A.M. Links: Holder Contempt Vote May Be Cancelled, Roger Clemens Acquited, IBM's Sequoia Fastest Supercomputer in the World

|

  • he found out later mike piazza was not a vampire after all

    A contempt vote against Eric Holder scheduled for tomorrow may be cancelled as the Department of Justice is offering new documents in the ongoing Congressional investigation of the gunwalking scheme Operation Fast & Furious.  The Justice Department "has offered a serious, good faith proposal to bring this matter to an amicable resolution in the form of a briefing based on documents that the committee could retain," according to a letter from the attorney general to Congressman Darrell Issa.

  • The former baseball pitcher Roger Clemens was acquitted of charges related to testimony he gave on steroid use to Congress. "It's been a long hard five years," Clemens said after leaving court.
  • Adidas is being criticized for a new sneaker design that includes plastic shackles. "The design of the JS Roundhouse Mid is nothing more than the designer Jeremy Scott's outrageous and unique take on fashion and has nothing to do with slavery," a spokesperson for the company said.
  • Members of Occupy Oakland Patriarchy apparently protested against an anti-child sex worker conference.
  • Pro-tip: If you're being chased by the police, calling 911 and telling them you're prepared to shoot is probably not a good idea. Nevertheless, the family of a 19 year old shot and killed by LAPD during a car chase are suing the city for $120 million.
  • A new list reveals the fastest computer in the world is IBM's Sequoia, used to secure nuclear arms and simulate the human heart.

Don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily AM/PM updates for more content.

New at Reason.TV: "Cities Using Feds to Seek 'Retribution' in Marijuana Battle, Says Don Duncan"

NEXT: Shikha Dalmia on the 3 Fallacies in Obama's Public-Sector Stimulus Strategy

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. Obama’s Lawless Presidency Close To Totalitarianism
    http://news.investors.com/arti…..ianism.htm

    The chief executive who swore to faithfully execute the nation’s laws picks those he’ll ignore and makes up others through regulation and executive order. He sees no need for a Congress or Constitution.

    1. Obama’s Lawless Presidency Close To Totalitarianism

      I won’t complain as long as it transitions into a Lucy Lawless presidency.

      1. She’s a nutbag environmentalist. No thanks. Plus she’s always scheming against Spartacus and her fellow fracking Cylons.

      2. Lucy Lawless herself appears to be “transitioning”.

      3. She’s getting a little long in the tooth, no?

        1. She still looks good without a top on.

    2. The chief executive who swore to faithfully execute the nation’s laws picks those he’ll ignore and makes up others through regulation and executive order. He sees no need for a Congress or Constitution.

      Slavers gonna slave.

    3. So Obama is NOt enforcing a shitty law that no previous president enforced anyway and that is totalitarianism?

      Wow, IBD is pure wingnut.

      1. Suck harder shreik!

        1. In Tropic Thunder terms, shriek doesn’t merely suck; he “cradles the balls, strokes the shaft, works the pipe, and swallows the gravy.”

      2. Who knew a “goldwater fan” would be so slack on enforcing the law?

        I guess asking Congress to repeal/revoke the law would have been too hard – you know, like proposing a budget has been.

        1. Hillary Clinton claimed to be a “Goldwater Girl”… shrike is just following in her footsteps by claiming the same “Goldwater Girl” name.

    4. Close? That bridge was crossed a while ago.

  2. A contempt vote against Eric Holder scheduled for tomorrow may be cancelled as the Department of Justice is offering new documents in the ongoing Congressional investigation of the gunwalking scheme Operation Fast Furious.

    Congress loves being strung along.

    1. Enough with the Lucy-and-the-football bullshit.

      The contempt vote should proceed, if only to keep the public’s attention on this aspect of the administration.

      1. Especially since the people that originally broke the story (sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com) are now putting out two new allegations:

        1) The NSC (and by extension, the president) is more strongly linked to the operation that previously known.

        2) The ICE agent that was allegedly killed with an FF weapon was investigating FF gun-running

        Would link, but the spam filter does not approve. Still, both stories are close to the top.

      2. Especially since the people that originally broke the story (sipseystreetirregulars dot blogspot dot com) are now putting out two new allegations:

        1) The NSC (and by extension, the president) is more strongly linked to the operation that previously known.

        2) The ICE agent that was allegedly killed with an FF weapon was investigating FF gun-running

        Would link, but the spam filter does not approve. Still, both stories are close to the top.

    2. Congress loves being strung along.

      In an election season I would think that they don’t want to “blow their wad” just yet! Gotta slow down and have the happy ending sometime in October!

    3. If I was Issa, I would tell Holder that the next document production will be his last before a contempt vote is held. So make it a good one. And no, we’re not meeting so yuo can pretend that doing what you’re told by Congress is an “extraordinary accomodation.”

      1. Shit, I’d just send the letter back “Return To Sender: Refused” and hold a press conference saying Holder is trying to pervert justice by stonewalling the investigation for nearly a year and then calling for a meeting as opposed to producing the subpoena’d documents.

        Either that, or I’d have the House Sargent at Arms answer the door to the meeting and put Holder in cuffs and then take him to the Congressional Dungeon not used since Anthony Weiner found out the gym had better lighting.

      2. Is Oliver North a consultant to Holder? If not, she should be.

  3. The former baseball pitcher Roger Clemens was acquitted of charges related to testimony he gave on steroid use to Congress.

    The whole affair proving that Congress and federal prosecutors have waaaaaaaay too much time on their fucking hands.

    1. Congress should never have been involved with hearings on this.

      Mixed feelings about the perjury stuff but also not really something congress should be doing since they never should have had the original hearings.

      MLB can set their own rules on this stuff. Personally, it seems like those on the DL should be able to have a doctor give them HGH but that is MLB’s call.

      I’m pretty sure Clemens was juicing. Exhibit #1 being the ‘roid’ rage on national tv with the broken bat.

      1. I’m pretty sure Clemens was juicing. Exhibit #1 being the ‘roid’ rage on national tv with the broken bat.

        Sure, because there was never any emotion shown by athletes prior to the introduction of steroid usage.

        Before steroids, a player doing what Clemens did would get him labeled a hot head. However, do the same thing and throw in the charge of steroid usage and the same action is now “‘roid rage”. Clemens may have used steroids or HGH, but showing emotion or anger during competition doesn’t come close to proving usage.

        1. Um, that was not the only incident of uncontrolled anger Clemens was known to have committed, including several which occurred off the field.

          1. And this too is proof of ‘roid rage?

            Maybe old Roger just has a temper.

            I understand the term “‘roid rage” has been around for a while now, but I don’t recall seeing definitive evidence that it is real. I’ve seen a lot of anecdotal evidence from the scaremongers on this issue, but nothing definitive.

            1. I’ve never thought “roid rage” was real.

              If I roided out and turned into Lou Ferrigno, I’d suddenly get in a lot of fights. But not because of “roid rage”, but because of my new consciousness that I could WIN fights.

              Stewie keeping Brian from going down the stairs is the true-est depiction of roid dude mentality I’ve ever seen in any medium. Guys on roids fuck with people because that’s why they did the roids in the first place: fucking with people is FUN.

      2. Well, that and the whole “I just quickly put on 30 lbs of muscle in my mid 30’s”. Dan Duquette got a lot of shit for saying Rodger was “in the twilight of his career” when he left the Sox (at 33) – in retrospect, he was probably correct (or would have been, sans steroids)

        1. ^^This^^
          Pitchers whose success is based on a nearly supersonic fast ball, the really hard throwing guys, are usually past their prime by their early thirties. If they haven’t blown out their arm yet, they’ve begun to succumb to age; for a non-athlete it may be imperceptible, but strength and stamina start declining by thirty.

          There are exceptions to this, like Nolan Ryan, but since everyone knows that he’s another Kryptonian refugee he doesn’t count. Human pitchers need either the brains to adapt or help with reversing muscle loss, and if we’re talking about Clemens then only one of those options was ever a possibility.

          The counter example is Dennis Eckersley. He was a real fireballer when he was a young starter with Cleveland and Boston. He always gave up a lot of homers, and once they started to be more common than strikeouts, his career was all but over. Instead he pulled off a truly epic act of reinvention, and rode his second career, wily short reliever, straight to Cooperstown. Again, though, he had always had a functioning brain, so he had an edge on guys like Clemens.

          1. You may not have noticed this, but the 2nd half of his career was dominated by the split finger – a pitch Mariano Rivera has thrown into his 40’s.

