We’re often told that in order to defeat the terrorists, we need to understand their grievances. So, not to defend an armed occupation of federal property (#OccupyNowheresville!), but to understand some of what might motivate the folks doing it, let’s take a look at the case they are protesting, and the broader issue of federal control and management of Western lands.

First, let’s start with the following map, which creatively shows how much Western land is owned by the federal government. Each state has a red shape inside, which is the same shape as the state, but which depicts the acreage in that state owned by the federal government. The shapes do not show the actual territory owned, but accurately depict the amount owned by the feds. As you can see, in Nevada it’s almost 90%.

The actual percentages of land owned by the federal government for the Western states are shown in this chart:

I am not going to detail the Hammond case, but will give you some links — and some quotes from the court documents, which I pulled and do not find accessible to people without a PACER account.

Everything takes place in the context of the Fish and Wildlife Service buying up all the land around the Hammond ranch for a wildlife refuge. Apparently owning half the land in the West was not good enough for the feds; they had to have more and more and more and more. Then, the feds allegedly took many seemingly retaliatory actions against the Hammonds after they refused to sell. Then, we come to the arson fires, which as presented on the Internet is a hodgepodge of one-sided accounts.

The U.S. Attorney’s one-sided account is here, in its press release. There are a couple of one-sided accounts sympathetic to the Hammonds here and here. The Hammonds’ brief to the U.S. Supreme Court is here. I am not going to vouch for the accuracy of everything in those accounts, but these pieces will at least give you some idea of the other side of the story. Here is an excerpt from one of them:

The first, in 2001, was a planned burn on Hammonds’ own property to reduce juniper trees that have become invasive in that part of the country. That fire burned outside the Hammonds’ private property line and took in 138 acres of unfenced BLM land before the Hammonds got it put out. No BLM firefighters were needed to help extinguish the fire and no fences were damaged.

Dwight’s wife Susan shared some crucial details in an exclusive interview with TSLN.

“They called and got permission to light the fire,” she said, adding that was customary for ranchers conducting range management burns – a common practice in the area.

“We usually called the interagency fire outfit – a main dispatch – to be sure someone wasn’t in the way or that weather would be a problem.” Susan said her son Steven was told that the BLM was conducting a burn of their own somewhere in the region that very same day, but that they believed there would be no problem with the Hammonds going ahead with their planned fire. The court transcript includes the same information in a recording from that phone conversation.

In cross-examination of a prosecution witness, the court transcript also includes admission from Mr. Ward, a range conservationist that the 2001 fire improved the rangeland conditions on BLM.

. . . .

Susan said the second fire, in 2006, was a backfire started by Steven to protect their property from lightening [sic] fires.

“There was fire all around them that was going to burn our house and all of our trees and everything. The opportunity to set a back-fire was there and it was very successful. It saved a bunch of land from burning,” she remembers.

The BLM asserts that one acre of federal land was burned by the Hammonds’ backfire and Susan says determining which fire burned which land is “a joke” because fire burned from every direction.

Neighbor Ruthie Danielson also remembers that evening and agrees. “Lightening [sic] strikes were everywhere, fires were going off,” she said.

The father is 73 years old and had no prior record. He was convicted of one count of arson.

A couple of points. First: it’s not really the case that the jury accepted every aspect of the government’s case, just because there were a couple of arson convictions. The Hammonds admitted starting the two fires of which they were convicted, and the dispute was over whether they intended the fires to spread to public lands. The jury, as I understand it, found that they did — but that doesn’t mean the jury found that they were trying to act as terrorists, or burn down large swaths of the countryside, or do anything but protect their own property.

To me, rather than reading a bunch of partisan accounts from both sides, I thought I would look at the comments of the sentencing judge, which I pulled from PACER and you can access here. I also found the Ninth Circuit decision, which I have uploaded for your reading pleasure, and which you can access here.

