Reason Morning Links: Sanctions on Iran, Spies in Manhattan, Squatters in Hawaii


• Obama signs stricter sanctions on Iran.

• The accused Russian spies don't seem to have been very competent.

• The ACLU sues the government over the No Fly List.

• California begins its fiscal year with no budget.

• A 50-acre tent city emerges in Waipahu, Hawaii.

• Suicide bombers kill at least 42 at a Pakistan Sufi shrine.

• Pork beats salmon in court.


NEXT: Friday Funnies

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. The accused Russian spies don’t seem to have been very competent.

    Competency anywhere near government officials stands out like a sore thumb. They knew what they were doing.

    1. And, to be fair, they *were* trying to fit in with Americans. 😉

    2. Yeah, as opposed to working at, say, BP, where competency is so much in evidence. Did you graduate from the Enron School of Stupid Fucking Fantasies? Asshole.

      1. Take your meds Max. It is awfully early in the morning for you to be this unstable.

        1. What regiime was it that considered all critics of the offical line meantally unstable?

          1. No Max it is the fact that your criticisms are completely irrational and obscenity filled that makes them evidence of your instability. But, I understand how you wouldn’t realize that. Part of being crazy is thinking you are sane.

            1. But what regime was it, you stupid fuck? That was the question.

              1. Take the meds Max. They wouldn’t give them to you if you didn’t need them.

              2. You’re pretty touchy on this subject. Did some kind Native American throw a water fountain through a window so you could escape?

                1. Max just wants to watch the World Series.

                1. Post-Coital Rat, great psuedonym.

              3. The Obama regiime (sic).

              4. “But what regime was it”

                Um… the current one/

            2. Part of being crazy is thinking you are sane.

              And sharing your thoughts all day long on a comments board.

              1. You mean like you?

          2. No one is saying all critics are unstable. We’re just talking about how you are mentally unstable. Comprehend the difference?

            1. Given the number of handles the core idiot posts under, maybe Edward is all of our critics.

              1. I’m pretty sure we have other critics…they just aren’t mentally unstable enough to come here and then roll out profanity strewn screed and think it actually matters. Just Maxine.

            2. No one is saying all critics are unstable. We’re just talking about how you are mentally unstable. Comprehend the difference?

              Given that he can’t comprehend the difference between “government officials tend to be incompetent” and “no one else is incompetent,” I suspect the answer is no.

              1. Jesse, Edward seems to hate you the most of any writer here. Do you know him in real life or something?

                  1. It’s the pimply-faced kid who makes Jesse’s latte at Starbuck’s each morning.

          3. What regiime was it that considered all critics of the offical line meantally unstable?

            All of them, Edward. all of them. Is your spell-check broken?

          4. Uh, the H&R commentariat isn’t a “regime,” Max. Not even close. As you frequently and spitefully point out, Libertarianism isn’t much of a power base.

            You are a sad little man, and you have my sympathy.

          5. Max:

            “The Soviet Union took sane people and forcibly pumped them full of anti-psychotic medicines to punish them for making statements dissenting from regime policy –

            “Therefore, anyone who thinks that crazy people anywhere might benefit from medical treatment is just like a Soviet dictator! Yeah!”

            1. Fuck all of you! I will lie again and again about not posting here in the future!

      2. LOL tell me, do you figure that the latest charges against Al Gore are a BP conspiracy?

        Or maybe Gore really did it, but it’s Bush’s fault?

        1. Or maybe Gore really did it, but it’s Bush’s fault?

          well….he WAS after some bush…so, kinda?

        2. “Or maybe Gore really did it, but it’s Bush’s fault?”

          Well in a way it was Bush’s fault.

          Gore was so upset that his blatant attempt to steal the 2000 election by selective recounting of certain Florida districts and converting invalid ballots into votes for himself failed miserably that he became severly depressed.

          He started stuffing his face and swelled up like the Goodyear blimp.

          And the ladies don’t go for that so he had to force himself on the girl.

      3. No hop-ons, Max. If you want to be seen at the top of the comments, get up earlier.

      4. This can’t be Max. The first post contained the word “competency”, which is out of both his spelling and comprehension leagues.

    3. I’m ashamed that no one has mentioned this.

      Alleged spy Anna Chapman is a fucking fox. That is all.

      1. I’d hit it. I’d give her false state secrets, mostly becaues no piece is worth prison time.

        OK, Kate Beckinsale is the exception.