            Clemens reinvented himself, too.

            The reason it’s hard to believe Clemens didn’t do steroids is his appearance. That’s it, really. Bottom line. The guy added a pitch, a pitch that notoriously extends careers and generates a lot of strikeouts. His stats can be explained away with that pitch. His Yankees-era neck can’t.

            1. No he didn’t. He was throwing the splitter in Boston.

              It’s also hard to believe because he was throwing in the mid to upper 90s until he was into his 40s w/o much in the way of injury or going to the bullpen.

              And Rivera throws a cutter.

              1. You may not have noticed this, but the 2nd half of his career was dominated by the split finger – a pitch Mariano Rivera has thrown into his 40’s.

                He was developing the splitter in Boston in the early 90’s; he hadn’t gotten it right until the mid 90’s but the Sox stupidly let him walk anyway.

                It’s also hard to believe because he was throwing in the mid to upper 90s until he was into his 40s w/o much in the way of injury or going to the bullpen.

                I watched damn near every Clemens start during his time in NY. Dude only broke 94 on Fox Saturday Baseball. He sat low 90’s and had one or two big fastballs in him per game. All this talk of how he maintained his mid-90’s stuff into old age is silly. They’ll probably be saying the same thing about the Unit in 5 years though even though he couldn’t break 96 by the time he got to NY either.

                1. Bleh, that was supposed to be i reply to:

                  No he didn’t. He was throwing the splitter in Boston.

          2. Pitchers whose success is based on a nearly supersonic fast ball, the really hard throwing guys, are usually past their prime by their early thirties. If they haven’t blown out their arm yet, they’ve begun to succumb to age; for a non-athlete it may be imperceptible, but strength and stamina start declining by thirty.

            Clemens sat 92 – 94 following his injuries in the early 90’s; down about 5 ticks from where he was when he broke in. The primary difference between old Clemens and young Clemens is the forkball that the Sox didn’t want him to develop but he did anyway. That’s the reinvention that made him dominant again in Toronto and kept him league average or better in New York.

            The Toronto years are hardly evidence that he was on roids; lots of guys have career years in age 34 – 36 (see Halladay last year, for example) and Clemens was a great pitcher in both 94 96. Clemens actually had a pretty typical decline phase for a HOF quality power pitcher until he got to Houston (my guess is he started juicing his last year with the Yanks and reaped the benefits in the substantially weaker NL). People forget just how thoroughly unimpressive he was in NY.

            1. The primary difference between old Clemens and young Clemens is the forkball that the Sox didn’t want him to develop but he did anyway. That’s the reinvention that made him dominant again in Toronto and kept him league average or better in New York.

              According to this article, Clemens began throwing the forkball regularly in the late 80s, not after he went to Toronto.

              http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09…..allsrc=pm

              Clemens began throwing a forkball two years ago, and this has made him even harder for batters to hit.

              ”I think he’s more dominant now because of the forkball,” said Tom Brunansky, who joined the Red Sox from the St. Louis Cardinals this season. ”It makes the batter a little more hesitant. You see it coming, and then the bottom just falls out of it.”

              1. He was throwing it, but it was regarded as a new weapon and not a signature pitch. The proportion he used it, especially in relation the slider, and the break to the pitch got much better as the 90’s progressed, IIRC (if only there was Pitch F/X data from 1988 – 98 for comparison). Basically it went from being his change-up to being the out pitch.

                I like how that whole article could have been written in 2001 and been exactly the same, just substituting out every instance of Boddicker for Mussina. Clemens didn’t throw the bat because he was on ‘roids, he did it because he’s an overly intense dickhead. He was also a much smarter pitcher than he ever gets credit for. This isn’t A.J. Burnett we’re talking about.

        2. Dan Duquette got a lot of shit for saying Rodger was “in the twilight of his career” when he left the Sox (at 33) – in retrospect, he was probably correct (or would have been, sans steroids)

          Aside from the Pedro masterpiece trade, Duquette was an idiot. Clemens was very good the year he went to free agency (139 ERA+, led the league in K’s), was still relatively young (33), and had successfully added a new pitch to offset his loss of stuff. The increasing walk rate was a problem, but you throw a lot more two-seamers and forkballs out of the strike zone than four-seamers and sliders so it was to be expected, and he had gotten his HR rate back to his career norms. Peripherals were almost entirely pointing in Clemens’ direction when he was told to go scratch.

      3. Ty Cobb once famously ran into the stands and beat a guy to a pulp because another guy had said something derogatory about his mother. I don’t think the Georgia Peach was juicing.

        Athletes are intense people. I also tend to think that Clemens was shooting up but that alone doesn’t explain throwing the bat back at Mike Piazza.

        Again, the real question is why they spent 5 years on Clemens for one single potentially perjurious (?) statement while Eric Holder hasn’t made a truthful Congressional testimony since being sworn in.

        1. Must be that Holder hasn’t taken any substance that would attract the attention of Jeff Novitzky.

        2. I don’t think anybody believes David Nalbandian is on steroids.

    2. Yeah, but, at least Melinda Haag is making good use of her free time.

      http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/…..g-to-draw/

  4. Quick study: Satoshi Kanazawa on intelligence
    The disadvantage of smarts
    http://www.economist.com/blogs…..telligence

    Intelligent people are more likely to be nocturnal because humans are designed to wake up when the sun comes up and go to sleep when the sun goes down. They are more likely to be homosexual, because humans are evolutionarily designed to reproduce heterosexually. They are more likely to enjoy instrumental music because music in its evolutionary origin was vocal, and they are more likely to consume alcohol, cigarettes and drugs because all of these substances are evolutionarily novel.

    1. Do intelligent people eat with thier assholes because humans were evolutionarily designed to eat with their mouths?

      1. Sarcasm aside, the interview is worth reading.

        1. I read it, and it has some plausible explanations, but only if you think evolutionary psychology is the best explanation for any human behavior.

          1. Not any, but much. It at least as significance.

            1. Uh, what?

      2. Do intelligent people eat with thier assholes because humans were evolutionarily designed to eat with their mouths?

        Yeah that was pretty much my take. This guy is way too glib with the generalizations. This is the kind of stuff that gives evolutionary psychology a bad name, IMO.

        1. I also saw plenty of “smart people are like me” bias.

          1. I’m glad I don’t suffer from biases.

            1. being unknown, I’m sure you don’t.

      3. Good one, Abdul.

    2. [Intelligent people] are more likely to be homosexual, because humans are evolutionarily designed to reproduce heterosexually.

      Is that snark? Guess this cis-hetero needs more coffee.

      1. He is saying because intelligent people are “bored”, for lack of a better term, by base drives, they seek newer phenomenon, such as homosexuality, alcohol use, and sexual exclusivity.

        1. ** rising intonation **

          I thought homosexuality was not a choice ….

          1. apparently with evolutionary psychology, everything is a choice. I half expected to find that intelligent people are less likely to hold jobs since working is a component of the human condition.

            1. He actually says something like that.

              Of course, you can bring absolutely no moral weight to any of these activities that one chooses. It is not necessarily ‘good’ or ‘bad’ that intelligent people want to work less or smoke more…it just is.

        2. newer phenomenon, such as homosexuality, alcohol use, and sexual exclusivity.

          One of these is not like the others.

            1. Alcohol use.
              In that it’s a rollicking good time.

              1. And in that alcohol has been around for thousands of years. Of course, homosexuality has probably been around for 100 million years.

            2. I was thinking banging the same partner over a lifetime loses the “newer phenomenon” feel eventually.

              I haven’t hit that plateau yet, but I figure that’s because I’m a stupid mouth-eater, not a sooper-geenyus asshole eater.

              1. I think that that one is less a factor of choice than a result. The smarter you are, the more likely you are to be bored with a long-term partner. As a result, when you do find someone intellectually stimulating, you’re more likely to stick with them. And that’s not even going into the fact that intelligence (in men, at least, not sure about women) past a certain point (approx. 120 IQ pts.) actually reduces your attractiveness, thereby limiting your choices further.

            3. All three are ancient. All three predate humanity in an evolutionary timeline.

              Kanazawa is an idiot.

          1. My point is that the human consumption of alcohol, tobacco and psychoactive drugs is a relatively new phenomenon.

            Yeahhhhh, no. It’s statements like these that make it look like he did no research on these subjects and is just projecting some of his personal foibles into a grand theory of intelligent people, which he obviously considers himself a part of.

