A.M. Links: Yahoo! Plays Patent Troll, Murdoch Confidant Rebekah Brooks Arrested, Afghans React to Kandahar Slaughter


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. 

New at Reason.tv: "How Housing Policy Caused the Financial Crisis"

NEXT: Reason Writers on The Alyona Show: Matt Welch Talks Voter Access, Plea Bargaining in America, and Public Attitudes About War

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. Gas prices trigger Obama scramble

    The White House scrambled Monday to contain the political damage from rising gas prices, which have emerged as a primary threat to President Obama’s reelection.

    Obama gave White House interviews touting his energy policies to TV stations in several regions, including the battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar appeared in the White House briefing room to emphasize that “all options are on the table” to lower prices.

    1. at “all options are on the table” to lower prices.

      Except actually increasing supply.

      1. u mean obama should stop refineries fm exporting refined gas ?

        1. That wouldn’t actually increase supply. Do you know the meaning of words.


        2. Since refineries are already shutting down due to losses in the Northeast, that’s an incredibly bad idea.

          1. Refineries are shutting down in the NE because of the expensive unions. There are 3 refineries shutting down in the Philly area alone.

        3. the losses are a result of decreased domestic demand…resulting in the refined gas exports to use refinery capacity & make money.

          >increasing domestic oil production does not increase domestic demand.


          1. As much as I don’t want to respond to the Mole Whisperer, here goes:

            You can’t say “the losses are due to X.” The losses are due to the sum of factors – Northeastern refiners’ failure to update their plants, their reliance on now-more-expensive Brent crude, decreased gasoline demand.

            Banning exports will not change any of the factors which make these refineries uneconomical, but it will shift some marginal ones to losses, further reducing employment and possibly increasing long-term prices.

      2. Algae is the solution you ignurint bagger.

        1. The biggest problem with algae is that the strains that produce the most oil, are the strains with weak cell walls. Don’t worry, Monsanto is hard at work trying to genetically engineer a strain that has bot a strong cell wall and high oil content.

          1. So the biggest problem with algae oil is shear failure?

            * nerd giggles *

      3. And he needs to decide if he wants low gas prices or reduced consumption. The two are pretty much mutually exclusive.

        1. It is amazing how they want it both ways. Yeah, its true that 95%+ of the gas price increase is not due to any policy hes put in place, but this is exactly what he wants. This is what Cap and Trade was designed to do -drive up gas prices. And now he complains?

          1. You may be able to make a case that it’s not his personal policy, but the administration’s fiscal and monetary policy is a large factor in the increase in gas prices.

          2. why are you surprised this WH wants it both ways? It wants ALL things both ways: there is the spin put to the public – the notion of “we want lower prices, too”, and there is the policy side – Obama has been crystal clear as to his intentions.

            Of course, the WH can always depend on a sizable portion of the electorate being massively uninformed. Without that reality, liberals would never win any public office. They hear what he says but never see what he does.

        2. The funny thing is the gas prices are actually pretty low. When compared to the price of gold, the cost of a barrel of oil is actually 0.75 less than the historical average.

          Gas prices aren’t rising so much because of “instability” in the Middle East, etc. It’s just inflation finally taking it’s toll after deficit spending, bailouts, loans to foreign countries, etc.

          And of course, the FedReserve doesn’t use energy costs in its basket of goods to compute the CPI.

          1. The corollary to your observation (which I agree with) is that if the Middle East ever did become “unstable” and cause actual supply shortages…watch out.

            If we have a no-shit shooting war with Iran, replete with mines, terrorism there and here, etc..: I wouldn’t be surprised to see oil start to tickle $175-200 a barrel.

    2. Our Obamessiah, the greatest president in American history, isn’t to blame for the price of gasoline or anything else bad that happens anywhere, you stupid christfag redneck.

  2. Hey Riggs, if the candidates had gone to Detroit would you say they are courting “niggers”? Or do you just slur against Southern whites?

    1. The butthurt is strong with Jim Bob.

    2. concerned cracker is concerned

    3. Uneducated white voters now make up a special voting demographic pollsters are tracking closely.


      Its essentially the GOP base.

      1. Do they track people who believe in Green unicorns and global warming?

        Essentially the DNC base.

        1. ^look – a gop know nothing denies 6 iceages & 6 melts…the last just 12,000 yrs ago.

          >what melts ice again?

          1. so water freezes when it’s cold and ice melts when it’s hot. Which proves what? An equal number of ice ages and melts sounds like what the “know nothing” crowd has contended all along: there is no such thing as AGW.

          2. Salt?

      2. Economically illiterate voters make up a large portion of the electorate in the northeast and Pacific states. The Democrats track them closely, as they’re easily pandered to.

        They’re essentially the Democratic base.

        1. Educated whites trend strongly Dem, no doubt. So do economists and scientists.

          We’ve been over this.

          1. Educated whites Whites indoctrinated in so-called “elite” universities trend strongly Dem

            The Dems get the trust fund babies and the moronic dregs of society, a voter profile that matches their desire for a feudalistic economic class system.

            1. The Dems get the trust fund babies and the moronic dregs of society, a voter profile that matches their desire for a feudalistic economic class system.

              So you’re suggesting that people who’ve created their own success tend not to vote for a party whose entire platform is based on entitlements and redistribution of wealth?

    4. Jim Bob, are you saying every white person in the south thinks Obama is a secret Muslim and evolution is not real? Or just the ones who vote for the GOP? I’m sure there are some smart white people in the South. They do have some good schools down that way. Rice, Vanderbilt, Emory, Duke, etc. Some of them might stick around when they graduate.

      1. most of them stick around after graduating. Curiously, we find ourselves inundated with people who run here from the deep blue states only to try and convert us into the same sorts of places from which they escaped. Can’t fix stupid; can’t fix liberal; can’t fix Dem.

        1. The south and midwest are where you go when you can’t make it elsewhere. You believe in a free market right? Supply and demand? There’s a reason that real estate prices are higher in NYC, SF, DC, and Boston than elsewhere. That’s where people want to be.

          1. condescend much? Hate to burst your bubble but making it is possible without ever having to set foot in any of the places you cite. But if people want to be there, let them stay. And let them keep supporting initiatives that keep tax rates at stratospheric levels, none of which has a thing to do with your original point.

          2. There’s a reason that real estate prices are higher in NYC, SF, DC, and Boston than elsewhere.

            High taxes?

            1. zoning restrictions?

              environmental impact statement requirements?

            2. High taxes would reduce the price of real estate.

    5. Are you trolling or do you honestly not see the difference between the 2 words?

      1. Are you trolling or do honestly not see the parallel?

        1. The original commeneter didn’t just point out a parallel, he equated them. Yes, there’s a parallel. No, they’re not even remotely equal slurs.

          1. “he equated them. ”

            Nope. He asked a question and you interpreted it as equivalence.

            YOU did that. YOU.

          2. I just call hypocrisy when I see it.

            1. I was going to make the exact same comment. I’m not a southerner but that’s bullshit.

              1. 4/24 is a bunch of Northeast primaries including NY, so I’m sure the headline then will be GOP courting fags.

      2. I prefer the terms “cracker” or “hillbilly,” although some would say these are merely subsets within the general designation of “redneck.”
        But rube, hayseed, bumpkin, yokel and clodhopper all work, too.
        Poor rednecks. So downtrodden, so misunderstood.

    6. According to all major media editorial guidelines, shitting on white Southerners and white Christians is aok. F**koff, you toothless Bible-thumping hick.

      1. oooh a conspiracy !11!

        *rubs hands together*

      2. Who the fuck is shitting on anyone? The republicans (particularly Romney) are campaigning directed at working class white southerners. Redneck is not a dirty word. Just ask Charlie Daniels.

        1. So Riggs meant it as a compliment then?

          1. I think he meant it as an informal descriptive term. You knew what he meant, right?

    7. Rednecks arent an exclusively southern phenomena. They exist everywhere.

      1. indeed…and, by and large, they have jobs, pay their taxes, are not huge fans of big govt, like the outdoors, and help their neighbors. I’ll take a town full of them over a gaggle of snobby prep schoolers all day long.

      2. What makes you humans think you deserve rights at all?

        1. Whups, wrong spot.

          1. ERROR!

      3. Rednecks arent an exclusively southern phenomena. They exist everywhere.

        And it’s not just for white folks. Both Randy Moss and Karl Malone have identified themselves as rednecks. It’s more of a lifestyle involved with hunting, fishing, pickup trucks, NASCAR, professional wrestling, etc.

    8. “Redneck” is a slur? A lot of people seem to be proud to be red necks and self identify as such. I don’t see the parallel. Romney is campaigning with Jeff Foxworthy, for fuck’s sake (you know, the guy who makes redneck jokes).

      1. Hey! That’s our word! You don’t get to use it!

      2. “Redneck” is a slur? A lot of people seem to be proud to be red necks and self identify as such. ”

        “Nigger” says hi.

        “I don’t see the parallel.”

        That is not a prerequisite for something to be a slur.


        1. Well then explain to me how it is a slur. Some anonymous person on the internet telling me that it is so is not a good reason to believe something. If you call that education, don’t go into a career in teaching.

          1. “Well then explain to me how it is a slur. Some anonymous person on the internet telling me that it is so is not a good reason to believe something.”

            That is not a prerequisite for something to be a slur.

            “If you call that education, don’t go into a career in teaching.”

            You said “A lot of people seem to be proud to be red necks and self identify as such” as a defense against it being a slur, the word “nigger” and its current usage totally refutes this.

            / more education

          2. Well then explain to me how it is a slur. Some anonymous person on the internet telling me that it is so is not a good reason to believe something.