I think that, to have a full understanding of everything that happened, you probably needed to sit through the trial. But here is my impression based on what I have read. The father and the son admitted setting the fires. In one case, there was a dispute about whether they were trying to cover up illegal hunting. The government’s position was based on a relative, Dusty Hammond, who apparently had had a falling out with the Hammonds (more about that below) and was 13 years old when the events happened. Apparently aspects of his testimony were at odds with some public hunting records. The judge seemed to think that witness was trying to tell the truth, but might have gotten some things wrong due to age and bias.

The judge also seemed to believe that the Hammonds were people of good character and not bad people, saying during the sentencing:

With regard to character letters and that sort of thing, they were tremendous. These are people who have been a salt in their community and liked, and I appreciate that.

The prosecutor also said that “both have done wonderful things for their community and those deeds are recognized in these letters.” He also alluded to “Dusty Hammond’s abuse at the hands of Steven Hammond.” The judge said about that: “There was, frankly, an incident, apparently it was removal of tattoos, that would have colored any young person’s thinking, and if that’s what happened, it can’t be defended, of course, but that’s not what’s before the court today.” Putting two and two together, the son apparently took some kind of violent action to remove Dusty Hammond’s tattoos, and Dusty Hammond did not like the son as a result.

As to the father Dwight Hammond’s single arson conviction, the judge said:

Well, the damage was juniper trees and sagebrush, and there might have been a hundred dollars, but it doesn’t really matter. It doesn’t affect the guidelines, and I am not sure how much sagebrush a hundred dollars worth is. But I think this probably will be — I think mother nature’s probably taken care of any injury.

Regarding the five-year mandatory minimum for both defendants, the judge (Judge Michael Hogan) said:

I am not going to apply the mandatory minimum and because, to me, to do so under the Eighth Amendment would result in a sentence which is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here.

And with regard to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, this sort of conduct could not have been conduct intended under that statute.

When you say, you know, what if you burn sagebrush in the suburbs of Los Angeles where there are houses up those ravines? Might apply. Out in the wilderness here, I don’t think that’s what the Congress intended. And in addition, it just would not be — would not meet any idea I have of justice, proportionality. I am not supposed to use the word “fairness” in criminal law. I know that I had a criminal law professor a long time ago yell at me for doing that. And I don’t do that. But this — it would be a sentence which would shock the conscience to me.

The judge sentenced the Hammonds to much shorter sentences (three months for Dwight Hammond, the dad, and twelve months and a day for Steven Hammond), which they have served. The Ninth Circuit held that the minimum five-year sentence was not so disproportionate as to violate the Eighth Amendment’s “cruel and unusual punishment” clause. Now they have been resentenced to five years in prison, under an antiterrorism law passed by Congress.

I have read that the Hammonds do not want the help of the Bundys. My belief is that they are trying to get clemency from Obama and figure that a standoff with the federal government is counterproductive to that effort.

The Hammonds don’t seem like particularly bad people, from what I can tell. They certainly are not terrorists. The Bundy action, taking over a building in the middle of nowhere, may be bringing attention to an injustice.

The Hammonds surrender to serve their five-year sentences tomorrow.

[guest post by JVW]

We never really talk about professional football here. Not that I mind: the older I get the more I am beginning to object to the pomp and circumstance surrounding that league of self-satisfied billionaire owners demanding major concessions from the taxpayer all for the privilege of bringing in mercenary players to represent that town. I could die happily if the NFL never makes it back to Los Angeles, though it appears that the die has been cast and we will once again have a team or six.

But one really interesting thing about the league is when you get into the final weeks and have several teams playing for the six playoff seeds in each conference. This year, the NFC is pretty well settled with the only remaining question being whether Carolina or Arizona secures the top seed and home field advantage, and whether Green Bay or Minnesota captures the third seed and relegates the other to the fifth seed wildcard slot. So, has a helpful one-stop guide, here is what each team needs to do in order to maximize their chances of playoff success:

AFC Playoff Picture

New England – win and they secure home field advantage throughout the playoffs; loss coupled with a Denver win drops them to the second seed and would move a potential Broncos-Patriots AFC Championship game to Denver.