            1. Yeah. Humans have been doing psychoactive drugs for about 50,000 years at least. Thinking we can ban psychoactive drugs, that’s a relatively new phenomenon.

        3. I guess I could see this in the sense that intellectuals are constantly seeking stimuli in a society that has largely been rendered dysfunctional. And yes, that includes homosexuality, although our modern intellectuals tend to be homophiles as opposed to homosexuals, which probably explains why they are more prevalent amongst the intellectual set. They’re simply gravitating towards a social class that is more accepting, even worshipful, of them.

          1. And yes, that includes homosexuality,

            For a brief time in the 20s, it was an intellectual (read: college professors and other PHDs) fad to experiment with homosexuality. While that would seem to be a supporting factor in societal acceptance, it’s ignored because it disrupts the “no choice” narrative.

            1. True story–a buddy of mine from high school and his wife are both college profs (English lit). About 3-4 years ago, their marraige nearly ended because she thought she might be gay. Turns out they were hanging out with so many lesbians from school that it ended up confusing her.

              Fortunately, she figured out what was going on, but it speaks to the intellectual obsession with fashion that Chesterton observed.

    3. While his theory is generally sound he has some serious flaws with his examples.

      First Homosexuality is largely not a choice. Most people are pretty thoroughly hardwired to be either homo or heterosexual long before they are old enough to make a conscious choice on the matter. It is only that relatively small slice of the population who develops the capacity to be sexually attracted to both genders who “choose” which attraction to act on (Could be either or both). Second, Humans have been consuming psychoactive substances for far longer than we have had civilizations so there is no reason to believe that alcohol/drug use is evolutionarily novel.

      Where he is correct is that higher general intelligence has a very high correlation with novelty seeking but of course that correlation is just a generic statement and may or may not say anything about any specific indivual with a high general intelligence.

      1. I really wonder about people who think that sexual gender attraction isn’t hardwired for the vast majority of people. Are there really that many bisexuals out there?

        1. Are there really that many bisexuals out there?

          Way more than will admit to it.

          Surveying people about their sex life is likely to result in inaccurate answers.

          1. They’d get better results if they did the survey after a 6-pack.

      2. Most people are pretty thoroughly hardwired to be either homo or heterosexual long before they are old enough to make a conscious choice on the matter. It is only that relatively small slice of the population who develops the capacity to be sexually attracted to both genders who “choose” which attraction to act on (Could be either or both).

        I think that many prisoners would disagree with you. Ain’t nobody raping nobody in prison with a limp dick.

        1. It’s also as much about power and dominance as attraction, especially in the prison system. From what I’ve seen, the anti-homosexual attitudes of traditional christian churches, for example, are largely rooted in disgust with the decadent middle and upper classes of the Roman empire, where casual homosexual encounters were more common.

          1. It’s also as much about power and dominance as attraction, especially in the prison system.

            So is heterosex. That doesn’t mean you aren’t attracted to the object of your intentions.

    4. Psh. Intelligent people don’t consume drugs because they’re “evolutionarily novel.”

      The world is a depressing place, and ignorance is bliss. This answers all drug use by smart people in a nutshell.

      1. No it doesn’t.

      2. It may answer drug use by stupid people. It may answer the use of drugs like PCP, crystal meth, heroin, and other things with dissociative properties, but smart people tend to experiment more with hallucinogens, MDMA, things that, if anything, are the opposite of dissociative. Because they are interesting. Now weed, that seems to be universal.

        1. So explain th edifference between a “dumb” person using herion and a “smart” person popping percocet again…

          1. Cognizance of quality control?

            1. Where did I include percocet?

              But since you’re going with this Tony-level “gotcha” crap, Coeus is partially right. I can’t answer for every single intelligent person, and of course there are exceptions to the tendencies I mentioned above, which is why I used the word “Tend” and not “every single smart person in every single case,” but for myself, on the occasions that I took percocet or vicodin for reasons other than pain management, it was along with 1 or 2 drinks to get the same buzz as I would normally get with about 8 drinks without the hangover the next day. The difference between me doing that and some dipshit shooting up heroin is one of self control. Even drunk, buzzed, stoned or tripping, I have the self control to not get in fights, get arrested, drive while visibly impaired, get to work when I need to, and abstain when I need to. In short, stupid people tend to act stupid, smart people tend to act smart.

    5. they are more likely to consume alcohol, cigarettes and drugs because all of these substances are evolutionarily novel that’s the only way to put up with pseudo scientific horseshit like this.

      FIFY

    6. I’m just glad to learn that all that chugging and puffing means I must be smart.

      I’m gonna go grab a beer.

      1. Do you have a job or another source of income? Are you independent from welfare, food stamps or charity? Are you able to take care of yourself and your dependents without resorting to theft, force or fraud? If you can answer yes to these questions, then do whatever you want. It doesn’t mean you’re smart, but it does make it more likely.

  5. John bait:
    Bristol Palin: Life’s a Tripp

    Sister infighting! Tears! A confrontation with a gay man in a bar!

    Make way, Kim Kardashian. Bristol Palin’s riding into reality TV town.

    1. With the show, I’m not trying to set any record straight and I’m not trying to sell myself to anyone.”
      But she also says she likes the control she has over the show. “I’ve done everything else like a robot. With this, I can take the bull by the horns, set my own story straight.”

      Any lingering sympathy I felt for a teenage mother being forced into the media spotlight because of decisions by her mother are officially gone. I’ll be transferring those sympathies to Tripp, I suppose.

      1. But – but BEE TAGGER!
        She never sought this out! People just keep clamoring for more!

        “I would never call myself a celebrity,” Palin says, “and I would never really want to be one. I never seek out stuff like this. I never sought out Dancing With the Stars. Things have been handed to me, and I’ve taken opportunities.”

        1. TV has pulled her up by her own bootstraps.

        2. You can always hand them back and not take those opportunities. Really.

        3. the key requirement for whoring yourself out is to always say ‘yes’, no matter what the request. Not seeking out things is not the same as turning them down.

          1. They pay pretty well and she does not have many prospects as lucrative I suspect.

            1. I’m sure I would do the same thing in her situation. And I’m sure she would do the same thing in mine.

            2. Yeah at some point she was on the speaking circuit for $15-30K a speech. I can’t imagine she gets a lot of gigs.

  6. Grover Norquist’s Endless Campaign
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06…..attle.html

    Jeb Bush, Graham and other Republicans who favor a deal that cuts spending and raises taxes are naive, in Norquist’s view. President Ronald Reagan, he notes, came to regret a similar deal he made in the 1982 budget because the spending cuts didn’t materialize. The 1990 deal, Norquist further argues, didn’t keep spending from coming in a little higher than the Congressional Budget Office had projected from 1991 to 1995.

    The debt-ceiling deal last year, on the other hand, showed that getting spending cuts without tax increases was possible.

    Discussing hypothetical bargains with 10-to-1 spending cuts, in Norquist’s view, is like debating what the best kind of unicorn would be. “Wouldn’t it be nice to have silver-striped unicorns? No one’s offered you 10-to-1!” he says, raising his voice in frustration.

    1. Jeb Bush, Graham and other Republicans who favor a deal that cuts spending and raises taxes are naive, in Norquist’s view. President Ronald Reagan, he notes, came to regret a similar deal he made in the 1982 budget because the spending cuts didn’t materialize. The 1990 deal, Norquist further argues, didn’t keep spending from coming in a little higher than the Congressional Budget Office had projected from 1991 to 1995.

      Norquist is absolutely correct. Note that the same thing happened when republicans agreed to cut defense in the nineties. Defense was cut, but no money got saved; all that happened was that the liberals just eventually took all the money that would have gone to defense and spent it on other crap instead!

      This is why balancing the budget is next to impossible in this country. Spending levels aren’t permanently binding, and liberals simply can’t be trusted to hold up their end of their bargain on any deal that gets cut.

    2. Norquist makes a valid point – the tax increases are always immediate; the spending cuts are ethereal and way in the future. Bush the Elder made a similar deal that had predictable results.

      1. He makes an even better point.

        Striped unicorns would be ‘bitchin’ cool

        1. I think unicorns in other animal prints, like tiger or leopard.

    3. Nordquist is in idiot.

      Yes the deals for spending cuts in the past never worked out, but holding to a no new tax increase pledge is idiotic because he is buying into the lie that government can effectively generate new revenues by changing marginal tax rates.