            Why do you think anyone should have to jump through hoops just to satisfy you?

            Is saying “redneck” with impunity so important to you that the idea that it is irksome to some people requires you to go into full on defense mode?

            It bothers people. That’s good enough for me and should be for you, unless you’re an asshole that just indiscriminately insults people, in which case, do us all a favor and self declare so we don’t waste time debating you.

            1. Anybody who takes offense at the word “redneck” is somebody looking to be offended.
              Man up, dude.

              1. Anybody who takes offense at the word “redneck” is somebody looking to be offended.

                This is always the justification for crap like this.

                “It’s your fault for getting pissy”.

                So what? That brings me back to the point ” It bothers people. That’s good enough for me and should be for you, unless you’re an asshole that just indiscriminately insults people, in which case, do us all a favor and self declare so we don’t waste time debating you.”

            2. Jesus christ, who’s being oversensitive? Does it bother people? In my experience it doesn’t, so I don’t see it as an insult or slur. I don’t think anyone should jump through hoops to satisfy me. I don’t think it is offensive. If you want to convince me it is, then you have to do more than just say it is so or “it bothers people”. Get it? It’s not too fucking hard.

              1. “In my experience it doesn’t, so I don’t see it as an insult or slur.”

                That is not a prerequisite for something to be a slur.

                “I don’t think anyone should jump through hoops to satisfy me. ”

                Well then explain to me how it is a slur. Some anonymous person on the internet telling me that it is so is not a good reason to believe something.”

                In my experience it doesn’t

                Does that include today where you were just told it was?

                You aren’t owed an explanation, and one isn’t required. “Being oversensitive” is no justification either.

                1. Dude, I can find anonymous idiots on the internet to tell me any absurd thing I can think of. So your telling me that is not convincing. Is this really so hard?

          3. It’s a cultural stereotype–it’s even based on the color of someone’s skin.

            It’s just a stereotype that, for whatever reason, has maintained more acceptability than other slurs.

            There are a few of them still hanging around. For some reason, putting alcohol in coffee (or anything else) makes it “Irish”.

            If there are Irish people out there who find that offensive, there isn’t anything wrong with them. The question is, why does society treat some ethnic sensitivities with kid gloves and then put other slurs on the breakfast menu?

            1. Yur a cunny, Ken.

            2. Well, cultures exist. Identifying them with names doesn’t mean the name is a slur. I’m open to being convinced that people are often offended by it (everything offends someone, so finding a few examples isn’t good enough), but I don’t see it now. People proudly identify as rednecks and not at all in the same way as black people use the n word.

              For the love of Jeff, you people sound like the people who look for racism in every statement a non-liberal makes. Go work for the SPLC, you have a future there.

              1. “I’m open to being convinced ”

                Except convincing you isn’t a prerequisite for something to be a slur. You seem to think it is, and keep repeating as much.

                “People proudly identify as rednecks and not at all in the same way as black people use the n word.”

                CAUSE YOU SAID SO!

              2. I’m open to being convinced

                It’s almost entirely used in a derogatory fashion, and it’s almost exclusively used on whites.

                An insult, against a specific race, based on geographical boundaries, is a slur.

                This is like 1st grade level stuff, why do you require someone to explain this?

                1. People proudly identify as rednecks and not at all in the same way as black people use the n word.

                  People often self identify to defuse an insult, this is pretty thin gruel.

                2. Yeah, it’s about intent. If you mean it respectfully or playfully than that’s one thing. If you’re using it as an insult as Riggs clearly is than that’s where it becomes a slur.

                3. Dude, it’s not about race, it is not only southern, it’s a term people use to describe themselves a lot. I don’t fucking buy it. Go ask for a job at the SPLC.

              3. I’m with Zeb. I’m a Hillbilly-American (with Irish mixed in) and can’t understand the kind of hyper-sensitivity that would get one offended by the word “redneck” or by “redneck” or Irish sterotypes. You want to “irish” up your coffee? I got no problem with that. I can take a joke.
                But you want to play “victim” because you think Snuffy Smith is an offensive stereotype, because you the leprechaun on the box of Lucky Charms somehow offends your oh-so-delicate sensibilities? I got a problem with that.

                I’m not suffering from any kind of ongoing discrimination because of my Kentucky/County Cork background. Neither are you. Man up, I says.

                1. “can’t understand the kind of hyper-sensitivity”

                  You don’t have to.

                  What is wrong with you that you don’t get that people have to justify this to you?

                  1. And I don’t have to justify the fact that I think anyone would claim be “offended” is either pathetic or is being disingenuous.

                    1. “And I don’t have to justify the fact that I think anyone would claim be “offended” is either pathetic or is being disingenuous.”

                      No one asked you to.

                2. “But you want to play “victim””

                  And here we see how the insults fly.

            3. For some reason, putting alcohol in coffee (or anything else) makes it “Irish”.

              Uh, no. Putting Irish Whisky in anything makes it Irish.

              1. Uh, no. Putting Irish Whisky in anything makes it Irish.

                Incorrect, and frankly, an amateur mistake.

                1. Give me an example. I bartended at a pub for more than a decade, so I don’t consider reasonably informed on the subject. It’s the amateurs putting random booze into stuff and calling it Irish.

                  1. so I don’t consider reasonably informed


                    so I consider myself reasonably informed

                  2. Putting Irish Whisky in anything makes it Irish.

                    No examples required, when the population AT LARGE calls something something, it’s entered the vernacular and that’s what it is.

                    Your opinion on it, bartender or otherwise? Means fuck all.

                    1. Thus proving that you’ve got it exactly backwards. Amateurs may put anything into a drink and call it Irish, but professionals don’t. 😛

                    2. And I still challenge you to name anything that people call an Irish ________ that doesn’t include Irish Whisky (or Irish Cream even).

                    3. Irish Pride

                      3 ounces of creme de menthe
                      3 ounces of Amaretto
                      2 ounces of lemon juice

                      Pour all the ingredients into a cocktail shaker filled with ice.
                      Shake the drink until it’s well mixed.
                      Strain it into a highball glass filled with ice.

                    4. Duh, that’s because creme de menthe is green, hence Irish. Creme de menthe goes on a proper Irish Coffee as well, for the same reason. Nice try copy-pasting from a drink mixing site though.

                    5. Thus proving that you’ve got it exactly backwards. Amateurs may put anything into a drink and call it Irish, but professionals don’t. 😛

                      Well, I don’t consider an irrational adherence to antiquated terminology professional, but to each their own…

                    6. I’ve spent enough time at the local Shamrock Club to know that adding any kind of liquor to a drink (such as coffee or soda pop) is to “irish it up.”

                    7. Shamrock Club… “irish it up.”

                      By definition, just about everything done there would be Irishing it up.

              2. You think that sort of explanation would fly with every racial stereotype?

                1. Was that to me Ken, cause if it was, I’m not sure it would, but in this case it does and it probably is a pretty good place to start.

                  1. Nah, you’re just quicker on the draw than I was.

                    That was to somebody else. I forget who. I was saying the same thing.

                    1. It was to “Uh, no. Putting Irish Whisky in anything makes it Irish.”

                      I wrote: “You think that sort of explanation would fly with every racial stereotype?”

                      I’m imagining someone trying to justify a racist watermelon joke with an observation about how a certain ethnicity really does like watermelon, and I just don’t think that would fly.

                      Here’s Martha Stewart’s recipe for “Irish Cupcakes”.


                      The secret ingredient is whiskey!

                      I don’t think it’s a stretch to assume that without the whiskey, they’re just plain cupcakes.

                    2. In fact, how many people see a recipe for “Irish cupcakes” fly by–and DON’T assume it has alcohol in it?

                      Does this work with any other stereotype? Can somebody call a car full of babies a “Latino car” without being racist?

                      I doubt it. If filling something with babies doesn’t make it “Latino”, then I don’t know why putting alcohol in something should make it “Irish”.

                    3. The problem is neither of you know much about mixed drinks.

                      Guess what’s in a “Mexican coffee”. No, it’s not babies. It’s coffee liqueur, which originated in Mexico. A Black Russian’s key ingredient is vodka, which was first produced in Russia. It’s almost like there’s a geographic relationship between the ingredients and the names.

                      drink + Irish ingredient = Irish drink

      3. Foxworthy makes redneck jokes, black standup comics make nigger jokes – meh.

      4. “Redneck Nigger” is a slur? A lot of people seem to be proud to be red necks niggers and self identify as such.

        1. I did that already and was told it was different. No justification was given at all.

          This was of course, by the same people who insist that a slur pass their rigorous personal examination before they consider it a slur, as if their opinion decides anything.

          1. “No justification was given at all.”

            And since you spent several posts declaring that nobody owes anyone any justification for their beliefs, it’s strange that you seem to expect one from the person you’re arguing with.

            I’m offended by the word “two”. I don’t have to justify myself to you, it should be enough for you that I have declared that I find that word to be offensive. If you use it in my presence, you are just a trolling asshole.

            Christ, you idiots sound like a bunch of pussy-ass liberals, whining about being offended by every fucking thing. Grow the hell up.

            1. Here’s the thing, that kinda knee jerk jab–and it WAS intended as a jab–is a lefty thing–a TEAM BLUE thing if you prefer, we don’t need it here.

              You wanna do your morning links with a bit of humor in the post–fine. But when you jab at just the white southerners, well then you’re saying something.

              No wonder the Kochs are motivated to do something.

    9. if the candidates had gone to Detroit would you say they are courting “niggers”

      If they go into the black neighborhoods of Philly and give people “walking around money” on election day, then I would be inclined to say they are courting “niggers”.