          1. Yeah, I’d add her to the exception list. Good call.

  2. These Russian spies are as comical as some of those incompetent ‘jihadists’ that have been rounded up over the last few years.

    1. Were these spies created by Larry David or by Mel Brooks?

      1. Doctor.




        1. You damn well better be a GLG-20 Mister.

  3. I say let them go. Spying shouldn’t be a crime anyway.

    1. Seriously.

    2. +1

  4. Chuck Lorre.

  5. Wow this guy is totally amazing. Go figure.


    1. Are Men Necessary?

      If we’re so damn unnecessary, can the family court system leave us alone?

    2. Which guy, Lou?

  6. Why can’t I get that kind of gig?

    “OK, we want you to go to a major city in Europe and just…kinda…hang out. And try to get to meet smart people, and talk to them about shit.”

    Those spies are probably really bummed that they lost out on the best no-show government jobs ever.

    The only guy with a better job is whoever Russia sent over here to keep the superflu vials safe until he’s ordered to break them open. That’s like working in a missile silo, but you get to drive around and hang out in the sunshine.

    1. The worst part is having to pretend to be Americans by watching Lady Gaga videos till you puke.

      1. I like her videos! But not as much as Beyonc?’s.

        1. Dat’s a man.

          1. Teh gays seem to like her.

    2. You can do it. Just join the CIA. That is what most CIA agents do. All you have to do is get “contacts”. You are not judge by the quality of those contacts or what information you actually get, just the number. There are any number of CIA field agents out there doing exactly what these people were doing. Look at Valery Plame. She was a soccer mom in Northern Virginia. You think she ever did anything as a field agent beyond go to cocktail parties and maybe lay on her back for the right people?

      1. She even got a Who’s Who entry as a field agent while she was doing it.

      2. You think Plame slept with Greek businessmen to get them to be contacts?

      3. You think she ever did anything as a field agent beyond go to cocktail parties and maybe lay on her back for the right people?

        That’s hot. Somehow.

        1. yeah it is. I am not saying it isn’t good work if you can get it.

        2. Eeeew, think of the ugly fatties she had to do it with.

    3. That’s like working in a missile silo, but you get to drive around and hang out in the sunshine.

      I used to be kind of like the missile silo guy, but it was on a submarine and there was no sunshine. It sucked – I go out.

      1. It sucked – I got out.

        Must proof read!

  7. The ACLU sues the government over the No Fly List.

    It is amazing this was not done a long time ago. Maybe that “right to fly” thing was problematic?

    1. Me to. I have never gotten that. And I easily the most pro war on terror person on here. I have always thought the list was stupid and unconstitutional. Unlike driving, there is no license to fly. If we think someone is a terrorist, go arrest them. If not, leave them alone. The whole thing never made any sense. Think about it. The government is saying there are all these people out there that are so dangerous we shouldn’t let them on airplanes. But they are not going to arrest them or deport them or do anything about it, just make sure they don’t get on an airplane. That is right out of Mel Brooks.

      1. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

        I would think that using public conyeyences fits the bill here.

        Full disclosure, I haven’t a law degree from Harvard or Yale so I’m obviously not wise enough to understand such a legally subtle sentence.

        1. Neither do I. And I agree with you. And that tends to not make me many friends with my employer. Think about this for a bit; me, the most notorious right wing hack on here is too concerned about people’s rights for a Democratic administration.

          1. Yeah, that’s not pretty.

          2. …the second most notorious right wing hack on here…

        2. The SCOTUS long ago recognized a “right to travel” among the states. Not exactly squarely on point with the question here, but definitely solid authority for the proposition that U.S. citizens do have a “right” to travel freely.

          1. Yeah, but Scalia, Alito & Roberts will probably differentiate and allow the no fly list on the basis that you can still walk across state lines and the government, through the commerce clause, has the right to restrict your use of public conveyances.

            1. AHA! Walking across state lines = interstate commerce!

              We are soooo fucked. Kagan’s gonna pick up on that. Thanks pantloads, Arensen.

            2. I know you meant the above as a sarc, but could it be argued that the government did have the authority to maintain a no fly list for non-citizens on flights that crossed the USA’s international borders?

              I don’t know and haven’t thought about it enough to have an opinion either way.

              1. Only mildly sarcastic. I still expect that they will go along with it. As will Kagan and Sotomeyer.

                In fact, I’ll predict 7 – 2 decision, Thomas and Kennedy dissenting.