      Any idiot who was willing to take 10 minutes to look over the history of US government revenues and how they correlate to changes in tax law would see absolutely no correlation between revenue levels and tax rates.

      iirc over the last 14 major revisions of the tax code half were “increases” and half “cuts”, however government revenues in the years following those changes stayed neutral (grew in line with GDP) about half the time and the other half the time were equally likely to move in the opposite direction of the tax changes (falling after tax increases or rising after cuts).

      What Nordquist should be doing is allowing the Democrats to continue with their illusions that increases in tax rates drive new revenue and use it against them by allowing them to “raise rates” in return for real immediate budget cuts and fixing the tax code to eliminate loopholes.

      1. You are missing a major factor…the relationship between tax policy and GDP growth.

        That is far more important than revenue as percent of GDP.

  7. Balko bait:
    Cop dies during 3-way, widow wins 3 million dollar lawsuit

    It’s got something for everyone!

    1. Shuggafree’d it.

      1. William Martinez, a 31-year-old Atlanta police officer, collapsed and died while he and a male friend were having sex with a woman who was not his wife at an Atlanta airport motel in 2009.

        The jury on Friday found that Dr. Sreenivasulu Gangasani and the Cardiovascular Group were 60% to blame for Martinez’s death from atheroschlerotic coronary artery disease, agreeing with the plaintiff that the doctor did not properly diagnose and treat Martinez for high blood pressure, chest pains, shortness of breath and irregular heartbeat.

        I agree with the jury decision. The doctors had to know that their patient, by the very nature of his profession, would not be in shape for strenuous activity that didn’t involve a donut.

        1. oh, it was a devil’s threeway, not the good kind. nevermind.

        2. You don’t know that it didn’t involve a donut.

        3. Yeah, because somebody who will cheat on his wife in a threeway would obviously not do any such thing if his doctor told him to take it easy.

          Frickin’ juries.

  8. The former baseball pitcher Roger Clemens was acquitted of charges related to testimony he gave on steroid use to Congress.

    I wonder if this will end up making it harder for him to get in the HOF. Many of the older sportswriters won’t ever believe he didn’t do steroids so his only hope with them may have been some notion, to them, that he was punished. Unfortunately, I don’t think they’ll see a massive governmental overreach and witch hunt during which he lost 5 years and 3 million dollars (or so I heard) as punishment. If only he was such a nice guy like Andy Pettitte.

    1. his Hall ticket is going to be in the distant future, mostly because writers are sharp enough to see before and after pictures, as in before he left the Red Sox and after he joined Toronto. It’s the same as with Bonds – no one experiences that type of muscle gain in his 30’s, certainly not mid-30’s.

      That said, fewer groups are more sanctimonious than baseball writers. Where were they when players were ballooning to cartoon-like proportions? Personally, I don’t care if guys choose to put things in their bodies. There are only so many multi-million dollar contracts to go around and, at that level, everyone is looking for an edge.

      1. That said, both were HoFers if they had been hit by a bus instead of starting to juice.

        That is the question I have for Bonds and Clemens. If you ignore all of their probably juicing numbers, they are still in, so does that mean they should still be in?

        1. This can’t be good for down ballot Dems.

          Three prominent West Virginia Democrats said Monday that they would skip the party’s national convention in Charlotte, N.C., this September over concerns that links to the party could hurt their re-election chances.

          Sen. Joe Manchin, Rep. Nick Rahall, and Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin all said they would avoid the convention

          I mean, who wouldn’t want to have the Jimmy Carter/Obama photo-op to send to their constituents?

          1. Wow. Just put that anywhere, squirrels.

        2. [responding to robc]

          Bonds, most likely makes the Hall without the ‘roids.

          But not Clemens. He won 196 games with Boston through age 33, and he had 2 years of injuries that limited his starts. Just looking at his numbers, IMO he only makes the HOF based on his late career “resurgence”.

      2. Also Mark Mcgwire. Went from a beanpole to a no-neck beefcake seemingly overnight.

        1. He also hit 49 home runs his rookie year, so he had plenty of power even before he beefed up.

        2. McGwire probably started juicing for real after his injury-riddled seasons of the mid-90s. He’d always been a big-power, no-batting average hitter like Rob Deer up until 1996, when his BA starts becoming much better by comparison.

  9. George Lakoff, the David Brooks of the left.

    The Wisconsin Blues
    …Progressive morality fits a nurturant family: parents are equal, the values are empathy, responsibility for oneself and others, and cooperation. That is taught to children. Parents protect and empower their children, and listen to them. Authority comes through an ethic of excellence and living by what you say, rather than by enforcing rules.

    Correspondingly in politics, democracy begins with citizens caring about one another and acting responsibly both for oneself and others. The mechanism by which this is achieved is The Public, through which the government provides resources that make private life and private enterprise possible: roads, bridges and sewers, public education, a justice system, clean water and air, pure food, systems for information, energy and transportation, and protection both for and from the corporate world. No one makes it on his or her own. Private life and private enterprise are not possible without The Public. Freedom does not exist without The Public….

    1. I just sub in a J for the L every time I read one of his posts. This one was particularly moronic.

      1. Progressive morajity? equajity?

        Like that?

        1. I think he meant George LJakoff

          1. So you think he’s the son of a KGB head?

    2. Freedom does not exist without The Public

      Where do I line up for this glorious world, commisar?

      1. Unnecessary caps are always creepy.

        1. Like these?

          But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    3. Parents? He is othering single-parent families right there

      1. Or communal, village-based child-rearing.

    4. …democracy begins with citizens caring about one another… The mechanism by which this is achieved is The Public, through which the government provides resources

      Those Fullerton cops really “cared” for Kelly Thomas. Would it be wrong to hope that some of their ilk would “care” for Lakoff?

      1. Democracy begins with some citizens wanting other citizens’ stuff, and realizing they outnumber them….

    5. No one makes it on his or her own. Private life and private enterprise are not possible without The Public. Freedom does not exist without The Public….

      “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face ? forever.”

    6. The mechanism by which this is achieved is The Public, through which the government provides resources that make private life and private enterprise possible: roads, bridges and sewers, public education, a justice system, clean water and air, pure food, systems for information, energy and transportation, and protection both for and from the corporate world. No one makes it on his or her own.

      The Lefties never tire of this pathetic canard. Um, guys, Jeremiah Johnson, Kit Carson, the 49ers and a million or so other pioneers would like to have a word with you.

    7. the values are empathy, responsibility for oneself and others, and cooperation

      WRONG.

      The values taught in my family are to crush the enemy, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women.

    8. Correspondingly in politics, democracy begins with citizens caring about one another and acting responsibly both for oneself and others.

      Of course, in a “progressive” democracy, acting irresponsibly for oneself is subsidized. Which is to say, rewarded. And acting responsibly for oneself is taxed. Which is to say, punished. Leading, inevitably, to:

      You get more of what you reward, and less of what you punish.

    9. Where progressives argued policy — the right to collective bargaining and the importance of public education — conservatives argued morality from their perspective, and many working people who shared their moral views voted with them and against their own interests.

      The Thomas Frank narrative continues. What lefties like Lakoff will never understand is that they cannot squeeze flyover communities into the convenient ideological boxes they’ve constructed.

      It’s not about “reframing” the issues at all. It’s about understanding that modern urban/college town progressivism simply does not coalesce with the populations of rural/suburban communities. Their needs are different, and the impact of the various dysfunctions of the former can have far more negative consequences on smaller-scale communities. The world that Lakoff alludes to is one steeped in late 1940s-1950s nostalgia, and the conditions to recreate that world will never exist again.

  10. This is an important life lesson on how authority figures divide and rule

    Teacher ordered class to line up and hit ‘bully’

    (Apologies if this has already been posted)

    1. I agree with all of them except #5.

      Education SHOULD, in fact, be about showing you’ve mastered the material. If you know the material, you shouldn’t have to engage in bullshit busy work just so the teacher can put a checkmark in their little book to indicate you showed up.

      On the first day of 6th grade math class (for example) they could have just given me a test on every concept they would cover the whole year and I would have passed it. That means that literally every homework assignment I was given the whole year was a waste of my fucking time.

      I don’t think the “no zeroes” policy goes far enough. I think in EVERY class, they should give you a test covering the entire class at the end of term, and if you ace it they throw the rest of the shit you did that year out as pointless busywork nonsense that doesn’t actually reflect anything. That’s if we’re going to maintain the fiction that education is actually about, you know, education, and not about getting people acclimated to pointless and baseless authority.