Denver – win and they secure the second seed in the playoffs, with the possibility of a number one seed if the Patriots lose; loss coupled with Chiefs win drops the Broncos into the fifth seed as a wild card.

Cincinnati – win clinches third seed in playoffs; win with Broncos loss moves them to second seed and first round bye.

Kansas City – win coupled with Denver loss clinches fourth seed in playoffs; loss or Denver win pushes them to fifth seed; loss coupled with Jets win drops them to sixth seed.

New York Jets – win or Pittsburgh loss clinches playoff spot; win and Chiefs loss moves them to fifth seed.

Pittsburgh – win and Jets loss clinches playoff spot.

Houston – win clinches division title and fourth seed; Indianapolis loss clinches division title and fourth seed; loss and Indianapolis win could still lead to division title if one of the following teams also wins: Cincinnati, New England, NY Jets, San Diego, New Orleans, Kansas City, or Baltimore.

Indianapolis – win and Houston loss could clinch division title and fourth seed if ALL of the following teams win: Atlanta, Baltimore, Buffalo, Denver, Miami, Oakland, and Pittsburgh.

Yes, there are scenarios where ties come in to play, but I don’t have the energy to sort those out. You can go here for a list of how those play into the various scenarios.

NFC Playoff Picture

Carolina – clinches first seed and home field advantage with a win or a Arizona loss.

Arizona – clinches first seed and home field advantage with a win and a Carolina loss

Washington – has clinched division title and fourth seed; outcomes this week will not affect that.

Seattle – has clinched wildcard spot and sixth seed; outcomes this week will not affect that.

Minnesota vs. Green Bay, tonight 5:30 pm Pacific: winner captures the division title and the third seed; loser is a wildcard with the fifth seed.

– JVW

Apparently some of them Bundy boys have executed an armed takeover of a federal building in a remote area of a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon. They are protesting the return to prison of two ranchers, a father and a son, for setting fires back in 2001. The ranchers say they were doing controlled burns to protect their property. The feds say the ranchers are terrorists.

I have the solution.

If the ranchers are terrorists, send them to Gitmo.

Obama will free them in a week.

[guest post by Dana]

Saturday night seems like a good night to talk movies. I need some recommendations. Since I’m on vacation, I will watch more movies over the holiday season than I will the entire rest of the year when there just isn’t the luxury of time. Some of what I’ve watched has been good, and some not so good. Here’s a sampling of what I’ve watched recently.

The Wolfpack: This engrossing documentary focuses on six brothers who were not allowed to go outside while growing up on the Lower East Side, with the exception of a very small handful of times with their parents. The documentary explores how the homeschooled brothers filled their time in the apartment by watching an endless number of movies. They transcribed movie dialogue, word for word, and using handwritten scripts, homemade costumes, and detailed props, made their own versions of the films they watched. Their attention to detail is amazing. Throughout the film, the brothers are interviewed as are their parents. It is immediately obvious that their father has “issues”, yet somehow maintained an uninterrupted and unquestioned reign of power in the home. The siblings’ mother comes across as a loving and kind woman who struggles with regret over how the children were raised. Viewers are richly rewarded when one day, out of the blue, the oldest son ventures outside, thus breaking the power their father held over all of them. And it’s a sublimely sweet moment to see all of the brothers excitedly leave the apartment together to go to a real theater and watch a movie. Their innocent delight at being in a real movie theater almost brought a tear to my eye, same as it did when they dipped their toes into the Atlantic Ocean for the first time.

Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief: This documentary examines the Church of Scientology and those who have bravely left the cult after years of membership. It also digs into the background of founder L. Ron Hubbard and his nuttery that is the very foundation for the “church”. It’s surreal listening to the ex-members, once so willing to turn their lives over to the control of bullies and charlatans, try to make viewers understand just how the brainwashing occurred. And it’s distressing to see the consequences when one leaves and loved ones stay behind. It gets worse, too, as those who choose to remain in the cult are required to “disconnect” completely from any spouse, parent, or child who have left. Sadly, as is typical, leave a cult and there’s a price to pay. And in this instance, the price exacted is enormous. I found the entire documentary simultaneously fascinating and disturbing.