    2. It’s not that, it’s a standing issue. Hard to find standing when the government refuses to confirm that someone is on the list.

      1. Isn’t *not being allowed to fly* “confirmation”?

      2. Also wouldn’t the risk of being put on the list give you standing? If I fly, I am at risk of being put on that list. That seems to create a real case or controversy.

      3. That’s just the way they are.

        There is a group of high-level executives in the electricity sector that meets with the DHS. The DHS claims that they have been able to breach nuclear power plant security. When the execs asked DHS to provide examples so that they might be able to address these weaknesses, DHS said, “Oh we can’t tell you. It’s classified.”

        The execs I spoke with think the DHS was making it all up.

        1. If the execs can’t find the unicorn in their nuke plants, it’s not DHS’ problem.

    3. Unfortunately, I think the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. (I think it was on someone who didn’t want to show his id to fly.) The result of that case was there is no constitutional right to a particular form of transportation. So if the Government said (for whatever reason) you can’t fly, you can’t fly. I’m hoping they have a different argument than that.

      1. They owe you some kind of due process before they can do that. I would imagine that is the argument. The government doesn’t have a clear basis for doing it and isn’t giving people the proper due process.

        1. Got your “due process” right here!

          1. Umm… That appears to be a barbed-wire covered dildo, sir.

      2. The holding in the ID case was that they could deny you the right to fly without showing ID — so long as they gave an alternative, i.e. increased screening. The government has chosen to mostly ignore that, but that was the holding.

      3. I’m not aware of a SCOTUS ruling on the no fly list. Any more info on that?

        1. OK, found it. Not a SCOTUS ruling – SCOTUS denied cert. It’s a 9th Circuit case: Gilmore v. Gonzales, 435 F. 3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2006).

          Dude didn’t like being required to show ID, or, in the alternative, being subject to increased security inspection. Claimed it violated his right to due process, right to travel, right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, right to freely associate, and right to petition the government for redress of grievances. District Court dismissed; he appealed.

          9th circuit found he had standing to challenge only the ID requirement, and rejected his due process argument, finding the ID policy was not applied abritrarily, because all passengers had to comply.

          The court also rejected Gilmore’s right to travel argument “because the Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation.” Basically, he could have driven his car from Cali to D.C. rather than using an airline.

          The court stated that “burdens on a single mode of transportation do not implicate the right to interstate travel” and that citizens do not possess “a fundamental right to travel by airplane even though it is the most convenient mode of travel.” The court found that the ID requirement was not unreasonably burdensome.

          The court also ruled that the request for ID did not implicate the Fourth Amendment. The court ultimately concluded Gilmore’s constitutional rights had not been violated and denied his petition for review. SCOTUS denied cert.

          1. “because the Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation.”

            I prefer: You have the right to travel but if it is in my truck it is by my rules.*

            *I don’t like the government making my rules for me.

    4. I think the reason this took so long is because it tiptoes up to the edge of saying that airlines have property rights and that you and the airline have a right to contract, and the ACLU doesn’t like to defend those particular rights.

      Don’t get me wrong, I loves me some ACLU, but these are not the rights they are good at sticking up for.

    5. It is amazing this was not done a long time ago. Maybe that “right to fly” thing was problematic?

      Im pretty sure the SCOTUS has already established that we don’t have a right to fly. Their position is that you have freedom of travel, but the mode of travel is not guaranteed. (Not that I agree with it, and secret no-fly lists with very lax accuracy standards are abhorrent)

      Wasn’t a lot of this covered in the case where the guy sued over having to show ID for air travel?

      1. Who cares? Long as I’m in charge, petty stuff like this can wait.

      2. Tom,

        They didn’t refuse to let they guy on the plane. They only said he had to go through an extra layer of screening if he didn’t have an ID. So, I don’t think that case stands for their not being a right to travel by air.

        1. They didn’t refuse to let they guy on the plane. They only said he had to go through an extra layer of screening if he didn’t have an ID. So, I don’t think that case stands for their not being a right to travel by air


          I know that. But I thought that in that case the justices had pretty explicitly taken the position that air travel is not a right. That although we have freedom to travel, to do so on airplanes isn’t a right and that denying you the ability to fly doesn’t violate your right to travel.

          At least that’s how I remember it.