      1. I think in EVERY class, they should give you a test covering the entire class at the end of term, and if you ace it they throw the rest of the shit you did that year out as pointless busywork nonsense that doesn’t actually reflect anything.

        I had a math professor like that once. If you failed everything all semester, but you got an “A”, “B”, or “C” on the final? Then you got an “A”, “B” or “C” for the class.

        Government employees are all about busy work, though. They’re all really good at “looking like they’re busy”.

        1. This shit even goes on in college. I pretty much got an “F” in every homework assignment in college French, even though I had gotten a 4 (out of 5) on my French AP exams in high school.

          Anyways, our final exam in college French was to meet with the prof for an hour in the library and just shoot the shit. In French.

          At the end of our hour, the prof said “You can speak French! I’m shocked because your written homework sucked”. Well, shit, man – the class was “Conversational French”. WTF were we doing written homework for, anyways?

          I got an A.

          1. But, but, but . . . if you don’t have 6 hours of homework a day won’t those asian kids eat our lunch?

      2. I think in EVERY class, they should give you a test covering the entire class at the end of term, and if you ace it they throw the rest of the shit you did that year out as pointless busywork nonsense that doesn’t actually reflect anything.

        Why just if you ace it? Why not just make your grade on the cumulative final your grade for the class, period?

        1. I would be down with that.

          I was just carving out a way for people who did yeoman’s work for the entire semester, but then didn’t do so well on the final, to get a decent grade also.

        2. I see someone is familiar with the grading system used in law school.

          1. Well, first year, anyway. We had more grades from papers and stuff in addition to the final after that.

            I didn’t especially care for getting graded that way, particularly since it was so different from the way tests were for the previous 16 years of schooling. The way my mind works, if murder has X elements and the test question includes X-1 elements of murder, writing about why it isn’t murder isn’t something that comes naturally to me.

            Now, if someone made the claim that a fact pattern indicated murder it would be obvious to say “No, there was no intent” or if the question asked, “Would a murder charge be inappropriate here?” it would be more straightforward. Answering, “You put enough into the question to make me think of murder but then eliminate murder because it was missing an element” seems like the wordy bullshit that would get you dinged in college. But I digress.

        3. Why just if you ace it? Why not just make your grade on the cumulative final your grade for the class, period?

          For younger kids, especially, there has to be some short term incentive to do the homework necessary to learn the material for the final. If doing the math homework has no upside in the short term, a huge chunk of them won’t learn the material because they didn’t do the homework–so many of them won’t pass the final that would have passed the final if the homework had been part of the grade.

          I had numerous teacher conferences as a kid where the teachers would say, “You know, he’d have a an “A” if we just used the scores from his tests. He knows the material. He’s just not willing to do the homework”!

          They can fix that by giving you the grade for the class no lower than what you get on the final–and still give those who need to do the homework more of a reason to do it.

          1. My kids’ homework grades, quiz grades, test grades, and finals grades were surprisingly consistent… I don’t think they were off by more than two points in any nine weeks in any subject.

            They can fix that by giving you the grade for the class no lower than what you get on the final–and still give those who need to do the homework more of a reason to do it.

            The reason I give my kids for doing their homework is because they can always get better and the subject can always come more easily through practice. Kevin Durant knows how to shoot a basketball but he doesn’t only do it in games when it counts. Now, when they start making all 100s, not just As, on the tests then they’ve probably reached the maximum practical amount of homework for that subject.

            1. How well does that argument work with your kids?

      3. “Cohorts” should be done away with. With the technology currently available, it’s possible to have both individualized instruction and measurement.

        1. They had that in my childhood.
          It was called 2-XL and it it had a Batman tape that was WAAAAY better than the educational stuff.
          Best. Christmas. Ever.

      4. Concur. This starts in kindergarten. Similarly, my twins miss a lot of school because we travel. Although they’re already readers and know everything they’re supposed to know for next year, we get a lot of push back from the administration — I think attendance is tied into state scoring/funding or something.
        But my wife and I are also known troublemakers, so eventually they just sigh and shut the fuck up (the administrators, not the twins — they never shut the fuck up).

        1. yes, attendance is definitely tied to funding in most states.

          1. That was how we staged a mini-revolt in highschool, by all planning to call in sick on the “count day” that determines funding levels.

            1. If I remember correctly, the gaming of the system on count day is what led Kentucky to go to the per diem model.

              1. Which is also what led to KY ending early graduation.

                School ended for my sister in the early 80s about 2 weeks before it did for everyone else. By the time I graduated in ’87, we finished a week early, but had “mandatory” graduation practice stuff every day the last week. Which means we showed up, took attendance, did some bullshit for an hour, then left before lunch.

                1. Columbus Public Schools is being investigated for cooking their attendance numbers. Shocking.

        2. It is tied to funding in KY. They get, in essence, to bill the state on a per student, per day basis.

          1. They fund students in KY Jelly? No wonder you live there

            1. Your Australian “humor” holds no away here, missy.

              1. Shouldn’t that be ‘humour’, or do Aussies spell correctly?

                1. If she’s going to comment in America, she needs to learn American.

                2. It’s “humour” in Australia, but Mr Free isn’t about to pander to me.

                  Fun fact: One saw a Laibach interview in which they explained their aesthetic thus: “humour” sounds a lot like the Slovenian word “humor”, “and in Slovenian this word it means murder.”

                  1. I’ve been told you can’t have manslaughter without laughter.

            2. Pretty slick deal, I must say.

      5. Every class I ever had my entire life, from Kindergarten thru grad school, homework lowered my overall grade.

        I loved the fact that very, very few classes had homework that was graded when I was in college.

        There are a few exceptions where homework/projects makes more sense than tests, things like programming classes or english essays.

        My thermo prof used a system much like Fluffy and Ken discussed. Homework was due every class, BUT it didnt really count in your grade. As long as your HW average was over 75%, your test grades were your grades. If it was below 75% you lost 1 letter grade, if below 60%, you lost two.

        So, if you didnt get a chance to do an assignment every now and then, no big deal. My average ended up about 80% or so.

        Also, if you got an A on your final, your final letter grade was bumped up 2 letters. Which meant if you aced the final, you almost assuredly got an A overall. I guess if you were failing bad enough, the A on the final might only pull you up to a D, so then the bonus would only get you to a B. But, yeah, unlikely.

        If you got a B on the final it was bumped up one letter grade, up to B max (if you got a B on the final and still averaged an A overall, you got the A obviously).

        1. My rule of thumb in college was if homework was 10% or less of my grade, I wasn’t doing it.

          1. I was more likely to do it if it didnt count at all.

      6. Reminds me of a conversation I had with a couple of teachers in High School.

        First day of class they hand out a syllibus that includes the grading system. Homework counts for 20% of the grade.

        I actually raised my hand and asked if that meant I could pass the class without doing any homework. Their reply was “of course not, you’d never be able to pass the tests that way”.

        I never turned in a single homework assignment in either class and got a High C in both.

        1. I attempted to do that in high school trig, when my teacher figured out I was going to pass without doing homework, he went to the principle who called my dad in and told him I couldn’t graduate unless I started doing my homework. So, last few weeks or so I grudgingly did it. Ended up with a B or high C by acing the final. This was the second half of my senior year and I’d already been accepted by the college I wanted to so I pretty much checked out.

          1. True story: I never got below 100 on a spelling test in grade school. About a month into sixth grade we had one of those tests where you’re shown three words and you circle the one that’s spelled incorrectly. It was a fifty item test, timed; if you finished early, for extra credit you could go back and provide correct spellings for the circled words. I’d finished the whole thing, including all fifty corrections, before anyone else had even finished the first part. Of course I got every example and all the corrected spellings right; the next day, the teacher told me that I wouldn’t be required to do any more spelling tests or spelling homework for the remainder of the year. If more teachers would just credit kids for already knowing the material, school would be a far more interesting and productive place for most kids, and would free up some more time for teachers to devote to the kids who really need more instruction and attention.

            1. Similar here. I think by the third week of 3rd grade, my teacher excused me from the spelling homework/exams, as well as the reading/discussion assignments. She was a vile human being, but realized she should focus her efforts on the kids who actually needed it.

      7. My chemistry teacher our sophomore year of high school gave us the previous year’s final on the first day of class to show us how much we were going to learn in that class. I got an 89, but the bastard still made me attend the entire year.

