SoylentNews

So, I went into the bathroom for something. I look into a corner, where a bath towel has been dropped. Peeking out from under the towel, I can see three pairs of sandals, two pairs of sneakers, and a lonely leather flat shoe without a mate. I peer around the corner into the walk-in closet, and there are piles of shoes. Shoes on the shelf, shoes on the floor, shoes peering out from under other items dropped on the floor. The wife comes in, I ask her, "Are you related to Imelda Marcos?" She laughs, "NO! Why?" I ask, "How many shoes do you own? More than a thousand?" "NO! I don't know how many shoes I have."

I just shake my head, close my mouth, and wonder about women.

Guys like me have two or three pairs of shoes. I actually own a pair of slippers. Seldom wear them, but someone bought them for me for Christmas, and they lay around the house collecting dust. There is a pair of sneakers laying somewhere around the house. I have a pair of dress shoes - nice, shiny brown leather shoes, with laces. They are here for weddings, funerals, or whatever. I have one pair of Wolverine half-Wellingtons, with composite toes, steel shank, arch support - protective foot gear that I wear all the time. They are about three years old now - maybe a little more.

Just what is it about shoes, that make people - mostly women - want to collect them?

Do people actually LOOK AT shoes when they are being worn? I never look at mine. I just wear them. I don't look at any other people's shoes. Well - maybe. If I see an attractive female, my eyes may travel over her, admiring her legs and calves, and just maybe, I will notice her shoes.

Most likely, when I notice someone's shoes, I am noticing how silly they look, or how "out of place", or even how ugly they are. A lot of people at work wear huge-looking sneakers, that appear to be three times the size of their foot. Big, puffy things, often made of white canvas or plastic or whatever. Huh? People working in an industrial setting wearing WHITE shoes?

Oh, please, gimme boots. One pair of comfortable boots, that support and protect the feet. They need to breathe, so I want natural materials, like leather. No plastics, thank you very much, except the soles. I want non-skid and heat resistant soles. (Yeah, I bought a new pair of boots years ago, came to work, and stepped on a bit of slag from a welder. POOF! I instantly had a nice round hole melted through the sole, and a blister on the bottom of my foot.)

There's something psychological here. Why DO people collect more shoes than they can ever wear? I think it's gender linked for the most part. Lotsa guys only have one, two, three pairs of foot gear. Few women seem to have less than a couple dozen pair.

I did mention Marcos, earlier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imelda_Marcos

"After she left Malacañang Palace, she was found to have left behind 15 mink coats, 508 gowns, 1,000 handbags, and pairs of shoes.[63] The exact number of her shoes varies with estimates of up to 7,500 pairs.[64] However, Time reported that the final tally was only 1,060."

http://www.vice.com/read/oakland-underage-sex-work-scandal

Not so long ago it was possible to point to Oakland as a police reform success story. In the last decade, the cops have gone from conducting an average of 3,000 searches without probable cause every year to 280 in 2015. Officers are now required to wear body cameras. After decades of abuse, violence, and corruption, the police department seemed to finally be changing.

In the last few weeks, though, a scandal has emerged that threatens to tear the department apart. In brief, 14 Oakland police officers are currently under investigation for sleeping with an 18-year-old sex worker—three of them when she was 17, thus allegedly committing rape and sex trafficking under California law. The woman, using the alias Celeste Guap, told the East Bay Express earlier this month that she was having sex with the cops for money and protection; she had been given a friend's arrest history and information about undercover prostitution stings.

Hints of the scandal surfaced last year, after a suicide note written one of the officers involved, Brendan O'Brien, mentioned Guap, prompting an investigation. But the higher-ups allegedly dragged their feet, and the supposed cover-up has only widened the sordid scandal has since expanded. (According to Guap's later comments to the media, she's actually had sex with "more than 30 officers" from multiple agencies around the Bay Area.)

The shocking and salacious events were the catalyst to Oakland appointing four police chiefs in two weeks. Initially, Sean Whent, who was promoted to top cop at the end of a similarly messy 2013 shuffle that saw three new police chiefs in three days, got canned because he allegedly knew about Guap sleeping with Oakland cops but didn't press for a speedy and public investigation.

A funny article I found on NBF:

Do not "blame" life extension for Rupert Murdoch and Fox News, If Murdoch died Fox would still be right wing

Which is a response to: Bonus Level: The World's Most Powerful Humans are Getting Another 10-15 Years on Earth

A common argument against life extension is that it would allow the elites to live indefinitely, accruing more power, wealth, and influence for themselves. To that I say: If you're so worried about it, stop waiting for them to die, and start killing them.

