Congress Nears Deal on Payroll Tax Cut, Former Obama Advisor Starts Flacking for Wall Street, Colorado Man Jailed for Not Getting Dog License: P.M. Links


Do you want hot links and other Reason goodies delivered to your inbox twice a day? Sign up here for Reason's morning and afternoon news updates.

NEXT: Ronald Bailey on 100 Years of Natural Gas

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But which one will Emma Watson be?

      1. So do I, but what’s with her hair in all the recent pictures I’ve seen?

        1. I like short hair. So it doesn’t bother me. She is not as pretty as I thought she would be. Her jaw is so harsh. But she is still quite attractive.

          1. Some girls look great with short hair, but Emma went down a few pegs when she cut hers. That’s not to say she is unattractive, but she’s not as much as she was when it was longer.

            1. Yeah, some people look good with short hair, others not so much. I’d say her head is too small, or something. Or maybe that if she is going to have short hair, it should have some volume to it.
              Personally, I prefer long hair (on myself and on women). But there are people who I will admit look better with short hair.

              1. I am a huge proponent of long hair, but I think you’re right about what I find disappointing about her. It’s not just that she’s got short hair now, it’s that the hair is tight to her head with no volume at all.

                1. Long hair looks better on younger women. Few older women can pull it off. Usually once a woman hits 35, she is better off with shorter hair.

                  1. Maybe that’s why. I’m still at the point that a 35 year old only has a chance if she’s going the milf/cougar route.

                    1. My wife is 35. That is not old.

                    2. It is when you’re 23.

          2. I remember golfing with my cousin several years ago and we were talking about Emma Watson. We were convinced she was going to smoking hot by the 6th movie. (Context: we’re about 1.5 years older than her)

            1. That is one of the great questions in life; at what point in the Harry Potter series is it okay to start having sick thoughts about Emma Watson. Clearly not the first when she is like ten. Certainly during the last when she was 20 during filming. At what point in between?

              1. When she turned 16 and had a beer at the local pub (in accordance with English law).

              2. I say 16 year old. While it still might be creepy or inappropriate if you actually had a chance with her, it is definitely out of pedophile territory.

                1. According to Wiki, she was born in 1990 and The Order of the Phoenix was filmed in 2006. So I guess that would be the point.

              3. Does your own age matter?

                1. I don’t think so. I am not talking about actually hitting on her. I am talking about thinking about such things. Your thoughts are your own. And if the day ever comes when I stop at least thinking about beautiful women, please take me out in back and shoot me like a lame horse.

                  1. I mean: if you’re 18 maybe you can start thinking about her in GoF, but if you’re 30 you should wait till OftP.

                  2. Agree with John here.

                    Too young to think about and too young to do something with are two different things.

                    1. Exactly. You’re gonna think what you’re gonna think; nothing you can do about it.

                      Its what you do about what you think that matters.

                    2. I think every man here would agree with this. At this point we’re explaining ourselves to any women without them even showing up.

                    3. At this point we’re explaining ourselves to any women without them even showing up.

                      Well, you have to at least rehearse the logic.

                      Besides, the question of when you can actually do something has already been decided by half-plus-seven. Pretty sure that’s Biblical.

              4. That is one of the great questions in life; at what point in the Harry Potter series is it okay to start having sick thoughts about Emma Watson

                Well, if they are “sick thoughts,” I wonder if they are ever okay.

                Does your own age matter?

                I would say yes. Your own age helps determine whether they are “sick thoughts.” While RC, robc, and John have a legitimate point, the thoughts themselves can/would be judged differently according to your age. If you tell people your are entertaining “sick thoughts” about your 16 year old neighbor, and you are 18…probably not going to change someone’s opinion of you. If your younger wife is twice the age of that neighbor, people might adjust their opinion of you based on knowing what you are thinking.

    1. happy Valentine’s day! Do you wanna look for some bilover to hook up tonight?===Datebi*c/O’m=== is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.

  2. The Likelihood of a Brokered GOP Convention is Increasing

    If Mitt Romney loses the GOP primary in his native state of Michigan on February 28 to Rick Santorum, his candidacy is finished, and a brokered convention is a certainty.

    1. From your lips to God’s ear. A brokered convention would produce a new candidate.

      1. I’m excited. A brokered convention would be really interesting, and maybe just maybe would select someone worth a shit. And Paul’s delegation (which I’m predicting will be ~300 delegates total) may be able to throw its weight around.

        1. And they would be unified. Gingrich and Santorum will split the SOCONS. And Romney will have the establishment. Paul’s supporters will be the kingmakers.

          1. Rand Paul, VP?

            1. Let’s hope not. I’d rather he do some work and not end his career so soon by attaching himself to whatever abortion of a presidential candidate that gets spit out of this thing.

              1. Not just that. Even if he won, he has had 2 years as Senator. Thats worse than Obama’s record.

                I would rather he have 6-10 years in the Senate before running for Prez.

              2. It’s definitely a risky move, with lots of bad possible outcomes. But, putting myself in the role of a Paul Delegate at the national convention, I can’t think of anything else that I’d consider a serious enough concession for me to vote for Romney.

                1. If libertarians could get a no kidding libertarian in a VP spot on a national ticket, that would be a pretty big step forward.

                  1. If Rand Paul were the VP, I’d vote Republican for pres for the first time. I still think he’s holding out for 2016 or 2020 though.

                2. Brown and Napolitano as first two Supreme nominees?

                  Executive audit of the Fed?

                  Supporting the Paul budget plan ($1T cuts the first year)?

                  1. sure, if there were someway to enforce any of those things. But there isn’t. And I don’t trust em any farther than I can throw em.

      2. How about Ted Nugent?

        1. Nah… he’s a nazi when it comes to drug use. Funny, since without drugs he wouldn’t have an audience.

          1. So is Obama, and all the Republicans besides Paul.

      3. A friend of mine who does some work with the state GOP says there’s a lot of talk about getting Mitch Daniels pushed through a brokered convention.

        1. It wouldnt surprise me. Convincing him to go for it might be the hard part. But running for 2 months is much better than running for 2 years.

