree. Maybe they couldn’t bring themselves to add a movie with a talking dog, even a genuinely funny non-corny talking dog.

            2. The first 20 minutes of Up made me ugly-cry, and i do not apologize to you or any other.

          2. Personally I think Up was overrated.

            The first 10 minutes was one of the greatest love stories ever told, the rest of the movie was good but not great IMO.

            That said I think the best Pixar movie was The Incredibles but for some reason that one gets overlooked

      3. Spirited Away deserves to be better known. It’s quite imaginative.

        1. My kid loves that movie, so we watch it about once a month.

      4. Fantastic Mr Fox is another good one, and suitable for the kids.

    2. I’ve seen 18 of them.

    3. The fact that Mulholland Dr. is number one tells me everything I need to know. Wes Anderson is featured entirely too much, Memento should be in the top 10 as should Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. No Country for Old Men should be higher Inherent Vice was was fucking terrible. The fact that Requim for a Dream was on the cutting room floor while the Grand Budapest Hotel was fucking 21 is just insane. Moulin Rouge! really?

      1. At least one of the Lord of the Rings movies should have been on here.

      2. Moulin Rouge! really?

        It’s actually fairly entertaining when you’re hammered.

        1. I actually loved Moulin Rouge, I think the interplay of the histocial accuracies and anachronism’s was brilliant, same reason I think a Knights Tale is one of the best movies of the century.

      3. Mulholland Drive was a mishmash of pretentious crap.

        And the LOTR trilogy as a whole should be top ten.

    4. That fact that we’ve shat out so many films in a mere sixteen years is depressing.

      1. And having skimmed the list, there were a lot on there where I’ve both seen it and my opinion was somewhere from “meh” to “a waste of an hour and a half”

    5. The list is not completely wrong: In The Mood For Love is #2. But where’s Lust, Caution? It’s clearly superior to Brokeback Mountain – on the list – the previous movie by Ang Lee.

    6. They include a lot of movies from 2000, which was the last year of the 20th century.

    7. So what number was “Zoolander” ?

  11. Daily Fail asks: How classy are you?

    Too classy to use words like classy…

    1. “When you’re alone, and you fart, and you say ‘Pardon me’ — that’s *class*.”

      — The late, great Rodney Dangerfield

      1. The English cricketer Freddie Trueman defined a gentleman as someone who got out of the bath before taking a piss.

    2. I put the ass in class, girl.

  12. “Scientists just discovered humanity’s best shot at seeing life outside our solar system.”

    And we’re already using gun-centric violent language like “shot”. #smh

    1. You can have all the guns you want in interstellar war. Just give me some rocks and a suitable place to drop them from.

      1. I think all the Lagrange points are still free.

      2. The end of the Lensmen series?

        Dropping a whole planet on the bad guys.

  13. No snowflakes allowed.

    “Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own,” reads the letter from Dean of Students Jay Ellison.

    1. Reason covered this with an entire story.

      1. Nobody reads the Brickbats.

        1. That’s just because nobody reads the articles. We certainly comment on the brickbats.

          1. *Sobs* I never learnt how to read. Only how to write.

    2. The U of Chicago has always been a great institution, glad to see it continuing the tradition.

    3. 521 Error.

  14. Pneumatic octopus is first soft, solo robot

    US engineers have built the first ever self-contained, completely soft robot – in the shape of a small octopus.

    Made from silicone gels of varying stiffness, the “octobot” is powered by a chemical reaction that pushes gas through chambers in its rubbery legs.

    Because of this design, the robot does not need batteries or wires – and contains no rigid components at all.

    Instead, a sequence of limb movements is pre-programmed into a sort of circuit board built from tiny pipes.

    These movements aren’t good enough, yet, to send the octobot out for a stroll; instead it sits in one place and pumps alternating legs up and down in a very slow, eight-legged can-can.

    But because that dance is powered purely by the robot’s internal pneumatic system, the Harvard researchers – writing in the journal Nature – say their system marks a key step forward for soft robotics.

    “Many of the previous embodiments required tethers to external controllers or power sources,” said PhD student Ryan Truby from Harvard University.

    “What we’ve tried to do is actually to replace these hardware components entirely and have a completely soft robotic system.”

    The hope is that one day, soft robots will wiggle their way into awkward surgical locations or squeeze under obstacles on search-and-rescue missions.

