A.M. Links: Obama Responds to Clint Eastwood, RNC in Tampa Short on Protesters, Global Food Prices Up

News from Washington to around the world


  • obama's chair

    President Obama responds to Clint Eastwood's RNC speech with a photo of himself sitting in the president's chair.

  • The Republican National Convention in Tampa has attracted a lot less protesters than expected; there have been only two arrests and the number of police outstripped the number of protesters all week.
  • Global food prices are up ten percent in July according to the World Bank.
  • Julian Assange could end up spending up to a year or more in the Ecuadorian embassy as Ecuador and Britain fight over extradition.
  • Islamic extremists are responsible for a series of attacks in Thailand over the weekend according to authorities.
  • Egyptian authorities believe the body of a decapitated man found in the Sinai was put there of Islamic extremists.

NEXT: LAPD Officers Under Investigation

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. Does it have that burnt gasoline smell at the back of your throat?

      1. Charlie don’t surf!

      2. …smells like victory…

      3. If that’s how Kilgore fought the war, I began to wonder what they really had against Kurtz. It wasn’t just insanity and murder; there was enough of that to go around for everyone.

        1. Because Kilgore was part of the plan. Kurtz was rouge. It’s not what he was doing that scared them, it’s the fact that he was doing it on his own, completely free of their control.

          1. Kurtz was a cross dresser?

  1. So slow. I am disappoint.

  2. President Obama responds to Clint Eastwood’s RNC speech with a photo of himself sitting in the president’s chair.

    Obama is never going to hire Clint to shill for any of his car companies again, I’ll tell you that much.

    1. I tell you what, that Super Bowl ad really gave the impression that Eastwood was on Obama’s side. You have to wonder how he didn’t see that it looked like a campaign ad.

    2. President Obama responds to Clint Eastwood’s RNC speech.

      the man is simply devoid of any humor gene and unbelievably thin-skinned. Sometimes, the best response is no response. But that is not in this administration’s DNA.

      1. He’s a petulant child. Of course every moron on Facebook thinks this picture is the height of badassery.

        1. His head is crooked and his ears stick out – it is actually kind of funny looking.

        2. Someone on Facebook posted this:

          “We shouldn’t have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making health care decisions on behalf of women.” ?President Obama

          And I thought – but that’s exactly what he did. People are stupid.

          1. No, the IPAB is not political remember? They are unelected experts, top men, you might say — who can never be influenced by politics. Never.

          2. You had to light the van Haalen beacon, didn’t you?

            1. So I’ve been typecast?

      2. I really think this is how one would have to attack him. Keep with the digs. He can’t help himself to not respond.

        1. Obama supporters would give up their lifeboat seat on the Titanic if it was for him. They have no capacity for logic, and they are the perfect example of a collectivist mindset.

          “Our leader is under attack! Take to the Twittersphere and create funny messages that insult Republicans!”

        2. Perhaps if we taunt him, he will become cross and make a mistake. (Paraphrasing the rabbit scene from Python/Grail)

        3. But that’s the thing, even if he responded by addressing Eastwood’s points, that wouldn’t make him look nearly as bad as this stunt. As was stated, this is a childish response to an adult criticism.

      3. Two major failures here: First, everyone loves Clint Eastwood. Nothing to be gained by arguing with him publicly. Best to just let it go and treat it as unimportant. Which, of course, it is.

        Second, it’s a bad sign when you can’t take a joke.

        1. It’s not a joke when you insult the president! Respect the office! Well, unless it’s some idiot from Texas. Then go nuts.

        2. Actually, as much as I can’t stand the administration I thought this was a pretty cool reply.

          1. I think it was just another in a long line of mistakes. Obama doesn’t need to win over the fanboys, who refuse to oppose him, regardless of what he does or says (that’s not a formula for a free society, dumbasses), he needs to win over more independent thinkers who are willing to vote either direction or even another direction altogether.

            This was a fanboy move and nothing more.

            1. That was the conclusion I came to as well. It has the same feel as all liberals rushing to his defense after the “You didn’t build that” gaffe. The options are to walk back what was said, steer the debate in a different direction, or ignore it. Obama and his fanbase all choose secret option 4: attack the people who simply call out the president on the mistakes he has made as president.

              1. What’s upsetting, though totally predictable, is that Obama, by any rational measure, has failed in many respects. Even from the Democratic perspective. Not all of those failures are totally his fault, but in presidential elections, the buck often stops right in the president’s lap.