          If he wins, does TMBG have to write a song about him?

          1. Why, is he the successor to James K Polk in some way?

            1. brokered convention.

              While it was different back then, Polk was basically a compromise candidate.

        2. Mitch Daniels was on Bob and Tom the other morning and he swore that he had no interest in being President. One of them kept pressing him and he sounded pretty serious about it. They also hinted that Mrs. Daniels would never go for it.

    2., which I think has the best delegate estimates for the caucus states (although still undercounting Paul) has the delegate count, as of now, as:

      Romney: 107
      Santorum: 43
      Gingrich: 42
      Paul: 39

      Clearly Romney doesnt have 50%, even so far.

      1. Is it possible the Tities plan all along was to create a brokered convention to get a new nominee. Could he be a suicide candidate? Would that explain the bizarre attacks on Romney from the left and his refusal to leave the race?

        1. I think as long as he stays in the race, we’re crusing solidly for a brokered convention. Because I feel like Romney has a solid floor around 20%, Paul has a solid 10%, and Gingrich has somewhere between those numbers. Santorum, who knows? But I think they’ll all have highly variable results depending on the region:
          Romney: strong in the northeast
          Santorum: strong in the midwest
          Paul: strong in the west
          Gingrich: strong in the south

          There’s no national candidate.

        2. I want to see him go full fuck-you mode and throw in with Paul, and have a full scorched earth fight on public TV. Fuck Zell Miller challenging Chris Matthews to a fight. Let’s have a full-blown reality TV spectacle of a convention.

          1. It’s a long shot, but Gingrich has adopted some of Paul’s stances, e.g. auditing the Fed. Who knows this year?

          2. “Zell Miller challenging Chris Matthews to a fight”

            That was awesome. They should have done it. Maybe both woudl have died.

        3. I don’t think the left attacking the Republican front-runner is at all bizarre.

          1. I think he meant attacks from Gingrich (who claims to be the most conservative) that sound like what one woudl expect from the left.

      2. Also, 2 for Huntsman.

      3. 2286 total delegates, so 1144 needed for nomination.

        Romney isnt even 10% of the way there yet.

  3. People bitching at Starbucks for allowing customers to carry guns in their stores.

    Gun owners show support for Starbucks for allowing them to have guns in their shops by shooting up the place. Oh wait, they didn’t? Oh, that’s what the foaming-at-the-mouth gun grabbers were expecting. Nope, it appears that most gun owners are responsible and peaceful humanbeings. Whodathunkit?

    1. The RKBA unofficially decided to spend $2 bills at Starbucks today (2 for the 2nd A).

  4. “Did they handcuff you?” Sallinger asked. “Yes sir, they put me in incarceration ? I was afraid they would shoot my dog. I spent 7 hours down there.” Townsend replied.

    Seven hours in jail for not having a dog license?

    Bureaucrats love to license things, law enforcement love to shoot dogs, and both love to assert their authority. No matter the cost.

    1. this dog thing is such a bunch of horseshit

      it reminds me of the “going postal” meme.

      somebody researched and actually found out that the post office is statistically speaking, FREER of workplace violence than the average workplace, by a decent margin

      or school shootings. kids are still WAY safer in school, than at home or to and from and more kids die in school sports in high school than die from school shootings

      similarly, cops shooting dogs is really not common. it’s just such bitchen press when it happens that it gets plastered all over

      people who believe cops love shooting dogs are like people who believe crime has skyrocketed, because well… cable news is always broadcasting bad ass crime shit

      the reality is , by the nature of our job, we are often in houses, often against the will of homeowners and/or in a conflict with same (e.g. arrest) and dogs , being the noble creatures they are , naturally act to protect perceived danger to their masters

      thus, it’s understandable

      frankly, i love dogs and would way rather get bitten than shoot a dog

      in fact, i HAVE taken a decent bite, as have several of my partners who didn’t shoot the dog that did so

      and of course “officer gets bitten by dog, but doesn’t shoot dog” will NEVER get reported on here

      heck, most agencies won’t evne issue a press release on it.

      1. You are aware that there are certain individuals in your profession who will shoot a dog just to do it, and in fact your profession attracts those kinds of individuals. Those are the ones that get reported, and it is fairly common.

      2. 1 out of 4 shootings by police in L.A. are of dogs.

        (research done in 2005):

        Since 1985, police have shot at more than 465 dogs, killing at least 200 and wounding at least 140, according to incident reports.

        Comparing the rate of dog shootings with those of other police agencies is difficult because there are no nationwide statistics. In New York, with a population more than twice as large as Los Angeles’ and a police force nearly four times as big as the LAPD, officers have shot at 803 dogs since 1990.…../me-dogs12

    1. “The teenager was naked, except for a pair of cowboy boots.”

      America, Fuck Yeah!

      1. I had to go listen to “My Head’s in Mississippi” after reading that article.

        1. In your bunk?

          1. She seems cute. Too bad there aren’t any other pictures.

            1. Check the comments on fark about it. Pictures have been found. Not cute.

    2. i think this link gave my browser a seizure.

  5. Libertarian Party of Kansas Opposes Open Firearm Carry Ban. But… but… because of open carry laws, people are being gunned down in public all the time over petty disputes. Ordinary citizens are turning into bloodthirsty fiends, murdering friends, family, and passerbys! It’s chaos everywhere open carry exists!

    1. Open carry is a protected constitutional right in KY.

      Might state does some things right.

      1. I thought the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution was pretty clear “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”. Can’t bear your arm if you’re at work and your gun is at home.

        1. The 2nd amendment is clear to ME and YOU, but not nearly as clear as the KY state constitution:

          All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned:

          Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

          That is the opening section of the document.

          And fortunately, that right stays regardless of what the Feds do.

          1. Also, the CCDW licensing standards arent too rigorous. Not as light as Indiana or Vermont, but not bad.

            1. Concealed carry: the one political thing my homeland does correctly.

      2. I think open carry is more sensible than concealed carry. If someone has a gun, I am not bothered by it but would like to know they do.

        Seriously, what is the point of having concealed carry but then not allowing open carry? Is it just so frightened liberals don’t have to see a gun?