    1. The hope is that one day, soft robots will wiggle their way into awkward surgical locations or squeeze under obstacles on search-and-rescue missions. SugarFree’s stories, if they haven’t already

        1. It has begun.

    2. “US engineers”? You mean we beat the Japanese in tentacle technolocy? USA! USA!

      1. The US has developed it, but the Japanese will copy it, and take it to levels of insanity we can’t even imagine.
        Well, maybe SugarFree could imagine, but still.

    3. The hope is that one day, soft robots will wiggle their way … under obstacles

      BZZT!! Hillbot is already doing this, and more!

    4. It’s not a robot. It is a tiny kinetic sculpture.

      Lots of cool bits, but if it doesn’t do anything but wiggle in a pre-programmed sequence, it ain’t a robot.

      1. Meh. I presume the programming can be changed. Also, it’s a proof of concept for what could be a proper robot.

        And don’t knock wiggling in pre-programmed sequences. I hear straight guys pay good money to see women do that.

    5. I, for one, welcome our soft, tentacly overlords.

  15. The death toll from the earthquake in Italy has climbed to 252.

    Time to lock up more scientists.

    1. Oh shit, I forgot about that.

    2. Ha! You assume any scientists would still be involved in that field after the previous round of arrests.

    3. That issue cost Skeptics Guide to the Universe a lot of credibility with me. When that happened, they had a debate on one of their podcasts about circumstances in which it might be acceptable to imprison scientists. Great on skepticism but they’re pretty much all statists.

      1. Ironically, it was applying the tenets of skepticism I learned from SGU to politics that I came around to libertarianism, and now can’t stomach listening to the Novella boys discuss the merits of compulsory vaccination, criminalizing woo, mocking religion, government-sponsored science, feds steamrolling state educators, everything-and-the-kitchen-sink attitude re: climate policy, and bemoaning the lack of social engineering to ensure everyone is as logical and reasonable as they are.

        1. The cognitive dissonance among a lot of the skeptics and scientists is a wonder to behold at times. Seth Shostak, who I generally think does a great job, has made odd statements at times.

          1. I’ve come to see it as nothing more than the same sort of social sorting, tribalism, and virtue signaling everyone else does, just couched in (supposedly) politically and philosophically neutral terms. There’s a lot it gets right, but it’s a movement ripe for takeover (as indeed it was) by people merely wanting their sentiments flattered.

            Not like us, of course. We know better. *taps nose*

  16. Egyptians Take to the Streets Again, Now in Workout Gear

    More than five years after overwhelming numbers filled Tahrir Square in Cairo, deposing President Hosni Mubarak, and three years since the military crackdown that ousted the elected Muslim Brotherhood president and jailed protesters by the thousands, a fitness craze has taken hold. It is a stark departure for a nation that is the 17th most obese in the world, where fast-food joints proliferate and smoking is still the norm in restaurants ? and everywhere else.

    “Why now, and where does this come from? Clearly, it’s connected with the withdrawal from public life by young people,” said Ezzedine C. Fishere, a political science professor at the American University in Cairo

    After the military crackdown, he said, “everyone who had participated in 2011 started to move to the private sphere, some took refuge in depression, some in nihilistic activities and many in fitness ? not just fitness, but taking care of oneself.”

    Ramy A. Saleh, who pioneered CrossFit in Egypt, opening the first franchise right after the revolution, said simply, “The young people can’t go out demonstrating, but they can go out to run.”

    BUILD A HIGHER WALL

    1. Pyramid construction has resumed. Way to bring the tourists back.

  17. Gary Johnson on the Clinton Foundation: “There is a big pay for play out there.”

    So he’s running for the presidency of the Republic of Obviousia, i guess.

    1. Or he is running for governor of Illinois, and announcing his intention to fit right in!

  18. Iowa professor: Herky the Hawk ought to smile more

    A University of Iowa professor is asking for the Department of Athletics to allow the university’s mascot, Herky the Hawk, to display a wider array of facial expressions in university publications.

    “I believe incoming students should be met with welcoming, nurturing, calm, accepting and happy messages,” Resmiye Oral, a clinical professor of pediatrics at UI, wrote recently in an email to UI athletic department officials. “And our campus community is doing a great job in that regard when it comes to words. However, Herky’s angry, to say the least, faces conveying an invitation to aggressivity and even violence are not compatible with the verbal messages that we try to convey to and instill in our students and campus community.”