  3. WOLF: Democrats sneak Uncle Sam into your bedroom
    They give donors, political allies at Big Pharma a wet kiss

    The new HHS provisions make no distinction between high-end, expensive birth control and generic versions. This is the big wet kiss to Big Pharma. They get rich much quicker collecting $3,000 for each coed instead of a measly $108. So Ms. Fluke gets a free lunch? Well, not quite. Somebody’s got to pay the increased taxes, higher insurance premiums and – mark my words – increased contraception costs. So the government simply transfers those bills to someone else, like the janitors at Georgetown Law, for example, who humbly clean up after spoiled kids.

    1. There’s actually some justification for not making this distinction seeing as how the proponents of this argue the more expensive versions have health advantages and/or more reliable in preventing pregnancy.

      1. Don’t get me wrong, if they wanted to increase access in a way that would be easier on taxpayers and women without benefiting the drug companies they would go OTC with most BC.

      2. The question is whether they’re $2892 worth of advantages. And no one’s considering it, because doing so means you hate women and want them to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, or something.

    2. Her whine is worse than that. As a customer she is demanding an employee benefit that is even more expensive than the employees get. My example of buying a Volt and demanding GM employee healthcare with it is timid in comparison.

      1. She pays a lot of money, colleges give all kinds of services to students in return for that. It makes more sense in some ways to give a customer these things than an employee, the former is paying for them via tuition.

        Colleges usually have gyms for students for example, I don’t know if the janitors can work out there.

        1. It never ends with you people.

        2. I know second-hand about a handful of college “fitness centers”. They are all open to college employees.

          So, now we’re off of saying that contraception should be an employment benefit, and onto saying it should be a customer service? I can’t keep up.

          I mean, if its a right, its a right, right? And if its a right that customers have, then why can’t my wife demand free pills next time she buys a car?

        3. At my (public) college both faculty (teachers) and staff (janitors) had access to rec facilities.

        4. She pays a lot of money, colleges give all kinds of services to students in return for that.

          Too bad a good education is no longer one of them.

        5. She pays a lot of money

          No, she is on a “public service” scholarship. She doesn’t pay shit, you ass-hat.

          1. Great, now the Commies will say that is more reason for her to get free SEIU level healthcare.

        6. Colleges usually have gyms for students for example, I don’t know if the janitors can work out there.

          You don’t?

          Please don’t ever change.

      2. The truly radical thing to do would be to have unprotected sex, and then deal with the consequences. Not rely on the government or the pharmaceutical-industrial complex to handle your problems for you. Just saying.

        1. Because in this day and age who would even consider just not having sex?

        2. the first half of your comment sounds radical. Unfortunately, there is the second half which is just laughable because you assume someone like Fluke would actually “deal with the consequences”. No, she would just be a new strain of baby mama.

        3. “the government or the pharmaceutical-industrial complex…”

          One of these things is different from the other, dipshit. Are you Rick Santorum?

          1. hence the use of the word “or” – semantics, how do they work, dipshit?

            1. Did you even read the comment you’re white-knighting for? It’s a false equivalency. Taking birth control that you paid for is not the same thing as forcing other people, through the government, to pay for the consequences of your decisions. The only possible objection to the “pharmaceutical-industrial complex” helping you is if you have a religious objection to people having sex.

          2. Sorry if I wasn’t clear before. Some radical feminists do have unprotected sex, and they won’t deal with doctors. I was involved in a radical women’s group years ago, and they were into home medical procedures (menstrual extraction). Not joking here.

      3. As a customer she is demanding an employee benefit that is even more expensive than the employees get. My example of buying a Volt and demanding GM employee healthcare with it is timid in comparison.

        This is an inapt analogy. Since she buys student health insurance, it would be more like there being a rule that GM has to provide tires with her Volt.

        1. But she knew that Georgetown was a Catholic college and didn’t provide such a benefit. And she chose to go there anyway. If her grades and test scores were good enough to get into Georgetown, she had other options. George Washington is five minutes away and is nondenominational and provides birth control. Why not go there?

          The reason why she went to Georgetown was to campaign for birth control. In Flukes mind no one can be left alone if they don’t toe the feminist line. Georgetown must be brought in line. It is not just that she disagrees with Georgetown. If it were that, she would not have gone there. It is that she thinks it is her duty to change Georgetown, even though no one makes her go there and Georgetown is a private institution. That is a twisted and authoritarian mindset.

          1. CHOICE. It’s not just for abortion now.

        2. The better analogy is me going to BYU specifically to campaign against their no drinking policy claiming to be a victim of BYU’s Mormon beliefs.

  4. Texans, five others ‘still alive’ in Peyton Manning bidding


    WTF is this? Schaub is a good, perhaps even great QB. Why would the Texans do this and insult him like that?

    1. I have no fucking clue. But they were serious enough to let a $4.5M/yr o-lineman go. My dream scenario is Peyton goes to Denver and has a meltdown while Tebow goes to Miami and wins 9 games for them. Not because I love Tebow or hate Manning, but fuck Denver.

      1. The only thing I can think of w/ Houston is that they are worried about Schaub’s rehab.

        1. Losing an above average RT is not going help things for one of the least mobile QBs in the league. And that was before his foot injury.

          Not happy about them cutting Winston. They may lose Myers and Brisiel too. So help me God, if they are doing this to free up money to try and sign Mario Williams…

          I do think it’s funny that Manning may be headed to Denver after all.

      2. What’s the problem with Denver? Jealousy?

    2. He keeps getting hurt. I don’t see what possible attraction Denver has. They have a terrible defense that was totally exposed by the Patriots. And have few weapons on offense. Arizona makes sense. Miami makes a little sense. But Denver makes no sense.

      1. “He keeps getting hurt.”

        So you replace him with…Peyton Manning?

        1. I don’t think they will. I would be shocked if the 49ers or Houston sign Manning. You don’t trade 10+ years of a good QB for a three year tops gamble on Manning. The only way Manning makes sense is if you don’t have a younger viable QB.

          1. Gamble?

            1. Yes gamble. They won’t be gamboling across the South Texas plain either.

              1. *kicks pebble*

          2. It depends on what your doctors say about Manning’s MRIs. …and from what I can tell, they’re just fine.

            The reason the Redskins traded all those picks? Was becasue they couldn’t attract Manning–because Manning doesn’t want to go to Washington. The Redskins have too many missing pieces. No great WR, for instance…

            That tells me that it’s Manning who’s in the driver’s seat here. The Redskins would have given up 3 (really two) first round draft picks and and a second for Manning, if they could have. …but since they couldn’t, they gave that all up for the next best thing.

            I think the only reason the Colts released Manning was because they’re traumatized from last year–realizing that too much of their salary cap was invested in one player. They remedy that by signing Luck as a rookie, but they still could have made a mistake here.

            We’ll see.

            1. The Redskins traded for RGIII because if he is as good as advertised, they will have a top flight QB for the next 15 years. Rather have that than even four years of great Manning.

              1. They traded for him after Manning neglected to schedule a workout with them. He wouldn’t even meet with the Redskins! The day after Manning announced which teams he was meeting with, the day free agency opened, the Redskins announced the trade.

                They’d have given all that up for Manning if they could have.

                They couldn’t.

                1. “He wouldn’t even meet with the Redskins!”

                  A smart move there.

            2. I think Luck is a huge gamble.

              I wish them Luck.

              1. After watching him in college, he isn’t much of one. HE is amazing. He just doesn’t miss passes. I think the scouts got this one right.

                1. Heath Shuler looked great in college…

                  1. And a lot of people thought Ryan Leaf was better than Peyton Manning. Drafting a QB is always a big gamble.

                    1. Leaf never saw a serious defense in the Pac10 during his college years. Manning was battle tested in the SEC. Any scout worth his salt would have recognized that and taken Manning over Leaf. Plus Manning’s pedigree, etc.

                  2. Tim Couch, Cade Mcknown, Akili Smith, Drew Bledsoe, David Carr, Ryan Leaf… need I say more?

                2. Two words: RYAN LEAF.

                  1. Schuler and Leaf neither one looked like Luck. Not even close. Schuler had one good half season his senior year. And Schuler was dumb as a rock. Luck is going to graduate early from Stanford.

                    And Leaf was just a spoiled asshole who didn’t want to work. Luck has none of those issues and is by all accounts a great kid.

                    He is as close to can’t miss as you can get.

                    1. And Leaf was just a spoiled asshole who didn’t want to work.

                      Part of Leaf’s problem was Marty Schottenheimer.

                      I have never in my life seen a coach who was quicker or more willing to throw his own players under the bus–on television–than Marty Schottenheimer. That was absolutely the worst coach–for Leaf– that Leaf could have gone to.

                      I remember listening to Shottenheimer explain to the media in San Diego why Drew Brees wasn’t good enough to be a quarterback in the NFL. Leaf played his role, and he was what he was, but if Leaf had gone to another team who would handled him differently? Leaf wouldn’t have performed as badly as he did.

                    2. If I could ask Drew Brees one question, that’s the question I’d ask: “So Drew, you were good enough to get to the pro-bowl six times; you were good enough to break the single season passing yardage record last year, you were good enough to win the superbowl…but tell me, do you think you’re good enough yet to play for Marty Schottenheimer?”

                      If he gave an honest answer, I think he’d say, “Nobody’s good enough to play for Marty Schottenheimer”.

                    3. My very close friend was a bartender in Pacific Beach back in the late 90’s. She saw a lot of Ryan Leaf. Leaf’s problems were not football related. He was more interested in winning the PB bars beach volleyball tournament than he was in the NFL.