        1. Well, I understand some of the rationale. It makes you an easier target if someone wants to quickly grab your gun. If it’s concealed, they would not know. But I’m sure if at least 1/2 of the law abiding citizens out there had concealed carry, crime would drop significantly. A mugger, rapist, etc would have a 50-50 shot at being shot if they tried to mess with a random person.

          1. Takes a lot of balls to go up and just grab a gun from someone.

        2. Yes.

          It’s exactly that.

          Historically, the argument against concealed carry is that it implied bad intentions. You didn’t want people to know you had a weapon, and that wasn’t sporting.

          Now there is a whole segment of society that would rather not know you’re armed, because not knowing is better than knowing and feeling butt hurt.

        3. “Is it just so frightened liberals don’t have to see a gun?”

          I think that is the bulk of it. The fact is that in most places, even if it is completely legal, you are going to be hassled if you openly carry; in a city anyway.

          But I agree with your point and as I understand it, that is exactly why, in many places, open carry is legal with no permit, but concealed carry requires one. Concealing your weapon used to be a sign that you might be up to no good. Now you just need to do it so no panicky dipshit will call the cops because someone has a gun. And there is no way the cops will just let that go, even if it is totally legal because they have to cover their asses on the off chance that you are a maniac about to shoot someone.

          1. Texas is weird – pretty good/standard CCW, flat-out ban on open carry. I’ve never tracked down where the ban came from, but its from way back.

            1. Rifle open carry is still perfectly legal, RC. You ocasionally see the New Black Panthers toting long guns.

              Gun racks went away because people started stealing the guns. You still see them on ranch trucks, though.

            2. IIRC, Texas gave up open carry when they passed the concealed carry law as a compromise. I believe there are some stirrings to bring it back.

          2. I remember seeing a lot of pickups with gun racks – they seemed to disappear in the 1990’s.

        4. Hmm, if you were going to start something, whom would you shoot first? I’d go with the guys with holstered weapons showing on their hips – especially if I knew there was a good chance those were the only armed ones (for instance, in a place where concealed carry is banned).

  6. After attacking hedge funds and their managers during her tenure in the Obama administration, former White House communications director Anita Dunn is being touted as a public relations consultant to improve the industry’s image, according to a secret proposal obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

    Her advice? Be more like Mao.

  7. And this is why it takes 2 cajuns to eat a roadkilled possum.

    “A renowned former ballet dancer and actress was fatally hit by two vehicles and dragged more than 600ft along the road after getting out of her car in an apparent attempt to help a wounded animal.

    Zina Bethune, 66, whose married name is Zina Feeley, was driving near Griffith Park in Los Angeles, California, when she saw what she thought was a wounded animal.

    She left her Lincoln Town Car running on Forest Lawn Drive early on Sunday morning and got out to help what turned out to be a dead possum, when she was hit by an eastbound vehicle.”

  8. Elie Wiesel tells Romney to tell the other Mormons to stop baptizing dead Jews.

    Sorry, but freedom of speech (Mormons’) and all that.

    1. Well, she has the right to tell him to tell Mormons to stop doing it, but she does not have the right to use the government’s power to stop the practice. I find the idea of baptising dead Jews tasteless, but they are still free to recite any magical incantations or perform any voodoo rituals they feel free, so long as they are not infringing on someone else’s rights.

      1. I understand that Weisel and some others cut a deal with the Mormons to (at least partly) limit these post-mortem baptisms, so he is morally entitled to publicize violations of the agreement (if any).

        From the non-Mormon point of view, this is just some nice people saying my dead ancestors should have a chance at salvation. Also I understand that the Mormons are helpful to secular researchers with their obsessive geneologizing.

        1. If you were a Mormon and really believed you were saving people from hell, why would you ever stop?

          1. I don’t know, but they supposedly signed something. So there’s something to be offended at if they went back on their signature.

            But really, I don’t know why they would stop baptizing people – I understand it’s the only way they think non-Mormons even have a chance at paradise.

          2. mormons GENERALLY have a live and let live attitude towards other religions. matt and trey riffed on it in the trouble with mormons episode, but it actually IS written into the doctrines, etc. that while they believe their religion is the ‘truest’, that other religions have value, and what is important is that people follow their moral code, and mormons are pretty good about not getting all holier than thou in that respect… a lot better than many catholics, evangelicals etc. in this respect

            i’ve seen it firsthand a lot

            but this baptizing the dead shit is about as offensive towards other religions as you can get

            it’s symbolic, but symbolism matters, and people take the treatment of the dead VERY seriously, and it is no minor matter

            even if one totally doesn’t believe in any afterlife whatsoever, it’s still deeply offensive to many

            1. I wouldn’t want them digging up my relatives to baptize them. I wouldn’t want them having a “suffer in hell for eternity, infidel” ceremony to rejoice in my relative’s alleged damnation. But to basically say “we invite you to join us in heaven” is clearly intended as a nice thing, not an insult, and it’s kind of cute.

              1. But to basically say “we invite you to join us in heaven” is clearly intended as a nice thing, not an insult, and it’s kind of cute.

                But that’s not actually what they’re saying. They’re saying “Your ancestor, who thought he was a Jew, and who you thought was a Jew, is a Mormon now and there’s nothing you or he can do about it.” That’s what baptism is; it’s not an invitation to heaven or a let-one-in-to-heaven card, it’s the mechanism for joining a church.

                Of course, if you’re not Mormon, you don’t believe that Mormon baptism “works” so you don’t believe they have actually made your ancestor Mormon. But that’s what they believe they are doing, and it seems kind of messed up.

            2. What if they baptize dead people, but just don’t tell anyone about it?

            3. but this baptizing the dead shit is about as offensive towards other religions as you can get

              Not even close.

              Pooping on a synagogue is about as offensive to other religions as you can get.

              Sticking a crucifix up your ass is about as offensive to other religions as you can get.

              Jizzing on a statue of Vishnu is about as offensive to other religions as you can get.

              1. In all fairness, each religion (or whatever) gets to define what’s offensive to that particular belief system. Some religions have more numerous and complex definitions of offensive than do others.