    1. The Ghost of Nile Kinnick weeps.

    2. These are the same people who tried (maybe they were successful?) to change the pink, visitor’s locker room at the team’s football stadium.

    3. “Herky’s angry, to say the least, faces conveying an invitation to aggressivity and even violence are not compatible with the verbal messages that we try to convey to and instill in our students and campus community.”

      This sentence commits far more violence on the helpless English language than a mascot Hawk does on your students.

      1. Resmiye Oral, a clinical professor of pediatrics at UI

        Heh.

        1. “Resmiye Oral?” demanded the surly Austrailian. “I needs me lappydoggler sucked right now!”

    4. Fire that stupid motherfucker.

      1. An atomic wedgie would suffice.

    5. Having a beak limits your facial expressions.

    6. a clinical professor of pediatrics at UI

      Just because you used to hand out stickers to the brave little girls and boys who came through your clinic doesn’t make it good policy vis-a-vis young adults.

      Maybe it’s a perspective thing. The kids in her classes are closer in age to children than they are her, so she lumps them all together.

    7. It’s not a scowl, it’s just Resting Buzzard Face.

  19. Bakery Facing Backlash Over Transgender Ken Doll Cake

    [The] Ken doll wore a pink dress made of frosting, a sash, a tiara and jewelry. … Baked at 350 degrees, but the real heat didn’t come until Goetzeler posted a picture of the dolled up delicacy on Facebook.

    Well, there’s your mistake.

    1. I’m ordering the “Stretch Armstrong”.

    2. A G.I. Joe transgender cake would have been funnier. With the beard and all.

      1. “The beard.” Haw!

    3. Ken doesn’t even have genitals to begin with, where is the controversy?

      1. OMG! Much like Caster Semenya, Ken has undescended testicles.

        1. Yup- With thoroughbreds, that’s called a “ridgling”… and they are considered “male”.

  20. SAPD: Waiter fires shots into ceiling inside Little Red Barn Steakhouse

    The Little Red Barn Steakhouse, just south of downtown, is known for servers who wear fake guns and holsters, but on Wednesday a real gun caused a lot of chaos.

    A witness, who did not want to be identified, said that she was waiting on some men at lunch who were upset about their food.

    “The customers mentioned that he messed up their order, so when the waiter went to the side to step back, one of the customers got loose and started beating on the waiter,” the witness said.

    She added that the waiter was able to get away and returned with a gun.

    “All I saw was a black gun, cocked it back, went up in the air and shot,” the witness recalled.

    The video shows people running and screaming. The witness described pandemonium inside.

    “There was old ladies on the floor, one in the back actually crying,” she noted. “It was scary.

    1. “All I saw was a black gun, cocked it back, went up in the air and shot,” the witness recalled, relating her experience in broken surrealist prose.

      1. I don’t understand any of the quotes here. A customer “got loose”?

    2. Dunno, but I’d be a tad wary of entering a place called ‘Little Red Barn’.

      Little names, big problems.

  21. Women are literally expected to do all the chores, depressing study finds

    Nearly 75% of respondents thought that the female partners in heterosexual couples should be responsible for cooking, doing laundry, cleaning the house, and buying groceries. Women were also expected to be responsible for household finances. On the other side, 90% of respondents felt men should be responsible for outdoor work and car maintenance.

    Hmm, that doesn’t seem to support the headline…

    1. Why would you take the headline literally?

    2. So, they’re complaining because the expectation is that in their own homes, the women are expected to control the money and do things in the climate controlled interior, while the men are expected to hand over the money and then do manual labor in areas at the mercy of the local weather?

      1. They are complaining that there is any difference in expectations between men and women ( which a significant number if women seem to agree with). The unwashed masses still are not getting with the program that sex differences are meaningless.

    3. Taryn Hillin is Fusion’s love and sex writer, with a large focus on the science of relationships. She also loves dogs, Bourbon barrel-aged beers and popcorn — not necessarily in that order.

      +1 for her like of bourbon barrel-aged beer.

      I’m just looking for positive traits.

      1. I considered that a negative. I love both, but not together.

      2. It’s three different things. Why would they be in any order?

        Or is she saying she eats the dogs?