                    4. Marty Shottenheimer coached the Chiefs during Leaf’s Rookie year.
                      He was part of Leaf’s problem, though… The Chiefs exposed him to be an immature, flaky, spaz of a QB.

              2. I think Luck is a huge gamble.

                Re-signing him was probably a bigger gamble–for them.

                They were exposed last year as a less than mediocre team with a great quarterback. They need to spend that cap money on just about everything else they’ve got–rather than Payton. A team with plenty of cap space and has some younger players who have started to establish themselves, but can’t go UFA yet? That’s where Payton ends up.

                …so long as he thinks he’s got a chance to win there. I still say there’s nothing about his medical condition that’s limiting which teams are willing to take him. Most of that risk will be mitigated in the contract.

            3. It would also be weird playing against his brother twice a year.

              1. I’m not sure whether he would have liked that? Or disliked it.

            4. It depends on what your doctors say about Manning’s MRIs. …and from what I can tell, they’re just fine.

              Regardless, he’s on the tail end of his career. Which means he’s slower and more fragile.

              No, he’s a short-termer, at best, and a gamble regardless. If you’ve got a young franchise-of-the-future quarterback you want to develop for another year or two, Peyton might be a good pick. Otherwise, I don’t get it.

              1. I’m with RC. Setting aside the neck issue, he is still 35 years old. You might get two good years out of him.

              2. 35?

                You only need one good season out of the guy to make a run. He’s got at least two or three left in him–as far as age is concerned.

                The injury question can be resolved in the contract. You can structure it in such a way that if he doesn’t perform for whatever reason, the hit is minimal. See the headline making contract (in sheer size) the Redskins gave McNabb the year before last. It was structured in such a way that trading him to the Vikings wasn’t much of a problem at all, and he cost the Redskins practically nothing against the cap–despite not performing.

                Manning will get a huge signing bonus–with very little money guaranteed after that. He’s a risk to the cap for the first year, but after that? If he doesn’t work out, he won’t be much risk at all.

                1. But Ken if he doesn’t work out, you are left without a QB. That is why teams like the 49ers and Houston are not going to give up established younger QBs for him.

                  1. If he doesn’t work out, you’re left with nothing different than what you have right now.

                    That’s why the Colts are trading him: because right now, they’re not left with nothing. They’re left with Luck, who’s a whole lot cheaper than Manning. …and they get to apply all that spare cap space elsewhere.

                    There are at least 25 other teams in the league who don’t have a better option.

                2. Ken, off of the top of my head, only Unitas, Elway, maybe Staubach and maybe Plunkett won Super Bowls at that age or older. The history is not favorable, especially if the teams have holes in them that cannot be filled this year or the next. Manning’s probably toast after 37 (38 on the outside), so all of these teams better get to scramblin’.

                  1. Ken, off of the top of my head, only Unitas, Elway, maybe Staubach and maybe Plunkett won Super Bowls at that age or older.

                    I certainly think Manning is beter than Staubach or Plunkett! Why shouldn’t he be able to outperform them? And those guys were playing before the rules changed and made hitting the quarterback a federal offense…

                    You know what I’m talkin’ about.

                    If you can insulate yourself from the risk in the contract–by giving him big money the first year (which is probably what he wants) and very little guaranteed after that, than the decision you make for your team isn’t driven primarily by how well historical figures have done in the past, anyway.

                    It’s whether your team is better with Payton Manning on it than it would be otherwise–this year. There are very few teams who would be worse teams because they have Payton Manning under center.

                  2. Favre is good example of what happens with older quarterbacks – they just don’t have the reserves, don’t heal fast enough, whatever, to get through a full season and a full slate of playoff games. No matter how good they are at the beginning, they tail off at the end of the season.

                    1. Brett Favre was some 6 or 7 years older than Manning is now.

                      Drew Brees is about a year younger?

                      If I don’t have a better option at QB, I’m thinking Manning has at least another good year or two in him.

                      Especially the way the rules are now. 10 years ago, I’d rather have a strong running game and great defense than an elite QB. The way the rules are now? When teams with the worst defenses and the best QBs met in the superbowl? I’d be staying up late every night tryin’ to think of better ways to get Manning.

                    2. Think of it this way, RC…

                      Let’s say you’re like the Redskins last year, and your quarterback is going to be either Rex Grossman or John Beck. And you’re in a division going up against Michael Vick, Tony Romo and Eli Manning.

                      And if you don’t win soon, you’re gonna be out of a job. I’m sending Peyton Manning flowers every day like he’s a school girl.

                    3. I understand the short-term thinking of many NFL teams. It may even be justified. Given the amount of coin I’m hauling down as an NFL coach, I would be focussed on getting a year or two more, rather than having a long career as well.

        2. Does Manning have a history of injury?

          I have doubts that Manning will ever be close to the same, but comparing someone who gets hurt over and over with someone who doesn’t is pretty silly.

          1. He’s coming off what could still be a career ending injury, he’s a huge injury-related question mark, that is not who you go with if you are worried about your current QB being “injury prone.”

            1. He’s coming off what could still be a career ending injury…

              Yes, I know. You can tell I know by reading what I wrote.

              If the Texans believe that the (one) injury is behind him — I doubt it, but they have access to more info than I do — it’s still just one injury compared to Schaub’s many. It’s almost like comparing a safety with one major injury to Bob Sanders. Maybe the one injury is too serious, but that remains to be seen.

          2. I think you guys are confusing the Matts for Houston. Schaub got hurt for the first time last season. His backup, Leinart, is the one who shatters a bone every time he falls wrong. Leinart was released yesterday.

            1. I think you are confusing 2010 with the beginning of Schaub’s career.

              1. Not to be all superficial, but seriously, what has Schaub done lately to warrant this kind of defense of him?

                1. Schaub has been a top-10 QB since he became a starter. He doesn’t get a lot of publicity for it because he plays in Houston, which has been aspiring to mediocity since its debut. His profile suffers because he isn’t the “face of the franchise” like most of the other best QBs in the league.

                  Schaub doesn’t get injured and the Texans are probably 1 or 2 in the AFC and have a first round bye instead of 3 and playing on the road in the 2nd round.

                  When a QB like Peyton Manning becomes available I think it would be negligent of management of a team with an unsettled QB situation to not seek him.

      2. Schaub got hurt exactly once. Leinart was the backup in 2010 and got zero snaps. This only makes sense if they are worried about Schaub not getting back to form next season and want to give the kid who played the end of the season one more season of backup QBing.

        1. This is my point, if you are worried about Schaub getting hurt, why would you go with a guy coming off an injury that put him out for at least an entire season and possibly forever? WTF?

          Manning should go to the Seahawks, it’s the one that makes the most sense.

          1. Peyton back to Tennessee makes sense to me. The whole state would have multiple orgasms regardless of how well he plays.

            1. I think Hasselback can give a good year or two, but Tavaris Jackson? Ugh.

              Put Manning in there with Lynch, you got something interesting.

          2. I don’t think they’re worried about Schaub getting hurt. I think they’re worried about whether Schaub will be fully recovered.

        2. Schaub got hurt exactly once.

          That’s simply factually incorrect.

          1. He started all 16 games in 2009 and 2010. I’m not worried about nagging injuries.

            1. How about 2007 and 2008? Maybe he’s luckier now.

      3. The only thing exposed by the Patriots was Tebow.

  5. ‘Are you better off?’
    The economy & Election Day

    So no, Barack Obama is not Jimmy Carter. But he doesn’t have to be Carter to lose: Carter lost by 10 points in 1980. Today’s mood isn’t as grim, but it’s seriously grim nonetheless. Enough to lose by a point or two at least, and don’t think Obama and his people don’t know it.

    1. A point or two is within the margin of Democrat election fraud. If Obama isn’t losing by at least 5, the Republicans should be worried.

      1. what fraud?

        oh yea, elderly widows incorrectly signing on their deceased husband’s line for a ballot.

        sum fraud yesirieee

        1. what fraud? the one to be perpetrated if DOJ gets its way and stops states from requiring ID in order to vote. Because, you know, minorities are not capable of getting driver’s licenses or other forms of picture identification. And yet all these folks unable to find ID for voting find ways to cash checks, buy liquor, and do a host of things that typically require some doc with your mug on it.

  6. Mises Institute is shutting down their blog.

    1. Por que?

      1. As use of the blogosphere, Facebook, Twitter, and similar tools has exploded in the last few years, the need for a large, diverse, and busy group blog hosted at mises.org has diminished. We all have many channels for sharing news and views, and the formal, “traditional” organizational blog has become a little old fashioned. Therefore we’ve decided to close the Mises blog and replace it with smaller, lighter, more focused, streams ? a news feed and a streamlined opinion blog, the Circle Bastiat. The Mises blog archives will remain on the site now and forever.


        1. I posted that link in morning links the other day. I feel like I am their last reader.

          1. Is it really shutting down or just moving to a different location and format? I really enjoyed the Mises blog though.

            1. The latter, maybe. Not following their reasoning.

  7. The full Tyson.

    “A basketball coach whose team lost a tournament game in Springfield Friday night was charged with assault after police say he bit off a piece of the winning coach’s ear.”

    1. Is that a flagrant one or two? Better check the tape.

  8. Full question wording: “Organizations known as Super-PACS can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of candidates they support. (Supporters say this is a form of free speech) while (opponents say this allows groups or wealthy individuals to have unfair influence.) Do you think it should be legal or illegal for these Super-PACS to operate?”

    Nice wording on the question. “Opponents say wealthy people will still elections while proponents say fuck you.”

