Reason Morning Links: Rahm, a Riot, Reality TV

|

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. Y’all motherfuckaz missed the most important story from yesterday.

    California Governor Signs Marijuana Decriminalization Bill

    Between the glory of SB 1449, the awesomeness of SB 420, and the sheer genius of Prop 215, it almost doesn’t matter if Prop 19 passes.

    Nevertheless, you should contribute.

    Good morning, Suki.

    1. Hi Puff! Missed you on the funnies thread.

    2. Between the glory of SB 1449, the awesomeness of SB 420, and the sheer genius of Prop 215, it almost doesn’t matter if Prop 19 passes.

      From the perspective of a Cali stoner, yes. You can go about your life with little or no problems now, which is fantastic.

      But for those of us outside of California, who are hoping to see the wall knocked down on a larger scale, it’s pretty damn important to get true legalization — even if flawed — in place somewhere.

  2. An alleged message from Osama bin Laden urges Muslims to invest in infrastructure, fight pollution, work on disaster relief…

    …and vote for Jerry Brown.

    1. These are obviously code words signalling an imminent major attack.

      1. Who is spoofing Janet? She only cares about plots by the Tea Party fans. Bin Laden has never owned a Gadsden flag.

        Jerry Brown is the Liberaltarian candidate of choice in California. Not Cosmotarian enough for the East Coast.

        1. Who is spoofing Janet?

          Good catch, Suki. I confess I was testing you.

  3. Don’t worry, rule of man fans, Federal Agencies Flexible on McDonald’s Plan (WSJ subscriber link only).

    The Obama administration said Thursday that its top health official will “exercise her discretion” in enforcing a new health-law requirement, a move that could help McDonald’s Corp. and other employers from disrupting their health-care policies for hourly workers.

    First we pass the bad law, then you find out what is in it, then you come crawling to us on your hands and knees for special exemptions. This is evil incarnate. This is Atlas Shrugged.

    1. Damn. That’s pretty much how they like it. Much like the story from a week or two about the pinball arcade/museum. It was illegal, but the local government was willing to let the owner apply for a special exemption. He declined, and the place is closed now.

  4. “This is Atlas Shrugged.”

    It is? Who’s making the three hour speeches?

    1. Har! That never gets old.

    2. Hugo Chavez, darling of the far left.

      1. Pff. Just three hours?

    3. Congratulations — you managed to under-funny Chip Bok today.

    4. Obama is so good he can cram three hours of trite nonsense into 1 hours time.

  5. Since the Muslim extremists in Pakistan are smart enough to set up a supply line ambush after a border station closing, the question becomes: Exactly why are America’s own Muslim extremists so incompetent?

    America’s educational system used to be the best in the world. Now we can’t even properly educate our Muslim extremists.

    Clearly, we need to make greater investments in public education. We should start by raising teacher salaries. The best teaching prospects are obviously bypassing education as a career, and as a result our Muslim extremist students never learn how to properly set up ambushes, trigger car bombs, avoid FBI informants, etc.

  6. historically insular polygamist druggie community has worked with state agencies to increase understanding of the unique aspects of polygamous druggie culture … As a result, plural druggie families are now less hesitant to seek help and services

    ModifiedTFY

    1. The whole 8(a) system is corrupt to the core. There are scores of companies that have transferred stock to the owner’s wife in order to qualify as women-owned enterprises. I have a friend who pays 10% to an ANC to act as a pass-thru for federal sales. The ANC stamps some papers and collects money. It’s even gotten down to the municipal level, check out Chicago United Industries sometime.

  7. I’m fine with the commercials bill. I buy my tv, I set the volume. For them to “hijack” my volume control is something like a fraud or conversion.

    1. Wow, you’re an idiot.

      So what you’re saying is, when a show goes from a scene where the leads are whispering to each other to a different scene where there are explosions and shit, the producer and director of that show has “hijacked” your TV?

      1. Yeah, because there is no difference between a character raising his voice within a show broadcast at a certain volume and the actual volume being changed.

        1. There actually isn’t.

          Are you trying to claim that the people producing a TV commercial don’t also have the artistic license to set the volume of THEIR work wherever they want? Just like the producers of a TV show can set different volume from scene to scene?

          In order to comply with the requirements of this law, broadcasters will have to normalize volume across entire time blocks. There’s no way to do that without changing the volume of what’s depicted on the screen without regard for its actual content or intent.

          1. If they want to have people yelling rather than whispering that’s fine, but setting the actual volume is a different story. You can find this our yourself: listen to a podcast on your ipod with the ipod volume set at a certain level. Some parts of the podcast will be louder than others reflecting the change in the speakers voices. Then listen to the same podcast with the same fluctations but at a higher setting on your ipod.

            1. MNG and Fluffy. It’s like watching two dogs fuck.

              1. You think dog-fucking is awesome?

                To each his own and all that.

                1. SugarFree|10.1.10 @ 9:59AM|#
                  You think dog-fucking is awesome?

                  It seems, if I recall correctly, that libertarians prefer sheep, at least from a spectator’s perspective. I may be wrong.

                  1. Disappeared threads should never be mentioned. Do you want to get us disappeared to?

                    1. For them to “hijack” my volume control is something like a fraud or conversion.

                      overcompression is fraud?

                      i’d love to hear your feelings on modern hip hop!

                    2. I’ll give you mine – it sucks balls. 1989 – 1994 was the golden age.

                    3. No, you really wouldn’t.

                    4. SugarFree|10.1.10 @ 10:10AM|#
                      Disappeared threads should never be mentioned. Do you want to get us disappeared to?

                      Ummmm…

            2. You can find this our yourself: listen to a podcast on your ipod with the ipod volume set at a certain level. Some parts of the podcast will be louder than others reflecting the change in the speakers voices. Then listen to the same podcast with the same fluctations but at a higher setting on your ipod.

              Haha. What conclusion should we draw from this little experiment? Speaking louder and turning up the volume both have the same result: the shit is louder. Higher decibel level. What the hell is the difference to my ears if someone is speaking at full volume or screaming at half volume?

              1. One difference is you can control the volume setting on your device.

                1. Yes…and said volume setting can compensate for both types of decibel level increases.

                  1. Dammit, forgot to change my name back. Or did I?

                2. Gee, on my TV, I can control the volume setting, too. So when a loud commercial comes on, I push the little “volume” button on my remote to turn the TV down.

                  With my remote control, I don’t even have to get off the couch or spill my beer! And the best part – no legislation needed!

                  1. Or you can watch TV like a normal human being: via a DVR where you fastfuckingforwrad through commercials.

                    I haven’t seen a commercial, except through a stoner’s misappropriation of attention, in years.

          2. “”Are you trying to claim that the people producing a TV commercial don’t also have the artistic license to set the volume of THEIR work wherever they want? “”

            When recording something for broadcast, there once was a standard for the volume level, so the volume between various programs would be the same. The same is true when mastering a recording for an album or CD. It’s obvious that advertisements are no longer playing by the standard. I’m not for a law, I would much prefer that broadcasters would self police the issue, and if your commercial goes above the standard, they would send the commercial back for an adjustment.

            1. In other words: if you don’t like loud commercials, stop watching the networks that air them. If a network’s bottom line is hurt by these sorts of shenanigans, you can bet said network will more tightly regulate its advertising.