                The Democrats could’ve run this campaign on the idea that what they’re trying to do will take time, that there are no easy solutions, and that some mistakes were made in underestimating the economic situation. And, of course, they could trash Republican proposals in the usual manner. That’s all bullshit, of course, but it’s a viable strategy.

                Instead–and this is the part that disturbs me–they would rather ignore reality and pretend this administration (and the previous Democratic Congress) have done everything perfectly and we’re just moments away from a huge economic boom. This kind of willingness to distort reality beyond even the slightest hint of rationality is bad, because it smacks of the kind of thinking that keeps totalitarians in power.

          2. Nope. It was bitter and humorless.

            Had he played off of Clint’s speech a bit, lightly demurred and gotten off a shot in the end, then yeah, it would have been OK. As it stands, all I can see is the Big Zero standing there, arms folded, with his lower lip sticking out.

            No subtlety, just tuff gai bravado.

            1. Or crybaby retaliation.

            2. Well, he did single handedly kill bin Laden, with a Bowie knife.

              1. I thought Bin Laden became so sick of Obama’s constant campaigning that he shot himself.

        3. I just watched the speech on Jesse’s post and it wasn’t that bad. Rambling? A bit, but that’s OK. Drunken? He’s 82 fucking years old and pretty much still has all his marbles. Let’s see how they sound at 82.

          I do wish that he had told the chair to get off his lawn.

          1. Really, the entire speech should have just been, “Mr. President, get off my lawn” followed by a 5 minute montage of squinty eyed anger from the last 50 years of film.

            1. No, I have it. It should’ve been him, an Obama lookalike, and a Biden lookalike, all at the vertices of an equilateral triangle. The camera would do close-ups of each, with each staring down the other two, for an interminable amount of time, then Clint shoots down the other two with a six-shooter full of blanks.

              1. Blanks?

                1. What do you have against actors?

              2. Been done.

              3. No, that would be crossing the line. Srsly.

                1. To hell with them fellas. Buzzards gotta eat, same as worms.

                  1. It’s a hell of a thing, pretending to kill a man…

                    1. We thought about it for a long time, “Endeavor to persevere.” And when we had thought about it long enough, we declared war on the Union.

                    2. Dyin’ ain’t much of a living, boy.

          2. I didn’t think it sounded bad, and he hit some high points. I liked the “We own America” line, and he was even careful to clarify it before the Democrats could start yelling, “Them and their rich corporate cronies!”

            That’s the only thing I watched in the whole convention, and that only because I was surfing channels and ran across the Man with No Name.

            1. I do think he was pretty sly in working in the “it shouldn’t matter who you are, if you do a bad job, you should get bounced.” The audience was a little too worked up by that point to notice that he was talking about them too.

  3. “President Obama responds to Clint Eastwood’s RNC speech with a photo of himself sitting in the president’s chair.”

    Oh how that fucker hates to be made fun of.

    Mister President, that chair your sitting in?

    1. Oh how that fucker hates to be made fun of

      All Tyrants do.

      1. Mockery has always been one of humanity’s great weapons against the Tyrant.

        1. Mockery is good, but guillotines are better.

          1. Sic Semper Tyrannis

            1. If only cream pies had been invented by 1865, American history would have been a lot funnier and less tragic.

      2. http://www.parkwayreststop.com…..2009/07/19

        An image very similar to this pops in my head everytime I see Obama.

    2. Obama would do well to dispense with any reminders who’s been sitting in that chair for the past four years.

      1. He will reveal at the DNC convention that his family has been held hostage by the real triumvirate of Bush, Cheney, and Rove, but that he’s finally managed to free his family. He’ll then execute all three on camera, to enormous applause, then he’ll launch into a Hope and Change speech like the first term never happened.

        1. It will turn out the bin Laden raid was the start of the rescue mission, as they were all working together.

          1. Thank the stars that Obama personally intervened.

        2. There was an Onion News Network story about Obama being kidnapped and replaced by a lookalike after the inauguration. The real Obama, upon escaping, declared disappointment that people could see through the imposter, with all he had done completely differently than what was promised.

          1. I think that’s an excellent strategy. He should employ it forthwith. Not like he isn’t lying nonstop, anyway.

    3. All I see in that picture is an empty head.


  4. I’d love to hear what Ed’s excuse is for the tardy AM links today.

    1. It can’t be that he was waiting for really high-quality stories to link to

      1. High five!

      2. Its pretty rough out there today if you don’t want to talk politics or Isaac.

  5. Hillary can’t get far enough away from Obama and the D convention.
    Off to the very important conference in the Cook Islands.

    1. She can’t be at the scene of the crime when Bill puts the knife in.

      1. ^This^. I suspect old Bill will be complisulting his way through his entire speech.

