A.M. Links: Most Doctors Would Quit Today, Hong Kong Boat Collision Leaves 37 Dead, Samsung Suing Apple, Zuckerberg Meets Medvedev, Warren Releases Client List

|

  • Almost sixty percent of doctors would quit today if given the option. Turns out most doctors didn't get into medicine to become glorified bureaucrats.
  • A boat collision in Hong Kong has left at least 37 dead. Six crew members from the two boats involved have been arrested. 
  • Samsung is suing Apple over the iPhone 5, saying that Apple's new flagship product violates eight of its patents. 
  • Mark Zuckerberg met with Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev. For this particular meeting he felt a suit and tie was appropriate. 
  • Elizabeth Warren released a list of corporate clients in an attempt to show that she didn't make big money helping out the corporations she has spent the campaign criticising. 

Follow Reason on Twitter and like us on Facebook. You can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up here.

Have a news tip for us? Send it to: 24_7@reason.com

NEXT: Amnesty: Egyptians Facing Same Police State They Did Under Mubarak

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. Cop hopeful rejected for scoring too high on IQ test sues, loses. Court affirms it’s OK for department to reject high-IQ applicants.

    1. If he was so damn smart, he would have missed a few answers on purpose.

      1. Well, yeah, now that he knows the cops only want mouthbreathers.

        1. Well, yeah, now that he knows the cops only want mouthbreathers.

          It’s funny, I found this article on Lew Rockwell, where the lede was “Too smart to Taser?”

      2. Our resident baconator admits to doing this.

        Which just shows he is a dishonest fuck.

        1. Our resident baconator admits to doing claims to have done this.

          FTFY. It’s more likely he actually did miss them and claims he did it on purpose to assuage his ego.

          1. He also admits to piloting every successful space shuttle mission, inventing FFM scenes and discovering Hawaii.

            1. Well it’s not as if Hawaii was gonna discover itself.

              1. He needed some place to honeymoon with his model actress wife.

                1. Morgan Fairchild?

      3. If he was so damn smart, he wouldn’t have been applying to be a cop to begin with.

      4. If he was so damn smart, he would have never applied to be a cop in the first place.

          1. Double Woah.

        1. Yeah, it sure was stupid to join a profession that pays bonuses for showing up to work and is supposedly able to get away with murder.

    2. the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

      Too bad the morons in the courts don’t get bored with *their* work.

      1. and its also similar lines of reasoning to why you wouldn’t hire a woman (in that she might get pregnant and then choose to leave after all that costly training). its a stupid and discriminatory line of reasoning there, its a stupid (duh) and discriminatory line of reasoning in this case.

        1. Why is it stupid in either case?

          1. because its judging individuals as a collective with a the basis for rational assuming the interviewee is going to be something of an average of what others that look like or act like him are.

            1. So rating life and health insurance based on age, sex, smoking, etc. is stupid, too?

              Given that hiring decisions aren’t made with perfect information or omniscience, it doesn’t seem stupid to me to base decisions at least in part on likelihoods.

            2. The entire field of demographics is, obviously, RACIST and DISCRIMINATORY.

    3. The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.

      Sounds about right. And these are the same guys that presume to know exactly how you should live your life.

      1. Nope. These are the guys who never, ever question their political masters determine how you should lead your life. They just implement.

        1. Even when they’re off the clock they pull the same shit, and they’re never, ever wrong. 75% of the cops I know are simply natural authoritarians.

          1. They’re just smart enough to know they’re dumb enough to require TOP MEN to give them their orders.

    4. Maybe if he was obese they could have overlooked the IQ thing…

      1. -20 IQ points

    5. But the U.S. District Court found that New London had “shown a rational basis for the policy.”

      Legal reasoning my friends. With legal reasoning, you can get any answer you want.

      1. Right. Instead, the court should have dictated hiring practices to a municipality.

        1. given that they already do…how does implementing the same line of reasoning differ? The courts are literally discriminating against intelligent people.

          1. The municipality is discriminating against intelligent people, and I am disinclined to have the court “fix it”, even if I think it’s a stupid policy.

            1. The municipality is discriminating against intelligent people, and I am disinclined to have the court “fix it”, even if I think it’s a stupid policy.

              If it was a private entity rather than a public one, I’d be right there with you. But since in theory the municipality is something all of us are being forced to fund, then maybe it stands to reason that its jobs and services are something that should be open to everyone.