    2. who watches commercials anymore?

      1. People who think government is the solution to every problem, apparently.

        1. MNG is such a lazy worthless cunt he’s even too lazy to use his remote control.

          TOO LAZY FOR THE REMOTE CONTROL. That’s how lazy this motherfucker is. He’s happy that omniscient state regulators have intervened to SAVE HIM FROM THE NEED TO PUSH A BUTTON ON HIS REMOTE CONTROL.

          1. Stage One: “It’s not reasonable to expect people to become experts in medicine in order to choose a doctor. Therefore we need to license and regulate the practice of medicine.”

            Stage 1000000000000000: “It’s not reasonable to expect people to move their thumb and hit the Mute button. Therefore we need to regulate and control the broadcast volume of everything that is on TV.”

            It’s like the row of portraits of ship captains in the background shots in Wall-E.

          2. Why should I have to use my control for this? I set the volume on my device, they shouldn’t just ratchet up the sound whenever they want to.

            If you like choice this is a good bill, as it now leaves the choice of the volume up each television set owner.

            1. Because the choice of the content to broadcast is up to the broadcaster.

              You’re basically declaring that in order to avoid minor annoyance, you want the broadcaster to not have the choice of content to broadcast, and you want them to be required by law to assume a new set of burdens and technical challenges in order to cater to your petty whining and laziness.

              It’s pretty much EXACTLY THE SAME as a Christian activist saying, “Why should I have to use my remote to find a show without offensive language in it?” The only real difference is at least that asshole is actually offended and upset. You’re just annoyed.

              1. liberal nanny staters and conservative moral crusaders are one in the same – they want everyone to comply to their values.

                1. I set the volume on my device, they shouldn’t just ratchet up the sound whenever they want to.

                  dynamics are, like, totally fascist, maaan.

              2. No, I want to give millions of people more control by restricting the annoying, borderline fraudulent activities of a few. Those few who actually want their commercials louder can change the channel, unless they are too whiny and lazy to do so.

                1. No, I want to give millions of people more control

                  more control than a volume button?

                  really?

                  you’re pranking me, and i refuse to play along any further. good day, sir!

                2. Yep, as I suspected, you are a whiny cunt who stands out as having a hyperactive sense of your own entitlement even at a libertarian board.

                  The point of commercials is to get your attention so you see the commercial. That means that the people making commercials might decide to raise their voices, the same way you might raise your voice to get attention in a crowded room.

                  MNG needs to call in a SWAT team to assist him because the people providing his commercial-supported entertainment try to get him to notice the commercials.

                  “They’re defrauding me! They have committed fraud by speaking loudly!” What a fucking child you are.

                  I guess I should just be happy you haven’t compared it to rape yet.

                  When you plug in and turn on a communications device, you shouldn’t complain when people use it to communicate with you. Period.

                3. borderline fraudulent activities

                  Setting high sound volumes for a commercial (that you can, you know, fast forward through so no sound volume at all) =/= “fraud”

              3. “”It’s pretty much EXACTLY THE SAME as a Christian activist saying, “Why should I have to use my remote to find a show without offensive language in it?” “”

                Not even close. Nothing is being censored.

                1. It’s the same request.

                  Both of them consist of someone who could very easily just not watch TV objecting to the way the content on TV is presented and demanding state action to force broadcasters to cater to their personal preferences.

                  And BTW, if the state says, “You don’t get to communicate the content you create in the way you want,” then yeah, the state is censoring.

                  1. “””Both of them consist of someone who could very easily just not watch TV objecting to the way the content on TV is presented and demanding state action to force broadcasters to cater to their personal preferences.””

                    It’s not about personal preference. It’s about using a standard for quality. It’s content neutral.

                    So by your definition, not being able to scream in a libray is censorship.

            2. Any government solution is not worth the price, but otherwise I agree with you MNG, cranking up the volume for commercials is some annoying shit.

              As an aside, what is even more annoying then having loud commercials is the effing BBC. In the UK not only does one have to pay for a TV license, but also with your time becuase the BBC runs as many self-serving commercials during an hour broadcast as a commercial TV station.

              1. i don’t disagree that it’s annoying, or that all movies have a totally shit stereo mix because everything is BOOOM BOOOM whisper whisper…but calling is fraud is as transcendentally disconnected from reality as the “ground zero mosque”terbation rallies.

              2. Any government solution is not worth the price, but otherwise I agree with you MNG, cranking up the volume for commercials is some annoying shit.

                Very annoying shit, indeed.

                But the people who produced the commercials are paying for the broadcast of the content. They bought the right to intrude on your [police-procedural|reality-dumbass-docudrama|treehugger-predator-porn].

                Don’t like it? Then don’t watch add supported TV. Or write the network and threaten to stop watching if they don’t reign in the sponsors; maybe they’ll listen.

                MNG is able to think it’s fraud because he thinks he deserves the content despite the obvious falsehood of that position.

            3. Hmmm, why is broadcast TV free again? Oh yeah, because the advertisers are paying the networks to run their ads.

              It seems pretty ungrateful to tell the people paying for your free entertainment that they have to abide by your rules.

              1. If they want me to watch their shit, they do. There is another neat button on that remote besides the one that controls volume.

          3. MNG is right. Moving your thumb all the way to the mute button is just too hard, just like remembering your bank account numbers is just too hard.

            1. Don’t give it ideas for another law, like making it impossible to type numbers into email because someone sent their bank info to a Nigerian scammer.

            2. It’s not about how hard it is to do that.

              If someone throws a piece of paper on your yard it’s not hard for you to pick it up. But you shouldn’t have to.

              1. If you buy a newspaper and bring it into your yard to read it, you shouldn’t get to complain that the letters on the newpaper are too big.

                “Ouchies. These big letters hurt my eyes. Please Chuck Schumer, please pass a law to force people who make newspapers find out what size letters I like so they can give me a newspaper written only in those letters!” – MNG

                1. I’m 55. It’s the small letters that piss me off.

                  The whole concept that the government can and should legislate away eevry inconvenience in life is not only totally fucking wrong, it slowly but surely erodes our freedom.
                  I don’t like garishly painted buildings, hip hop music, the loudness of motorcyles and the smell of asphalt being laid. Sucks for me, but you don’t see me whining to the government for legislation to illegalize these assaults on my senses. Why don’t I? I’m a fucking grownup.

                  1. the smell of asphalt being laid

                    Man, you are crude.

              2. If someone throws a piece of paper on your yard it’s not hard for you to pick it up.

                Analogy fail. This is more like having a huge stack of magazines to read, hundreds of them in fact, and choosing one magazine, and getting really pissed off at an article in it, and then instead of putting that magazine down and picking up another one, or leafing past the article, you instead call the cops and have them arrest the people who wrote that article.

            3. I think I’ve told this story before, but I had an Indian friend in law school. One summer, he went to India to visit his uncle, who was an M.P. (and quite wealthy). While watching TV, his uncle wanted to change the channel. Rather than reach for the remote sitting within a foot of him, he pushed a button for a servant and had him change the channel.

              There are technological fixes for things like this. So long as there are, regulations like this are silly and could have unintended consequences, especially given how unartfully such legislation/regulation is written.