        1. Slick Willy’s speech will be the friendliest, most vicious takedown of Obama yet.

        2. Has anyone else seen the Bill/Obama commercial? It’s the most nondescript, lukewarm endorsement I’ve ever seen, and it looks like Bill’s trying really hard not to laugh the entire time.

    2. Don;t knock the conference in the Cook Islands. If you see how they greet foreign leaders, you would understand Hill-dog’s visit

      1. SF’d the link, soz


      2. Is that the chair they use to take the anointed sacrifices to the volcano? I do hope so.

  6. The Age of the Universe

    This is kind of how I’ve worked things out as well, minus any advanced math. While I personally believe in a supreme creator shaping the universe and then granting free will to the beings that inhabit it, the Big Bang and intelligent design don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

    From the article: “The five and a half days of Genesis [Adam was created in the second half of the sixth day, where the “human calendar” begins] are not of equal duration. Each time the universe doubles in size, the perception of time halves as we project that time back toward the beginning of the universe. The rate of doubling, that is the fractional rate of change, is very rapid at the beginning and decreases with time simply because as the universe gets larger and larger, even though the actual expansion rate is approximately constant, it takes longer and longer for the overall size to double. Because of this, the earliest of the six days have most of the15 billion years sequestered with them.”

    There are still holes in the logic, such as the carbon dating methods that place Homo erectus in Asia a hundred thousand years ago, and modern Homo sapiens in Africa 250,000 years ago. But it’s a start, and as I said above, it doesn’t discount either theory but rather tries to collaborate the science with the Word.

    1. Each time the universe doubles in size, the perception of time halves as we project that time back toward the beginning of the universe.

      Total crap.

      1. In what way? I’m not an astrophysicist, so I’m starting with very little preconceptions in this area. Is there any information you could provide in layman’s terms that either explains it better, or discounts that?

        1. Einstein showed that the speed of light was constant. The entire reason for relativity effects is that the speed of light is constant and no point of observation is privileged.

          That means that light from a source a billion light-years away has to take a billion years to get here.

          The inflation of the universe and relativity effects can’t change that. So “OK maybe the light has been traveling for a billion years but to us it only seemed like 6 days!” doesn’t work.

          You may as well just say that God created the universe to look as if it was billions of years old, and everything sprang into existence in situ – the light, the background radiation from the Big Bang, everything. Since God is omnipotent there’s no reason not to just wing it.

          1. I see what you’re saying. My explanation has always been to reconcile the bible with science by saying that time was relative when God was working the 6 days, and even when man lived on the 6th day, without sin and therefore death, the passage of time could not be counted the same.

            I don’t feel that it ignores the science, but it is also not the most literal interpretation of six 24-hour days which some fundamentalists subscribe to. I think the author I linked to above makes note of this point a little.

            I guess I don’t see why the argument continues to be one of mutual exclusivity. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” does not contradict “There was nothing, and then BANG! A universe.”

            1. I always have to explain to people that my faith doesn’t rest solely on the first 6 chapters of Genesis.

              And also, as G.K. Chesterton said, it doesn’t really matter if it happened in 6 days or 6 billion years. How quickly it happened doesn’t make it any less of a miracle.

            2. well, one has to ask why the biblical story? Anything special about trying to reconcile it with 6 days versus some other length of time from another non-Abrahamic creation story?

              1. No, certainly not. That is the most popular telling in the western hemisphere, and it just happens to be the one that I subscribe to. As far as I know Buddhists don’t really have an “origin story”, and Brahman could just as easily takes the place of Yahweh.

        2. Pretend for a minute that the bible doesn’t exist.

          Now, is there any other evidence that supports your hypotheses? Any scientific problem for which time doubling could be a potential solution?

        3. The mathematics of physics is really straightfoward in this regard (assuming differential equations are straightforward). The “perception of time” is humans trying impose point of view on a physical process that has no point of view.

          1. The “perception of time” is humans trying impose point of view on a physical process that has no point of view.

            So are they basing the calculations of the age of the universe on the distance from here to the perceived center/beginning point? So it’s more a distance calculation based on the speed of light rather than one revolving around years/days/minutes/seconds?

            1. The universe is expanding at a constant rate. If you mathematically reverse this process, everything goes back to a single point in space at a single moment in time — the big bang.

              So the age of the universe is estimated from how big the universe is now.

              1. Actually, the universe has not always expanded at the same rate. Of course, these are our best guesses. First there was the inflationary periord shortly after the big bang and then there is dark energy messing things up after a certain point a few billion years ago.