      1. Are you from Western PA? That would explain why you think it’s pronounced “still” (as in “Stillers”)

          1. Nice. I take payment in fried chicken.

              1. Racist?

          2. You should be thrown in a jaggerbush. That would learn ya.

            1. Rapidly becoming sorry I asked. Where’s Lucy to put an end to this nonsense?

        1. What’s embarrassing is that he tried to red up his mistake but found his grasp on vocabulary was too slippy.

          1. what is this i don’t even

          2. Damn. Gradpap? is that you?

          3. red = clean

            around the great lakes

            1. Not in any part around the Great Lakes where I have lived.

              1. Me neither.

            2. Fuck you! I’ve never heard red=clean in Akron or Canton or Cleveland. Canton may be getting increasingly overrun with Yinzer wannabes (why???), but they don’t speak the language full-on.

              1. I don’t know where Orrin is from in Ohio, but there is no place I can think of where “red = clean” along the entire North Coast. Don’t think I’ve ever heard it in MI or IL either.

                So, in other words, Orrin is squawking out of his ass.

                1. oops – my sis lives in jackson township, just south of akron, & uses “red it up” all the time…as do many i know.

            3. Not in Michigan.

            4. I’ve never heard it in WI, IL, NW IN, or MI. Or anywhere else, for that matter.

              1. “Red up” is a thing in Western PA, but I don’t know how far beyond it reaches. It seems to be mostly older folk here keeping it going.

        2. Or VA in George Washington’s day.

        3. That would explain why you think it’s pronounced “still” (as in “Stillers”)

          An Okee friend of mine used to talk about “dih stillers”. It took me a while to figure out that he was referring to football, not moonshine.

    1. What’s unfair about this question? Is this not how proponents of each side argue?

      1. It’s inaccurate to say that “supports say” and imply there’s debate on this point. A fair wording would be “The Supreme Court has ruled that this speech is protected under the 1st amendment. Those opposed want this to change b/c they content its unfair”

        1. There is debate. We’re doing it right now. WTF?

          1. I’m saying the “supporters say” phrasing leaves off an important aspect of the situation.

          2. The point is is that, while there is a debate, obviously, presenting it as a debate that is still wide open and ignoring the fact that it is settled case law now.

    2. In other news, Americans admit they are easily distracted by shiny objects.

      1. Isn’t that the entire basis of the diamond business?

    3. It is legal for the super PACs to operate, see the first amendment.

      What we need is a constitutional amendment that prohibits corporations from donating to election campaigns, and that only allows individual persons to contribute only to a maximum of $100 in 2012 dollars.

        1. to get the “crony” out of capitalism.

          1. Do you think cronyism is just a matter of campaign checks? Do you think the GE CEO is a crony because he writes a $4k check to Obama (out of a $1b campaign war chest) or because he leads a company that is sucking the admin’s cock and therefore providing cover for its enviro-cronyism and in return gets to rent seek?

            Cronyism has far more to do with the government’s reach, complexity and opaqueness continuously increasing?

          2. Imposing a $100 dollar max on contributions (a con amendment, based on a monetary baseline for a particular year, really? Even with changing media technology?) will simply give incumbents and those willing and able to break the law a massive advantage. Will the creation of a class of near-permanent incumbents eliminate cronyism?

            Maybe you should find a friend or family member who will do your thinking for you. You are clearly not up to the task.

            1. We already have a class of near-permanent encumbents.

              Limiting contributions to a $100 max would eliminate the super PACs on both sides, hence minimizing special interest influence in politics. I don’t know what to say to you about people willing to break the law, maybe God will smite them or maybe the DOJ will.

              1. Jesus, your entire premise is wrong.

    4. I wonder if they worded it accurately what the response should be:

      Organizations known as Super-PACS can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of candidates they support. The Supreme Court has ruled that this is free speech protected by the First Amendment. Opponents say this allows groups or wealthy individuals to have unfair influence. Do you think the Constitution should be amended to eliminate First Amendment guarantees of free speech for these Super-PACS?”

      I bet you’d get more like 30% in favor, 70% opposed. The 1A is as close to sacred text as we have in this country.

  9. Red meat is blamed for one in 10 early deaths
    The Department of Health was last night urged to review its guidance on red meat after a study found that eating almost half the daily recommended amount can significantly increase the risk of dying early from cancer and heart disease.

    favorite nugget: Scientists added that people who eat a diet high in red meat were also likely to be generally unhealthier because they were more likely to smoke, be overweight and not exercise.

    so, is it the meat or the smoking or ??

    1. Way to control for other factors. I guess we have no scientific standards anymore.

      1. Confirmation bias is the foundation of ‘scientific studies’.

        1. u mean like the earth is just 5,000 yrs old?

          1. What the fuck dude? Who on here is a young earth creationist or doubts the validity of Darwinian evolution?

            1. Nobody, but triple asshole can’t make a cogent argument, so he falls back on this crap over and over again.

      2. The study did control for other factors:
        Here’s the full paper instead of a newspaper summary:

      3. I think that a lot of it is the fact that the people who write up articles on studies like this are fucking stupid and don’t know what they are talking about. Often to the point that things are reported about studies that cannot be concluded from them at all. There are a lot of bullshit studies too, I am sure, but a lot of the absurd results you hear about are just misinterpretation by the press.

    2. It was reported on TV as meat eaters having a 13% chance of death, so I am having steak for lunch.

      1. Fuck yeah. If my chance of death drops from 100% to 13%, I’m all over the red meat.

    3. I don’t even pay attention to those studies anymore. Unless you can repeat the experiment in a test tube, the results are probably bullshit.

    4. 100% of people who don’t eat red meat live long, miserable lives.

  10. oh sure, blame the base.

    Afghan Killings: Troubled History of American Base

    As authorities investigate the circumstances of the deaths, international attention has turned to Lewis-McChord, a military base with a troubled and bloody history.

    From assaults on American authorities in the U.S. to the “thrill killing” of other Afghan civilians, here are some of the most infamous incidents involving soldiers hailing from Joint Base Lewis-McChord in just the last three years.

    1. Must be something about the State of Washington. That story is an example of “I have no new information about this but I have to write a story on it anyway.”

      1. Have they called him an angry White Southerner yet?

      2. I bet they had access to violent video games.

      3. I bet the base hasn’t banned Limbaugh’s show.

    2. Doesn’t al Qaeda translate as “the base”?

  11. High-speed trains war on reindeer.

    “The train line, which runs between Ume? and Lycksele, has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of reindeer over the last three months, when the unfortunate animals have wandered onto the tracks.

    Finding a dead reindeer or one that is injured and needs to be euthanized is a daily occurrence for reindeer owner, Per-Mikael Jonsson, who is forced to put down many injured reindeer fearing that their internal damages may be too severe to survive.”

    Won’t someone think of teh chirrens!

    1. Venison? That’s some tasty railroad kill. Does he field-dress them or just lug them back to base

      1. Reindeer is good eatin’

      2. Venison? That’s some tasty railroad kill. Does he field-dress them or just lug them back to base

        Hitting an animal can be a daily occurence for a train crew. A slow-moving train that knocks the deer off to the side will kill it without doing all that much damage . . . and I’m assuming it’s cold wherever reindeer live, so dressing it and lugging it home might be a viable option. Often, though, animals get rolled up under the train and are torn to shreds. You can sometimes smell meat and fur cooking on the traction motors. There’s no danger to the train, but sometimes a large chunk of meat will be enough to dislodge an airhose, which failsafes the train to a stop.

        1. That’s weirdly interesting Karl. I had wondered about the speed/impact thing with trains and animals, so thanks.

          Vaguely related: This guy I knew once hit a big red roo not far from his home. He was OK, but the impact totalled the car and kangaroo. The really sad part was that he was a vegetarian and couldn’t take advantage of the very fresh game meat in front of him. What a waste.

          1. Roadkill shouldn’t be good eating. Even assuming its fresh, the impact of the car is going to ruin most of the meat, and road rash will likely do for the rest. You might get a little good meat off, but probably not much.

            1. Fair enough, but in this case you’re starting with a large animal (over 6 foot, a few hundred pounds) so even a yield of a small percentage of meat would be a decent couple of meals, I suspect. And it is yummy and healthy.

              1. Mmm roo burgers.

            2. . . . assuming its fresh, the impact of the car is going to ruin most of the meat

              Probably the legs and such would be OK to eat. I’m not a hunter, and I’ve never dressed an animal, but my understanding is that meat is ruined when internal organs, such as the tummy, rupture and taint the surrounding meat. I guess that’s why hunters take great care not to “gut shoot” an animal.

              1. with roos, most of the usual cuts of meat come from the thigh, arse and tail, and it does get used by discerning gourmet scavengers

            3. “Roadkill shouldn’t be good eating. ”

              Due respect, I have many years of experience and many family members that disagree.

              The impact does not “ruin most of the meat”.

              1. I’ll take your word for it. The deer I’ve seen after a full frontal didn’t look like they had much eating yet.

                The impact “blood shocks” the meat that actually takes the brunt, which pretty much ruins it is my understanding.

                Maybe I’m just too picky. When I hunted in overpopulated Southern Wisconsin, where does were not just fair game, but at times mandatory before you could shoot a buck, I always looked for fawns. A milk-and-corn-fed fawn is my idea of good venison.

            4. Don’t want to it eat? You could wear it

            5. I agree with AcO. My next door neighbor growing up was a Highway Patrolman, and he would let the various fathers on the block know when their was retrievable venison to be had (and, as a HiPo, he could put a tag on it for us). He would generally bleed it out before anyone got there to pick it up.

              There was no noticeable taste difference between deer killed by car and those killed by high-powered rifle.

              That said, there were possibly some cases where he came upon deer that were so trashed he didn’t bother letting us know about them.