          3. As I understand it, they mostly do the baptism on direct ancestors of current Mormons, but sometimes they get carried away. If they want to do a baptism for their own Jewish ancestors, that seems reasonable.

            Also, do these baptisms involve any physical contact with the dead or graves or anything, or do they just do a little ceremony is Salt Lake City? If it is the latter, then this is a really silly complaint. If you don’t believe in Mormonism, then they aren’t really doing anything to the dead Jews, are they? I don’t believe in any magical incantations, so I don’t really know, I guess.

            1. Its called baptism for the dead not baptize the dead and no they don’t dig up dead people. Mormons (like most christians) believe that you must be baptized to be saved so rather than send 90% of the world to hell they believe that everyone has a chance to accept the teachings of Christ and be baptized. a living person acts as a proxy for the deceased and the deceased has an opportunity to accept or reject the ordinance. It does not mean that they are now Mormon it means that according to the church the ordinance has been done for that person and they can chose to accept it or not.

        2. It’s a little offensive that they’re acting like Romney is the king of all Mormons.

          “Hey, we heard of a Mormon – he must be their king!”

          It’s like if I met a Jew at a party and asked him to arrange for me to get a better bank loan to the next Big Jew Meeting. “You can swing that, right?”

            1. I suspect it’s about “outing secret anti-Jewish bigotry in political candidates” – since baptizing dead Jewish people reminds him of forced baptism in European history.

              But if he changes the frame a little, remember those brave churchmen who forged baptismal certificates for Jews to save them from Hitler.

      2. SHE?!?

        1. Wurds fayl

    2. When asked by NEWSWEEK if he has done baptisms for the dead — in which Mormons find the names of dead people of all faiths and baptize them, as an LDS spokesperson says, to “open the door” to the highest heaven– he looked slightly startled and answered, “I have in my life, but I haven’t recently.”

      This is right up there with, “I smoked marijuana but I didn’t inhale.”

      1. Having a best friend who’s Mormon, I can understand why he’d give an answer like that. Mormons consider those ceremonies to be extremely sacred, and they almost never discuss them with people outside the church. It would be like someone asking a rabbi in 50 BC what went on in the Holy of Holies.

    3. Yeah, unless the Mormons are actually digging up corpses out of cemeteries and dunking them in water, I’m not sure what the ultra-sensitive types are getting themselves so worked up about.

      I’m no big fan of religion, but if someone wants to go through all the silly hokum of reading my name in their church, fine, whatever.

      1. i can understand why it’s deemed offensive, and i am totally on weisel’s side here. and i generally LIKE mormons.

        it’s symbolic, but symbolism matters

        if somebody literally pissed on a relative’s grave, would that “hurt” their rotting corpse?


        but i’d still probably end up punching them for it.

        and hope for jury nullification 🙂

        1. Except that vandalism, not speech.

    4. Elie Wiesel is a he. Respect.

      And yes, he also has the right to ask them to stop.

      I just enjoy the spectacle of religionists getting into little pissing matches like this.

      1. I can’t really respect someone who is a proven liar.

      2. What do you expect with someone whose 1st name is as close to “Ellie” as it is to “Eli”…and whose last name can easily be pronounced “weasel”?

  9. The Anita Dunn story sums up Washington. It is not that she is a whore that bothers me so much. It is that no doubt is convinced she is anything but.

    1. She is like that whore Trent Lott.

      1. Damn, you really must hate her a lot, pardon the pun.

        1. I hate her mainly because of that weird snake tongue thing she does.

          1. I love how Shrike calls Trent Lott a whore like anyone here is going to disagree with him.

    2. You know, the nice thing about whores is that they just have sex for money. They don’t affect your life unless you want them to, they don’t think they’re on some noble mission, and they don’t pretend they’re exclusive to a person, much less a cause. I wouldn’t smear these (more or less) fine women by equating them with Anita Dunn.

      1. My bad. I have known a couple of whores in my life. And they really have had golden hearts. And they never made a dime they didn’t work for. And they don’t deserve to be thrown in with Dunne.

  10. Sam Jackson voted for Obama for no other reason than his blackness, but doesn’t think he’s “scary” enough, and hopes he will be “scarier” during the next four years.…..3QD;_ylv=3

    1. I think it is understandable that Samuel Jackson voted for Obama strictly because Obama was Black – and I think that is perfectly reasonable. I just don’t want to hear Sam coming around saying nasty things about any White person voting for David Duke.

      1. Or a Mormon voting for Romney.

        1. And, now that I think a bit more about it, I don’t want Sam ever saying the word “racist”.

    2. That interview was actually pretty revealing, if somewhat pathetic–Jackson basically argued that Obama needs to act more like Herbert Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho than a mature adult.

  11. SpaceX took ur jerbs!

    How dare NASA spend money on demonstrated technology rather than just throwing money down a hole!

    1. Anyone hear about Gliese 667 C? Only 22 lightyears away!

      1. Sign me up. Give me a couple of well-built red-heads, put us in a capsule and turn me loose.

        1. Brett took ur gingers!

          Seriously though, stop being me. It’s creepy.

        2. Wait, are these redheads related to you? Does the L stand for Long?

          1. Wait, are these redheads related to you?

            Brett, this would be a good time for you to continue being me.

          2. Sex with your clones is really just masturbation. I don’t want to have relations with my relatives, either.

  12. Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel today called on Mitt Romney to tell the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints stop doing proxy baptisms in the names of dead Jews, including Holocaust victims such as Wiesel’s parents.

    They’ve been through enough. The last thing they need is to be sent to the wrong heaven.

    1. i generally don’t have much problem with mormons. i think their beliefs are kind of wacky, but so what.

      but THIS baptizing the dead shit is really patently offensive.

      it’s also colossally stupid, PR wise.

      i generally agree with matt and trey… they make good neighbors, etc. but whether or not one even believes IN an afterlife, etc. it’s still offenseive that a member of one religion would have the chutzpah to baptize a dead relative of yours in THEIR religion

      it has massive fuckupedness

      1. From my point of view, they are conducting some meaningless ceremonies, saying nice things about my relatives (“they should have a chance at heaven, which they now have”), and helping historical researchers with genealogies.