        4. The speed of light is constant and has been since the big bang. period.

          Time is a function of velocity — this has been experimentally verified many, many times.

          When this author says the “perception of time” doubles over time, he is saying the rate of expansion of the universe is changing over time. This is bullshit, because the speed of light is constant.

          1. The speed of light in vacuum is constant and has been since the big bang. period.

            Which is all that matters for converting between time and distance is our universe. But we can and do slow the speed at which light propagates through media other than vacuum.

          2. Except that perception is a reference to human psychology not any physical reality.

            I perceived time as going more slowly when I was child in grammar school than I do today. I’ve heard any number of people make the same observation so I believe that it is common for humans perception of time to change as they age.

            Doesn’t mean the speed of light changed during by 50 years on earth.

          3. The speed of light is constant. The rate of expansion of the universe isn’t.

            1. Right. There is that gravity thing and the open question of whether the universe will eventually collapse upon itself or expand forever.

              I guess I’m just not interested in trying to condense Classical Physics I and II, Modern Physics, and Electro-Magnetic Theory into a couple paragraphs on a discussion board.

              1. Oh, so when you claimed multiple times erroneously, that the expansion of the universe is constant, you were just simplifying the issue….right….

                1. After the big bang, gravity puts the expansion under constant acceleration (which means constant rate of change of velocity).

                  So over time the velocity of stuff slows down linearly (the rate of change of position is changing linearly).

                  Not, the colloquial use of “rate” would be velocity or change of position. So I used the wrong word in my comments.

                  Of course, time itself is also a function of velocity, so expansion of the universe is described by a complex set of partial differential equations.

                  But going back to the original post. To get the creation all of the universe to fit into 6 “days”, either all of phyiscs is wrong or the concept is bullshit.

                  1. NotNow, the colloquial use of “rate” would be velocity or change of position. So I used the wrong word in my comments.

                  2. And there are electronmagnetic forces, strong forces and weak forces in play beyond gravity.

    2. There are still holes in the logic

      ya think?

      1. I have problems with the carbon dating methods, though. They are based on a formula of half-life that is really just extrapolated based on a small sample size. I think the number can be accurate when working with samples of known origin, so within the last 5-6000 years. But it’s still a lot of guesswork that people want to say amounts to “The science is settled!”

        Just like the “link” between chimpanzees and humans.

        1. If we don’t have radioactive decay right, the Hiroshima bomb shouldn’t have gone off, and no nuclear power plant should work.

          1. That’s a good point. But is there any guarantee that it works for millenia at the exact same rate?

            Sorry to seem obstinate; I just want to have a better understanding.

            1. Sorry to seem obstinate; I just want to have a better understanding.

              IOW, begging the question.

            2. But is there any guarantee that it works for millenia at the exact same rate?

              F = M A since the beginning of time.

            3. Is there any good reason to believe otherwise? No. Why would it work differently today than it did previously?

            4. Yes. The relative proportion of U235/U238 in natural settings (And the complete lack of Pu in nature) wouldn’t be correct if radioactive decay didn’t work. Or our cosmology is completely wrong and the Earth isn’t as old as we think. (Or it could be older, I guess.) But from very short half-lives to very long half-lives, observed decay has been remarkably consistent.

              1. Okay, this is kind of what I was looking for. It’s just hard to wrap my head around a decay rate that is something like 5,700 years halflife when we haven’t had a full 5,700 years as a constant sample to study said decay rate.

                I’m sure the math all works out, but conceptually it is hard to grasp. Science is observable, so without 5,700 years of observation I remain skeptical, that is all.

                Guess I should’ve asked more of these questions in high school chemistry and physics instead of sleeping.

                1. You can aim a telecope into the sky and observe billions of years of history.

                2. For what its worth, a bachelor’s degree in physics merely introduces the basic stuff you need to know to start working on the real questions.

                3. Its a constant rate, gb. Given that you know the half-life, you can compute the amount that should have changed after 1, 5, 10, 50, 5730, 5M years. If your sample changes by that rate, you’ve proven it. For example, C14 decays to N14 by picking up a proton and expelling a neutron. So you can run bits of your larger sample through a chromatograph a find the amount of N14 in the sample v C14. Even after a year, some will have changed. (Although in this case you might measure by mass lost, as the N is gaseous and everywhere and the C is a solid.)

                  1. Okay, that makes much more sense, and was far easier to understand than the wikipedia page on carbon dating. For some reason I was hung up on the half-life–that a full 5,700 years had to pass to notice any change–and didn’t account for the year-by-year decay that would be taking place.