              1. Your friend’s uncle is fucking awesome. It is just so over the top. You have to laugh.

              2. Obviously the complaints are coming from retired public sector employees.

              3. Replace “Indian friend’s uncle” with “my father”, “servant” with “kid”, and “one summer” with “the 1970s”, and you have my childhood.

              4. Too cool. I do hope he was wearing his monocle and spats at the time. Seeing as he was indoors, I am sure he had already handed off his top hat to another servant.

                1. I’ve always loved that story. My friend was born and raised in America, so he thought the whole business was crazy. On the flip side, his uncle thought he was nuts talking to the servants and taking pictures of them.

              5. Sure there are technological fixes, but why should I have to pay for that? When I set the volume on my device after judging the volume of the show I’m watching it’s borderline fraudulent for them to suddenly switch everything around.

                At the least they should have to announce something like “the following show is broadcast in annoyingly varying volumes.” There’s no choice when one party doesn’t know wtf is going to go on…

                1. Holy fuck MNG, this is the worst episode of Punk’d, EVER.

                2. I like loud commercials. Why are you oppressing me?

                3. Sure there are technological fixes, but why should I have to pay for that? When I set the volume on my device after judging the volume of the show I’m watching it’s borderline fraudulent for them to suddenly switch everything around.

                  I’ll give you this much, MNG — you save us all the trouble of having to parody you.

                  Anyone else, I’d think this was a parody troll. But you actually think legislation is needed instead of changing the fucking channel or pushing the mute button or taping the show and fast-forwarding through the commercials or …

                  You are one lazy fuck.

                  1. It does seem like parody – and then it hits you that the entire Senate plus some majority of the House think exactly the same way. And then you realize that the principles behind the notion that Congress ought to have better (and fewer) things to do really are as “fringe” as they keep saying. And then you drink.

                4. Here’s a novel idea, MNG: don’t fucking watch TV.

                  It’s a total waste of time anyway. Do something productive with those hours of your life instead.

                  On second thought, maybe it’s safer to let you sit there on your sofa letting what’s left of your overtaxed brain turn farther into mush.

              6. Back in the day, my father made me sit by the TV on Sundays and flip the channels between the game on 11 and the game on 6.

                The TV was an old black & white with a dial (only the uber rich had even heard of remote controls). And we only got 3 channels total.

                As a kid, I thought it was pretty lame, but the Old Guy also brought me fishing and hunting just about any time I wanted, so it behooved me to spend a couple afternoons a year being a human remote.

            4. We really need a law regulating the size and layout of buttons on remote controls.

              1. My kids got me a giant remote once. The reason for the gift was that I kept complaining about the missing remote–they’d cart it off, stick under the couch, and otherwise annoy me. It was friggin’ huge and had giant buttons.

                1. When I set the volume on my device after judging the volume of the show I’m watching it’s borderline fraudulent for them to suddenly switch everything around.

                  man you keep draggin’ me back in.

                  so what’s the real baseline, then?

                  what about the producers of 80s tv shows, which now appear far quieter? should they get their act in gear for forcing you to turn up the volume?

            5. MNG doesn’t reach “I can’t tell if he is even serious or is a spoofer just yanking our chain” territory all that often. But he did it today.

          4. TOO LAZY FOR THE REMOTE CONTROL

            It’s not a matter of laziness; it’s a matter of safety, at least while I’m driving.

            That goes for the volume of text-messages, too. Should be up to the driver.

    3. ARE YOU AFRAID TO ANSWER YOUR OWN PHONE FOR FEAR IT IS A DEBT COLLECTOR ON THE OTHER LINE? OR WORSE, MESOTHELIOMA COLD CALLING YOU? WE CAN HELP. ALSO, BUY THIS WORKOUT MACHINE YOU FAT FUCK.

      Now back to CSI: Law & Order Victim Unit.

      1. Nice, now where’s that Survivorman marathon?

        1. Les Stroud should change his name to More Stroud. I love that guy, him and the barefoot hippy guy on Dual Survival need to record a hip-hop album of Johnny Cash cover songs.

    4. When will Congress ban those blue headlights? Those are the real killers!

      1. I believe the DOT already has, at least as original equipment…

    5. Actually.. the difference in volume in commercials vs. tv shows is usually because of differences in the mastering ( Informercials and such are produced with much lower standards ). I’m not saying it wouldn’t be done to get your attention but it is usually “innocent”…

      1. Which makes it extra ridiculous to regulate. What a silly world we live in… turn it off, you lazy twats…

        1. Technology is hard!

        2. “”Which makes it extra ridiculous to regulate””

          It’s been self regulated for decades.

          It’s very simple. If a broacasting engineer determines the levels are too hot, they should send it back so the production company can readjust the peak volume level.

    6. So what about the commercial that wants to have dialogue in a whisper?

      Before, they would set the volume of the commercial at a level that the whispers of the speaker would be audible. Is that artistic freedom now gone?

      I’m pretty sure this idea is full of stupid.

      1. During the black screen between the show and the commercial they’ll just have to give us a nice impulse of MAX_VOLUME. That way the commercial will always be quieter than the last “content”. If we could do this in a way so that only nanny-state dooshcanoes had this feature it’d be awesome.

    7. I get it. Because sometimes, when that loud commercial comes on, you’re startled–too startled to notice you’re pushing that button that makes the info bar go away and not the mute button–and, because you’re startled(and pissed at the loud commercial that woke you–hey! I was not sleeping, I just closed my eyes for, like, a second), you keep hitting that button wondering why it’s not working. You’ve just started cursing the batteries when you realise that you were hitting the wrong button. And now the damned commercials off. Goddammit.

      So yeah, we need some kind of law, because the commercial goes off before it can be muted.

    8. Actually all commercials are already set to a specific level. That level is the maximum allowed for all programing. It just happens that most shows don’t set volumes to this max level.

      I’ve actually watched people at my wife’s work time commercials into a server and set the volume on an oscilloscope at the level the FCC mandates.

  8. Dear Cancer:

    Wouldn’t you like to go live in Chuck Schumer’s prostate? Imagine what a nice little breakfast nook and entertainment area you could set up in that space. Please call the local cancer realtor for more information and relocation assistance. Thanks.

    1. Cancer responded that it would rather live in Gaza than in Chuck Schumer’s prostate.

      1. At least Suki/John T/etc didn’t wish multiple personality disorder on ol’ Joe!

  9. Arnold Schwarzenegger signs a decriminalization bill.

    That is some cynical shit right there. “Decriminalize” marijuana right before a legalization vote. Nothing to keep it from being “recriminalized” at the stroke of a pen, nothing to keep the fine at $100 while requiring $1,000s in rehab fees. Nothing about forcing the cops to de-prioritize marijuana enforcement. Nothing that helps remove marijuana from the black market economy. Nothing that can be used to argue a state’s right case to keep the feds out. Weed can still be used as probable cause for search, seizure, and raids.

    “Here’s a glass of milk… sorry it’s warm, sorry I pissed in it.”

    1. If you read the article it is even worse.

      The bill keeps the punishment the same but reduces the charge from a misdemeanor to an infraction. Which is good, but the reason they did it was to take away people’s right to a jury trial.

      That’s no speculation on my part either, that is right from the govenators mouth.