The Big Short: This is the new movie about the financial crisis of the mid-2000s. It’s getting a lot of buzz. Suffice it to say, “When it’s time to make a movie dealing in complex material about contemporary financial instruments, is the guy who brought us “Anchorman 2” really the best available option? Consider yourselves warned.

John Wick: Loved this movie. It’s a tough and violent film that never lets the viewer rest. Under the skillful acting of Keanu Reeves, who portrays John Wick, the tender heart of his retired hitman character is revealed in the film’s opening as he mournfully prepares for his beloved wife’s funeral. When her last gift to him, a little beagle puppy is killed by some very bad Russians, Wick comes out of retirement with a vengeance to take care of business. And he delivers payback in a very satisfactory manner. This movie is about a year old, but is well worth watching.

Also on the definite thumbs-up side: Slow West and Sicario.

That’s what I’ve been watching. What have you watched lately, and what do you recommend??

–Dana

New Year’s is not typically considered to be a time of Thanksgiving. But I say: one should give thanks at every opportunity. I am sympathetic to the notion of self-improvement, and having a day to remember to form better habits. But one of the best habits one can form is to remember to be grateful for what you have.

And I want to ask you a favor. It’s really important to me that you take a moment to help me out. It won’t require you to contribute any money. Just a moment of your time.

I have spoken to you before about Ron Coleman, one of my pro bono attorneys on the absurd and censorious Kimberlin v. Frey case. I have also mentioned to you before that I am also represented pro bono by the amazing Bruce Godfrey of Jezic & Moyse LLC. (For previous mentions of Bruce, see here, here, and here). But I want to take this opportunity — and it will likely not be the last — to especially thank Bruce Godfrey for all the time he has spent defending me in this case.

My lawyers don’t want me to talk a lot about the case, but it is in a discovery phase — in which we have to be careful to protect people’s privacy, given that the plaintiff has a history of criminal violence and frivolous litigation.

Bruce has put in a ton of time towards that effort. Would you like to know how much time? Today, on New Year’s Day — a day most people take off entirely to nurse a hangover, watch football, and be with loved ones — Bruce Godfrey has been working on discovery matters in my case. He’s not doing this for pay. Bruce is doing this out of principle: the principle of helping someone he doesn’t even know, so I can fight a case brought by a convicted bomber and perjurer.

So here’s the thing. Pro bono sucks. Working pro bono over the holidays — and believe me, today is not the first day Bruce has worked over these Christmas holidays for free, not by a long shot — that really, really sucks.

This is where you come in.

I have readers in and around Washington, D.C. I have many more readers with friends, relatives, and business colleagues in and around Washington D.C., including Virginia and Maryland. If you personally have a need for the services of a lawyer in the greater D.C. area, I ask you to consider contacting Bruce Godfrey. If you know someone who has a need for the services of a lawyer in the greater D.C. area, I ask you to talk to them, right now, and tell them to consider calling Bruce Godfrey. And even if you just know someone in the greater D.C. area, who has no need for the services of a lawyer — just send them an email with a link to this post. And tell them: hey. I know you don’t need anyone now. But if you’re ever interested in hiring the kind of lawyer who works during the holidays and on New Year’s Day, out of principle, keep this guy in mind.

And tell them Patterico sent them.

At the very least, send one of his partners an email and tell them that you appreciate Bruce doing this, and that you will keep the firm in mind if you ever learn of legal work in or around D.C.

Bruce, and his firm linked above, handle criminal defense cases, traffic defense cases, car accident cases, and especially employment law for matters in Maryland, Washington, D.C., and Virginia.

(It goes without saying that the same applies to Ron Coleman of Archer & Greiner and the Likelihood of Confusion blog. If you have intellectual property issues, he’s your guy. If you have any other issues in New Jersey or New York, consider his firm, which handles pretty much everything.)

Look: if there is any fairness in this world, I will win this case, a judge will sanction Brett Kimberlin to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, he will crawl back in a hole and leave me and my friends alone — and actress Jennifer Lawrence will be so impressed that she will throw a party in honor of my attorneys Bruce Godfrey and Ron Coleman.