      8. I think in EVERY class, they should give you a test covering the entire class at the beginning of term, and if you ace it you get the class credit and don’t have to take the class.

    2. As a former disenfanchised HS math and physics teacher, I assure you that the main reason that teachers don’t fail kids is so that they don’t get confronted by parents and administrators.

  11. President Martyr
    The “sounds of slogging” echo through the decades.

    Lately we’ve seen a spate of articles blaming Obama’s failures on impersonal forces beyond his control.

      1. “for Barack Obama, a president who set out to restore good relations with the world in his first term, the world does not seem to be cooperating all that much with his bid to win a second.”

        As the World Cup will probably reveal again soon, the world can be pretty racist.

        1. Is World Cup racism real racism, or just fans knowing which buttons to push?

        2. And the European Championship will reveal even sooner.

    1. I thought the opening segment was one of Taranto’s best this year.

  12. Spain Borrowing Costs Jump:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    Spanish 10-year yields are above 7 percent.

    But I still don’t get how anyone expected the euro to succeed if 7% rates meant Armageddon.

    That’s like signing up to wear a collar that explodes and blows your head off if it ever goes above 90 degrees outside.

    1. That’s like signing up to wear a collar that explodes and blows your head off if it ever goes above 90 degrees outside.

      Can you test market this in Houston, please? I figure it’ll cut down on my morning commute.

      1. Why not make it part of a government uniform?

  13. This has nothing to do with slavery

    Give it a day or two, Ed Schultz will be saying Bain Capital is running Adidas.

    1. The “day or two” implies that he needs to put thought or research into it.

    2. And all the bullshit that blacks are offended by this will hopefully end when the shoes start flying off the shelves as every “urban” youth with the scratch snaps a pair up.

      I dunno about anyone else but to me there’s something wrong with a culture whose biggest fashion statement is imitating prison wear.

      1. That’s what I thought when I saw the article on this. Blacks and whiggers have been imitating prison wear for well over 20 years now. How on earth would they find these shoes offensive when they’ve been sagging their pants below their crotch?

  14. Dana Milbank: Occupy Wall Street movement has hit a wall
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    Jones, an Obama administration official who resigned under pressure because of his far-left positions, is a fixture at the annual gatherings and a fiery orator. But this version of his yearly pep talk was laced with disappointment. “I’m watching that movement that inspired the world .?.?. that stunned the world, in the moment of maximum peril now sit down,” he lamented at the opening session, where half of the 500 seats were filled.

    1. Who could have ever seen this coming?!

      1. They hit peak stench!

        so glad I hedged in deodorant.

    2. …that stunned the world, in the moment of maximum peril…

      He doesn’t drama queen much, does he?

    3. As if the filthy, professional protester class hasn’t been around for decades. No, douche, this group o’ noobs is just not that into you.

  15. One for the art-lovers amongst the commentariat

    Topless artist on Thailand’s Got Talent sparks outrage by painting on canvas using her bare breasts

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..z1yF9SQIZX

    1. Haha. Oh those wacky artists. Regretsy has pics of some guy “painting” with his anus, and also some of some chick making vulva prints to sell.

  16. One for the art-lovers amongst the commentariat

    Topless artist on Thailand’s Got Talent sparks outrage by painting on canvas using her bare breasts

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..z1yF9SQIZX

    1. soz, dunno what happened there

      1. So you covered each breast with a seperate post?

      2. Apparently you were really excited about breast painting.

        1. Scrolling quickly, I thought it said “bread pudding”, which got me excited.

    2. She ripped this idea of Farrah Fawcett who was painting…like that…years ago.

      1. Also, what a valueless ‘talent’.

        1. It’s all about supply and demand.

          I can’t produce a painting made with Farrah Fawcett’s body, so the supply is limited. The demand is still there, though…

          I mean, a painting Farrah made with her body has gotta be a lot more personal than an autograph, right. And autographs are worth something if there’s a market of people willing to pay for it.

      2. What is Yves Klein, chopped liver?

        1. People people, we’re missing the point – SHE DID IT ON A SHITTY TALENT SHOW ON NATIONAL TV! This is slightly different from doing it in your studio

          1. Having done it on TV makes it more interesting because now there’s an element of fame attached to it.

            If the nobody next door does it for an art class at her local community college, then that’s not a particularly interesting, but if she does it on TV? Then that’s a work of art that’s a lot more interesting.

            If Picasso drew a stick man, that would be a lot more interesting than me drawing a stick man, right?

            Well some reality TV star drawing a stick man is probably somewhere in between my stick man and Picasso’s. And make no mistake, part of what makes Picasso’s stick man interesting is the fact that he’s famous.

        2. I wasn’t familiar with Yves Klein, but thank you for that.

          Incidentally, I suspect the neanderthals that left their hand prints on the walls, likewise, would have been a lot more famous if they’d used a more interesting body part.

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/scie…..-paintings

    3. I just like that the female judge is named ‘Pornchita’.

      1. the dark side of Chiquita bananas.

    4. Topless artist on Thailand’s Got Talent sparks outrage by painting on canvas using her bare breasts

      Nothing new; Brings back ancient memories of RR in Bangkok and a hooker who did something like that. Well, I”m not remembering the paint and canvas part but still…

  17. ‘Clean energy’ is money wasted
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    Doubling down is also the semi-official metaphor of President Obama’s energy strategy, as we know from his speech in Cleveland last week: “My plan would end the government subsidies to oil companies that have rarely been more profitable ? let’s double down on a clean-energy industry that has never been more promising.”

    Blackjack pros like doubling down; it’s a chance to profit from newly acquired relevant information. Whether that logic applies to the U.S. government’s energy bets, however, is a different story. What we’ve learned so far suggests that the president should fold his cards.

  18. A new list reveals the fastest computer in the world is IBM’s Sequoia, used to simulate the human heart.

    I liked this better the first time I saw it, when it was called Crank.

    1. …simulate the human heart.

      The Romney campaign is working to secure one before November.

    2. All these fastest computer contests are bull. The real question is fastest for what.

      1. Fastest at becoming the precursor to Skynet. Duh.

      2. Calculating the Question to the Ultimate Answer.

        1. It’s the Ultimate Question that really matters.

          1. Don’t we know that already? Six by nine?

            1. “What do you get if you multiply six by nine?” to be exact.

  19. “What is this, the slavery line?” Christopher Daniels asked in the photo’s comment section.

    “Why would you want shackles round your legs that’s just like back in slavery days #sillyidea,” commented Shakira Allen.

    They were criticized on Facebook. Facebook is wholly populated with fucking morons. (If you agree, join my club at facebook.com/shomeda$.)

  20. Hot chicks in bikinis with aligators! What could possibly go wrong?
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..shoot.html

    1. Sounds like the plot of a snuff film I watched last week ……

  21. Emma Stone is still hot! (and WAY to skinny for John)
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..tatus.html

    1. She’s very masculine looking.

        1. I don’t know about Alien. She’s just very masculine looking.

          1. I dunno – those BIG eyes.
            http://media.photobucket.com/image/mr. burns alien/Bonewhite/tumblr_lgsl74EHAt1qf44hwo1_500.png

        2. Dichen Lachman looks like an alien. A hot alien, but still an alien.

      1. She’s very masculine looking.

        So just don’t look at her chest.

        1. I forgot that if it doesn’t have huge tits then it must be male.

          http://www.paderkino.de/scenes/99/fight_club1.jpg

          1. “Between those huge sweating tits that hung enormous, the way you’d think of God’s as big.”

      2. Yeah. Very.
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..-walk.html

        1. Hey, I’m not knocking it.

          There’s nothing wrong with liking masculine looking women–if that’s what you like.

          1. you know who else liked masculine looking women?

            1. Um…I don’t know, but it wasn’t John.

            2. Oh, I know this one!

              Obama, amirite?

            3. Portia de Rossi?

        2. Olivia Wilde’s real last name is Cockburn? Why would she change that?

    2. I don’t know–every time I see her, I keep waiting for a forked tongue to flick out of her mouth.

  22. This woman on the other hand…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..ution.html

    1. damn you, sarcasmic. Damn you to hell

      1. You had the better quip.

  23. V’Ger is on it’s way to meet the Creator.
    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech…..lar-space/

  24. Fast food, fast fuck:

    ‘Hot dog hooker’ sentenced to seven days in jail for selling sex from out of her food cart

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..z1yF9GISKR

    1. I didn’t want to read that story because I thought it ended with “hooker with a penis.”

      1. But you did read it, because, deep down…

  25. Dem hopes of taking House dim
    http://thehill.com/homenews/ca…..ring-house

    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has given her party a better than 50-50 chance of wresting control of the lower chamber ? but missed opportunities in specific races and increasing economic worries have put that prediction in doubt.