      1. Look, this is all wrong.

        The important point is that before SB 1449, you would get a court appearance and a criminal record for a few grams of dope. Now you would just get a ticket and be on your way. No more arrest and hauling you downtown where you might, you know, fall and accidentally lose several teeth or break your thumbs.

        This is what we call “progress.” I know it’s a foreign concept to us libertarians but we should be happy for the bitty morsels that we get.

        1. From the governor’s letter:

          This bill changes the crime of possession of less than an ounce of marijuana from a misdemeanor punishable only by a $100 fine to an infraction punishable by a $100 fine. Under existing law, jail time cannot be imposed, probation cannot be ordered, nor can the base fine exceed $100 for someone convicted of this crime.

          From norml’s state laws page the current law:

          Possession of 28.5 grams or less of marijuana is not an arrestable offense. As long as the offender can provide sufficient identification and promises to appear in court, the officer will not arrest the offender. Upon conviction of the misdemeanor charge the offender is subject to a fine of $100.

          Emphasis added.

          All they did was reclassify the law which means that you no longer have the right to a jury trial for possession of under an ounce.

          Again from the governor:

          Notwithstanding my opposition to Proposition 19, however, I am signing this measure because possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is an infraction in everything but name. The only difference is that because it is a misdemeanor, a criminal defendant is entitled to a jury trial and a defense attorney.

          In this time of drastic budget cuts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement, and the courts cannot afford to expend limited resources prosecuting a crime that carries the same punishment as a traffic ticket.

          I just want to make sure that everyone is clear on this before we start celebrating.

          Let’s party when prop19 passes.

          1. Good call. This really doesn’t extend any additional freedom, it’s all about denying access to court resources for cases involving less than an ounce.

            There’s nothing wrong with deciding not to waste money on this shit, but it’s not exactly a new protection for cannabis users.

          2. “”Possession of 28.5 grams or less of marijuana is not an arrestable offense.””

            Any thing against the law is arrestable. You can get arrested for running a stop sign if the officer so chooses.

            1. And a cop can always think of some law that’s been broken.

    2. I wonder how many newspapers that came out against prop 19 because of the legal chaos it would cause. Will right editorials pointing out all the flaws with decriminalization. My guess is not many.

    3. His only motive was to cut court expenses.

      1. And undercut legalization efforts.

  10. In this time of drastic budget cuts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement, and the courts cannot afford to expend limited resources prosecuting a crime that carries the same punishment as a traffic ticket.

    Then make possession of marijuana carry the same punishment as rape or murder!

    [kicks pebble violently]

    1. +1 for Teh Funny

  11. “Pakistani soldiers are accused of extrajudicial killings.”

    That’s awful. We should send some drones to kill them.

    1. That’s awful.

      Let me be clear.

      As a Constitutional scholar, I can tell you that “extrajudicial” is simply Latin for “especially lawful.”

      However, I still like your drones idea.

      1. Are you going to keep sending drone video to Rahm Emanuel while he is in Chicago?

        1. Let me be clear.

          Although this goes without saying, I can neither confirm nor deny your question.

    1. I used to read Sobran quite a bit in a local paper. He had some wacky Krazy Katholic ideas at times, but was a smart read moer than most columnists.

    2. I once used one of Sobran’s columns to illustrate to my government students how federalism works in our system.

      He had plenty of kooky ideas (Shakespeare in particular), but he was often a lively read.

      RIP.

    3. Bummer. He spoke at my college once, and gave an awesome presentation on politics. Started reading his column for awhile after that – generally thought they were pretty good, allowing for the occasional Rite Wing Whacko! clinker that he’d put out.

      Vaya con Dios, Sobran.

  12. Hipster Doofus Slide Show

    #2: “I wanna go fishin’ with Grandpa!”

    #9: Look at the beard on that bitch.

    1. When did they start making panty hose out of black denim and for guys? Those look comfortable.

    2. There was a piece in the Wall Street Journal last week about how hipsters have taken to wearing really old time masculine looking brands of clothes. They had pictures of it. And sure enough they managed to make it look gay.

      1. In some alternate universe, Abercrombie & Fitch is still selling guns and fishing waders. Our universe sucks.

        1. To think it was once Churchills favorite store. Now it mostly publishes gay child porn. I wonder what these people’s concept of masculinity is? We seem to have two ideas of manhood in this society, the effeminate man child hipster, and the mullet wearing, NFL fanatic beer guzzling moron.

          1. That is the fault of the mullet wearing, NFL fanatic beer guzzling moron, who years ago declared that anyone with no mullet is a fag.

            If you got in a time machine and went back and plucked Jack Kennedy from the PT boat right before he got injured and brought him back to the present, mullet-guys would listen to him speak and catch him reading a book and would declare him a fag. That’s the real secret to the disintegration of the American concept of masculinity, and nothing the feminists or hipsters did.

            1. I don’t know. Would they consider say Harry Callahan or the Steve McQueen character in Bullet to be fags? Neither one of those guys could be described as mullet wearing morons.

              But I think you are onto something with the idea that anything intellectual has somehow become associated with femininity. But I think you are wrong to absolve feminists completely of blame in this development. Feminist did a lot to remove the middle ground. Thanks to feminists, anything that was considered exclusively male was considered evil. And all things higher and intellectual were at best non-gender or really the purview of women. I think the rise of the beer guzzling moron that you speak of is in some ways a reaction to feminists depriving men of any legitimate way to express their masculinity in society. Without options, young men have chosen beer, strip clubs, and the shit bag Tucker Max ideal.

              1. Isn’t the modern equivalent of Steve McQueen in Bullet Dog the Bounty Hunter?

                I consider the “tattooed freak” brigade just a variant of the “mullet moron” genus, so I guess they got to Bullet also.

                Harry Callahan might get a pass, though. But pop culture depictions of cops and military types has been WWF’ed quite a bit in recent decades, too.

                1. From McQueen to Dog. My God civilization really is doomed. The Callahan character, as well as your Kennedy example, would be totally destroyed by the feminists as an evil racist cave man. At best he would be considered a character of sympathy like the guy in Grand Torino. The kind of “oh wow he is a human being to in spite of being horrible” kind of portrayal. The feminists destroyed the Steve McQueens of the world leaving the field to Tucker Max and Dog.

                  That doesn’t excuse the mullet headed morons. They should have fought back. Instead they used the feminist attacks as an excuse to be reprobates.

                  1. The Callahan character, as well as your Kennedy example, would be totally destroyed by the feminists as an evil racist cave man.

                    Dirty Harry was the first big backlash against the hippies and feminists. Come to think of it, there was a lot of anti-feminist stuff in Clint Eastwood’s output from the period. Remember the false-teeth-in-the-soup part from Every Which Way but Loose?

                  2. From McQueen to Dog.

                    Damn it, now I’m going to think about that all day.

                    It does say quite a bit, doesn’t it?

                    1. I guess it’s also quite notable that in order to actually be able to use Russell Crowe in films, they have to use a script set in the 50’s or in Ancient Rome or during the Depression or during the Napoleonic Wars.

                      What 21st century character can Russell Crowe successfully depict?

                      Can Russell Crowe be cast as any resident of Oslo?