But while that stuff might not happen (except for me winning the case), it really would be nice if Ron and Bruce ended up benefitting from all the hours they have put in.

Think of it this way. This is a fight that benefits each and every one of you — anyone who wants to speak freely on the Internet. If Brett Kimberlin can make people pull down their truthful speech about his past simply by filing frivolous lawsuits — and take a look around to see all the people and Web sites that have already caved and pulled down their posts about him; you might be surprised! — then free speech means nothing. As long as someone is willing to abuse the system. Here. In the United States of America.

I haven’t asked for much while fighting this fight. But I am asking you to do this. Not just to leave an appreciative comment or think warm thoughts, but to act: to talk to people you know in D.C. and spread the word.

Think of it as your own personal contribution to this effort on behalf of free speech.

Thanks in advance.

UPDATE: Thanks to Instapundit for the link!

[guest post by Dana]

Happy New Year to Patterico readers! I don’t know about you, but I have no resolutions lined up for this new year because resolutions at the beginning of a new year are little more than willfully setting myself up for failure. And what a dumb and depressing way to start the year. It’s like waiting for that inevitable other shoe of self-disappointment to fall (and from past experience, it usually happens pretty quickly, so great, there goes what could have been a terrific year…). It’s better I let myself off the hook from the get-go and make no official resolutions, thus giving myself a fighting chance in the new year. Of course with this mindset, losing those 20 extra pounds and bringing world peace will likely not happen, but you know what? I’m okay with that.

With the new year and all its endless possibilities, I went back and re-read these two articles that were written last year about campaign frontrunners, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. (Note to Patterico: Surely this doesn’t count as an official Trump post?) They made me laugh, then they made me cry. All I can say is, boy howdy, do we have our work cut out for us in 2016:

In an effort to help the presidential hopeful make her best possible impression during tonight’s Democratic primary debate, Hillary Clinton’s aides gently reminded her Tuesday not to refer to her opponents as “obstacles to greatness.” “When you’re addressing the other candidates, just make sure not to call any of them ‘impediments to glory’ or ‘the only things standing between me and my rightful place in history’ or anything like that; it’s probably best to just stick to using their names,” said chief strategist Joel Benenson, who has reportedly stopped Clinton several times over the course of her practice debates to recommend that she use the phrase “the senator” when referring to Bernie Sanders instead of “a minor blip on my path to ascendancy.” “You’re really nailing all the policy details, which is great, but if you can, remember to stay away from likening your opponents to ‘temporary obstructions,’ ‘pins to be knocked down,’ or ‘mere speed bumps.’ I’d also suggest trying the phrase ‘When I’m in the White House’ instead of ‘When the throne is mine’—just a thought.” Benenson added that Clinton should also be cautious about how many times she referred to herself as “The One” throughout the debate

and…

Appearing at a campaign event in the early primary state, real estate mogul and presidential candidate Donald Trump told an assembled group of dairy farmers Monday that his cows were 500 times bigger than theirs. “Your cows are small and scrawny, and you should be embarrassed to milk them,” said Trump, adding that each of his cows was the size of “at least” a dozen Cadillacs and had “udders that’ll make your head spin.” “No one raises dairy cows as gigantic or successful as I do; everyone knows that. My cattle are winners, and you people would be lucky to have them graze here.” Chatting with patrons at a diner later in the day, Trump reportedly said the apple pie was a disgrace and that his pies were a mile wide, with a perfect crust that made all the losers jealous.

I know, right??! It’s enough to get you working on yet another brain-biting hangover ASAP!

Welcome, 2016, we can take you.

–Dana

[guest post by Dana]

With accusations of hypocrisy now being rightfully lobbed at Hillary Clinton after she accused a GOP candidate of having a “penchant for sexism,” yet in nearly the same breath announced that one of the most notorious sexists of our time would be stumping for her on the campaign trail, feminists are groaning in dismay at having to yet once again square their support for iconic feminist Hillary Clinton with Bill Clinton’s much publicized sexual misconduct toward women.