        Generally, Christian religions believe that you need to be baptized while you’re still alive, and with your consent (or consent of parents/guardians). But I find it hard to be offended if Mormons, based on belief in post-mortem baptism, have ceremonies to improve my loved ones’ spiritual opportunities (as they see it).

        1. like i said, it’s a cultural thing. many people wouldn’;t find it offensive. i would suggest MANY (but certainly not all ) atheists for instances

          but it is VERY VERY VERY offensive to many people, myself included.

          similarly, somebody pissing on a relative’s grave would be immensely offensive to me, even though it causes no ACTUAL harm

          symbolism matters to some people, myself included.

          it’s one of those things that it may not piss some people off, but the people it DOES piss off, it REALLLY pisses them off, and thus i think they are really stupid to do it, as a minority religion , alienating people (like myself) who otherwise are very sympathetic towards mormons is stupid

          otoh, i guess if they TRULY believe it’s the right thing to do , you have to repsect their willingness to do what they perceive as the right thing, even if it could profoundly affect their popularity

          1. Maybe it’s just me, but I’d be offended if they *didn’t* baptize my relatives – what, you don’t want them to go to heaven?

            Of course, if they start sneaking into graveyards or invading privacy to research people, I would have more of an objection.

          2. They can baptize me. I am not a Mormon. But why not have some insurance against being wrong/

            1. What if the person’s original religion is right, and the baptism sends them to hell? Can you imagine?

              “David, I’m Gabriel, the angel of heaven intake. You were a righteous Jew your whole life, and now you shall have your reward.” (Another angel runs up to him and whispers in his ear.) “Oh, the Mormons just baptized you. Have fun in hell for eternity.”

              1. I can’t imagine being unknowingly baptized by the Mormons would be held against you.

          3. It’s like when Robert Anton Wilson made Ian Paisley pope.

      2. It is certainly a top tier paradigm of the arrogance of the religious.

      3. Ja, das ist streng upgefuckt!

  13. Japanese government so desperate to fund all it’s social programs, it’s offering game classes to men in order to increase the birthrate.…..-reproduce

    1. Wouldn’t it be cheaper just to send some tequila to the women?

    2. “OK, Abe, that was an interesting pick-up line, but next time don’t tell her which Sailor Moon character she reminds you of.”

    3. I am (more than) willing to give my time and energy in the name of increasing Japan’s birthrates. The hours would be long and my penis would be chapped beyond belief, but I will make that sacrifice for the good of the country.

      1. I don’t think you can buy Vaseline on FSAs anymore.

        1. FSAs? No, no, no. If the future of Japan is to be saved, no expense can be spared. I’ll need cash and Astroglide.

      2. I do my part and volunteer as well. You can’t do it all on your own, AC.

    4. I wouldn’t call that “game”.

      1. They didn’t go into specifics. And even if they did, game is really different when you get out of the western cultures. Never having been to Japan, I don’t even know what good advice would entail.

        1. (Having been) I would think that one of the first things to suggest would be to go out with the girls once in awhile instead of going out drinking and singing with the boys after work all the time.

          1. …and watching a little less hentai wouldn’t hurt either.

    5. Like their mansplaining is going to solve this problem. This is clearly a symptom of patriarchal oppression that…

      Wait, which comments section is this?

  14. Oh, and for the political/math geeks, CNN has a delegate calculator.

      1. It’s a little clunky, but it’s comprehensive.

        1. No, I meant it starts with “wrong” numbers on finished states.

          1. Actually, CNN has a relatively fair assessment of delegates. Go look at the original map, and you’ll see they give an even 7-7-7 split in Iowa, and only a handful of delegates are assumed in MN, for example. CO is kinda messed up though, based on what the Paul campaign claimed.

  15. The preference for Republicans, according to sources involved, would be that the House-Senate conference committee could produce a proposal, allowing it to move through Congress on a fast-track basis.

    The move comes a day after House Speaker John Boehner and the GOP leadership signaled a new openness to allow the payroll tax cut to be extended without corresponding budget cuts.

    Rush it through so no one can see what you’ve done until after it’s passed. That’s never backfired.

  16. Top Ten Reasons Men Prefer Guns to Women


  17. Some doofus at Salon goes full retard, claiming that the House Bill which seeks to cut the Mass Transit Account from the Federal Highway “Trust Fund” is a new front, manned by the Tea Party, in TEH KULTUR WAR AGENST CITEEZ!!!!11!!!one!!eleventy11!!!!

    The Tea Party soared to power on the notion that it was the antidote to wasteful government spending. It’s now clear that reigniting the culture wars was a top priority, too. From guns to abortion, the extremist wing of the Republican Party has fought to turn back the clock on many socially progressive ideals.

    Mass transit is its newest target.

    “Federal transportation and infrastructure policy has traditionally been an area of strong bipartisan agreement,” says Aaron Naparstek, a Loeb Fellow at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design and founder of “Now, it seems, Republicans want to turn cities into a part of the culture wars. Now it’s abortion, gay marriage and subways.”

    House Republicans seek to eliminate the Mass Transit Account from the federal Highway Trust Fund. The Mass Transit Account is where public transportation programs get their steady source of funding. Without it, transit would be devastated, and urban life as we know it could become untenable.

    [. . .]

    Defunding transit is how you smack down urbanites, environmentalists, and people of color, all in one fell swoop. It’s how you telegraph a disdain for all things European. It’s how you show solidarity with swing-state suburbanites who don’t understand why their taxes are going toward subways they don’t even use. And it’s how you subtly reassure your base that you’re not concerned about the very poor.

    Republicans haven’t pretended to care about cities for decades. In January, none of the candidates showed up to the annual Conference of Mayors. (Two of them didn’t even RSVP.) And even just a month ago, you could argue, as this website did, that “today cities are more ignored than attacked” by Republicans. But the calculus just changed. The transportation bill sends an aggressive message: “Tea Party to Cities: Drop Dead.”

    Oh yeah: it’s racist too, but we already knew that any bill by Team RED is based on keeping peoples of color in their place. Or something.