  7. Kris Humphries is ‘100 percent sure’ he did not give Kayla Goldberg herpes. Anyone here have something to share?

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..z25885ixnF

    1. I wouldn’t touch that dude’s castoffs with a NBC suit.

      1. OK men, MOPP 4 before you hit that!

        1. And keep the STB handy for decon.

    2. Anyone here have something to share?

      Nothing remotely close to the eternal gift of herpes…

    3. back in my college days, I knew a college radio DJ who said he lost his virginity with some girl in a graveyard. After they were done, she said “Now you have herpes” and left. Now that’s classy.

      1. The joke would be on her, because transmission isn’t automatic or guaranteed, even if she had active lesions (particularly going female to male) – so he might have gotten off scot-free.

        1. apparently he didn’t get away…

      2. The fact that he was getting laid in a graveyard probably wasn’t the best way to start off the tryst.

    4. After watching his career with the Golden Gophs, I can assure you that Kris would NEVER pass anything to anyone.

      1. +1 ball hog

  8. And also, 9:50 morning links? WTF? It’s practically brunch already!

    1. Just beat your servants to prepare lunch quicker. Well, once they finish polishing your monocles.

    2. They’re morning links, not breakfast links.

      Mmmmm…..breakfast links…. *droool*

      1. They are morning patties, not breakfast links!

    3. Hopefully your mimosa didn’t go flat.

    4. That’d be 7:50 here. Not even first breakfast in the Shire.

  9. The Republican National Convention in Tampa has attracted a lot less protesters tan expected…


    1. Speaking of tan, what’s better than a crazy orange lady. Why, a crazy drunk orange lady of course


    2. Also, “fewer”, not “less”. Fail!

      1. I blame the supermarkets. Those express lanes screwed up people’s grammar for an entire generation.

        1. Fuckin’ Safeway, man.

        2. while simultaneously revealing their problems with basic arithmetic. You’ve got 14 items, fucker!

      2. This one bothers me, too. That and single “m” accommodations.

    3. It’s interesting, because I heard from an insider that we should expect a large number of people to be bused in for the protests. I wonder if the storm changed their plans? Of course, my source could’ve been wrong, too.

      1. Could it be they recognized en masse what an ultimately pointless endeavor that would have been?

        1. What I heard was that they were homeless people, whom the Occupiers have apparently been busing into big events. I assume either the storm kept them from Tampa (which means they should show up in Charlotte, unless that somehow is a problem since they barely were a blip in Tampa), or there was a lack of funding/interest.

          1. there was a lack of funding/interest.

            “Where are we going?”
            “Planet 10”
            “Real soon”

            1. “Home is where you hang your hat.”

          2. There would be logistical problems with that. Charter buses and hotel accommodations booked months in advance by delegations.

            My impression of the Occupy crowd is that planning and decisiveness are not their strong points so they probably waited until nothing was available.

      2. At least we still have the hundreds of security cameras they installed around Tampa for the convention. I feel safer already.

        1. I sure hope those are all rentals.

          1. No, we bought those free and clear and they have already announced that they will be permanent fixtures in the city.

    4. He corrected the “tan”, but not the “less”. STILL FAIL!

      1. Protesters are a uniform mass of stupidity, though, so it makes sense in a way.

        1. If you think about it, I mean.

  10. “Islamic extremists are responsible for a series of attacks in Thailand over the weekend according to authorities.”


    1. Nothing shows devotion to God more than killing peaceful Buddhists!

  11. For you TOS fans – Hurricane Kirk sucks.

    1. He has evolved to finally respect the Prime Directive regarding land strikes.

      1. Please. He just split into wimpy/wolf Kirk again. You’ll see.

        1. I can’t believe that you can’t see his selfless sacrifice to protect the Federation mainland, and steer the storm into the open sea, where it can only mean certain death for him.

    2. I’ll be lecturing an empty ocean later.

    3. That’s just the stun setting.

  12. Now sarcasmic is going to have to spooge all those links again.

    Maybe we’ll see those links here in about half an hour or so…

    1. Nope. I’m spent.

  13. Fucking patience. How does it work?

  14. Egyptian authorities believe the body of a decapitated man found in the Sinai was put there of Islamic extremists.

    Figured that out all on their own, did they?

    1. Her husband was a hard working man, just about a mile from here. His head was found in a driving wheel, but his body never was found. Until now

  15. Don’t you pine for the days when French socialist politicians were simply being hauled off planes and perp-walked into Rikers?

    A French minister has criticised a website rating MPs’ performance across the country, calling it “dangerous” and “wicked”.