              1. Yet where can you identify the constitutional clause which embodies this principle? The 14th Amendment?

              2. So if they were rejecting applicants with an IQ of 30, you would have a problem with that as well?

                1. frankly while i’d have a problem with IQ tests at all on a job application, a poor IQ does have a more legitimate case for rejection than a high IQ.

                2. So if they were rejecting applicants with an IQ of 30, you would have a problem with that as well?

                  So if a job requirement is the ability to lift 100 pounds in your mind it is okay to both reject the guy who can only lift 30 and the guy who can lift 130?

            2. the court has already fix discriminating against sexual orientation, gender or race. Exceptional intelligence doesn’t make for a legitimate disqualification, so why have the courts make an exception there?

              1. The municipality is the one doing the discriminating. You are just upset that you aren’t getting the outcome you want, but one of the essences of local government is that they have to be able to do things you don’t like sometimes.

                1. The municipality is the one doing the discriminating.

                  You say that like I don’t understand but how does this not fall under the general non-discrimination policies all government positions are supposed to have? If the municipality decided women were costing it too much, do they get to stop hiring them?

                  1. Not costing too much.

                    They might get bored with the work and leave.

                    1. Not costing too much.

                      They might get bored with the work and leave.

                      Which, as admitted by the municipality, is a problem because the training is so costly.

        2. If you think is rational to have stupid people with guns, please, stay the fuck away from me.

          1. Just because a municipality does something I don’t *like* does not mean I think it is a job for the court to fix.

            1. Aren’t there (supposedly) rational reasons for, say, having cops of a certain skin color or ethnic background?

              1. I am sure there are. I don’t see your point though.

                1. My point is that the court used an idiot and indefensible reason to uphold the hiring practise.

                  You’re right in that the municipality should be able to use whatever hiring practises they’d like.

                  But another salient point is that the court is a bunch of hypocritical shitheels.

              2. Even if that were so, the courts measure racial discrimination* by a more demanding standard – “strict scrutiny.”

                *Including, in theory, discrimination against whites, though in practice courts have been known to wink at that kind of discrimination.

    6. I’m sure anyone over an IQ of 95 would not be accepted for an interview.

  2. Helicopter Parents Hover In The Workplace
    http://www.npr.org/2012/02/06/…..-workplace

    Michigan State University surveyed more than 700 employers seeking to hire recent college graduates. Nearly one-third said parents had submitted resumes on their child’s behalf, some without even informing the child. One-quarter reported hearing from parents urging the employer to hire their son or daughter for a position. Four percent of respondents reported that a parent actually showed up for the candidate’s job interview.

    1. I’m just going to go ahead and chalk it up to the parent’s desperation to get the kids out of the house. The alternative explanation is too depressing.

    2. is this known as generational Darwinism? Because I’m pretty sure that if Junior’s mommy showed up at the interview or called me about her little snowflake, he would be atop the reject pile instantly.

      1. Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing. That would guarantee a rejection.

        1. It would guarantee a rejection, but as an experiment I’d have to call the candidate and ask if they knew their parent submitted their resume/application/introduction letter. I’d just want to know if this was joint idea on their part are an insane parent guaranteeing their child remain unemployed.

      2. I don’t get this. You guys have a guaranteed chance at high comedy and you let it slip away? If a parent showed up with their college graduate for a job interview, that’s when you pull in the entire HP staff and have a group interview with the candidate and their parent right then and there. And be sure to ask as many questions of the parent as you do of their child. Have them go into detail about their kid’s qualifications as to why he’s the right person for the job, etc, etc. By the end of the interview, make sure you’re completely ignoring the kid and focus completely on the parent and actually offer him/her a job in marketing/sales for having the balls to try and sell a human being and then tell the kid that he’s pathetic for letting his parent lead him around by a leash and to come back when he’s a man looking for a career and not a child looking for a paper route.

        1. I like your thinking. Ask the parent “What is the kid’s biggets flaw?” Then really dig in on it.

          Make the parent vent for the entire interview about all the kid’s worthless qualities.

    3. Thank the dear fluffy Lord both of my parents worked executive/managerial jobs while I was growing up. It would literally never have occurred to them to show up at an interview.