    It can’t have anything to do with the fact that nearly $.80 of every dollar spent on mass transit is subsidized, and, as pointed out in this morning’s post on the mass transit cut, mass transit subsidies take a full 20% of the federal gas tax.

    Of course it’s rich that the claims of culture war come from those who insist that the vast expanse of land in between a sliver of land along the east coast and a sliver of land along the west coast is nothing more than “flyover country”, full of uneducated rednecks who don’t contribute anything at all to society.

    If you value your sanity, don’t read the comments.

    1. It is a war on our way of life!!

      1. Yes.

        I am at war with those who insist that I pay in order to sustain their expensive way of life.

        City dwellers simply don’t grasp the concept that living in a place like Chicago or New York is expensive, and that, simultaneously, living there is a CHOICE. One that I did not make for them.

        If they want to choose to live in a major metropolitan area, they need to pay for it without strong-arming me and my bank account in the process. It’s not my fault that their shoe box sized apartment cost more in rent for two years than it would cost to BUY a townhouse in Lexington, KY, yet they want me to subsidize those costs for them because fairness and stuff. And if I object to supporting their expensive way of life, I’m the one who’s engaging in some kind of culture war.

        1. But their way of life is sustainable. Don’t you understand?

          1. Not if they can’t afford it it isn’t.

            And if they want sustainable, fucking walk, you lazy fucks. Or ride your bike. But STOP EXPECTING THAT I PAY FOR YOU TO FEEL BETTER ABOUT HOW YOU GET FROM ONE PLACE TO THE NEXT.

            Sustainable only matters to those who expect that everyone should want to live in relative filth that stinks like a taint post a bad case of diarrhea and is riddled with crime, and in unaffordable, shoe box sized apartments in largely decrepit buildings.

            My small town of 4000 has virtually no pollution (I don’t count carbon as pollution), no crime, and I live in a 4300 ft^2 house on 5 acres where my children have room to roam. They can take their idea of sustainable living and fuck off. It isn’t sustainable if you want to kill yourself because of how miserable your life is.

        2. In all seriousness, they just want something for free. It is fun to live in Manhattan. And as a result a lot of people with a lot of money want to live there. So, you have to pay. But you get to live there. They just want you to pony up to support their fantasy lifestyle.

        3. Now, now. Those roads, schools, mail routes, pork-funded jobs, income support programs, etc. many rural folk use are subsidized, too. All things considered, both groups receive around the same per capita spending but urban dwellers contribute more to government coffers. And, of course, since I want no part in subsidizing or being subsidized, I’m getting screwed through taxes and others are getting screwed paying for things my government in SF decided I needed.

          The divide isn’t urban-rural, it’s people who demand you fund their way of life versus those who don’t.

          1. All things considered, both groups receive around the same per capita spending but urban dwellers contribute more to government coffers.

            The link you provide specifically states that urban areas are far more subsidized than rural areas. Only in one particular category are rural areas more subsidized, but overall, urban areas steal more money than rural ones.

            Did you not read your own link? Or were you attempting to make some point otherwise?

            1. Um, did you read it? Look at the top graph.

              Total per capita federal spending
              Metro counties: $10,471
              Non-metro counties: $10,186
              Difference: $285 (<3%)

              The article then explains why, which includes both areas where federal outlays are greater for cities (like spending on community resources) and greater for rural areas (like income support programs).

              And you can see fuller data here, including that totally rural non-metro counties receive the highest amount of money.

              In any case, those are just outlays. If you look at who’s taxed more, it’s definitely the metro areas (unless you wish to argue that rural residents have more income per capita). There’s a net transfer from urban areas to rural areas. I’m not even going full-bore on this point, just pointing out that rural folk are not subsidizing urban folk, at least in any way that’s not reciprocated.

              1. Fair enough. I somehow missed the entire first graph and went on to the second. My bad, and you are correct.

                But look at where those transfer payments are going. The vast majority of transfer payments to rural areas go to programs like food stamps, SS, medicare, welfare, schools . . .

                None of which I use. And I’d rather not use others like the USPS (I fucking hate the USPS). I’d be glad to pay for my use of roads by regaining the lost $.20 on the dollar that is taken from the Federal Highway Trust Fund that goes towards not highways (or even better, losing the federal gas tax and adding the same amount to the state gas tax and keeping all of my road money in-state). Agriculture subsidies can go by the wayside as well.

                So my question still stands. Why should fuck should I have to subsidize urbanites so they can feel better about themselves via mass transit?

                1. But look at where those transfer payments are going. The vast majority of transfer payments to rural areas go to programs like food stamps, SS, medicare, welfare, schools . . .

                  This is true, and to some extent the SS and Medicare should be adjusted for (mostly for people who “paid into the system” in a city then retired to the countryside). Food stamps, welfare and school should not, IMO.

                  Anyway, ditto on not actually wanting any of these things. My point above was that “the divide isn’t urban-rural, it’s people who demand you fund their way of life versus those who don’t.” And I hate the USPS, and ag subsidies, and believe in user fee-based funding, with all the Standard Libertarian Disclaimers that a more just world would have a real market for transportation.

                  And you shouldn’t have to subsidize urbanites’ transit wet dreams. Rail has a place, but that place is not government-run or subsidized.

            2. Also, seriously, qualifiers. I say “about the same” for a 3% difference, you say “far more.”

              I believe my point was made unless you think 103% is far more than 100%. I can’t even imagine what you’d think about the revenue picture, where when you combine the two there are several states receiving over 50% more spending than they pay in taxes, and there’s about a 50% correlation between urbanization and amount transferred.

              1. See my above post which admitted I didn’t take the fist graph in to account because I mistakenly skipped over it.

                The “vastly more” was in response to the 2nd graph, where urban areas DO receive vastly more funding (~25%).

                1. Gotcha.

                  The scales of the graphs on that site are a little misleading, too. The y-axis ticks are separated by $2000, then $200, then $1000. The second graph is only looking at around 15% of the total expenditure, though.

    2. Actually, gun control is about “keeping peoples of color in their place”.

    3. says Aaron Naparstek, a Loeb Fellow at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design and founder of

      False appeal to authority at it’s finest. They do love their credentialism.