    “The environment certainly isn’t as good as it was six months ago for Democrats,” a senior Democratic strategist who works on House races told The Hill, speaking on the condition of anonymity in order to comment candidly.

    1. Will the remain socs finally get rid of her when they lose seats in November?

    2. They didn’t have a prayer to start with. Also, can we stop with the anonymous, “my team is fucked” comments. Its the worst part of political journalism. A smart strategist would say “my team is fucked unless they do (a) and (b)” and put his/her name on it. Then when neither (a) nor (b) happen and they get taken to the woodshed, you have instant credibility.

    3. The funny part of this is that at least a couple of months ago, I recall the likelihood of the Republicans taking the entire congress being pegged at about 75%. By definition, that means the chances of them taking the House had to be pegged higher. Now, we know that the number has moved even further north. Pelosi is either completely delusional or issuing perfunctory BS in expectation that no one will call it such.

  26. Apprently sloopy took a trip to Australia.

    Police were Tuesday conducting a manhunt for thieves who made off with 93 pounds of mayonnaise from a business in South Australia.

    1. Only if it wasn’t hipster-douche artisan type mayo. In little fair trade (naturally made by hand by wretched Central American peasants) jars.

  27. Meanwhile, in the civilized nation of India…

    Police Superintendent Umesh Ojha says Singh was upset by his daughter having affairs with men, and became enraged when she eloped with one of them two weeks ago.

  28. Are Liberals the New Squares?
    http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon…..epage=true

    Libertarians are the cool guys.

    Libertarians?

    What does that mean?

    Oh, yes, that’s a word for conservatives who wanted to get girls at parties.

    1. Wait, so what are we:
      A) Suave rebranded Republicans
      B) Snarky basementdwelling neckbeards

      1. Snarky rebranded basementdwelling neckbearded Republicans?

        Suave, based on my admittedly small sampling, isn’t really a word that applies.

        1. Are you kidding? Did you see all the excellent advice we gave Goldwater a few weeks back? And look how many chicks the blog is attracting!

        2. As a group we are swave and deboner!

    2. I’m from MD (pitch midnight TEAM BLUE state) and consider myself to be a recovering Democrat.

      We’re out there. We just had to find a place – like this – where we could take the shackles off.

    3. Oh, yes, that’s a word for conservatives who wanted to get girls at parties.

      Its not working. At least for me.

  29. Sometimes, on a really hot day, you just need to cool off.

    A woman was found naked and eating ice cream inside a drug store after leaving three children alone in a car after a wreck, investigators said.

    1. Totally a seizure.

      1. Indeed – she is qualified to be in the Cabinet now.

    2. One time, when I was in prep school, my roommate Bob was wrestling with Sanchez, and Sanchez smashed his head into the ground so hard, it knocked him out cold.

      And when he came to? He thought he was a barking ringmaster in a circus!

      “Step right up, folks, and be the first to see…”

      They kept trying to get him to lay down so they could work on him, but he had tickets to sell.

      1. Did you consider the possibility that perhaps he really WAS a circus ringmaster, and the guys from Mars Intelligence wiped his memory using the Rekall device?

        1. I didn’t really think about that, put I suppose it’s a possibility.

          Incidentally, it was shortly after this incident that Bob decided to become a minister. I can’t say for certain it was due to head trauma, but I don’t think we can rule it out completely either.

          He hadn’t been particularly religious before.

  30. US plans significant military presence in Kuwait
    http://apnews.myway.com/articl…..2L6G0.html

    The United States is planning a significant military presence of 13,500 troops in Kuwait to give it the flexibility to respond to sudden conflicts in the region as Iraq adjusts to the withdrawal of American combat forces and the world nervously eyes Iran, according to a congressional report.

    1. …comin’ again to save the MOTHAFUCKIN’ DAY YEAH!!!

      1. I’m at the point in my career where I’m beginning to consider my retirement function. I refuse, outright refuse, to attend any ceremony which plays music by Toby Keith or Lee Greenwood. My requirement, and I will forego the ceremony if this is not done, is that “America! Fuck Yeah!” is played. I’m not unreasonable, I’m willing to compromise on the “Heck Yeah” version, but it will be played.

  31. MSNBC Misrepresents Romney Speech, Invents Wawa ‘Gaffe’

    Today, MSNBC aired footage of Mitt Romney marveling at the Wawa hoagie-ordering process during a campaign stop in Pennsylvania, saying, “You press a little touchtone keypad – you touch this, touch this, go pay the cashier – there’s your sandwich. It’s amazing.” He’s so corny and out of touch! Except, the full three-minute clip shows that Romney was actually describing his Wawa outing as part of a metaphor about government bureaucracy.

  32. Josh Cooley – Pixar Artist
    makes a Children’s Book like compilation of great movie scenes.

    http://i.imgur.com/wD88F.jpg

    more here: http://imgur.com/a/SS6V5/noscript

    1. He did those awhile ago – I’ve got this hanging on my wall:

      http://cooley.bigcartel.com/pr…..n-im-smart

      I’ve also got the 54 International Cuties playing cards he did w/ another artist – they’re pretty bitchin:

      http://www.gallerynucleus.com/blog/view/1098

  33. Yep, it’s indeed looking like the individual mandate is about to be ruled unconstitutional. Obama must have been made aware of this, because he’s already started working on plan B.

    1. See, I’ve been arguing this for a few days…that some of Obama’s campaign strategy, recently, seems to suggest he’s assuming the individual mandate will lose.

      …but your link isn’t working. I’m getting a 404. Repost the link, por favor?

      1. I still think the entire thing is going down.

        1. Like Michelle Obama?

          1. I thought the President said she doesn’t do that.

            1. Not “all the way”.

    1. Even if the requirement that nearly every U.S. resident have health insurance is declared unconstitutional, the remaining parts of the law would have far-reaching impact, putting coverage within reach of millions of uninsured people, laying new obligations on insurers and employers, and improving Medicare benefits even as payments to many service providers get scaled back.

      Amazing how biased the AP can be.

      ObamaCare? Oh yeah, it’ll provide better healthcare for more people, who couldn’t get it before AND it will cost us less money than it did before, too…

      Hell, it’ll even soften your hands while it does your dishes!

      I’m trying to keep a handle on the confirmation bias, but everywhere I look, it seems like the people who might know the verdict already are assuming that the individual mandate will be struck down.

  34. This is an old link, but today’s chick links have left something to be desired.

    Third pic down from top.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..87116.html

    1. I love Hayek. Of course you know you are now on Sarcasmic’s list of fat lovers since you linked a woman with actual breasts and hips.

      1. No John, you are alone on my list of chubby chasers.

        1. Admit it sarcasmic, you think Hayek is fat don’t you? She is a regular cow in your eyes. You have called thinner women than her fat.

          1. I never thought of Friedrich that way, but I won’t judge you for it.

      2. I just can’t believe she’s 46. That ass is on a 46 year old.

        It’s unbelievable, really.

        1. And she has had at least one kid. That ass on a 46 year old mom. It is truly unnatural.

    2. Well that’s the straight blokes around here taken care of. Where’s the love for the libertarian ladies around here?

    3. I do my best with the cards I’m dealt.
      How’s this (from the archives)?
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..ikini.html

  35. I wonder if any hack sports journalists will consider that maybe Clemmens didn’t use steroids. The guy demanded to testify under oath and then was willing to risk prison for refusing to admit it. Either he is a real nut or maybe innocent.

    1. I think he might be a real nut. I say that because after he almost ended Mike Piazza’s career, the next time he faced him he was acting like an out of control lunatic.

      1. That is absurd. He threw the end of a bat that didn’t get within a foot of Piazza. If he had been some nut who wanted to end Piazza’s career, he could have I don’t know, thrown a fastball at Piazza’s head? It is not like he wasn’t a major league pitcher or anything.

        I think this aquital puts the entire Mitchell report in a new light. The God damned DOJ couldn’t come up with proof he used steroids. Yet, Mitchell concluded he did based on what evidence? It was all bullshit. And moreoever, Clemmens while great, never put up the statistical anomalies known steroid users did. He was great into his late 30s. So was Warren Spahn. He had some great years, but Steve Carlton, Bob Gibson, Sandy Kolfax and Ron Guidry all had better single years.