                    2. Wow. I never thought of that. That is a good point. Why hasn’t Crowe been in a modern detective drama. The guy is born for it. You could probably remake (hell the remake everything else) the first Dirty Harry movie with Crowe in the lead and have it set in modern day California. He basically played the same kind of character in LA Confidential. Why hasn’t that been done? Contrast Dirty Harry, which was loosely based on the Zodiac killer, to the 21st Century movie about the same subject Zodiac. Now Zodiac is a really good movie. But the lead is Jake Gillenhall, not exactly Russell Crowe level masculinity.

                    3. Can’t blame Gyllenhaal for genetics. Not every guy gets to look like Cary Grant. I thought he did a good job in the role.

                    4. From McQueen to Dog.

                      Damn it, now I’m going to think about that all day.

                      It does say quite a bit, doesn’t it?

                      It says nothing other than you and John are obsessed with some very subjectively defined bullshit that is neither here nor there in at least 99% of other people’s lives.

                    5. Oh, and McQueen defines masculinity in your world view? A guy who sold access to his anus to Hollywood producers for fame and fortune? Well, okay, but how that makes you guys better than those who shop at Abercrombie & Fitch doesn’t really add up.

                    6. And it doesn’t matter what McQueen did in his personal life. The actual lives of these people are utterly meaningless and irrelevant to the aesthetic content of the work produced. What matters is the deliberate cultivation of the image.

                      The issue is the aesthetic choices being made to depict masculinity in the media. Someone sat down and greenlit the Dog the Bounty Hunter show because that thought his image was cool and that people would think it was tough. They said to themselves, “We need a guy show” and that was what they chose.

                      The casting choices made in popular entertainments can tell you something about the value judgments of the underlying culture. If you’re making a military film, the statement made by casting Cliff Robertson in the lead is different than the statement made by casting Chuck Norris. Or Andy Dick.

                      Aesthetic choices and the rationale behind them are a perfectly legitimate topic for discussion.

                    7. “Oh, and McQueen defines masculinity in your world view? A guy who sold access to his anus to Hollywood producers for fame and fortune? Well, okay, but how that makes you guys better than those who shop at Abercrombie & Fitch doesn’t really add up”

                      McQueen was married twice and had kids. There is evidence much less proof he was gay. What the hell are you talking about. Further, even if he was, we are talking about his on screen persona, not the man doing the acting.

                      We really must have struck a nerve.

                    8. This reminds me of the time the guy with all the snakes got all riled up by my negative view of people who own a lot of snakes.

                    9. We really must have struck a nerve.

                      Projection isn’t just something that happens to images in celluloid onto a movie screen. You two are so insecure you have to make up people in your minds, call them ‘hipsters’ and ‘preps’ and ‘rednecks’ to hate on. That is pathetic. Stop hating, start living.

                      McQueen was a gigolo before making it big. A lot of stars you have been taught to worship from that era were, likely, still the case. Doesn’t matter to me in terms of morality, ultimately it was up to them what they were willing to do and still be able to live with themselves. What does interest me is the irony that these ‘hipsters’ and ‘preps’ are ‘teh fags’ in your estimation, when you idolize ‘the image’ (which makes you even more superficial) of a Hollywood gigolo as something worth aspiring to in your wacked value judgment.

                    10. Oh, sorry. I thought you were a tattooed freak.

                      Little did I know that you wore a little bowler hat.

                      You just keep on wearing your little bowler hat and don’t worry about what us meanies are saying. Bless your little heart!

                    11. There is no evidence whatsoever that McQueen was that. And further, as both I and fluffy explained above, it doesn’t matter. The point is the image of masculinity that is portrayed in his films, not what he was or was not in his personal life.

                      “You two are so insecure you have to make up people in your minds, call them ‘hipsters’ and ‘preps’ and ‘rednecks’ to hate on. That is pathetic. Stop hating, start living.”

                      I live just fine. And I will continue to ridicule people who choose to make themselves look ridiculous.

                    12. You are still giving value to an image. A rather false one at that. That is what makes your judgment a meaningless tangle of brainfarts.

                      You just keep on wearing your little bowler hat and don’t worry about what us meanies are saying. Bless your little heart!

                      Dance like there is no one looking, Fluffy, that is all I ask.

                    13. Oh, and I hate interventions as much as the next guy, but Fluffy, you need to hear this, this thread makes it quite clear when you read through it: you are turning into John.

                    14. You must be a tattooed freak, I guess.

                      Sorry if I struck a nerve.

                      Why don’t you just go drive your car on the beach at Daytona or something? Don’t you have some worn-out skank who needs to get smacked to occupy your time today?

              2. But I think you are wrong to absolve feminists completely of blame in this development.

                that’s your answer to everything though.

                more to the point, there’s this weird cultural conservative thing where any criticism is a form of overwhelming force and punishment; so being called sexist or racist is akin to having a gun shoved in your face.

                i don’t know where you grew up, bro, but the “reading is for fags”* brigade wasn’t caused by feminism. it’s hells of a lot older, unless you’re going to point to suffrage, in which case match point and all that.

                in reality, the only thing more tiring than listening to a stereotypical feminist talk about masculinity is listening to meletary loiers talk about masculinity.

                i’m not one for (often but not always) obnoxious kids, but stylish males who don’t pick fights with strangers via a debased parody of an honor culture or drive bass cars are a massive improvement over the criminal manques in toddler’s clothing that make up the bulk of men in new york. experiments in living and all that.

                * somewhat related to the “fashion is for fags” brigade you’re a member of. i love the do’s and don’ts as much as anyone who likes to laugh hard, but turning tight pants into a cultural crisis is one of the many reasons i’d rather teabag a garbage disposal than move to ‘merica.

                1. Hey, sure, I appreciate the fact that hipster culture is not made up of prison rapists. Awesome.

                  But that doesn’t mean I have to respect them.

                  No one at the Renaissance Faire is going to do a home invasion at my house tonight and slaughter my family, either. But that doesn’t mean they’re cool, sir.

                  1. You know what the typical person at a Renaissance Faire is doing that you are not? Having fun. That is something really difficult to pull off when the judgmental part of your brain is making you to pensive and self-conscious to join in the fun of living.

                2. Dhex,

                  You are giving an example of exactly what I am talking about. The ideals of manhood that Fluffy and I are talking about are the total opposite of the “honor culture” you are talking about. There used to be a middle ground where someone was masculine but wasn’t some mullet wearing moron who tried to pick fights with people who accidentally stepped on his toes or “dised him”. That has been lost. And now the choices seem to be effeminate hipster or the kind of idiot you are talking about.

                  1. i don’t think it’s lost. i wear neither tight pants – though some of my friends do – nor do i give three hour lectures on the nature of respect while attired in the latest affliction t-shirt. there’s plenty of other options that just don’t get attention because, hey, middle ground ain’t news and it don’t rile nobody up.

                3. in reality, the only thing more tiring than listening to a stereotypical feminist talk about masculinity is listening to meletary loiers talk about masculinity.

                  +100000000

                4. It’s not necessarily a “fashion is for fags” argument (when it comes to making specific wardrobe choices). Fashion is little more than a statement of tying one’s personal identity with a particular political identity.