Alabama ACLU and Newspaper Criticize Police for Arresting Citizen Journalist by Bama Camera

The Alabama police department that had a man arrested on a felony charge of jamming up their emergency lines – even though he did not make a single call – is now taking heat from the local ACLU as well as the local newspaper.

But the Wetumpka Police Department is still sticking to its guns, threatening to arrest anybody else who posts their non-emergency phone number of (334) 567-5321.

They claim that by calling that number, it somehow leads turns into a 911 call, which they claim makes it difficult to respond to actual emergencies.

But all they were doing were exercising their First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances by complaining about how officers ripped a camera out of Keith Golden’s hands for recording the police department from public property.

First Amendment Audit (Wetumpka PD) "I don't care about your 1st Amendment Rights"

Arrest Update by Bama Camera
**UPDATE**FPS-USMS-BAM CAMERA by News Now Houston

My favorite radio talk show hosts pointed out some facts this morning. Republican voter turnout reached historical numbers this year. More Republicans voted in the primaries than ever before.

Kinda cool - but more noteworthy than that is, Trump has recieved more votes that any other potential nominee, ever.

Bear in mind that the season opened with 17 potential nominees. Early voting was split 17 ways. Not split equitably, of course, but split. The least favored nominee may have only won 10 votes in the first primary, but those were 10 votes Trump DID NOT get. So, with a 17 way split, Trump has defeated not only the 17 contemporary candidates, but EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE IN HISTORY! Wow.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/05/republican-party-sets-primary-turnout-record-28-million-votes-5-states-left/
Trump has received more than 11 million votes to date in the state elections according to www.thegreenpapers.com. This is 42% of all Republican votes received to date.

The Republican Party has set a party record this year in pre-convention state election turnout with over 28 million votes to date which is 136% of the record high voter turnout in 2008. That’s four million more votes than the Democratic primary race this year.

So - with Republicans voting in record numbers, and clearly stating which of the available candidates they are willing to accept - what about that other party?

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/26/exclusive-data-analysis-democrat-turnout-collapses-4-5-million-nearly-20-percent-2016-versus-2008/
Democrat Turnout Collapses Down More Than 4.5 Million, Nearly 20 Percent In 2016 Versus 2008

Wow. Even with Sanders' almost rabid following, the Democrats couldn't be bothered to turn out to vote. All this time, I thought Sanders was doing a helluva job, getting people out to challenge the DNC's annointed one. But, even with all of that, the Democrats are staying at home in droves.

We have witnessed not one, but two, political revolutions this year. The R's were adamantly opposed to the Trump - but voters over rode the party. The D's were just as adamantly in support of Hillary, the voters very nearly over rode the party, but the D's played two trump cards. Wasserman Schultz is Hillarys BFF, and that BFF has in turn played the super-delegate card. The voters were beaten in the Democratic revolt.

So, the question is, what might all of this mean in November?

Despite a significant number of sour-grapes holdouts who won't endorse Trump - I expect Republicans to turn out again in record numbers, and to mostly vote for Trump.

I expect Democrats to stay home again, in droves. Some disaffected Democrats will vote for Trump, to spite Hillary and Wasserman Schultz.

The swing vote - of which I am a member - is probably going to swing toward Trump. Not all, but a deciding number will go that way.

And, incidentally, a lot of the swing vote is going to vote for Johnson. I've talked to a number of people who are talking about it, anyway. Last evening, a guy told me, "I can't stand either of the choices, so I'll probably "waste" my vote on Johnson." We discussed that "waste". He audibly put that word in quotes to start with. I counseled that "Well, if the Libertarians get that magic percentage of the vote, they'll get federal campaign funds. So, a Libertarian vote IS NOT "wasted"!"

Rumors, grumbling, bitching, complaining - the "outsiders", the "swing vote", the "Independents" aren't happy with the current state of affairs. They are more unhappy with the Democrats, but they are also unhappy with the Republicans.

At this point in time, I think I expect Trump to win, and Johnson to capture enough votes to win federal funding. And, the Democrats are going to be big losers this year.

Of course, it's not to late for the Republicans to go full retard, and hand the election back to the Democrats. Trump is a wild card, after all. He COULD run off at the mouth, and alienate EVERYONE. The Republican Party could go just as crazy. But, I don't really expect that. All the stuffed shirts in the party are going to suck it up, and get behind Trump, or at least, STFU and sit down, so that Hillary doesn't win.