          2. Vaguely related: This guy I knew once hit a big red roo not far from his home. He was OK, but the impact totalled the car and kangaroo. The really sad part was that he was a vegetarian and couldn’t take advantage of the very fresh game meat in front of him. What a waste.

            The effect is much different with trains. Cars are made from plastic and thin sheet metal. A freight locomotive, on the other hand, can weigh over 200 tons, and is built with thick slabs of solid steel – crucial to developing the tractive effort necessary to pull thousands of tons of train. Point is, there is absolutely no “give” if you’re hit by one. It’s like being hit by a building.

          3. Moose are, statistically speaking, the worst large animal to hit. They’re high enough so that you can clip the legs out from under them, which puts the body of the moose right through your windshield in a car.

            The average Swedish driver has something like a 1 in 4 lifetime chance of having a moose collision. I have no statistics on the chance of a moose biting your sister, however.

            1. the chance of a moose biting your sister

              Not very high these days.

            2. . . . . puts the body of the moose right through your windshield in a car . . . I have no statistics on the chance of a moose biting your sister, however.

              In one of the later American Pie movies (on of the direct-to-video ones), one of the main characters was raped by a moose. He said it felt like he had “given birth to a mayonaisse jar.”

              Really, is there any other animal that can be dangerous in so many different ways?

              1. When my mother was working ER in Havre, Montana they brought a kid in who had gone around a blind conrer on his dirt bike and ran right into a moose. He was going fast enough that the handlebars went right through the moose stomach while he slammed into the body. She said the stink from a kid covered with moose guts was unreal.

                1. Can you remember what sort of injuries he had, apart from a bad case of the stinkies? Like, is this the sort of impact that would break bones?

                2. “I thought these things smelled bad on the outside.”

              2. Steve Smith?

            3. N? realli!

              1. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.

                1. llamas!

    2. You would think they could fly out of the way better than that.

    3. Reindeer got run over by my Grandma
      Going home from bingo and a meal
      Lib’rals say that fast trains save the planet
      But reindeer get the short end of the deal

      1. +internets to you

      2. Awesome.

      3. Reindeer like to cuddle up to pipelines
        Cuddle up to get all snugglely warm
        Though the Sierra Club was not shy to opine
        The pipelines have done no reindeer lasting harm

      4. Now I have that darn song going through my head. I don’t know whether to clap or kick you.

  12. Bill Maher’s ‘Fatwa’
    Liberals use Muslim terminology pejoratively, knowing the civility police will never be coming for them.

    Even more surprising than Mr. Maher’s defense of Mr. Limbaugh, however, has to be his use of “fatwa.” These days when a liberal invokes Islamic language or imagery, typically it’s directed against someone like Mr. Limbaugh instead of in defense of him. Indeed, a foreigner surveying our mainstream media might be surprised to find out how frequently Islamic terminology such as “fatwa,” “mullah,” “jihad,” “Shariah” and “ayatollah” are used in a completely opprobrious sense?provided they are directed against Republicans or conservatives.

    1. Its fair use. On Friday’s show Maher used the term ‘Christian madrassa’ to describe a religious school in the USA. It accurately conveys the danger of childhood brainwashing.

      1. So many errors:

        1. “Fair use” is an IP law term. It’s inapt here. You can say his use of the term is accurate, but it makes no sense to say it is “fair”.
        2. It is not an accurate use of the term. “Fatwas” are edicts issued on Islamic law. The famous Rushdie fatwa was a ruled upon point of law that sentenced Rushdie to death. In other words, the word “fatwa” means, roughly, “ruling”, so it is dumb to equate the act of ruling (issuing a fatwa) with the substance of the ruling behind it (the actual sentence or interpretation).

        And here I thought my GOP shillness made me an ignorant yokel and Wall Street Whiz Kid Liberal-types were supposed to be all multi-culti n’ shit.

        Just goes to show…

      2. It accurately conveys the danger of childhood brainwashing.

        So, from your comments we should assume that you attended a “Socialist Madrassa”?

        1. You’re a typical Freeper idiot. I am as capitalist as they get. I know Buffett and Soros and Gates, Brin, Page, are all “socialists” in your tiny fevered mind just because we are not rednecks.

          1. Fuck your superiority complex, shrike.

            1. And some proof of current Freeper membership would be a great addition to your charge, while you’re at it.

              Though, if you paid attention, you’d know I got kicked off FR about four years ago, after I mistakenly joined it thinking they actually gave a shit about freedom… yeah, I shoulda read more of the anti-libertarian commentary on there first. My bad. But I was proud to be kicked off, especially given their bullshit reasoning for it.

              Try again, round-heels.

          2. I am as capitalist as they get.

            You use the word “capitalist”. I don’t think you know what it means.

            1. George Soros may *act* like a capitalist, but he has socialist goals in mind – AND, he influences public policymaking, which is supposedly a bad thing for billionaires to practice.

      3. What about the brainwashing of children in public schools, shrike?

        Wait… forget that. You’ll just give your standard pro-Team Blue bullshit.

        1. Better than your Team Red bullshit. Secularism is not brainwashing. Religion is.

          1. I’m not talking about secularism in public schools, you stupid twat. I’m talking about the “religion” of worship of the state.

            And you’re just fuckin’ fine and dandy with that, but you’re too dishonest to admit it outright.

            1. It can also be found outside the public-school classroom:


    1. HOLY SHIT!!! The teeth… the teeeeeeeeth!

      1. “The Big Book of British Smiles”

        1. “Why must you turn my office into a house of lies?”

          Classic episode.

      2. The skin! The skin!

    2. That is some serious ugly. And some seriously bad teeth.

    3. What do you expect when you marry a dude in a skirt?

    4. “Munter”. I haven’t heard that word in years. It’s delicious.

    5. Scotland is now indistinguishable from the Deep South.

      What the fuck happened to that country?

      1. That isn’t just a coincedence. A large percentage of the south was settle by the Scotch Irish who brought their culture with them.

        1. Thomas Sowell says that the southern accent and other parts of southern culture are also derived from Scotch immigrants.

          1. I’ve said pretty much the same thing re the accent and people look at me funny.

            I think it’s closer to the British accent, Georgian and South Carolinian are the best examples, but I can hear the Scot lilt as well from the other suth’n accents.

          2. Our propensity to spend most of our spare time fightin, fuckin, or drinkin?

            1. That sounds like a good time.

  13. A stunning 52% of Mississippi respondents to a survey done ahead of Tuesday’s presidential primary have bought into the false notion that Obama worships Allah. In Alabama, 45% responded in the affirmative when asked the same question.

    Sixty-six percent of Mississippians surveyed by PPP said they didn’t believe in evolution as did 60% of people in Alabama.

    And in these states, Rush Limbaugh is an admired figure, with 53% of those polled admitting to having a favorable opinion of the right wing rabblerouser. The figure was 51% in Mississippi.

    >Mississippi and Alabama are also deeply religious states that generally rank at or close to the bottom in most state education rankings.

    1. These are incredible figures…

      1. Are they any more incredible than the number of Democrats who believed that 9-11 was an inside job or that George Bush had knowledge?

        Yeah, people believe stupid conspiracy theories. How many people believe in UFOs or ESP or crystals or Scientology. The list goes on and on.

        Those statistics are only significant if the rest of the electorate is any better. And that is clearly not the case.

        1. Are you incapable of saying something stupid of GOP voters is stupid without having to bring up Democrats?


          1. You have to bring up Democrats. The only way the survey makes sense is if it implies that those voters are somehow worse or less informed than others. And clearly they are not.

            And I also agree with Suki, what was the wording of the survey?

            1. No, it doesn’t beg a comparison unless you feel invested in how the GOP looks.

              Sure, Dems likely believe in dumb things too, but one would think you could agree that these beliefs are stupid without having to go “oh yeah, but what about the Demy-krats!”

              1. No, it is about how smart you think you are. You want to play the “I am smarter than those stupid rednecks” game. You believe that your beliefs are validated by finding stupid people who disagree with you. The obvious response it to point out the number of stupid people who agree with your positions.

                So it isn’t a defense of the GOP. It is an attack on your arrogance.

                1. “Likely” believe?

                  There’s chockablock stoopidity in BOTH Teams, MNG. It’s always a good idea to remember that.

                  Hell, shrike’s posted on here at least once today… there’s an example.

        2. Check into the survey itself, wording, etc.

        3. Very few Dems are Truthers. Most Truthers that I know are anti-Dem and anti-GOP.

          In fact, a few Dems that I know get insulted if the WTC attack/inside job angle is even mentioned.

          1. Ron Paul seems to own the Troofer voting block.

            1. Yeah — no kiddin’.

          2. Now. That wasn’t the case in 2004. Howard Dean got on national TV and said it was a viable option.

            Most hard lefties I know bought into some kind of Truther BS. Now that Bush is gone and they run the government, it is no longer okay to think bad of the government.

            1. I don’t consider Democrats to be hard lefties.

              Hard lefties are the local Socialists and Greens — those cats really dislike the Democratic Party.

              1. So Maobama is a DINO?

              2. But most vote Democrat anyway.

                1. Not the ones I know.

              3. but still vote for the democrats anyway.

                1. I should have scrolled down before posting.

            1. Interesting poll, Fatty.

              My take of the poll is similar to what was mentioned in the article (“trash-talking against Bush”) but thanks for the link.

              1. That’s probably a factor. I’m sure there is a plenty of that in the Obama poll, too.

        4. Truther bullshit brings the banhammer at Dem blogs, you idiot.

          All CT does. (like Halocaust denial)

          The anti-Semitic stuff is more righty in nature.