                  Hipsters don’t wear tight pants and faggy feminine scarves because they think it’s cool to wear such, but because it shows other hipsters, and everyone else around, that they are of a particular political persuasion. It’s nothing more than a uniform; a conformist way of crying out against some other sort of conformity (see punk fashion). This works for all kinds of fashion. Find a guy wearing Realtree to the local restaurant, and I’d almost bet that he is a conservative (or a libertarian hunter who went to eat at the local restaurant right after not killing anything while hunting).

                  I don’t dislike/make fun of hipsters because they dress terribly (though they do), but because behind those tight pants and bowler hats are progressives ready to legislate my every move and tax my every transaction in the name of the “greater good”. Find me a hipster who isn’t a liberal douche or a guy who wears hunting camo around town as just another part of his wardrobe that isn’t a conservative and I’ll retract (or at least stipulate that the rule isn’t as set in stone as I make it out to be).

          2. There are plenty of real men in this country, they just don’t draw attention to themselves.

            1. Exactly.

              A famous family story is about when my now brother-in-law visited my parents in rural MN. My father was going to bring Bill (the prospective groom) to his favorite roadhouse for a beer and a talk. Bill showed up wearing a vest and my dad told him, “Son, there ain’t no way you are gonna wear that where we’re going.”

            2. Excellent point – and the root of much of what drives me nuts about so much of current culture. People thought the 70s were the Me decade – there were not expecting the 00s.

      2. There was a piece in the Wall Street Journal last week about how hipsters have taken to wearing really old time masculine looking brands of clothes. They had pictures of it. And sure enough they managed to make it look gay.

        You put a hot woman in ugly clothes, she’ll still look hot. You put a flamingly gay guy in masculine clothes, he’ll still look gay.

    3. Where is Rahm Emanuel going to live when he runs for mayor of Chicago?

    4. My guess is that right outside of “Sonic Boom Records” is a hipster doofus goldmine.

      Also: What the fuck is a naturpathic medical student?

      Sounds like someone who grows pot.

      1. Also: What the fuck is a naturpathic medical student?

        It’s an excuse to hang out and smoke pot in Seattle for four years while learning to be a quack,

        1. I like that someone figured out a way to squeeze four years of tuition payments out of these people. It’s very American.

          Money makes stupid people dangerous.

    5. I like #12: The emo clown.

      1. How does he stand on those skinny little ankles?

        1. The elf shoes hold him up.

          Doesn’t he look like one of those milquetoasts that if you hit him in the chest he would collapse and die?

          1. I didn’t even realize this is Seattle.

            I’m pretty sure #11 is Episiarch.

            1. Yeah, he’s conspicuous by his lack of participation here.

            2. Epi would not slum it by going to Ballard.

              I used to live in Ballard — didn’t notice so many conspicuously hipster people hanging around there back then.

    6. Josh Littlejohn was just getting off his work shift at Dolce Vita in Ballard. He describes his style as having “preppy undertones with a punk persona.”

      “I like to stay comfy and current.”

      1. “preppy undertones with a punk persona”

        Punk is 35 years old. It is so old that no one under the age of 50 is old enough to actually remember participating in it. It is as old now as Bing Crosby and the Frank Sinatra teenage crooner records were when it was produced. And these people have been wearing the same torn jeans, Chuck Taylor allstars look the entire time. When do they find something new?

        1. Little known fact: punk rock used to be a music genre, rather than a shrieking pseudopolitical movement.

          1. So did “emo” – same shit happens to every musical trend.

        2. Same goes for pant saggin’. I remember seeing it done in 1997 thinking, people are still doing this shit?

          1. Yeah hip hop is getting really old to. Tu Pac was murdered in 1996. That was 14 years ago. His music is as old now as something like The Police was in 1996.

        3. Come to Haight street and you’ll see people still trying to be hippies.

    7. Try and imagine any of those people having sex. It’s dark because of body issues. They are on a bed-bug-ridden futon in a converted loft in an abandoned paint factory in Greenpoint. The air reeks of heavy metals, soy candles, and multiple unframed college degrees printed on unbleached recycled paper. A thin wail issues from dying solar-powered iPhone dock speakers, playing indie tweehards MGMT doing an ironic cover of Justin Beiber bootlegged from an all-ages show. She touches his limp penis. He brushes against her giant pubic retro-bush. Simultaneously, they both hitch with a sob and rush off to update Twitter. This is the most successful sexual encounter either have ever experienced.

      1. In the alternate universe where Abercrombie & Fitch still sells guns and fishing waders, you are a world-famous novelist and deep-sea adventurer.

      2. He brushes against her giant pubic retro-bush.

        LOL. Then he recoils in horror and says “I thought you were going to stop spraying that thing with Shotcrete.”

      3. “A thin wail issues from dying solar-powered iPhone dock speakers, playing indie tweehards MGMT doing an ironic cover of Justin Beiber bootlegged from an all-ages show.”

        +1000 You really need to serialize this stuff. Maybe do a graphic novel.

      4. Dude. Wow. Just wow.

      5. Awesome stuff. I can’t decide who has more talent: you or Episiarch…the styles are so similar.

        1. Are you at least sticking with a handle now, anonopussy?

    8. The motherlode of hipsterists: Oslo.

        1. Thanks a lot SugarFree. That is so gay, my monitor is now gay.

          1. I’m just saying that dressing like that, which I can only describe as Little Old Lady Drag, really shouldn’t be blamed on the simple sexual attraction between to men. It’s beyond that. It’s some new territory who’s topography is shaped with pure madness.

            1. You are right. It is really an insult to gay men to call that look gay. Most gay men I have known would kick that guy’s ass. Whatever that is, it is something beyond gay.

              1. Do you mean “known” in the biblical sense?

                😉 I keed!

              2. Maybe it’s time retire “gay” as the catch-all opposite of “masculine” and about a hundred other things that “gay” is supposedly not.

            2. I also think part of the problem is that Asian men have been convinced that the only way they can stand out is by dressing to make absolute fools of themselves.

              Can’t we come up with a way to make it OK for Asian guys to dress like samurai or warrior monks or Mongol invaders or something so they can actually look cool and stop humiliating themselves?

              I would MUCH rather have the Asian guy next to me on the bus be carrying a samurai sword than have him dressed up like some sort of emo clown.

              1. Good point about Asian men. There is like 40 years of kung fu movies for them to copy their style from. Wear some ceremonial armor or a kaki Japanese Army tunic. Something, anything but emo clown.

                1. You should see some of the Japanese MMA fighters. Holy crap, it’s like a drag show when these guys make an entrance. I don’t get it.

                  1. Maybe because it sucks twice as hard to get your ass kicked by an asian emo clown.

                    Oh! The humiliation!

                2. I’ve always wanted to walk around with one of those big flags sticking out from behind my head.

        2. The funny thing is that if I was to create a site to post pictures of people who suck and who need to be made fun of, I would end up selecting the same photos these people are choosing to celebrate.

          If this was a Star Trek TOS series, I would say that if I ever were to meet that first blogger, it would destroy both universes.

          1. Every time I read “TOS” I think “terms of service”, and I wonder what sort of show “Star Trek Terms Of Service” is.

            1. It went off the air quickly. No one watched more than about 3 seconds before hitting “Accept” on their remote. Although, MNG wishes the government would hit it for him.