      1. And right at the top, I might add.

        Though I do wonder why a professor in design has any authority over mass transit.

        1. You wouldn’t want them to ride on trains that look like shit do you? Or have to put up with stations that don’t look like art museums, right?

    4. This might sound like a crazy idea, but why don’t we all just agree to pay for whatever form of transit we think is best through user fees and see where that leads. If the amount of people using X type of transit isn’t enough to cover the costs of X type of transit, then X type of transit ceases to exist until some investor comes along and is willing to foot the bill to try X type of transit again. Let the market decide if city or suburban life is more economical.

      1. That is racist!!

    5. Republicans haven’t pretended to care about cities for decades. In January, none of the candidates showed up to the annual Conference of Mayors. (Two of them didn’t even RSVP.)

      Salon displays its SWPL phaggotry once again. And are there even any Republican mayors anymore?

  18. John, you idiot. Obama leads Romney and Santorum 59-38 among women in a new Pew poll.… Horserace tables.pdf

    You kept saying contraception-gate would hurt Obama.

    1. You SFed the link. And sorry I am not buying a poll done by an outfit called “People’s Press”. If you only call people in the Berkley phonebook, I am sure that is true.

      1. Its Pew Research.…..-gop-race/

        1. 1,501 adults, including 1172 registered voters and 552 Republican and Republican-leaning voters,

          The poll is not of registered voters much less likely voters. So if they are not going to vote who cares?

  19. Emily Bazelon in Slate.

    What’s at stake here is what it means to have national, near-universal health care. If any employer can opt out of covering birth control or any other not even controversial care, then we’ll never have an agreed-upon menu of basic services that everyone receives.

    My God, the government might not control something.

    And this

    Rubio and Blunt, on the other hand, are in danger of seriously overreaching. For the sake of taking a scissors to national health care, they’re acting as if religious liberty trumps every other value. The upshot would be to deny free contraception to millions of women.

    Because it is everyone’s responsibility to pay for women to have free contraceptives. The poor dears could never be expected to close their legs or pay for it themselves.

    1. I am so so so happy this is happening. Screw wars, screw the economy, screw spending, this election is now going to be about whether or not the government should force churches to pay for contraception.

      This was a genius move by Obama.

      1. No, it was stupid. It pisses people off, but it will be forgotten for the most part by the general.

        Obama is going to annoy himself right out of a job.

        1. What would you have Obama do – run on his economic record? I suspect he’s deliberately rubbing our cultural wounds to distract attention from how bad the economy sucks.

          1. “Well, on the one hand I don’t have a job, but on the other hand, if I *did* have a job, I’d get free contraceptives! And stick it to the patriarchal religious etc.!”

          2. We’re collectively stupid, but we’re not that collectively stupid. Free contraceptives probably ain’t paying the bills.

            1. I was using poetic license.

              1. I know. I’m just saying that he’s going to try this sort of nonsense over and over again, but it isn’t going to work.

            2. We’re collectively stupid, but we’re not that collectively stupid.

              Care to make a small wager?

              1. No. I already showed overconfidence in American intelligence when I laughed at the idea that some of us would even nominate a socialist blank slate, let alone elect him.

          3. What would you have Obama do – run on his economic record?

            No. I’d prefer it if he ran on his highly successful foreign policy record.

            I’m surprised I typed that without laughing.

            1. He capped Bin Ladin didn’t he? That was the first thing he said during the SOTUS.

              And Bin Ladin’s sister or someone is now saying he had given up the jihad and was telling his kids and grand kids to go to college. So it doesn’t’ look like Bin Ladin even mattered anymore besides for revenge purposes.

              1. He didn’t cap shit. Pakistan sold Bin Laden out for an undisclosed amount or favors to be named later. Notice how they didn’t make much noise about a Navy SEAL team coming across their border and starting a firefight.

                1. What, you mean that the fact that he was living in the same neighborhood as all of the retired brass in the Pakistani army means that the Pakistanis knew he was there all along? And that maybe they decided they were tired of the embarrassment of having him and decided to sell him out to the US with plausible deniability?

                  Well I never. you are just cynical.

                2. We just didn’t notice them! Just like we didn’t notice a wanted terrorist moving into one of our nicest neighborhoods. We don’t have time to focus on nitpicky details like that.

                  1. That is right. It was brilliant CIA work. We didn’t get any help from the Pakistani government.

      2. It is really about whether the government can force people to do things that are against their religion. That is a pretty big issue. I couldn’t care less about contraception. Close your fucking legs.

        1. I can’t wait until the shitstorm that will arise when someone has the idea to deny coverage to circumcision.

          1. Don’t religious Jews have that done at home in a ceremony anyway? I don’t think they do it at the hospital. So, I doubt a Mohl or whatever it is is covered by insurance.

            1. I thought they had experts who did it in the back of cars with really smooth rides.

              1. Yes. Every good Mohl owns a Citroen

                1. Was that the car used in the SNL commercial? I can’t remember.

      3. First the Komen/PP manufactured outraged, then this.

        1. They must really be worried about the suburban soccer mom vote.

          1. Among white women, more single women vote D, and more married women vote R.

            1. “Where the single white women at?”

            2. Maybe Rs are just more likely to get married.

              1. And who would want to marry a liberal?

                1. I did! And it made no difference to me that she inherited a ketchup fortune – I would have married her no matter *where* her fortune came from!

                2. Spineless metrosexuals who like shrill harpies?

    2. If any employer can opt out of covering birth control or any other not even controversial care, then we’ll never have an agreed-upon menu of basic services that everyone receives.

      Remind me, when did it become a requirement for your employer to purchase insurance on the behalf of their employees?

      The upshot would be to deny free contraception to millions of women.

      How about a compromise? Rather than subsidizing Big Pharma by requiring the Papists give employees ortho tri-cyclen, let’s subsidize the steel industry and require employers offer chastity belts to their employees as part of the health plan.

      American manfacturing, bitches!