    4. Horse. Shit.

    5. Hey! Outdoor work and car maintenance aren’t “chores”. They’re “guy stuff”.

      1. Yeah, I love how yard work, maintenance of the house, and maintenance of the cars never count as chores.

        1. There is an element of luxury to car maintenance and yard work. Nobody needs the car serviced personally or a mown lawn the way they need laundry and dishes routinely washed. So maybe that’s the thinking.

          1. There is an element of luxury to car maintenance and yard work. Nobody needs the car serviced personally or a mown lawn the way they need laundry and dishes routinely washed.

            What? Of course you need to routinely mow the lawn. And trim the hedges. And prune the trees and shrubs. And edge the lawn. And do routine maintenance on the house – exterior as well as interior including painting, repairs, minor electrical, plumbing, etc. And routinely maintain the cars, because the wife has a car, too, but all she knows how to do is put gas in it. You must not own a house, otherwise you would know how much attention they need and quickly things like lawns, shrubs, hedges, gutters, paint, etc. etc. deteriorate if not kept up.

            1. That’s not what I said. I said it’s not as pressing a matter as everyday necessities like clean clothes and dishes and all the little chores that attend those things, and that may be the reason people conclude that men are indulging themselves while women are toiling away. But it’s not a zero-sum game when you can split up these things between two people. Unless you’re conducting a survey meant to reaffirm the sexist attitudes you just know continue to persist.

              1. Clean dishes aren’t a necessity either. One clean dish is kind of nice to have, at least that’s my view. My wife doesn’t quite see it the same way, and that’s why my wife does the dishes most of the time.

            2. In fairness, my dad had us kids doing yard work as soon as we were able, regardless of gender. My mom, who did the gardening, would pay us a few cents for each weed we pulled starting from when we were as young as 4 or 5.

              Maybe people need to start having the little ones pull their weight.

              1. That’s how I grew up. We lived on nearly an acre of land with access to ditchwater, so mom had us out most afternoons and every Saturday pulling weeds. I hated it then but now I appreciate… not having a yard.

      2. Hey, I’m kinda guy-ish and don’t like gardening. And you can’t fix a car that built later than about 1992.

        1. My 02 4Runner is pretty maintenance friendly.

        2. My 02 4Runner is pretty maintenance friendly.

          1. So much, in fact, I had to say it twice.

          2. I’ll buy it. Those are great. But I agree, once computers got in there, the ability to really work on cars was hampered. Not by much at first, and your 4runner is still mostly mechanical.

    6. female partners in heterosexual couples should be responsible for cooking, doing laundry, cleaning the house, and buying groceries.

      What’s “depressing” about *that*?

    7. Yeah, yeah…got it. More importantly, I wonder what how non-heterosexual couples split up the work?

      1. There’s a reason domestic violence is highest among lesbians. Neither wants to do the yard work.

        1. That must explain the ginormous pair of lesbians who moved in down the street. They immediately undertook a massive landscaping project that converted their yard into a maintenance-free rock garden. Haven’t seen them outside since they finished.

          Doesn’t look bad, either. Lots of low-water desert plants.

          1. Oh yes, the tacky joke was meant as a serious claim about all persons with a particular mental trait.

    8. If we’re talking about expectations (rather than what actually happens), I’m guessing men would also be expected to work at full-time jobs, and women at part-time jobs or stay at home.

      Also, if more than 75% of respondents have these expectations, it sounds like a lot of women buy into it.

      1. And that 90% buy into outdoor chores as men’s work mean even more women think that is correct.

    9. Nearly 75% of respondents thought that the female partners in heterosexual couples should be responsible for cooking, doing laundry, cleaning the house, and buying groceries

      This is of course, completely fair if the woman stays at home. Let’s be honest, half of these chores must be done everyday. Yard work and car maintenance are less frequent. If you’re a woman who works outside the home, find a guy in the 25% who doesn’t expect you to do more work than him and stop bitching about guys you wouldn’t want to be with anyway. Just like a guy shouldn’t expect his partner to work and do all the cleaning and cooking.

      1. Clearly you have no idea how to have a happy marriage. The key is strictly portioning out each chore equally and maintaining a constant sense of resentment.

        1. You should have a TV show fixing couples up.

          1. The Cold War is a good template for marriage: eternal vigilance, scrutinizing your partner’s motives, disseminating propaganda among the people to maintain the party line, and most importantly the mutual threat of destruction.

    10. Women were also expected to be responsible for household finances.

      By responsible, they mean who decides to spend it, not earn it.