        1. I think the point is that he got angry about a BROKEN bat and threw it near Piazza and was so very confrontational. He was the one who hit Piazza with the ball. So he had irrational rage, suggesting: 1. he was insane, or 2. he had ‘roid’ rage, or 3. his level of competitiveness borders on insanity. His behavior was extreme, odd, and he was in the wrong. Does it prove he was juicing? Of course not, but I would not be shocked if he was.

          1. What pro athletes are not insanely competitive? I can think of any number of times that baseball players have taken a bat to a water cooler in frustration or charged the mound or spit on an umpire or any number of things that are just as confrontational as that.

          2. Roid rage doesn’t fucking exist. It’s a myth made up by retard drugophobes.

        2. And moreoever, Clemmens while great, never put up the statistical anomalies known steroid users did. He was great into his late 30s.

          Actually, Clemens was on the downside of his career until he went to Toronto and suddenly became very good again. It’s one of the reasons that Boston was willing to let him go (besides the fact that he’s a colossal asshole) Here’s his stats for that time period:

          Boston
          1993: 11-14, 4.46 ERA
          1994: 9-7, 2.85 ERA
          1995: 10-5, 4.18 ERA
          1996: 10-13, 3.63 ERA
          Toronto
          1997: 21-7, 2.05 ERA
          1998: 20-6, 2.65 ERA

          Also, compare his build during his Boston years with his Toronto/Yankee years. He blew up the same way Bonds did, albeit not as grotesquely. Some of that’s due to age, sure–but a guy who went 40-39 over a four year period all of a sudden becomes a two-time 20 game winner on a mediocre team in the same division? I’m not shocked at all that people would think there was something going on there.

          1. Bonds took steroids and had years that were statistically beyond anything ever achieved. Clemmons, while having good years did not.

            Isn’t it also possible that he got fat and lazy in his last years in Boston playing for a lousy team that wasn’t willing to pay him what he wanted? Then he left Boston and felt motivated. That happens a lot. The mere fact that he had some bad seasons and then got his act together again doesn’t mean he used roids. He only had one bad year in Boston. 94 his ERA was under 3.

          2. I think you are forgetting about who the good and bad teams were. Jays won division in 1993, Red Sox Won in 1995. In 1996, the red Sox were 11 games better, but in the rest of that time the biggest difference in standings between the two teams was 4 games.

            Also if you are going to try and be persuasive with your statistics, things like W-L record and ERA are not the place to start. I think some of the peripherals (bb rate, k rate, etc) are a better place to argue from, since they take things like defense, team offense anad park factors out of the equation. In 94 and 96, Clemens was the second best pitcher in the league by WAR.

            1. No one’s probably reading this anymore, but the statement that Clemens didn’t have a year statistically beyond anything ever achieved is mostly incorrect. Fer Chrissake, go look at his years in Houston, especially 2005. A 1.87 ERA (226 ERA+) pitching at Enron/Minute Maid! There are 7 seasons since integration with a starting pitcher racking up a 226 ERA+, and none other than his done by someone older than, IIRC, 33. He did it while he was 42 years old.

              To say he did it w/o benefit of PEDs such as HGH is hilarious. You probably think Lance Armstrong was clean too.

              I agree with Costas’s recommendation that you just draw a line around the entire steroid era, tacitly assume that most of them were juicing at some point, and move on.

              1. Meant to add ‘WAR greater than 7’ to the criteria for the above list of seasons. Doubt it changes my point too much, which is that Roger Clemens had one of the greatest seasons of all time by a pitcher while he was in Houston, and given his age, essentially unprecedented.

  36. Man with 100-pound scrotum REJECTS offers to perform $1 million corrective surgery for free because his giant organ has made him famous

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..z1yFR1P8eU

    1. It really is South Park’s world.

      http://www.southparkstudios.co…..dispensary

    2. So he likes being a giant nutbag? Huh.

  37. Christina Hendricks still has huge boobs!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..esses.html

    1. Thank you. Please keep us informed on any new developments on that front.

      1. I see what you did there…and I appreciated it!

    1. Gods! The nightmares I’ll have tonight. And I’m travelling in the morning too.

      1. I’m just surprised it didn’t happen in Japanese waters.

  38. Lord Humungus|6.19.12 @ 8:56AM|#

    ‘Clean energy’ is money wasted
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    Not only has BO lost the Washington Post he lost his uber-progressive Harvard law professor.

    Mr Unger, a prominent Brazilian politician and an adviser to Obama in 2008, said: ‘President Obama must be defeated in the coming election. He has failed to advance the progressive cause in the United States.’

    ….

    Most of Mr Unger’s comments seem to be politically to the left of Mr Obama, but he insists that the Republicans would be no more destructive than the Democrats as ‘the risk of military adventurism’ would remain the same.

    1. I read that. And it made me kind of think that I want Obama to win. Another four years of this asshole and liberalism will be discredited for a century

      1. I’ve thought that before. And clearly I was wrong. But a Romney win doesn’t exactly ‘send a thrill up my leg’ either.

        1. how about a trickle down it?

          1. I see what you did there.

        2. The main problem for me with a Romney win is that after four years of continued Keynesianism and expansion of the regulatory and welfare/warfare state his administration will be widely touted as having once and for all shown what a failure the free market is.

        3. I’m thinking more and more about voting Gary Johnson or a Ron Paul write-in but I will wait to see what happens at convention. A Romney-Paul ticket could tempt me to vote for Romney or his adopting a few planks that Paul favors.

          The reality seems to be that we are destined for more spending, more statism, and further economic bad news so why not let Obama take the hit?

          Anything Romney does will be called free market libertarianism and even if he does a few things right, we have yet to pay for all the mayhem created by Bush and Obama and so there will likely be a lot more bad news. Further problems with debt, spending, housing weakness, another stock bubble to crash, possibly a jump in inflation. No matter who is president unless it was someone who cut spending and taxes by a lot, but even then there would probably be a few year adjustment process that would have to have repercussions in the 2 year or 4 year election cycle.

          If Obama stays and causes troubles, maybe then we could get several congressional cycles and a presidential one where we can elect free market friendly folks once it is completely clear to 60-70% of the public that it is “progressive” policies that have failed?

          1. To be fair, anything Obama does from here on out will be called free market libertarianism too, and the failures that can’t be covered up will be blamed on his being too accomodating and centrist and not sufficiently progressive.

    2. Why the fuck is the President of the United States being advised by a Brazilian politician?

      1. How else do you think he came up with his plan to spend all those brazilians of dollars?

  39. I mean ? do you think Deborah Wasserman-Schultz is hip? This is one of the meanest things I’ve ever put in print or online, but that’s the girl who was standing in the corner at the sixth grade cotillion and you said, “Oh, no. Do I have to dance with her?”

    http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon…..epage=true

  40. an anti-child sex worker conference

    Raise hand if you parsed that wrong as I did, thinking it was a conference by sex workers who were opposed to having children.

    1. Yep. Are you sure it’s wrong?

      1. I read from the link. I know, cheating, huh?

  41. I know I’m late to the party but I saw this on news last night. A neighborhood in Harlem has been blocked off by barricades manned by the NYPD. You have to show I.D. to go home and have to come to the barricade and escort any visitors. NYPD says they could be there for months.

    1. Wow. That’s got it all:
      If you’re not a criminal you have nothing to worry about.
      Someone’s grandma likes it because it makes her feel safer.
      Officers engaged in racial profiling.

      TEH EVUL GANGS!!!1!11!
      Plus, it’s 100% for the children–“this is about saving young lives.”

    2. They got the idea from DC

    3. They’re taking “ghetto” pretty literally in Bloomberg’s Reich, huh?

      1. Your papers, please.

        All is NOT in order! Take him away.

  42. That guy seems to know what he is talking about. Wow.

    http://www.Anon-Browser.tk

  43. It’s “humour” in Australia, but Mr Free isn’t about to pander to me.

    The exception to the spelling rule in Australia in that the name of political party is spell Labor. In this they depart from rest of the British world.

    The word labor itself is still spelled with a “u”, however.

    The adoption of the American style spelling was mostly the work of King O’Malley who depending on the story was born either in Quebec or Kansas. Around the time of Federation, though, quite a few Labor politicians were pro-American since they saw America as democratic, classless and modern, unlike Britain.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.