Given that Hillary Clinton is campaigning on a platform of owning a uterus (also known as playing gender politics), this self-appointed, self-anointed alleged champion of women and children’s rights finds herself in a bit of a pickle, too, given that she has historically been defender and enabler of her woman-abusing sexist husband, as well as intimidating and smearing any number of women who accused him of sexual assault, thus leading the charge of Democrats in their war on women.

What a sordid mess: Hillary Clinton, feminist icon, enabler of notorious sexist Bill Clinton and persecutor of his female victims, wants to become our next president, and Bill Clinton, notorious sexist ex-president and abuser of women, is campaigning to help said feminist icon and fellow abuser of women become our next president. And all the while, the American feminist is circling the wagons around these two Democratic idols because they’re all about advocating for women. Sure they are. Could it possibly get any more twisted than this? Why yes, it certainly can.

Yesterday, after the news came out that Bill Cosby would be arraigned on charges of sexual assault, Amanda Marcotte tweeted something rather remarkable:

Charging Bill Cosby is a big victory for sexual abuse survivors. It helps undermine the “crazy bitches” narrative.

Interesting, because as far as I know, this is the same Amanda Marcotte who just last year jusitifed then lawyer Hillary Clinton’s willingness to play the “crazy bitch” card on a 12 year old female rape victim in order to get her 41 year old client, who was facing 30 years to life, off the hook. Mind you, Marcotte neglected to mention that Clinton was not a public defender assigned to the case, but rather she chose to defend the rapist as a favor. Marcotte even went so far as to complain about the Washington Posts’s Melinda Hennenberger’s temerity to question Clinton’s ethical decision to smear the victim. Marcotte dismissed it as little more than Hennenberger “making hay over irrelevant details”. Here is a portion of Hennenberger’s “irrelevant” hay making:

In an interview in the mid-1980s for an Esquire magazine piece that never ran, Clinton’s glee is audible about the prosecution’s big mistake in the case, when it accidentally discarded key evidence. Some are writing off the remarks, as one fellow journalist put it on social media, as “typical gonzo defense lawyer talk.”

It is not, however, typical talk for a lifelong defender of women and children.

Nor was Clinton’s defense plan, mapped out in a court affidavit. In it, she questioned the credibility of the victim and suggested that the sixth-grader, who an ER doctor said showed injuries consistent with rape, had “a tendency to seek out older men.”

“I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable,’’ Clinton wrote in the affidavit, “with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing.” The document, filed with the Washington County, Arkansas court on July 28, 1975, argued for a psychiatric evaluation for the victim.

“I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body,’’ Clinton wrote. “Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”

The “little bit nutty, little bit slutty’’ defense has a long, ugly history. It’s jarring to see it trotted out against a kid by a future feminist icon. The argument also bears an uncomfortable similitary [sic] to Clinton White House descriptions of Monica Lewinsky, who without that semen stain on her little blue dress would have been dismissed as a stalker who had fantasized that she had a relationship with President Bill Clinton.

…

In 2008, her spokesman told Newsday that Clinton “had an ethical and legal obligation to defend him to the fullest extent of the law. To act otherwise would have constituted a breach of her professional responsibilities.”

Defending even a child rapist as vigorously as possible might be a plus if she were running to lead the American Bar Association. But wouldn’t her apparent willingness to attack a sixth-grader compromise a presidential run?

Marcotte responded to Henneberger’s concern about Hillary Clinton’s willingness to use the “little bit nutty, little bit slutty” defense on the child-victim with this shameful justification:

I understand why this gives Henneberger pause, but to quote myself from 2012:

Defense attorneys use this strategy because it works, as can be routinely demonstrated. As long as juries keep acquitting based on this myth that women routinely make up rape accusations for the hell of it, defense attorneys will continue to use it. The problem here is a larger culture that promotes rape myths, not defense attorneys who exploit these myths in last-ditch attempts to get acquittals for rapists who have overwhelming evidence against them.