              1. I just want the choice to have the government take the plastic wrap off my new software for me.

                People who love plastic wrap can make their own! – MNG

            2. BTW, if I was in my second term as President, I’d start wearing a Star Trek TOS uniform all the time just to be a dick.

              “It’s not like you get to vote for me again anyway, bitches.”

              I would teach the residents of Oslo that they are amateurs at thinking up absurd stuff to wear.

              1. And you could have a captain’s chair installed in the oval office and give national televised speeches from it. And you could begin every speech with “people of earth”. It would be fucking great.

                1. And I’d make my Veep switch back and forth between having and not having a black Fu Manchu beard for public appearances.

                  Even if my Veep was a female.

                  And I’d order the Secret Service to wear red shirts.

                  It would be better than Camelot.

                  1. You don’t think the red shirts might inspire the Secret Service guys to Praetorian ideas?

                2. I’m doing that in my first term. With em taking away everyone’s fucking pony I’m not expecting re-election.

                  1. This.

                    There’s no way that I’d be re-elected were I actually elected.

                    Not only would I take away everyone’s free pony, but I’d televise myself shooting it on the WH Lawn. Of course when people saw that their paychecks were a lot fucking bigger, they may like me.

          2. I can’t believe I haven’t seen a link yet to Look at this f-ing hipster (sorry MNG, the squirrels won’t let me embed code anymore to allow me to click that link for you automatically.)

            But it is a pretty good site devoted to making fun of hipsters.

            1. and it’s probably run by hipsters. People who make fun of hipsters often don’t realize they do it to themselves all the time. It’s like masturbating or something.

    9. That reminds me, I meant to post the hipster video: Being a Dickhead’s Cool. “We all play synth.”

      1. I saw that the other day. That is fucking great. Whoever did that is a genius.

        1. and probably a stylish hipster, to boot.

          1. Yeah, it was a guy from the Dalston/Shoreditch set, with like a job in “creative.”

      2. “TRAMP BALLS!”

  13. Aren’t you fucking retards going to comment about my departure?

    1. Why yes, yes I am. You’re not going to be mayor of Chicago. Everybody hates you.

      1. I will be Mayor, you shithead. It’s better to be feared than loved.

        1. Why would people in Chicago have cause to fear you unless you held office?

          1. Look, punk, if you smell something fishy, that’s me.

            Wait, that didn’t come out right.

        2. I respectfully disagree.

      2. You’re not going to be mayor of Chicago.

        Since the mayor’s seat goes to the most vicious, corrupt vote thief on the ballot, my money’s on Rahm.

        1. Only if he Daley adopts him as his heir to avoid civil war when Daley abdicates.

    2. Scumbag rejoining the ranks of other Chicago scumbags = not news

    3. I read the other day where you can’t run for Mayor because you leased your house and thus are not a resident of Chicago.

      1. Rahm, let’s talk.

      2. Since when do you and your Real Doll post on the same threads?

        1. I think you’re confusing Johns, if I understand you correctly.

          1. heh, I do that all the time.

  14. The polygamist stars of a reality TV show run into trouble with the marriage police.

    Do the marrigae police charge polygamy by the unit, or by the pound, beucase I’m pretty sure the fat one counts for two wives.

    1. Polygamy sounds fun until you see the chicks who are into it.

      1. I’d rather just have a wife and a mistress.

      2. Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same

      3. Mark Twain hit that nail on the head many years ago.

      4. The guy on the show seems to be really happy, so I wouldn’t knock his choice of wives.

        1. Just because he likes them chubby doesn’t mean everyone does.

          1. But when you say chubby, do you really mean fat? Because there’s a difference.

  15. http://www.washingtontimes.com…..ia-target/

    Barny may really be in trouble. He is lashing out at the “right wing media”.

    1. Mr. Bielat claimed, according to reports, that Mr. Clinton was brought in to help buoy Mr. Frank.

      Eww!

      1. Nothing that a few suspensors couldn’t fix.

  16. “People are frustrated, their anxious, they’re scared about the future. And they have a right to be impatient about the pace of change. I’m impatient,” President Obama said at an event for Gen44. “It took time to free the slaves,” he added.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.c…..hange.html

    1. Thanks, that’s great advice.

    2. I’m up for a civil war if he is.

      Who’s with me?

      1. Give me a few months to stock up on 7.62×39, and I’ll be with you.

        1. Considering that the other side is going to mostly consist of people from Sage’s slide show, you won’t need to stock up too much.

          1. Yeah, but I’m down to less than a case. I intend to shoot more than 1000 of them, don’t you?

            1. Well, there is certainly more than a thousand of them that need shooting. So, point taken.

              1. Right now, as we speak, someone is linking to this thread and pissing their pants about “eliminationist rhetoric”.

            2. Keep in mind that 7.62 would go through at least two or three of them before veering off course.

              I brought home a huge piece of lexan from work that’s about 2″ thick. Handgun bullets would either bounce off or just barely embed in the plastic. 7.62 and .223 went through like a hot knife through butter.

              1. Lesson: if you’re going to get shot, get shot with a pistol.

                1. Getting shot with a pistol still sucks.

                  Especially if man-jeggings are the only body armor you are wearing.

                  1. Steven “Denim” Daigle, fashion critic, stated that while jeggings are acceptable careerwear, the blending of the word ‘jeans’ with the word ‘leggings’ is, “…just the solution for our current economic situation.”

                    If I ever see someone wearing those, I’m going to have to try the “Your honor, he needed killin'” defense at my murder trial.

                    1. Steven “Denim” Daigle, fashion critic, stated that while jeggings are acceptable careerwear,

                      If your office is a public restroom, that is.

                    2. Christ, I never had even heard the word “jegging” before reading this, much less would I have had the slightest clue what the fuck they were.

                      Now I’m sorry I know.

                2. Lesson: if you’re going to get shot, get shot with a pistol, while carrying a thick piece of plexiglas.

                  I mean, let’s be realistic.

              2. Keep in mind that 7.62 would go through at least two or three of them before veering off course.

                You would have to get them to line up neatly to do that, rather than running around screaming like scared little girls.

                So, unless you got a crowd, you’d need to stock up on ammo.

        2. You actually buy your own ammo?

          Make it yourself you lazy bastard!

  17. Pete Rouse replaces Rahm Emanuel.

    Can Pete get into the baseball hall of fame after this?

    1. Bet ya 20 bucks I can.

    1. This must be the only radiation source in the world that doesn’t cause cancer according to the watermelon set.

  18. “Security experts say expanding the X-ray technology for use on American streets is a powerful counterterror strategy. They also point out the images do not not offer the kind of detail that would be embarrasing to anyone. “

    Let’s see, powerful counterterror strategy that offers no detail. These guys aren’t even trying anymore.

  19. “The polygamist stars of a reality TV show run into trouble with the marriage police.”

    On what legal grounds? He’s only legally married to one wife. Are the police cracking down on adultery in Utah now? Wouldn’t this be like the police busting a gay couple for having a ceremony in a state that doesn’t recognize gay unions?

    1. “Your clever compliance with the letter of our laws PROVES that you’re guilty!”