    Alain Vidalies, 62, the Minister for Parliamentary Relations, said the website NosD?put?s.fr (Our MPs) causes ministers to work harder, which in turn slows down the parliamentary process.


    1. Only in France could you claim people working harder “slows down” anything.

      1. To be fair as libertarians we don’t want the politicians to work harder.

        From the article it only counts activity which means the ministers are simply added “make work” activity and not necessarily doing anything useful by “working harder”

    2. I pine for the days any politician was escorted to prison. Speaking of which, it would be really fun to do a comedy sketch with Illinois governors speaking to the DNC from their prison cells. (Although, I think most of them are out already.)

      1. Two are still in – one TEAM RED, one TEAM BLUE

  16. Obama is kind enough to let comedians know it’s ok to make jokes about him by posing for a picture that does nothing other than suggest to us that he has big ears.

  17. The Republican National Convention in Tampa has attracted a lot less protesters tan expected

    Are you implying that the protesters don’t work during the day and so can spend time out in the sun?

    1. What a surprise, FoE beat me to it.

      1. If you’re not eleventh you’re last.

  18. The World Bank said that the use of corn to produce ethanol biofuel – which represents 40% of US corn production – was also a key factor in the sharp rise in the US maize price.

    The World Bank doesn’t understand that less ethanol means more Global Warming which means more drought which means even less corn that can be used for the world’s precious ethanol supplies I mean food.

    1. Clealry, the answer is moar subsidies, pleaz!

    1. Ugh. Reminds me of the worst parts of Lolita.

    2. What th fuck???

    3. They’re just so damn sexy, asking for it with their pouty lips.

      1. And their pants saggin’.

    4. “Suppose you have a man having a nervous breakdown, and a youngster comes after him.

      Cos nothing is sexier to a young fellow than a crazy middle-aged priest

      1. I don’t want it to attract young boys, but I’m banking on the sex appeal of crazy middle-aged men. It’s really all I have going for me anymore.

    5. The National Catholic Register seduced Groeschel into making those remarks.

  19. In protest for the lateness of the links, I’m going to do my job for a change.

    1. And in protest I will go to a meeting.

    2. In protest for the lateness of the links, I’m going to do my job for a change.

      Now I’m pissed.

    3. Are you finished?

  20. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19422063

    Brazil’s central bank has cut its benchmark interest rate to a record low of 7.5% in an attempt to reignite a stalled economic recovery.

    The cut, from the previous level of 8%, in the main Selic rate follows recently unveiled government stimulus measures.

    The central bank move is the ninth cut in a row since August last year, as the growth rate has fallen dramatically from the 7.5% recorded in 2012.

    Now the economy is forecast to grow by less than 2% this year.

    1. Brazil’s central bank has cut its benchmark interest rate to a record low of 7.5% in an attempt to reignite a stalled economic recovery.

      If the “recovery” requires an artificial lowering of the interest rate (something that invariably means money printing) to rekindle it, then it wasn’t really a recovery fior starters, just a temporary bubble created by their central bank that is now busting.

  21. Bar Refaeli or Heidi Klum


    1. Sammiches for everyone! I got a bunch wrong for picking the one with boobs.

      1. One of my side-by-sides was “Whose hotter: Adriana Lima or Adriana Lima?”

    2. 15/20. The ones I got right are the ones where there was a significant difference in boob size. I always picked the bigger tatas. If the boobs were kind of the same size, I went for face, but those were the ones I got wrong.

    3. I got them all right. However, on some pairs a majority of people got it wrong.

        1. Concur

          13 my ass.

    4. I got a twelve but I was rating on fuckability. I didn’t care for the heroin meme.

    5. Hints: Bar Refaeli is always the right answer. The black model is always the wrong answer.

    6. More like Barferaeli.

  22. Sociology professor to man-hating feminists and their eunuchs: “Stop using my research to bash fathers.”

    Two recent opinion articles cite my research to support their claims that fathers aren’t necessary for a thriving household (“In Defense of Single Motherhood,” by Katie Roiphe, Aug. 12, and “Men, Who Needs Them?,” by Greg Hampikian, Aug. 25). That does not fairly describe my work…
    Two parents committed to each other and to raising a child together are more likely to provide the economic and emotional security children need. That large numbers of fathers cannot provide economic and emotional security constitutes a serious social problem.

    1. Oops, link:


    2. That’s the problem with discoveries, you never know how they’ll be used.

      1. Well, if they’re being used by feminists, you can assume intellectual dishonesty.

  23. I’ve got nothing today – carry on.

    Too damn stressed out with work, the house selling, the end of summer, the end of the world… Or perhaps watching “The Wrestler” didn’t help – though Marisa Tomei looked damn good for a 44yo.