So there you have it. It’s the fault of society, juries, the justice system, and the fact that a defendant is guaranteed a right to an adequate defense. In Marcotte’s view, Hillary Clinton is absolved of playing the the notorious “crazy bitch” card against a child rape victim, as well as any number of sexual assault victims involving her husband. In Marcotte’s dishonest eyes, none of these irrelevant details call into serious question Clinton’s campaign platform of being an advocate for women and children. Seriously, Amanda?? Who is the real crazy bitch here?

Here’s the thing: the issue isn’t about Hillary Clinton choosing to defend an accused child rapist to advance her career (that’s a separate issue). The issue is that in her defense of said accused child rapist, if necessary, she was more than willing to impugn the credibility of a child rape victim to get the charges against her client dropped. In other words, neither Hillary Clinton nor Amanda Marcotte had any qualms about using the very same “crazy bitches” strategy that Marcotte now condemns and wants to see come to an end.

Look, we already know that Hillary Clinton is no more about protecting the rights of women and children than is Amanda Marcotte. They both have excused, rationalized, and dishonestly represented themselves before the American people in an effort to push themselves forward as leading advocates for women. But it is Hillary Clinton who wants to become our next president. Therefore, it is absolutely vital to point out the abhorrent untruth she continues to push, and that is that she has always been an advocate for women and children. Clearly, we know otherwise. Should this impact her run for the presidency? Absolutely. Whether it will or not, however, is up to voters. But certainly it can be agreed upon by rational people that this is simply not what an alleged champion of women and protector of children looks like.

And now that we know noted feminist Amanda Marcotte is really not about undermining any “crazy bitches” narrative, and that rape victims – even children – are fair game for this strategy, exactly how does she feel about accused rapist Bill Clinton? Pretty good, I would say:

Watching Bill Clinton speak is like getting a hug from a giant teddy bear who can hug everyone at once.

And how does Marcotte feel about candidate Hillary Clinton, enemy of women and children? Well, also pretty good:

…Hillary Clinton is the Democrat we need for 2016.

–Dana

[guest post by JVW]

Yes, the bowl season has been going on for a few weeks now, but New Year’s Eve has traditionally marked the key date in the college football postseason, from the days of my youth in which the Sun Bowl and Peach Bowl were traditionally played to the present day in which for the first time the two national championship semifinal games will take place at the Orange Bowl and the Cotton Bowl.

So, since being a curmudgeon is half the fun of being a conservative, let me take this opportunity to point out an interesting article from The Chronicle of Higher Education which calls into question the oft-heard claim from the NCAA Division I member programs that the massive revenue from college football and basketball pays the way for the entire athletic program at their institutions. Last month, The Chronicle reported that, based upon data provided by private colleges and universities via freedom of information act requests, only 6 of 201 Division I sports programs at public universities for which they received data (the state of Pennsylvania does not require its public universities to divulge their athletic spending and several other colleges failed to report their results by the deadline) managed to break even in their athletic departments. In fact, according the authors, the schools surveyed subsidized their athletic programs to the tune of $10.3 billion dollars over the past five years, with much of that money coming from mandatory student fees.

The Chronicle link includes an interactive chart which is sortable by school, conference, revenue, and subsidies. In itself, it provides quite an interesting look at how big time athletics works at these member schools. For those interested, the six schools which purport to have operated Division I athletics programs without subsidies from 2010 through 2014 are the following: the University of Oklahoma, the University of Texas, Louisiana State University, Ohio State University, the University of Nebraska, and Purdue University. It appears that in general, the schools in what are commonly termed the Big Five Power Conferences are on more solid financial footing than the smaller conferences, as the high costs of their huge athletic programs are helpfully offset by lucrative television contracts which each year pump as much as $30 million per school to conference members, with even higher payouts set to follow in coming years. Teams from less prestigious conferences, especially those who play both Division I football and basketball, appear to rely the most upon student subsidies with Rutgers University, James Madison University, the University of Connecticut, and the University of Cincinnati listed as requiring at least $27 million in subsidies in 2014.