    11. Women are also the ones who give a shit whether the house is clean, so it seems fair to me.

    12. My wife has the groceries delivered and sucks at household finances.

      What do I win?

  22. According to U.N. investigators, both the Syrian regime and ISIS have used chemical weapons inside Syria.

    I’ve wondered right out loud why, in high-level committee meetings, why we are injecting fluoride into municipal water systems. Nobody knows.

    1. Also, chemtrails.

    2. This is distinct from chemtrails.

      The premise for injecting fluoride into municipal water supplies is that it mitigates tooth decay. This a very nasty chemical to transport. One full breath of it and your lunges will bleed. So its injected into the water supply so homeless people who drink out of garden hoses don’t have to brush their teeth as often as they should, as best I can tell.

      1. Meanwhile children are given toothpaste without fluoride because it is dangerous to swallow.

      2. Tooth decay is strongly associated with social deprivation. The findings confirm that the implementation of water fluoridation has markedly reduced tooth decay in 12-year-old children and that socio-economic dental health inequalities are reduced.

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…..1200000051

  23. Have you met my super model wife? Or seen the Veyron that I wrecked and had to replace with a Ferrari? Good times.

    Everyone lies on the internet, according to new research

    The short answer is that our expectations about others’ honesty tend to mirror our beliefs about our own honesty. In other words, on sites where we believe we’re being honest, we’re more likely to expect honesty from others.

    People were the least likely to be honest on “sexual communication” websites ? like Ashley Madison and Craigslist’s ‘casual encounters’ section.

    But across the board, our expectations of others’ honesty were pretty low. Between 55 and 90 per cent of participants in the study believed that others were lying at least some of the time about their age, gender, activities, interests and appearance.

    The most commonly expected lie is appearance ? 90 per cent of participants expected others to lie about what they look like.

    1. So… is water wet? Is the pope communist? Do ursines still engage in defacatory behaviour in forested areas?

      1. Does STEVE SMITH still engage in non-voluntary sexual encounters with hikers in said forested areas?

    2. Busted. I live in Scranton.

      1. You should have stayed in Japan. It’s better than Scranton. Yes, I know that is a low bar.

        1. Where am I? I’m in Boise Idaho. No wait, I’m in Anchorage, Alaska. No, No, I’m in Casper, Wyoming. I’m in the lobby of a Howard Johnson’s and I’m wearing a pink carnation.

          1. I thought Howard Johnson’s went out of business? Oh, I’m wrong. There is still one left.

            1. From this movie. Seeing if any of the movie buffs above would catch it.

                1. oh. It went over my head.

      2. Wait, I thought you lived in straffinrunville?

    3. When I briefly ventured into Tinder dating, I thought it was weird how little the chicks looked like their online pictures. I understand wanting to represent oneself in the most flattering way possible, but when you actually meet the guy, it seems like you would want his first thought to be something other than “wow, she’s nowhere near as attractive as she made herself out to be”.

      1. My one Tinder date was actually as attractive as she made herself out to be. At least on the outside. The inside – not so much. Weird thing – she was a great, friendly texter. But cold in person.

        Of course I see that type of thing all the time on FB: people seem friendly and outgoing. But if I see them at the bar I barely get an acknowledgement. It feels safer behind the screen. Or maybe the iron mask is scaring them away.

        1. I thought you were married with children. Has Tinder been around that long?

    4. The most commonly expected lie is appearance ? 90 per cent of participants expected others to lie about what they look like. Lying or omitting details? You might sound like a supermodel if you neglect to tell people about your wonky eye, halitosis, and dandruff.

  24. At least 13 are dead after a gunman opened fire on the campus of the American University in Kabul, Afghanistan.

    Must be the campus carry law that the gunman obeyed to bring guns to school.

  25. Ax throwing ? the ‘modern-day bowling’ ? coming to Chicago

    For $44.25 per person plus tax, each member of a group will get a one-on-one lesson on how to throw an ax from an ax-throwing coach, as well as a tutorial on how to stay safe and what the rules of the game are. After a warmup, groups will then take part in a tournament, throwing axes at a wooden target and competing against one another for bragging rights.

    For those who are looking to refine their technique before they come in, Bad Axe has a section on its website detailing how to throw an ax, with helpful tips such as “don’t throw an axe if someone is in front of you or near the target,” along with advice on how to properly grip an ax. Axes are provided, and patrons are not allowed to bring in their own axes “due to our insurance policies,” according to Bad Axe’s website.