    1. Next to Mickey Rourke, anyone looks good

      1. I saw a DVD case in the store the other day of “Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man,” and thought, “No wonder women back in the 80s thought Mickey Rourke was a good-looking dude.”

        1. Yep, he was not bad back in the day. How he got from there to here is one of life’s more disturbing questions

          1. Some age gracefully, but most of not so well.

          2. Probably when he decided to go back to boxing and got his face all fucked up.

          3. It’s called getting old. It WILL happen to you too.

          4. This is a great, yet disturbing, timeline:


          5. According to Wikipedia, he had the one-two punch of suffering a lot of boxing injuries AND having a really awful plastic surgeon.

  24. The Republican National Convention in Tampa has attracted a lot less protesters than expected; there have been only two arrests and the number of police outstripped the number of protesters all week.

    But didn’t the po-leece tell us that the “anarchists” were bent on destruction and doom? How could our heroes in blue be wrong?

    1. Romney is so damn boring that he can’t even get the professional left protesters excited.

    2. I heard the chief on the radio this morning. I believe they just handed out vouchers to Mon Venus (free admission, no cover charge), and the problem went away.

      Kudos to the Tampa Police for this innovative and effective solution.

      1. Wait, most mischief is propagated by young male who would rather stare at naked women? When did this happen?

    3. Probably not a lot of people want to stand out in the Florida heat inside a “free speech zone” surrounded by chain link fence and police on the hope that someone will see them and change their minds about the election. Nothing changed with the Paul people inside the convention hall so the people outside had even less chance of changing things

  25. Angry woman beats down overly aggressive man. Feminists disavow because she is the daughter of a Republican and he was a reporter for some commie rag.

    1. Headline should read: Spoiled Brat Attacks Smarmy Reporter; Fun Ensues.

  26. President Obama responds to Clint Eastwood’s RNC speech with a photo of himself sitting in the president’s chair.

    It is like Alfred E Neuman from the back.

    1. That was the first thing I thought, as well.

  27. Definitely a great dad, but that skirt with that top? Probably can’t accessorise for shit either


    1. I could have sworn that the job of a parent is to, you know, parent.

      Sorry kid, you got the half-wit gamma male for a dad.

      1. I wonder where the kid gets it from?

  28. Seeing that I’m trying to avoid as much political asswipery as I can, what did old Clint say that got The Obama’s panties in a wedge?

    1. curious too since I didn’t watch a peep of the convention

      1. You uneducated oaf! You’ve got to watch the conventions to be up on the politics of the parties and candidates.

        Or, you know, already know all that stuff from months ago.

    2. Nothing specific.

      He simply can’t take any criticism whatsoever, because he’s fucking petty and believes that even the retarded kid who finishes a race in 8th place out to get a trophy; you know, for fairness and all.

    3. Grandpa was talking to an empty chair as though Barry was sitting there and continuously chided Barry for not doing the job. Oh, and he implied that Barry told both mitt and clint to go fuck themselves.

  29. Liberal progressives sure have sensitive ears. They can always hear the Dog Whistles

    1. …because they’re dogs.

  30. Global food prices are up ten percent in July according to the World Bank.

    But didn’t Shreek tell us that inflation was a myth?

    1. Funny how suddenly he’s not taking about gas prices too much.

    2. I keep seeing articles about the gold standard and why it is a silly idea. They go on to say that it is unnecessary because inflation has been under control under the fiat system.

      If inflation is under control, how bad does it have to get to be out of control?

    3. Inflation is a myth. Except in food prices. And energy prices. And commodity prices. And durable goods.

      Look, real estate prices may be even to deflationary. So there, no inflation!

  31. If you don’t have sex with the judge the police will plant meth in your car.

    You’d have to search back to get the whole sordid unfolding story of a woman, who refusing a magistrate’s sexual coercion, had drugs planted on her by the police. Luckily for her the cops got caught.

  32. Tsunami warning for Hawaii:


      1. You either surf, or fight.

        1. If I say it’s safe to surf this beach, Captain, then it’s safe to surf this beach! I mean, I’m not afraid to surf this place, I’ll surf this whole fucking place!

    1. Skeet surfing!

      1. “Neeek? What does it mean?”
        “I don’t know, my father just thought of it one day while shaving.”