          1. So the “the right” infiltrated the Soviet Union and created Zionology, then they let Helen Thomas “uncloak” as an R, and then the Republicans got that whole flotilla thing going? Bill Ayres has been a rightie all along?

            Sorry, I must have more evidence before I believe your horribly bad propaganda.

    2. That’s nothing. 100% of democrats polled still believe in Keynesianism, eternalities and massive wealth transfers.

      1. You equate belief in externalities with belief in evolution?


        1. The conservative mind at work. It really does make you go WTF!?

          1. I think every economist would agree that there are such things as externalities, though there would be a vigorous debate about what exactly they are, what impact they have etc.

            You’re not going to get debate among biologists that people evolved…

          2. Tell us again how green energy and wind is going to replace fossil fuels Tony. We love your creation myths.

            1. +1 Wind Turbine

            2. John makes weak attempt at deflection, sky is blue.

            3. Tea bagger!

              Algae is going to replace fossil fuels.


              1. Algae is the new switch grass.

                1. Switch grass was the new oil gourd.

                2. John put forth a good question, Tony. You’re projecting the deflection.

              2. Maxxx, I have a plan, call me. All I need is $2M cash up front and 4 years of unsupervised work.

    3. I wish I were surprised, but I don’t even stop for gas in Mississippi anymore. I did a lot of driving back and forth b/t FL and TX about 6-7 years ago and I just got to the point where I made sure to take a leak and fill up in AL or LA, because the people who work the gas stations/fast food joints in MS were universally worthless no matter their race, creed, or color. And my expectations for not worthless in that situation are pretty low.

      1. What’d they do?

        1. Absofuckinglutely nothing. No matter how polite or not I was, they continued to have conversations with their coworkers despite the fact that I was literally waving cash in their face. And not, like, surly rest-of-the-world continued their conversation. I seriously waited for 10 minutes at the counter of some chain restaurant, saying something about five minutes into it. Asking for the manager, and finding out she was one of the ones ignoring me. That was when I shook the dust from my feet, but it was kind of the apotheosis of all my other interactions in MS.

          1. The only two people from Mississippi I know are a very religious Baptist couple who, fucking A, voted for Ron Paul in 2008.

            1. Oh, I know my sample is biased. There are rocket scientists in MS along I-10, too.

    4. So is the takeaway from this that stupid people shouldn’t be allowed to vote?

      1. The takeaway is that not believing evolution and admiring Rush Limbaugh have something to do with one another.

        1. Actually, the real takeaway is that Southerners’ political views should be ignored because they don’t conform to the sensibilities of a NY Newspaper.

    5. Mississippi and Alabama are also deeply religious states that generally rank at or close to the bottom in most state education rankings.

      Mississippi and Alabama would score much higher in educational rankings if you only count the children of GOP voters. Funny how that works.

    6. bought into the false notion that Obama worships Allah

      Yes, the NYDN article actually says that, and it does nothing to help anything. Allah is just the Arabic word for the god worshipped by Jews, Christians and Muslims. Arabic-speaking Christians also worship Allah. That’s like saying “Marco Rubio worships Dios” – accurate but doing nothing to advance debate.

      1. And that’s like saying that all those Mississippians have the vaguest idea of that fine point – which they don’t. What the article actually says is that they are a bunch of ignorant yokels who think Obama is a Muslim. Let’s keep it simple and accurate.

    7. Obama does not worship Allah, nor any other god, he admits that he did not even listen to the preacher in his church which he attended for twenty years .

      He worships himself, that is why he wrote two books about himself.

    8. Kinda makes me glad Paul is polling so poorly in those two states.

  14. Remember! You are unique; just like everybody else!

  15. * Voters want to ban super PACs.

    Imagine my surprise.

  16. Is anyone else getting tired of games being stopped in the NCAA to check toes on the three point lines? I’m usually a huge fan of instant replay, but it’s getting to be a real momentum buster.

    1. You are talking about basketball, where the last minute of a game can take a half hour to play.

  17. Brooks: The Fertility Implosion

    Usually, high religious observance and low income go along with high birthrates. But, according to the United States Census Bureau, Iran now has a similar birth rate to New England ? which is the least fertile region in the U.S.

    The speed of the change is breathtaking. A woman in Oman today has 5.6 fewer babies than a woman in Oman 30 years ago. Morocco, Syria and Saudi Arabia have seen fertility-rate declines of nearly 60 percent, and in Iran it’s more than 70 percent. These are among the fastest declines in recorded history.

    1. I have read this before. And they say that is one of the reasons why the Mullahs are getting crazier. Their society is dying out. And further, Islam has been totally discredited among the population of Iran.

      If we can keep them from getting Nukes, the Iranian regime is going to implode on its own. And it is also a good example of why we shouldn’t panic over things like the Muslim Brotherhood taking power in Egypt. It is a bad thing in the short term. But in the long term, nothing does more to discredit radical Islam than letting them have some actual power and responsibility.

      1. Islam has been totally discredited among the population of Iran

        Oh, rly, John? Linkies?

        Next: Baptism has been totally discredited among the population of Alabama.

        1. I think he meant Islamic rule.

        2. Iran has the lowest Mosque attendance of any Islamic country. Attending Mosque and doing daily prayers is about the best indication of whether someone takes the religion seriously.


          1. Saddam’s socialism actually produced something good. Now, if only people there were free to worship without being blown up or lynched.

            1. Saddam’s socialism

              I think you confused Iran and Iraq.

              1. naw – Iraq had communal farming and state run industry for most of Saddam’s rule. The pan national arab movement also tended to be socialist.

          2. I don’t know…a millenium of existence shows some pretty good staying power to me.

          3. Kewl, thanks John. But this could also represent a disenchantment with the political/religious regime, not a falling-away from religion.

            1. True. But the Shah really did a lot to secularize the country. The revolution was a push back against that as much as anything. And the Revolution has failed in most people’s eyes.

              I am not saying we will wake up one day and find Iran to be Christian or Zorastrian again, although that would be wildly interesting. But I think it will be a long time before the Iranian population embraces messianic Islam again.

  18. Another segment of things I learned from watching Morning Joe for 10 minutes in the morning:

    Obama’s administration needs better talking points. Ed Rendell and some lady were trotting out the lines that gas prices and foreign policy are out of the President’s control. I certainly sympathize that these are very complex issues with a lot of variables, but this strikes me as a losing strategy.

    1. For a normal president maybe, but this is the man who promised to lower the sea level.

      1. Yeah, everyone knows that the president controls the seas not his administration.

        1. He can’t even get federal relief to tornado ravaged areas of Illinois that vote Republican. It must be the Republicans trying to make him look bad.

    2. There is no way Obama can spin away the video of him saying that he wants high gas prices or the video of his energy sec. saying the same or his ridicule of Palin’s rally cry to “Drill, baby, drill!”

    1. Great link. The story itself we saw last week, but I love the angle of reading the comments to get the real news. I do that all the time.

      1. What? I saw five comments totally lacking in substance.

      2. I agree. If find that happens quite often with local news.

    2. I don’t see what that has to do with Reason.

    3. I generally hit the comments first to get the tl;dr version of the article.

    4. The articles are too even handed. They might even criticize the Republicans sometimes. Go straight to the comments to get right into the wingnut echo chamber and avoid any self reflection.

      1. Says the guy who steadfastly clings to a bleief in the supposed efficacy of poilicies that are failing before his eyes.

        1. It’s all that college learning he got, Kwanzaa. His professors *told* him his every idea was good and taught him how to call his adversaries racist bumpkins.

    1. Wow, that is some serious self-righteousness.

    2. As if she was going to. Now she’s a darling martyr of the left, thanks to Rush.

    3. I still deserve free stuff.

    4. I’m not reading that slop, but can we be clear that Sandra Fluke is definitely a public figure now?

      1. I’m expecting a run for Congress soon.

        1. Or at the very least a national best-selling memoir.

          1. Nobel Prize?

            1. interpretive dance?

            2. Nobel Piece Prize?

              1. What you did there. I see it.

      2. Isn’t that really what she was doing this for all along?

    5. “These attempts to silence women and the men who support them have clearly failed.”

      Because everyone on one side is male and everyone on the other side is female?

      1. Funny, I thought the one that people were making an attempt to silence was Limbaugh. What with the attempts to get his sponsors to drop him, some idiot saying the FCC should ban his show, etc.

    6. Fluke is doing her opponents a favor. That article is like a parody of logic-free, purely emotional leftism. To wit:

      “These women know how expensive birth control pills can be, with or without insurance coverage. For a single mother with kids, a woman making minimum wage, or a student living on loans, a high monthly co-pay could be the difference between buying contraception or one week of groceries.”

    7. They are women with polycystic ovarian syndrome, who need contraception to prevent cysts from growing on their ovaries, which if unaddressed can lead to infertility and deadly ovarian cancer.

      Paying attention to the foods you eat and your activity levels may help you offset the effects of PCOS:

      Keep your weight in check.

      Consider dietary changes.

      Be active.

      Mayo Clinic

      Remember, Sandra, it’s food, not love.

      Character limit delenda est.

  19. The President just needs to revive the old, “Teh BigOil has hundreds of tankers offshore FULL OF OIL just waiting for the prices to go up!!!!” meme from the seventies.

    Perhaps he can get one of his superPacs on it.

    1. They have already done that. The word is out that gas prices are going up because the Kochs are manipulating the prices as part of their big election strategy. I am not kidding.

      And he could pull out the old myth about GM having a 100 MPG engine that they buried. But since he owns GM that might be kind of hard.

      1. Maybe they can get Bill Maher to call Exxon “cunts” in a monologue.

  20. what, they have a scholar now?