          1. From the Gilmore v Ashcroft ruling:

            Gilmore alleges that the identification policy violates
            his constitutional right to travel because he cannot travel by
            commercial airlines without presenting identification, which
            is an impermissible federal condition.10 We reject Gilmore’s
            right to travel argument because the Constitution does not
            guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation.

            Because Gilmore lacks standing to challenge anything but
            the identification policy’s impact on air travel, his sole argument
            is that “air travel is a necessity and not replaceable by
            other forms of transportation.” Although we do not question this allegation for purposes of this petition, it does not follow
            that Defendants violated his right to travel, given that other
            forms of travel remain possible

  8. http://www.dailystar.co.uk/new…..d-and-bro/

    Fucking savages.

    1. No mention of honor killing. Article fail.

      It’s disgusting that people who expose and criticize the most awful parts of islam are either threatened with death (by terrorists) or called bigots (by the islam sensitivity brigade).

      1. Like appearing in a Harry Potter movie isn’t bad enough.

        1. Racists AND bigots!

  9. Pork beats salmon in court.

    And monkey beats donkey.

    1. He really brought down the house with that finish.

    2. And Max beats off.

  10. If we’re so damn unnecessary, can the family court system leave us alone?

    Are Men Necessary?

  11. Are Men Necessary?

    If we’re so damn unnecessary, can the family court system leave us alone?

  12. Are Men Necessary?
    Maybe the filter will accept it this time.

  13. Could someone please fix the goddam spam filter? You post a link thread then mark every posted link as spam.

    1. Are Men Necessary?

      If we’re so damn unnecessary, can the family court system leave us alone?

  14. Retarded new names for things people rarely say to each other except on the Reason board.

    4. “Queef”
    Rosemary took a look at this noisy phrase some time ago. The important thing about #4 isn’t so much what we call it, though we all agree the name is just too despicable, it’s that you become aware that guys really don’t care about these. We totally understand that you want to go to the bathroom after to express yourself vaginally, but if it happens in bed be aware that it couldn’t matter less to us. New name: Hippo Giggles.

    Feminists already hate synecdoches, I guess they are going after onomatopoeias next.

    1. Ha, ha, you said “It”!

    2. I tried to bring “queef” back.

      But didn’t stick with it.

      That’s always my problem – lack of follow through.

      1. Fluffy: Bringing Back The Queef

        1. Where’s the queef?

          1. I told ya fucks… we just don’t talk about “pussy farts” near enough in this country.

  15. Are Men Necessary?

    If we’re so damn unnecessary, can the family court system leave us alone?

  16. http://parenting.blogs.nytimes…..necessary/

    If we’re so damn unnecessary, can the family court system leave us alone?

  17. Seriously, I seem to be the only one blocked by the spam filter.

    Are Men Necessary?

    If we’re so damn unnecessary, can the family court system leave us alone?

    1. Gotta love that Mel.

      1. He’s like the wacky racist asshole uncle we all wish we didn’t have growing up.

      2. Combining fellatio and arson is bad ass. Wish he would have thought of it before Mad Max.

        1. There is precedent for the arson/sodomy comment: “Before we let you leave, your commander must cross that field, present himself before this army, put his head between his legs, and kiss his own arse.”

    2. Best.



      The man is so talented that even his drunken, domestic-violence-y tirades are solid gold.

      1. I see a Mel Renaissance coming.

        1. Someone should hire him to do another “Payback” type movie, but put in his contract the requirement that he be drunk at all times during filming.

          1. That’s one of those under-appreciated films. Love it.

            1. I thought Ransom was very good as well.

      2. It really is. Honestly, if you spent your life trying, could you ever get off a rant like that? And Gibson does it on a one off and probably didn’t even remember what he said the next day.

        That guy needs a reality show ala Anna Nicole Smith. This is the rant that was caught on tape. Can you imagine the gems out there that are not recorded?

        1. Who is doing the animation of the late Anna Nicole Smith?

    3. “What do you think you’re looking at, sugar t*ts?”

      You’re not supposed to use the word sugar tits? Uh oh.

    4. “I am going to come and burn the fucking house down? but you will blow me first.”

      Colin Quinn on Twitter: “I can’t believe Mel Gibson is so insensitive. It’s NEVER the victims fault when they get raped by a pack of..whoa ..am I missing the point?”