  33. Forgotten Firearms: 12 bizarre gun designs that didn’t catch on

    #1 Hand Mortars Technically called “grenade launching wheellock pistols”, you are gazing at what is likely the only known matching pair of these bad boys. Hailing from way back in the Musketeer days of the 1580s, these were hand-held weapons capable of delivering explosive ordinance that could have remained relevant all the way through World War I. Each measures 14″ in length, with a 6 1/2″ barrel capable of firing 2″-calibre grenades. For a soldier on foot, this was an immense amount of firepower to carry around, if only for one shot….

    etc etc

    1. 6. Cutlass Pistols Like something out of Final Fantasy VIII, our next entry comes from an oft-passed-over era in the late 1800s when men were obsessed with mash-ups of the deadly variety. Of all the makers of these real-life gun blades, Dumonthier stood above the rest. Their designs did more than just weld a revolver to a Bowie knife, they forged the barrels of their guns as part of the knife blade. The result is a beautiful, six-shot gun that is also a foot-long knife. Another of their weapons was nearly unmistakable from other cutlasses, except that when you tugged down on the guards, twin triggers suddenly flipped out from the knife’s grip, revealing a hidden, double barreled gun.

  34. and then a visit to the Warty medicine cabinet

    7. Croup can be scary,especially for first-time parents. Should you travel back to 1900 and find your baby coughing spasmodically in the night, a “tested and true” treatment your neighbor might recommend is a spoonful of sugar. Not scary at all, actually. But before you give it to the kiddo, just put a few drops of kerosene on it. The idea, apparently, is to induce vomiting, which it probably does.

    8. For asthma: “inhale chloroform.” Assuming chloroform isn’t readily available, other options include smoking saltpeter, the smoke of burning coffee, or cigarettes containing thornapple.

    1. I find bourbon treats a variety of maladies in young and old alike.

      1. needs more Cockney: Blimey! I find baaahrbon treats a varie’y ov maladies in young an’ old alike.

      2. Tincture of opium is good for cough. Also, everything else, including not being sick.

    2. Chlorform is also a great way to treat “Can’t get laid.”

  35. Although he will not win another term, Barak Obama will kick Romney’s ass next week in the convention.

    Republican claims that Obama couldn’t fix the problem will be over shadowed by the Democrats claims that the Republicans caused the problems in the 1st place and stone-walled him in congress.

    Republicans will point out that Obama had the House/Senate. What Obama needs to point out is that 13 blue-dog-democrats in the Senate were effectively republican, so he really didn’t have the senate.

    The 50+ crowd would have been covered under medicare had Jerry Lieberman, a stooge of the Insurance industry, had not stopped it.

    Either way, I’m not voting for neither Barak or Mitt. Mitt it nothing more than a Time-share salesman with a Harvard Law Degree who is actually more liberal than Obama. And, Obama never legalized my marijuana and should have used his execute powers years ago once everyone realized that the republicans were going to stone-wall him.

    I’m voting for a real progressive leaning libertarian…which is what I am. I’m voting for Gary Johnson.

    1. “You’ve got to give Obama 64 seats in the Senate before you can’t blame the Republicans!”

      1. 74 since you have to have 60 to avoid a filibuster.

        1. Good point. How can we possibly blame Obama for failing to achieve anything when he doesn’t even have 74 of the Senate seats?

    2. Yeah, I miss Herc, too. Thanks for picking up the slack, Alice.

    3. What Obama needs to point out is that 13 blue-dog-democrats in the Senate were effectively republican, so he really didn’t have the senate.

      Yes, pointing out that even his own guys think that he sucks is surely a winning strategy.

    4. “the Democrats claims that the Republicans caused the problems in the 1st place and stone-walled him in congress.”

      So the problem is the two-party system? If the other party was never elected, why all would be just ducky?
      Sure, just look at CA…

  36. How small of a dick do you have to have to insist on having your chair labeled “THE PRESIDENT”. Life imitates Idiocracy again. Remember how all the Cabinet officials had the name of their office written on their sleeves?

    1. In addition to the sleeves, they also had medallions around their necks. Maybe Obama will use his new flexibility in the second term to make it happen.

    2. I thought it said “Fuck you, that’s why”

  37. yep, let’s change the facts now.

    Hollywood veteran Eastwood, an outspoken conservative, gave a speech on Thursday evening (August 30) in which he “debated” with an empty chair representing Obama.

    That must be why he held fundraisers for Gray Davis during the recall election in 2003. I’ve never heard him make a “conservative” statement.

    1. Clint’s always been a sort of rightish libertarian.

    2. By CA standards, he’s practically a Grand Kleagle.

  38. Its like Obama doesn’t realize that responding to Clint’s empty chair by showing an empty suit in a chair is, well, a less than devastating riposte.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.