    1. Ax me no questions ….

      1. Get off the internet for today.

  26. Ex-NH Trooper to plead guilty

    A former state trooper is expected to plead guilty Thursday to assault charges.

    Andrew Monaco is facing three counts of simple assault in connection with the May arrest of a Massachusetts man.

    The arrest was made after police chased a vehicle driven by Richard Simone, 50, from Massachusetts to Nashua.

    Is the sun still rising in the East?

    1. “Celebrity pest controller”?

      1. Maybe we can chip in to get him after Lena Dunham.

        1. Funny, there’s a story in the sidebar about Lena Dunham.

      2. The Kardashians are the ones that got away.

      3. He installs software on your computer to block TMZ and other celebrity gossip sites. Hence his unfamiliarity with dangerous snakes.

    2. I like that they manipulatively put “death” in the URL.

  27. Minnesota resident receives half-pound of marijuana in mail

    A resident in Minnesota was shocked to find a large package full of marijuana when they went to check their mail.

    Gaylord Police Department shared a photo of the half-pound, sealed package of marijuana which turned up in the residents mailbox.

    According to police, the resident immediately called in upon opening the package and turned in the drugs.

    As of Monday no one had called to claim the mysterious package and police urged anyone with info to contact them.

    That was good stuff eh?

    1. As of Monday no one had called to claim the mysterious package

      No shit?

    2. They managed not to kick his door down and kill his dogs over this? Wow.

    3. According to police, the resident immediately called in upon opening the package and turned in the drugs.

      And lived to tell the tale. The Gaylord PD deserves praise.

      1. What a bunch of Friendly, Affable Guys.

        1. I see, that thing, you did

  28. A couple of days ago someone mentioned Nigella Lawson in a thread. I stumbled on this article. A few years old, but it has some interesting bits.

    1. Nigella

      PROBLEMATIC
      R
      O
      B
      L
      E
      M
      A
      T
      I
      C

    2. It’s just a link to the DM.

      And no nekked pics of Nigella.

      1. If it helps, I stumbled on the link via Boobpedia. No nekkid pics of here there either, but I’m certain you can find such pictures of other women on Boobpedia. Not safe for work of course.

        1. Yeh, I wasn’t clear, your link had no content.

          I will check out Boobpedia RIGHT NOW.

          1. No content?

            4. Nigella claims that she doesn’t generally wear knickers. ‘I don’t need to because I always wear a long skirt.’

            And:

            6. She once revealed that her bust measurement is 32G and invests in expensive underwear from the Queen’s lingerie specialist, Rigby & Peller.

            And:

            12. A single serving of Nigella’s egg and bacon pie contains 36g of saturated fat – the recommended daily limit is 20g for women and 30g for men. A panel of nutritionists and dieticians has criticised her for using too much butter and cream in her recipes.

            And more!

            1. A panel of nutritionists and dieticians has criticised her for using too much butter and cream in her recipes.

              Why do you think restaurant food tastes so good? Fat is flavor, bitches!

  29. WikiLeaks’ Assange Warns Clinton Campaign: More Game-Changing Emails Loom

    “We have a lot of material, thousands of pages of material. There’s a variety of different types of documents and different types of institutions that are associated with the election campaign, some quite unexpected angles that are, you know, quite interesting, some even entertaining.”

    When asked whether the next release could be a “game-changer” in the November Presidential election, Assange replied:

    “I think it’s significant. You know, it depends on how it catches fire in the public and in the media.

    The MSM will rush into to hide anything… or we can discuss a Trump gaffe about transgender illegal immigrants wearing heels on his beautiful carpeting.

    1. Yeah, nothing that’s released on Clinton will matter, because the media will excuse it and bury it.

      1. What Assange seems good at is releasing something, waiting for the excuses, and then the next release is tailored to reveal the lie in the excuses. and so on.

    2. How this will probably play out: Assange continues pumping this well, and it turns out a trickle of thin gruel. MSM uses it to prove that Hillary’s critics have nothing to fall back on.

      1. They’ll do that no matter how meaty it is.

  30. Tantaros also accused Scott Brown of sexual harassment

    A former Fox News talk show host accused former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown of Rye of sexual harassment in a lawsuit against former network chief Roger Ailes and five others.