  18. If I remember correctly Hawaii has one of the highest homeless rates to begin with.

    1. It’s nice in Hawaii. They’re probably homeless by choice.

      1. There was a homeless camp in a swampy, overgrown area in Key West last time I was there. It was near the beach. I bet coconuts were a primary food source (they also raided grocery store dumpsters).

        1. Oh yeah, my friends and I smoked pot with them! That’s when they brought up the subject of dumpster food.

          1. You take all Hawaii’s homeless, plus the sovereignty folks, ship ’em to Kaho’olawe, give ’em metal detectors, say “It’s all yours!” and let ’em knock themselves out.
            Hell, I might even sign up myself.

            1. I love how some dbag said that “outside people” had moved in. Um, aren’t they ALL outside people? That’s why they’re called the homeless.

              1. That’s “urban outdoorsmen”. Hobos, if you like.

                I hear tell Max likes to suck off hobos, by the way.

                1. The more sores the better.

            2. There might be some civil rights objections to your plan.

              And a lot of native Hawaiian activists would go ballistic over having effinghaoles on Kaho’olawe.

              1. I always check “Native Pacific Islander” on my census form. I’m patiently baiting my trap.

      2. I know several people who have gone to Hawaii to be homeless by choice.

      3. It’s nice in Hawaii. They’re probably homeless by choice.

        Some are homeless by choice, some are homeless as a result of the consequences of a consistent string of poor decisions, some are temporarily homeless due to a really bad string of bad luck, and quite a few are one of the above and chose to move and be homeless in a place with good climate.

    2. “If I remember correctly Hawaii has one of the highest homeless rates to begin with.”

      More homeless in Hawaii (& Florida) then Minneapolis…who’d thunk

    3. There’s always tent cities near the beach somewhere on Oahu (and the neighbor islands too). The people roust them from one spot, and then they move somewhere else until political pressure builds to move them again.

      Not sure why this item made it onto the morning links. Slow news day?

      1. Should read “the police, due to complaints from local residents, roust the homeless from one spot …”

  19. In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire on January 1, 2011:

    Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

    – The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
    – The 25% bracket rises to 28%
    – The 28% bracket rises to 31%
    – The 33% bracket rises to 36%
    – The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

    Higher taxes on marriage and family. The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.

    The return of the Death Tax. This year, there is no death tax. For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.

    Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.

    Read more: http://www.atr.org/six-months-…..z0sWuWRJEw

    That is going to destroy the economy. How many people right now are barely paying their mortgages and are going to be torpedoed by their new tax bill? How much spending are people going to forgo? It really sends a chill down my spine when I see the actual numbers.

    1. It’s time to be patriotic ? time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.

      1. “If you are a family making less than $ 250,000 a year??you will not see your taxes go up. Not your capital gains tax, not your payroll tax, not your income Tax, no taxes. Your taxes will not go up.”

        1. Obama can’t help it if the Congress is fuckin him on this deal. He’s only one man for God’s sakes.
          of course, there is the slimmest of possibilities that he is secretly okay with it.

          1. If he wants to raise that approval rating he’d say nothing on TV from now until November other than, “we need to keep these tax cuts permanent.” He doesn’t care about approval ratings. It’s the Thomas Friedman influence. “Get things done, China style….super profits?”

            1. They aren’t tax hikes.

              Besides, even if they are… suck it up. You’ve probably got it too good, anyway.

              1. Hey Chad, I have an income of $10,296 annually. Why don’t you send me enough of yours so that our incomes are equal. You’re doin pretty good so suck it up and help a brother out.

              2. Chad,

                Today’s reply is brought to you by the words “fuck” and “you”.

                Have a nice day.

    2. Grandma isn’t going to be very happy getting to keep only 60% of her dividend checks.

      1. Most people don’t realize this is coming. They have some vague idea of it. But don’t know what it means. When they actually see the amount of additional money the government will be taking, there is going to be hell to pay. If Obama has a 30% approval rating this time next year, he will be lucky.

        1. He’s doing God’s work. Who gives a shit about approval ratings.

          1. I’d rather be a one-term president that got what I won, than a two-term president.

            1. Unless I can be a three- or even four-term president. I’ll take that.

        2. Thanks for reminding me to adjust my withholding. I’ve been meaning to for a couple months now, but always forget at work.

        3. I agree. But I though he would be down to 39 by the end of last year.

          I think those who drank the cool-aid still live in la la land thinking Obama is going to stay true to his Robin Hood campaign promises. They are in for a rude awakening.