      1. Now that I think about it, why aren’t insurance companies required to cover vasectomies?

    3. Wait a second: birth control is now a “basic [medical] service”.

      I’m all for using birth control, but fucking pay for it yourself.

    4. But isn’t it the right of every American woman to be able to fuck like stoned test bunnies without ever having to worry about being punished with a baby?

  20. If any employer can opt out of covering birth control or any other not even controversial care, then we’ll never have an agreed-upon menu of basic services that everyone receives.

    She must not speak English.

  21. “In most communities CBS4 checked, less than 20 percent of the dogs are licensed, meaning in some case they are missing out on millions of dollars a year in revenue.”

    Thus perpetuating the myth that all money is the government’s and they just lack the ability to collect it all. Good job, local CBS 4!

    (God, I miss being able to read and comment on AM–and now PM!–links)

  22. Baptizing Holocaust victims-only in America


    Full metal jousting, the next extreme sport. Yeah baby.

    1. Bah. This is the true extreme sport of the future.

      1. I should look into that. I would kick ass. I’ve bought 3 stunguns so far, and keep upgrading because they don’t seem have any effect on me. The last one (1.5 mill) makes me tense up a bit, but it’s not debilitating in the slightest.

      2. We have a few ideas, if you’re interested.

  24. One down. Several million to go. About time someone got in trouble for improperly feeding the dog.

    1. At first I thought this was about abuse charges for putting Miller Lite beer in the dog’s water dish.

      1. At least it wasn’t Coors or Keystone Lite.

  25. They didn’t go into specifics. And even if they did, game is really different when you get out of the western cultures. Never having been to Japan, I don’t even know what good advice would entail.

    The Japanese people I know are all Americans, really, even if they’re not, so this could be b.s., but:

    Japanese women appear to require that Japanese men actually be traditional “good catches” when deciding whether they’ll uh mate with them. The only Japanese dude I know who’s had a series of Japanese girlfriends and has a Japanese wife-and-kid situation going now is a physics professor. The rest, all less prestigious but none of them a real loser, are all brutally rejected by their co-ethnics?in favor of not-Japanese guys who are otherwise pretty much the same guys they are.

    There may not be such a thing as intra-Japanese “game.” And even if there were, “game” isn’t for generation-breeding purposes. It’s for putting generation-breeding instincts and habits to other uses. That’s precisely not what Japan is trying to do.

    1. It’s for putting generation-breeding instincts and habits to other uses. That’s precisely not what Japan is trying to do.

      It’s kinda difficult to have kids if you aren’t having sex. Plus, there’s the always the “damn, out of condoms” factor. Aside from banning abortions or instilling a “go forth and multiply” religious directive, I don’t really see that they have many other options from the government perspective.

      1. They could simply repeal the provision of their law that requires TEH FREEZ BIRFER CONTROLZ!1!1!!!!1!1! be a part of all health insurance.

    2. are all brutally rejected by their co-ethnics?in favor of not-Japanese guys who are otherwise pretty much the same guys they are.

      Now this I believe. Everytime I’ve been in Asia, I haven’t had to do shit to get women but be tall and white.

    3. With second-gen Americans, just generally, it seems that some women are wary of going after the same ethnicity, especially when they come from a male-dominated culture. I guess it’s a way of asserting individuality. Even if the other guys she finds are no better, her family can no longer have traditional expectations. Or something like that; it’s hard to put yourself in someone’s shoes like that.

      As for Japanese Japanese, I mean, fuck these guys need advice for dealing with women. Not from the ward office, certainly, but somewhere. Plus, these guys can’t cook, clean, garden, repair anything, and for the most part they’re making about $20k a year, purchasing power adjusted. If the women want nice things and a family, they’ll have to work and do all housework themselves, plus take care of the man. Things worked out fine in the boom years, but young people these days don’t have the cash flow for kids. Obviously the guys don’t have game, but you need something to work with first.

      And if women get married, they’re worried their companies will hold them off certain career paths. If they have a kid, their company will expect them to quit. So they just never start down that path.

      1. but young people these days don’t have the cash flow for kids. Obviously the guys don’t have game, but you need something to work with first.

        The unemployed guys in the projects with 19 kids beg to differ.

        1. Well, they don’t really have the money either.

          The difference, I think, is that the Japanese don’t want to half-ass something like child-rearing, so the cultural expectation is to wait until they have a good and secure source of income before having a child.

  26. I’m confused. Is Li-Lo hot or not? Those pictures from the other week made her look like she was 50 and then I spot these:…..-romantic/

    Maybe I just need to start viewing the world through that photographer’s camera.

    1. Don’t do it, Bingo. Lindsay Blowhan looks like the stunt double for Marcia Cross.

    2. Scary looking. And trash. Not hot. Would not hit.

  27. I dunno man she looks kinda mean and I’m not talking average I’m talking unfriendly

  28. The jugs on the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Magazine this year are too wide.

  29. You obviously don’t work in Des Moines…
    I think many times it’s the utter gratuitousness of the event that makes it so memorable. Cowering dog shot in locked backyard. Chihuahua slung out of a, what, third story window? Fourth? Whatever. Statistically, cops may not kill many dogs, but when they do, they often seem to go out of their way to make it newsworthy…

    1. Geez. That was a reply to Dunphy, somewhere in the thread. How come cops never shoot the squirrels?

  30. Foxman says:

    Holocaust victims died precisely because they were Jewish. Listing Jews as “Christian” on one of the most researched genealogical sites in the world inadvertently aids and abets denial of the Holocaust.

    Because if they’re baptized, they’re not really dead?

    And what’s so great about winner take all primaries? Get 30% of the vote, win all the state’s delegates, because the next closest had only 25%? Like the illusion of consensus in a given state is such an advantage?

  31. Massachusetts stupidity:…..gton-mall/

    I’m surprised they didn’t file charges.

    1. Remember that guy whose umbrella shut down a mall?

      Yeah, same place.

      1. For Cate, he can understand how at a distance his $27 umbrella could be mistaken for a sword, but not a rifle. But the more valuable lesson – he’ll be buying a new umbrella

        Of course! The lesson is certain things are not allowed because they resemble certain other things that are not allowed!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.