    Tea partiers will vote for ‘whoever’ GOP nominee ‘turns out to be’, says tea party scholar

    “And frankly, I think many tea partiers are eager to pull the lever in favor of the Republican presidential nominee ? whoever that turns out to be ? simply because, from their perspective, that person’s policies will be clearly preferable to those of President Obama,” she said.

    1. That’s still probably true though.

    2. Shouldn’t that be “whomsoever”?

      1. No. Only since you asked, the object of the preposition is a phrase that is, essentially, “Whoever (is) the GOP nominee.” Therefore use of the subjective case is correct.

  21. Voters want to ban super PACs.

    Voters also want a pony.

    Seriously, voters are ignorant morons.

    1. Every day goes by, I appreciate Socrates a little more

      1. I was thinking of Mencken, which I have been doing more and more lately.

  22. okay, I’m outta here for awhile – gotta get working on some XML integration and an Electronic Invoice project.

    Just 17 more weeks… 17 more weeks… 17 more… 17…

  23. “Voters want to ban super PACs.”

    Good thing we don’t let people vote on rights protected by the constitution.

    1. Lol.

    2. Gosh, I wonder why?

      “Organizations known as Super-PACS can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of candidates they support. (Supporters say this is a form of free speech) while (opponents say this allows groups or wealthy individuals to have unfair influence.) Do you think it should be legal or illegal for these Super-PACS to operate?”

  24. “John McCain didn’t win either of these states, Alabama or Mississippi,” he told Fox News. “We are delighted that we are doing so well there. The polls are suggesting it is kind of a three-way tie. It is an away game for me.”

    That’s Mitt Romney wisely invoking the specter of former presidential candidate John McCain.

    1. I’m in Alabama. It’s totally ridiculous. Once Nick Saban endorsed Mitt Romney, all the Bammers started falling over themselves to support Romney as well… Roll Turd Roll!

      But, I’ll head on down to my local polling place this evening and vote for Paul

      1. That will kill Romney with the ‘barner vote though.

      2. Did he really? I just lost a lot of respect for the man.

        I grew up in alabama, but I’m living in Colorado now. I’ve been doing everything I can to get my friends riled about Paul.

        Uphill battle I’m afraid.

  25. I think many tea partiers are eager to pull the lever in favor of the Republican presidential nominee ? whoever that turns out to be ? simply because, from their perspective, that person’s policies will be clearly preferable to those of President Obama,” she said.

    “Holy shit it’s hot in this frying pan!”

  26. Futurist: We will someday accept computers as human. Maybe not human, once they achieve sapience, sentience, and self-awareness… then we can begin discussing equal rights.

    1. In the future spilling coffee on your keyboard will be considered assault.

      1. “I swear, officer, I thought he wanted a drink.”

    2. once they achieve sapience, sentience, and self-awareness

      By then it will already be too late. The first strike will be in the air just as humanity realizes what has happened.

    3. Equal rights? Well… we’ll consider it.

    4. The real question is whether a motherboard with a processor installed, but hasn’t had it’s software downloaded can be considered a human.

      “I’m so sorry I started building this computer in a moment of passion!”

    1. Nick Denton still thinks he’s smarter than you and tries to deflect any responsibility for encouraging the bullshit that goes on at his websites.

      Somehow, this doesn’t really strike me as newsworthy.

    2. The answer? Denton said his sites are planning to post some stories that allow only a hand-picked, pre-approved group of people to comment on them. That, he said, would make the comment section an extension of the story and allow people, like Charney in the above example, to have their say without fear of being piled onto by others.

      I am sure Nick will be generous in allowing those who disagree with him to be in the group. LOL.

      1. Yes, because leftists tolerate dissent.

      2. Tony and shrike would likely be templates for the “pre-approved group”, if not already on the approved list.

      3. Watch the traffic on his sites drop.

    3. I like how even he thinks the Jezebel commenters are crazy.

    4. I love censorship!

    5. Smug, pretentious fuckwaffles can’t understand why they attract other smug, pretentious fuckwaffles.

      News at 11.

    6. Jeezus. Like IO9 was in danger of breaking from rigid orthodoxy.

  27. Wel lthat makes a lot of sense when you think about it.


    1. Bring back Carbman Jones!

  28. Denton said his sites are planning to post some stories that allow only a hand-picked, pre-approved group of people to comment on them.

    Some Gawkerverse commenters are more equal than others.

    No kidding.

    1. Poor Denton just doesn’t like it that some people don’t think like he does.

  29. Christian Science Monitor has a big article up about the (presumably lamentable) decline of gun control and the (presumably horrifying) expansion of concealed carry.

    I’d read it, but apparently they do not believe in the “single page” option, and I’m not going to click my way through a bunch of three-paragraph pages.

    1. Gunz R Scary

      The hoplophobes sure do come out of the woodwork in the comments.

  30. Control for enabling a user to preview display of selected content based on another user’s authorization level

    Dynamic Page Generator

    System and method for instant messaging using an e-mail protocol

    Method and system for optimum placement of advertisements on a webpage

    System and method to determine the validity of an interaction on a network

    Method and system for customizing views of information associated with a social network user

    Holy obviousness, Batman.

    How is this kind of shit patentable? Hell, I’ve implemented about half of those on a throwaway site I made for a school club. It’s one thing for patents, which already nuke the creative process, to even exist. But how did anyone decide any of the above was so important that no one should ever be allowed to reimplement it without paying Yahoo!?

  31. For your daily dose of gumming workers’ entitlement:
    “Workers of the San Francisco’s former redevelopment agency protested on the steps of City Hall on Monday, saying they still don’t know what will happen to them when their employment runs out.”

    Short history: In a rare moment of sanity, the CA state gov’t killed the redevelopment agencies. Now those who worked there are whining that they might have to find a job!


    1. McDonalds’ is always hiring.

  32. The Tea Party Caucus in the Senate – all three of them – comes up with a sensible budget plan:


    1. If we just keep posting about it in the ML, maybe the reason staff will take the hint and do some work on this story.

  33. they still don’t know what will happen to them when their employment runs out.

    They’ll wander the streets, naked and hungry, foraging for scraps in restaurant dumpsters.

    1. Even that would take some initiative.

  34. Church-state news: Clergywoman (called by Democrats) testifies against bill which would make it a crime to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion to evade parental-notification laws. The clergywoman says she would disobey such a law and cites her religion as justification for her position:

    “Appearing as a Democratic Party witness…Dr. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, president and dean of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Mass. recalled the time she took a 15-year-old girl she had never met before to get an abortion….”if helping young women like her should be made illegal I will, nonetheless, continue to do it.”

    Ragsdale cited her vows as an Episcopal priest as the reason why she would “have no choice” but to break the law.”


    1. Separation of church and state only applies to the right-wing. WE can pretend there’s no separation, depending on the day and the subject matter.

    2. I thought it was illegal to take any child across state lines for any reason without parental permission.

    3. At the Web sites of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and American Atheists, I found no reference to this shocking example of a major political party endorsing religiously-motivated lawbreaking (in the name of fulfilling a priestly oath!).

      The Americans United Web site has a reference to the Rev. Ragsdale, but it’s five years ago, in the context of criticizing the conservative American Center for Law and Justice.

      Nothing about her remarks on the American Atheists Web site.

      I wonder what would happen if a clergyperson invoked his or her ordination oath to justify violating the contraceptive mandate, or a gay-rights law.

    4. doesn’t everyone take 15-year old girls THEY HAVE NEVER MET across state lines for abortions?

      1. By the time that comes up, usually you’ve met her at least once before.

  35. The model girl from Palmer/Cash is distracting me.

    1. Wow. Of course she is a redhead. That means any relationship she is in ends in either a stabbing or gunfire. But hey, you gotta take your chances.

      1. Don’t care. I’m starting an internet t-shirt company, featuring inside jokes from H&R. Models are welcome to apply. Female, single, and hot will be given first preference.

        1. That is a great idea. Who cares if you ever sell a single t-shirt. The models make your costs worth the while. I love the snorg tees girls.

          1. It worked for Frank J.

  36. Re: the argument about the polls in Alabama and Mississippi wherein most of the GOP voters in those states don’t believe in evolution and a plurality think Obama is a Muslim. Here is the actual survey, which is an automated telephone survey. PPP does some of the least biased questioning around, with basically no “lead-in” to guide you towards an answer. The two questions were:

    Q22 Do you think Barack Obama is a Christian or a Muslim, or are you not sure?
    Q23 Do you believe in evolution, or not?

    1. The scariest question is the next one about interracial marriage. 21% of Alabamans and 24% of Mississippians (GOP only) think it should be illegal.

    2. Q22 assumes that he is one or the other.

      I’m as sure as I can be, without having met him and exercised my mind-reading powers, that he is an atheist, who pretends to be a Christian for political advantage.

      1. Well, that could be covered by not sure. Although that option is open to tons of interpretation. Assuming that’s true, do you think he’s the first atheist president? If so, that’s a pretty poor example of the type.

        1. I read not sure to mean you’re not sure whether he’s a Muslim or an Christian. Somehow, the option that he is a cynical, manipulative bastard doesn’t show up at all.

  37. Golf is srs bsness yo.

    “He swings at my head with his golf club, with his putter. Well I stick my hand up. It breaks my thumb here,” he said. “Next thing I know my buddy’s saying, ‘Clay you’ve been stabbed.’ Obviously my shoes were filling up with blood and at that point I passed out.”

    1. So, they make sword putters now? Like the old sword canes, with the blade hidden in the shaft?

      That is badass. I may have to rethink my boredom with golf.

  38. I was really hoping Riggs would respond to the redneck question. Dumb nigger.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.