    2. If the prosecutor who’s going after him can be believed (OK… I’m going to give you a few seconds to stop laughing…) the UT law is such that “intending” to live with more than one woman as a married couple is a violation. Saying that you are “man and wife” has the same legal binding force as being married by the state, with respect to bi/poly/gamy.

      Imagine the whirlwind if a gay couple tried to apply that same standard to their relationship in UT.

      1. What’s hilarious is my wife saw something about the show and said, “Aren’t they afraid they’ll get busted?” And I naively told her it’s only illegal in the sense that the state doesn’t recognize it like they don’t recognize gay marriage. They haven’t actually broken a law unless he has an underage bride, yadda yadda yadda.

        Wife: 1,327
        Me: 0

        1. Their problem is in Utah’s definition of common-law marriage. The requirements to qualify as being married under that scheme are:
          * Both parties are of legal marriage age and are able to give consent
          * Both parties are capable of being married
          * The parties live(d) together as man and wife
          * The parties assume(d) marital responsibilities and duties
          * The parties “held themselves out” as husband and wife, and others perceive(d) them to be married.

          Since they hit four out of five of the requirements, an argument can be made that they violated the spirit of the law against bigamy, if not the letter. It’ll be up to a judge and jury to determine if that’s enough, but you can’t fault a prosecutor for going after them on this.

          1. but you can’t fault a prosecutor for going after them on this.

            Yes, yes you can. They have discretion about how to allocate their resources in who they charge with crimes.

          2. You can’t fault a prosecutor for going after who, by your own admission, don’t violate the letter of the law?

          3. Since they hit four out of five of the requirements,

            I think they get five out of five. As for “holding themselves out”, if doing so on a freaking TV show doesn’t count, what would?

  20. After the courts get done legalizing legislating gay marriage, I eagerly await the howls of outrage from the left when the polygamists cite those cases to get polygamy recognized as well.

    And I say that as someone who has no problem with anyone marrying whoever they want.

  21. No news on a trade bill with China???
    “An alleged message from Osama bin Laden urges Muslims to invest in infrastructure, fight pollution, and work on disaster relief.” So he’s still alive! And let’s add world peace.
    We help Americans find jobs and prosperity in Asia. Visit http://www.pathtoasia.com for details.

  22. “Are the police cracking down on adultery in Utah now?”

    This made me think: there was likely a time when among the Mormons adultery was punishable and polygamy was advocated. Interesting…

    1. I was born into a Mormon family and adultery is still punishable (at least as recently as 1981) by excommunication. Happened in my family. So yes, that would certainly be the case.

      1. I know a couple people who have committed adultery and were never ex’d. The church has gone soft.

        1. Were they caught committing adultery? Were they unrepentant and continued with the affair, or did they stop?

          1. Maybe they got married instead.

            1. Quickest way of curing a woman of nymphomania is to marry her.

  23. Anybody see the OSU-A&M game last nite? Whenever I see some intensely contested non-SEC game these days it makes me feel like I’m watching some type of consolation round…

    1. It was a great game, glad we’re getting out of the habit of laying down in the second half. (although it looked bad in the 3rd).

      I wish TAMU had joined the SEC.

      also, Gig’em.

      1. We have beat you guys four years in a row now. aTm is now officially fourth in the Big 12 South pecking order. That is a huge win for OSU. OSU recruits against aTm more than any other school sans Oklahoma.

        That said, A&M is better than people think. I would not be surprised to see them beat either OU Texas or Nebraska this year. At some point you quarterback is not going to give the ball game away. And when that happens, they are going to beat someone who is pretty good.

    1. I can’t wait for Chad Johnson and Terrell Owens to have an on-field slapfight over the ball. What was Paul Brown’s idiot son thinking, signing both these morons?

      1. Probably that the stands would be full of people who would pay $62.50 to see that in person.

  24. Jan Brewer gets a D grade on the Cato report, yet she will be reelected in a landside. Most of the voters in this state are idiots & don’t have a clue.

    They are invested too much in Team Red or Team Blue. News Flash! Just because your governor is a Republican, it doesn’t mean they will actually control/reduce government spending or lower taxes.

    1. The fact that Jennifer Granholm (D-umbass, MI) was given a “C” is sufficient proof that this report isn’t worth the bytes it’s printed on.

      But, yeah, Team Red/Blue – there’s a lot of suckitude out there, and the proles keep votin’ ’em back in.

      1. and the proles keep votin’ ’em back in

        Not this prole.

  25. The Dipshit-in-Chief is speaking.

    It’s a White House send-off for Rahm Emanuel. Tears will flow.

  26. Is there some kind of Google outage right now?

  27. Is anyone else besides me already starting to get kind of annoyed by the over the top coverage of this Rutgers University incident?

    Don’t get me wrong, I feel bad for the kid. But it seems pretty obvious to me that the reason the kid committed suicide is because he was outed, and not because of personal body shame or whatever. Which kind of makes the actual crime that was committed not the proximate cause of what he did. So all of this “Oh my god this was manslaughter” and “Oh my god this is bullying” stuff a little silly to me. They didn’t bully the guy; they just exposed the fact that he was gay, and he couldn’t take having to face his parents / friends / whoever.

    1. I agree. The media goes berserk over anything gay about as much as they do when attractive blond women go missing.

    2. The little bastards who filmed him and streamed it out deserve nothing but contempt. But I have a real problem with charging them with a crime.

      Here is the thing. We are starting to set the precedent that if you torment someone enough to cause them to commit suicide, you can be held criminally liable. If you are a confused angry kid considering suicide, the possibility that your doing so is going to result in your tormentors going to jail is going to make suicide that much more of an attractive option. That is not a good thing.

      And you are right, the little shits who did this are not the proximate cause of this kid’s death. This kid’s inability to cope with is sexuality and over instability is what caused his death. I would say chances are eventually he would have been outed to his friends and family and done the same thing. He was just a really messed up and disturbed kid. That is a tragedy. But it doesn’t make this a case of manslaughter.

      1. But I have a real problem with charging them with a crime.

        I don’t – the crime they’re being charged with (last time I checked – might have changed by now) is secretly taping someone engaged in sex without their knowledge or consent, and then broadcasting it, again without their consent.

        That is and should be illegal as an invasion of privacy, regardless of gender or sexual orientation of the persons involved.

        Last I checked (again, could have changed), they were not being charged with his death or anything having to do with it.

        1. I agree, although if the law in Jersey hinges on the taping being surreptitious, their lawyer should argue that it wasn’t because the computer with the webcam was in plain sight.

        2. I agree with that. I was speaking more to charging them over his death. If they broke wiretapping laws, so be it. But they would be just as guilty of that even if the kid hadn’t offed himself.

    3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..nesia.html

      And speaking of someone who can deal with their sexuality, check this out. This reads like a graphic novel written by Sugar Free.

      1. The girl, Tn, who comes from a community that only uses one name, left home to live with her teacher, Sj, for a month.

        Get those people some vowels.

    4. Yeah, it’s not like several decades back where being outed ruined your life. People tolerate gays enough that, without some additional bullying, it’s hard to see what the big deal is — suicide was a ridiculous overreaction, and criminal charges are a compounding overreaction.

  28. Kicked out of school – certainly.

    Hung with a civil damages claim it will take decades to pay off – OK.

    Criminal charges – not so much.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.