Professors Jody W. Lipford and Jerry K. Slice, economists at Presbyterian College, recently published an academic paper which provides further insight into the extravagant ways of many NCAA sports programs. The paper is nicely summarized by an article the authors wrote for the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy. Professors Lipford and Slice have discovered that which should be considered obvious: smaller schools who try to compete in conferences with the big boys generally require heavier subsidies. They compare two public universities in North Carolina with two private universities in the state, all four of whom are members of the Atlantic Coast Conference:

Flagship state universities, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University, spend heavily on athletics, but also have large numbers of students. Their per-student costs are about $4,500 and $3,000, respectively. In the analysis by the Chronicle of Higher Education, UNC receives subsidies of 11.1 percent of total athletic costs, while NCSU receives slightly less (9.7 percent).

For DI-A (FBS) private schools Duke and Wake Forest Universities, with about 6,500 and nearly 4,800 students, respectively, per-student costs are around $12,000.

Note that the authors are not claiming that students at each of these institutions subsidize their school’s athletic programs with the above sums, they simply point out that running a big athletics department is probably more feasible at a school with 25,000 students than it is at a school with 6,000 students. However, it should still be pointed out that both North Carolina public universities, each of whom has been traditionally successful in football and basketball, still rely upon subsidies to maintain their programs.

One common refrain from defenders of the current system is that football and basketball would break even, but it is the non-revenue sports like baseball, softball, track, swimming, gymnastics, and volleyball — many of which are required under Title IX regulations — which push athletics department into the red. While there is certainly some merit to the idea that operating certain sports at a loss cuts into the football and basketball profits, the Washington Post recently pointed out that the increases in television and ticket revenue for celebrated athletic programs is mostly being offset by higher levels of spending on those same revenue-generating sports. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to all of us who have bemoaned the fact that massive increases in tuition and taxpayer-backed loans have led to an explosion of administrative bloat in academic programs. It turns out that massive increases in revenue in athletics programs lead to expensive new facilities and extravagantly paid coaching staffs including million-dollar assistant football coaches and similarly well-paid basketball assistants.

Enjoy the games coming up, but know that you are paying for them not only by supporting the TV advertisers, purchasing the tickets, buying the logo gear, and donating to the athletics fund, but also by subsidizing the loans that the students are taking out to pay their tuition, some of which is being spent on the field, on the court, on the diamond, in the pool, on the track, on the mat, and in the gym.

– JVW

Alexandra Sifferlin at TIME Magazine says the temperature at the North Pole is over 50 degrees higher than average. Global Warming!!!!!1!!1!

North Pole Unfrozen as Temperature Soars

Stormy weather in the North Atlantic has brought balmy weather to the world’s northernmost point.

The temperature in the North Pole hit 42 degrees Fahrenheit on Wednesday morning, which Discovery News says is 50 degrees higher than average for this time of year. Storms over Iceland and Greenland, fairly common in winter, are pushing warmer air to the Arctic.

Fifty degrees higher than average certainly seems noteworthy. Except, where it says 42 degrees Fahrenheit in the above passage . . . where does that link go? Go ahead, click it:

http://www.weather.com/weather/today/l/USAK0173:1:US

To “North Pole, Alaska.”

Which is located around the center of Alaska, near Fairbanks. They even have a “Santa Claus House”!

Maybe Alexandra Sifferlin at TIME can write Santa and ask for a clue.

I have a feeling they are going to disappear this post, so I saved it here.

Thanks to Simon Jester.

In Pennsylvania:

Bill Cosby was charged Wednesday with felony assault over an encounter with a woman 12 years ago.

“We are here to announce today charges that have just been filed against William Henry Cosby. These charges stem from a sexual assault that took place on an evening in early 2004 at Mr. Cosby’s home…” Montgomery County First Assistant District Attorney Kevin Steele said in a press conference. “Mr. Cosby is charged with aggravated indecent assault.”

Aggravated indecent assault is punishable by up to 10 years behind bars.

Cosby is expected to be arraigned on the charge this afternoon in Elkins Park, Pa.

So there you have it.