President Donald Trump. What a weird sumbitch - but still a better choice than what the Democrats are offering.

Too spicy for Soylent: Norway teaches migrants about Western women

Should Western relationship norms be taught to migrants? The BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme attended a controversial class in Norway that aims to teach asylum seekers how to interact with women.

"When you move to another country, there will be different cultural codes compared to what you are used to," says instructor Margareth Berg. "And that will be codes that are not written or spoken about. Somebody has got to tell them what is normal behaviour."

In 2009, a spate of rapes by migrant men in Norway prompted the introduction of the controversial classes for refugees. Incidents of mass sexual assault by gangs of men in the German city of Cologne at the new year shone a light on this approach. Now, other European countries are thinking of introducing similar training.

The class in Haugesund, in west Norway, is no longer just about rape prevention. Now, it includes discussions around communicating with the opposite sex, boundaries, domestic violence, and what to do if you witness a sexual assault. Public awareness videos about rape are also shown.

It lasts four hours, and is not compulsory - although many refugees take it as part of a series of courses offered to new arrivals, including language courses and help with finding work. In this class, most are Syrian, but there are also some Iraqis and Afghans.

(NSFW) http://www.vice.com/read/theres-now-a-porn-genre-about-how-broke-millennials-are-456

Vice, keeping a hand on the chest to feel the millennial pulse.

Driving home this morning, listening to Walton & Johnson, I heard that someone is shot in Chicago just about every two hours. The city of Houston was compared to Chicago, because the two cities have a lot in common. Population, and many demographics are similar. Yet, Houston doesn't witness a shooting every two hours. Hmmmmm . . . .

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/last-72-hours?page=8&sort=asc&order=State

That site tracks gun violence. That page lists gun violence for the past 72 hours.* Wow - in all of Texas, two gun deaths. In Chicago, excluding the rest of the state, six gun deaths. To be fair, we are trying to compare two cities - so the tally is Houston - 0 Chicago - 6. Clearly, Chicago is winning.

But, how can that be? Chicago has common sense gun laws, and Houston does not.

In Houston, we have open carry, concealed carry, hip carry, boot carry, pocket carry, purse carry, butt-crack carry, palm carry, hat carry, crotch carry - uhhhh - vaginal carry? Basically, you can tote a gun any damned way you want to carry a gun.

In Chicago, possession of a gun is a capital offense, execution taking place as soon as an LEO views your weapon - especially if you're a young black male with a weapon.

With a population of 2.7 million, Chicago has a violent crime problem, with their "common sense" gun laws.

With a population of 26.96 million, the entire state of Texas can't kill off as many people as Chicago does.

Common sense. The solution seems pretty obvious. Chicago should pass "Constitutional Carry". The constitution guarantees an American citizen the right to keep and bear arms. No permit, no jumping through hoops, no begging the sheriff for permission, no deviant sex acts committed in the alley behind the court house. Constitutional carry - I'm a citizen, I get a gun if and when I want. Or, when I can afford it, anyway.

http://heyjackass.com/ another site demonstrating how violent Chicago is.

* The page updates periodically, so the totals may look quite different when you look at them.

Hillary Clinton’s Energy Initiative Pressed Countries to Embrace Fracking, New Emails Reveal

BACK IN APRIL, just before the New York primary, Hillary Clinton’s campaign aired a commercial on upstate television stations touting her work as secretary of state forcing “China, India, some of the world’s worst polluters” to make “real change.” She promised to “stand firm with New Yorkers opposing fracking, giving communities the right to say ‘no.'”

The television spot, which was not announced and does not appear on the official campaign YouTube page with most of Clinton’s other ads, implied a history of opposition to fracking, here and abroad. But emails obtained by The Intercept from the Department of State reveal new details of behind-the-scenes efforts by Clinton and her close aides to export American-style hydraulic fracturing — the horizontal drilling technique best known as fracking — to countries all over the world.

Donald Trump Releases List of Supreme Court Picks

I thought this quote from Ed Whelan was funny. The part about Erick Erickson was added since I first read the article:

Ed Whelan, a former clerk to Justice Scalia and a prominent conservative legal commentator, praised several of the names on the list but reserved judgment about whether conservatives should trust Mr. Trump to follow through on what he says he will do.

“It’s a good list of some of the outstanding judges who give ample sign of being faithful to the Constitution,” Mr. Whelan said. “Whether a President Trump could actually be counted on to pick folks like this is a different question.”