          1. And yet, they miss that Robin Hood was stealing tax money and returning it to the people who were taxed (the poor in that case).

    3. Knowing Obama, who blames George Bush if it’s a cloudy day, he’ll blame Bush for passing tax cuts that expired after ten years.

    4. We’ll fix all that. Right after elections. Promise.

    5. Pretty soon it’s going to be more profitable to be unemployed.

    6. So when the marriage penalty returns, will Google start paying gay employees less than straight employees?

  20. The Pork Board may have won this round, but I heard they lost a similar claim against The New White Meat.

    1. You SFed the link, so I presume it’s “lion”.

      1. It’s probably for the fake canned Unicorn Meat that got ThinkGeek a cease and desist letter.

        1. I was going to sell real unicorn meat, but SeaLand shut down. Might try Liberia for the packing plant headquarters.

    2. I thought Miley Cyrus was destined to be the new white meat?

      1. Veal curtains?

        1. +3.14

          1. You like pie?

          2. Good job, bb.

  21. NY Times: Are Men Necessary?


    1. “We have grave concerns that the punishment does not fit the alleged crime, ” Assistant Secretary of State P.J. Crowley said Thursday. “For a modern society such as Iran, we think this raises significant human rights concerns.”

      Speaking of getting stoned, for a country that locks up pot smokers for 10 years, I find this argument laughable at best.

      1. Your moral equivalency sucks.

  22. Is this the weekend thread already?

  23. “Also in Iran: Women Get Stoned!”

    Damn dirty apes.

    1. The Islamic Republic of Iran was named to a four-year seat on the UN Commission on the Status of Women in April. In its capacity there, Iran will be part of the “principal global policy-making body” on women’s rights. According to the UN, “the Commission also makes recommendations to the Council on urgent problems requiring immediate attention in the field of women’s rights.”

  24. I always thought a more prudent route to a no fly list constructed by the government would be one put together by the airlines. Imagine the marketing potential for Bacon and Kiss Airlines. (although the latter part might need alteration for the sake of attracting passengers)

    1. I think Penn Jillette beat you to this idea.

      1. I know he did.

  25. Brazil 1:0 Netherlands at halftime.

    1. No surprise there. Brazil has been in better form than Holland.

    2. 2nd half has started. I’m so fucking sick of Brazil. Hup Holland!

    3. Holland have scored!

      53rd minute from Wesley Sneijder, I think. Julio Cesar fucked up bad on a free kick.

      1. Possibly will go down as an own goal on Felipe Melo. Sounds like it would be very harsh on Melo, as Cesar missed the punch.

        1. Yahoo sports has it as an own goal by Melo.

      2. I want to see the Dutch win the whole thing. I am sick of Brazil.

        1. Right on. Brazil getting a 6th right before HOSTING the tournament would be bad for soccer, in my view.

    4. Dear ESPN: More Dutch girls jumping up and down in slow-motion, please.

      1. Note to self: Self, make sure you watch this on DVR TONIGHT.

      2. Blog pimp alert!

        Actually, the World Cup is trying to crack down on that sort of thing, at least if they got their tickets from a beer company.

      3. Another and better reason why the Dutch need to win and stay in the tournament.

    5. De Jong with a yellow. Big fucking surprise. He’s the asshole who broke Stu Holden’s leg in a FRIENDLY in March.

      1. Son of a bitch will be suspended for the semifinal if they make it.

    6. The Dutch scored again!!! 2:1

      1. Sneijder from Kuyt. Sounded pretty awesome.

    7. Also, soon after the Dutch goal, Melo was sent off for stomping on Robben (I think).

    8. 85th minute.

      Die Oranje just needs to kill this off. Brazil down a man is still dangerous as hell.

      1. They did it. That’s an impressive win. I think they have moved past Spain to be the favorites.

        1. I think so to. They have never won it. Only a handful of countries have ever won a world cup. The group is very small

          Brazil, England, France, Germany, Italy, Uruguay, and Argentina are it. It would be fun to see someone else join the club.

    9. Ha! Total Football wins over Dunga’s Utilitarian Samba.

      Dunga’s style was not popular to begin with. Now, the press at home will slaughter him.

  26. I’m wondering if the Russian spy ordeal was just them testing our surveillence procedures. Leave little trails to see if we can pickup on it. Make it juicy enough for the feds think it’s something good but not enough substance to really mean anything.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.