    Brown flatly denied the claim and vowed to refute the woman’s story in court.

    Andrea Tantaros, a former co-host of “Outnumbered” and “The Five” programs, lodged the 37-page complaint, the latest in a string of suits that maintain that the TV news network under Ailes became a breeding ground for sexual harassment of good-looking, female on-air talent.

    1. A former Fox News talk show host accused former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown of Rye of sexual harassment

      I think we all might have a claim there.

    2. I am starting to think Andrea just needs to get laid. She seems awfully frustrated.

      1. I think it might be significant that she made no allegations until after she was dismissed for breach of contract and after Gretchen Carlson made allegations. Could just be coincidence, I suppose, but the timing is suspicious.

        1. I think the same thing.

        2. She was willing to put up with it as long as she was getting paid.

          Given that TV is a snake pit, it’s not entirely unreasonable to think that she believed the grass wouldn’t be greener elsewhere.

      2. She is getting laid. By this guy.

        1. He dresses like a biker chick.

        2. Fact: “Aeroplane” is the best Red Hot Chili Peppers song.

    3. “A former Fox News talk show host accused former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown of Rye of sexual harassment in a lawsuit against former network chief Roger Ailes and five others.”

      I have no idea if Brown is guilty, but if he is, he obviously ignored the advice of the guy who once held his Senate seat: “Never leave witnesses.”

      /ha ha, just busting everyone’s balls, strictly a joke.

  31. some British sketch comedy brought to you by the same blokes who brought you “The Peep Show”

    1. Thanks. I loved Peep Show, even though I gave up a few seasons in. (I like to remember shows in their prime).

      1. Peep show – at least the early episodes – made my wife feel uncomfortable. They were a little too “real”.

      2. I think it was pretty good all the way through.

  32. Brilliant mathematician determines that one commonly existing thing is better than another commonly existing thing. Or, another item to file under… “No Shit”.

    http://www.foxnews.com/leisure…..king-lots/

    1. Do they not have diagonal parking in Britain?

      And way to solve a “problem” that won’t exist soon with driverless cars.

    2. Actually, I hate Angled parking spaces. It’s Harder to see oncoming traffic when backing out of them, because your neck has to turn further and there’s STILL a car in the way. And that’s even just assuming people will go down the rows in the direction of the painted arrows. People will ignore the paint and park even more haphazardly on an angled lot than on one that is at 90 degrees.

      Then with the more narrow aisles, when there is someone coming the wrong way, there’s no room to just pass each other. That before you have the one jackass with the extended cab extra long bed truck that doesn’t pull all the way forward. The problem with mathematicians is that they see everything as numbers and overlook the stupid meatbags walking all over their presumtions.

      1. It’s Harder to see oncoming traffic when backing out of them, because your neck has to turn further and there’s STILL a car in the way.

        That is what the backup camera is for.

        I was mediocre at parallel parking (I could do it but it was a challenge) until I got a car with a backup camera, now its a joke.

        1. Some of us plebs have to make due with windows and mirrors.

        2. wanker alert!

        3. I think it was 05, but the mini Cooper had an optional back up camera. If you don’t know where the rear corners of a mini are, you shouldn’t be driving.

      2. Giant lasers to vaporize people going the wrong way down the aisles.

        The problem with mathematicians is that they see everything as numbers and overlook the stupid meatbags walking all over their presumtions.

        Interestingly, that is also the good thing about mathematicians.

      3. I’m with you here. It’s obviously more space efficient but there’s more to life than space efficiency. In general one-way parking lanes drive me nuts because I generally know exactly where I want to get in and out of the lot, and if I’m forced to circle around or double back to get to the place I’m trying to get it hardly counts as a “good” layout to me. Plus, like you said it makes it tougher to deal with people ignoring the directional conventions of the lot.

    3. Though I think they are talking about parking garages, which can be ridiculously tight in Europe. Of course have diagonal parking means that you have to be able to get out going in the same direction you came in (if you came into the space going west you have to be able to get out of the row going west.

    4. Wasn’t I bitching about this just a week or two ago?

  33. No way will Trump soften on immigration unless he has a terror attack planned for just before the election. Of course, he’ll lose either way. Russians might fall for such dirty tricks – not Americans.

    1. Welcome to Retardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully, I’m gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded don’t rule the night. They don’t rule it. Nobody does. And they don’t run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

  34. Johnson on FOX now.

    “70% of Americans don’t know that Bill Weld and I are running for president.” That is a good thing apparently.