Some of Mr. Trump’s most vocal conservative critics remained doubtful despite the credentials of the judges on the list. Erick Erickson, the conservative blogger who has been working to derail his campaign, insisted that Mr. Trump still could not be trusted with the court.

“Like every clause of every sentence uttered in every breath Donald Trump takes, this is all subject to change,” Mr. Erickson said. “He will waffle, he will backtrack, and he simply cannot be believed.”

Trump's List Of Possible Supreme Court Nominees Includes A Judge Who Mocked Trump

And it's not just a single incident of Twitter mocking.

DONALD J. TRUMP RELEASES LIST OF POTENTIAL UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JUSTICES

Steven Colloton

Steven Colloton of Iowa is a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, a position he has held since President George W. Bush appointed him in 2003. Judge Colloton has a résumé that also includes distinguished service as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, a Special Assistant to the Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, and a lecturer of law at the University of Iowa. He received his law degree from Yale, and he clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Judge Colloton is an Iowa native.

Allison Eid

Allison Eid of Colorado is an associate justice of the Colorado Supreme Court. Colorado Governor Bill Owens appointed her to the seat in 2006; she was later retained for a full term by the voters (with 75% of voters favoring retention). Prior to her judicial service, Justice Eid served as Colorado’s solicitor general and as a law professor at the University of Colorado. Justice Eid attended the University of Chicago Law School, and she clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas.

Raymond Gruender

Raymond Gruender of Missouri has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit since his 2004 appointment by President George W. Bush. Judge Gruender, who sits in St. Louis, Missouri, has extensive prosecutorial experience, culminating with his time as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri. Judge Gruender received a law degree and an M.B.A. from Washington University in St. Louis.

Thomas Hardiman

Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit since 2007. Prior to serving as a circuit judge, he served as a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania since 2003. Before his judicial service, Judge Hardiman worked in private practice in Washington, D.C. and Pittsburgh. Judge Hardiman was the first in his family to attend college, graduating from Notre Dame.

Raymond Kethledge

Raymond Kethledge of Michigan has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit since 2008. Before his judicial service, Judge Kethledge served as judiciary counsel to Michigan Senator Spencer Abraham, worked as a partner in two law firms, and worked as an in-house counsel for the Ford Motor Company. Judge Kethledge obtained his law degree from the University of Michigan and clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Joan Larsen

Joan Larsen of Michigan is an Associate Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. Justice Larsen was a professor at the University of Michigan School of Law from 1998 until her appointment to the bench. In 2002, she temporarily left academia to work as an Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Justice Larsen received her law degree from Northwestern and clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia.

Thomas Lee

Thomas Lee of Utah has been an Associate Justice of the Utah Supreme Court since 2010. Beginning in 1997, he served on the faculty of Brigham Young University Law School, where he still teaches in an adjunct capacity. Justice Lee was Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Civil Division from 2004 to 2005. Justice Lee attended the University of Chicago Law School, and he clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Lee is also the son of former U.S. Solicitor General Rex Lee and the brother of current U.S. Senator Mike Lee.

William Pryor

William H. Pryor, Jr. of Alabama is a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. He has served on the court since 2004. Judge Pryor became the Alabama Attorney General in 1997 upon Jeff Sessions’s election to the U.S. Senate. Judge Pryor was then elected in his own right in 1998 and reelected in 2002. In 2013, Judge Pryor was confirmed to a term on the United States Sentencing Commission. Judge Pryor received his law degree from Tulane, and he clerked for Judge John Minor Wisdom of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

David Stras

David Stras of Minnesota has been an Associate Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court since 2010. After his initial appointment, he was elected to a six-year term in 2012. Prior to his judicial service, Judge Stras worked as a legal academic at the University of Minnesota Law School. In his time there, he wrote extensively about the function and structure of the judiciary. Justice Stras received his law degree and an M.B.A. from the University of Kansas. He clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas.

Diane Sykes

Diane Sykes of Wisconsin has served as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit since 2004. Prior to her federal appointment, Judge Sykes had been a Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court since 1999 and a Wisconsin trial court judge of both civil and criminal matters before that. Judge Sykes received her law degree from Marquette.

Don Willett

Don Willett of Texas has been a Justice of the Texas Supreme Court since 2005. He was initially appointed by Governor Rick Perry and has been reelected by the voters twice. Prior to his judicial service, Judge Willett worked as a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, as an advisor in George W. Bush’s gubernatorial and presidential administrations, as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy, and as a Deputy Attorney General under then-Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. Justice Willett received his law degree and a master’s degree from Duke.