    On Cankles felonies and treason: “Uhhhhh………….”

    Herpity derpity derp.

    1. Johnson and Weld both on record as thinking that she’s a pretty swell person. Weld actually called her “a good kid”, without even the slightest hint of irony or sarcasm!

      That all by itself is enough to call their judgment into serious question.

      1. Nope – I think they are absolutely correct. They can run on principles and avoid being unnecessarily partisan. If they were spouting “Clinton’s a witch!” hysteria like Fox News it would be a major turn-off.

        OK, now for some Retardation, a Celebration:

        1. When is that rock and roll book going to be finished, fuckface? How long have you been working on the thing now, like four or five years? Not that I would ever buy it or anything; I wouldn’t read it if it were free.

          Have I mentioned that I’m amazed the publisher is still paying your dumb ass? I have to give it to you for running an awesome scam though.

          1. Well, well. Obviously a *certain someone* doesn’t want to be included in the Acknowledgments.

    2. “Obviously whether or not Hillary is a felon becomes a non-issue if you elect us as President.”

  35. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  36. “Gary Johnson on the Clinton Foundation: “There is a big pay for play out there.”

    I haven’t stopped wondering why this wasn’t worth talking about every day since the story broke in February 2015. Is it because Donald finally stopped making the outrageous statement of the day, every day?

    There’s some kind of bias that makes us notice the most intense thing to the exclusion of things that are less intense.

    This can account for things like “If it bleeds, it leads” on your local news broadcast. At the beginning of a newscast, your local news is competing for the attention of viewers who are flipping through the channels after watching previous shows on other channels. They put the most intense story they can up to catch the attention of those viewers–who are more likely to notice and pay attention to the one thing that’s most intense.

    I’m thinking maybe the news on Hillary’s corruption is like that. Whatever crazy thing The Donald supposedly said was so crazy, so intense, every day, it simply overshadowed Hillary’s corruption. There were other more intense distractions, as well, like the Olympics, drama at both conventions, and all the other intense stories that happen every day that aren’t related to national politics, like terrorism, Zika, etc.

    1. The favorables for both candidates are down near the levels of voters who are straight party voters and it doesn’t really matter who the candidate is.

      This is why 3rd party candidates are doing so well. Anyone who actually cares is desperate for another choice.

      The remaining support for Hillary and Trump is immovable.

  37. Maybe it just took Trump’s new campaign staff to tell him to STFU for a while with the headline grabbing obnoxious statement of the day? Trump has been really good at saying what’s necessary to dominate the headlines and the tabloids since the 1980s. Look at me! Maybe they finally decided to let Hillary have some spotlight–so she can drown in it?

    I don’t know, but Clinton’s corruption with the Clinton Foundation has been dominant in my thinking on the election since the story broke in 2015. I thought it was amazing that no one was talking about it, but now it’s everywhere.

    Thank goodness.

  38. Hi All,

    I’m a longtime lurker, sometimes poster.

    Next week I’m starting a 3 city trip through your great nation. San Francisco, DC and NYC.

    Any Reason meetup type things happening? I live in the sticks of South America where everyone is some brand of socialist. So talking to actual liberty minded people would be awesome.

    Plus you guys are always good for scifi and general fun topics too here in the comments.

    1. There have been meet ups in all three places.

      Post earlier in tomorrow’s AM links or early in today’s PM links, and you’ll have a better chance of catching the eye of the people who get together there.

      Good luck!

      And no need to lurk. The more, the merrier.

      1. I go through periods of de-lurking and posting then having nothing to say and going silent.

        It’s been 15 years so at this point, I just kind of keep the comments going in a browser tab like background music most of the time.

  39. Emails Show Top Clinton Aide Researched Alzheimer’s Drug.

    Recently released emails show that Jake Sullivan, a top aide to Hillary Clinton, researched a drug that is used to treat Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, among other disorders, while Clinton was secretary of state and told her about his findings.

    Sullivan, Clinton’s top foreign policy adviser, was researching the drug Provigil for Clinton at the State Department in 2011, the Daily Caller reported.

    In fairness though, it’s possible this may have been for her ersatz husband. Rumors are swirling around big time that Slick Willie may have it, and it’s being said that his mental condition has deteriorated rapidly and significantly in just the last several months,

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.