      Although I certainly would have had them pass along a resume if they knew someone hiring for a job I wanted. But I do that for friends and have had it done by friends for me — with permission given ahead of time.

      1. It would have occurred to my parents to put all my stuff by the curb if had moved back home and done nothing in my 20’s.

    4. I mean it’s one thing to maybe, POSSIBLY, go with your kid to their very first job interview for like moral support if you hang out in the car or the lobby or something. But the way that reads just sounds freaking terrible.

      1. Driving them to the interview is one thing. But yeah, you stay in the car.

        1. No. You drop your child off and leave and go do something else until your child calls.

    5. OK, here’s the thing.

      Let’s say that a certain number of parents have other children who didn’t go to college. Or who dropped out of high school and got GED’s.

      Those parents probably routinely drag their kids to job interviews because that’s what the GED programs encourage them to do.

      They might forget to turn it off with their kids who went to college, because to them that’s the new normal.

      How many people does that apply to? Is it a high enough number to get a 4% response rate from HR people? Probably.

    6. My Mom did that. When I was 15, and required parental permission to work.

      Like wareagle said, a college grad showing up with Mommy? Instant rejection.

      1. Like wareagle said, a college grad showing up with Mommy? Instant rejection.

        Instant ridicule and mockery, quickly followed by a rejection.

    7. Holy crap. The first time I mom knew I was interviewing with companies was when she saw that I was in Boston on Facebook and sent me a text asking me what I was doing there.

    8. And we have questions as to why the Occutards are so damn ‘tarded?

    9. ANYTHING to get that shiftless, special little snowflake out of the effing basement …

    10. Whatever happened to simply harping and nagging to your kid? “How many applications did you send in yesterday?” “How many applications did you send in today?” “Have you called anyone about your applications from last week?” All parents are annoying, but they should focus all their annoying-ness onto their kid so the kid is annoyed into wanting to gtfo.

  3. Almost sixty percent of doctors would quit today if given the option.

    I would retire, too, if that was an option. Duh-doy.

    1. Yeah, that’s probably a pretty low percentage compared to other jobs. What percentage of forklift drivers would quit if given the option?

      1. forklift drivers don’t quit because federal legislation has turned their business into something else.

        1. I knew a guy that quit because of OSHA regulations on driving forklifts. And that was in 1991.

          He may have been lying, but that’s what he said. Basically either he didn’t want to wear a hard hat while driving a forklift (technically a tow motor) that had a hardened cab.

          1. Don’t forget your steel toed boots while you’re in the cab either.

            That said, OSHA regs on forklifts aren’t too bad to deal with. It’s the regs that they pull out of their ass when an accident occurs that will drive you nuts. If someone gets hurt, it’s always someone else’s fault as far as they are concerned.

          2. come on…the hardhat rule did not substantively change the job of driving the forklift and you know that. And I suspect things like hats and boots are tied to insurance rates and the like. Docs talk about quitting because the fundamental nature of their profession is changing.

            1. Oh yeah, I agree absolutely with the last sentence of yours there.

              But the hardhat did somewhat substantively change it for him – it made him uncomfortable. Again, I have no idea if that’s actually why he quit, but the timing was right and that’s what he said.

            2. The fundamental nature of medicine would be changing even without government interference. They resent the fact that where as each doctor used to be in charge of thier own practice, it’s becoming increasingly necessary to work as an employee of a larger medical concern. This process is going on in pretty much every profession and is being driven primarily by the market.

              1. I am going to assume you do not actually know any doctors.

                1. No, but I know people high up in both the health insurance and hospital industries, and THEY’RE the ones largely forcing consolidation on the doctors, who are fighting it tooth an nail. My issue isn’t with the Doctor’s assessment of what’s happening (they are losing autonomy, etc.) but their identification of the causes and their belief that they’re entitled to an unchanging status quo because they happened to like a particular arrangement. Medicine is consolidating into larger and larger businesses and doctors are increasingly just employees rather than business owners.

                  1. Medicine is consolidating into larger and larger businesses and doctors are increasingly just employees rather than business owners

                    This is certainly taking place here in MA

              2. This process is going on in pretty much every profession and is being driven primarily by the market.

                Your complete lack of understanding of the healthcare “market” is not surprising but you may want to broadcast it a little less.

                1. To take Pennsylvania as an example, most of the major hospitals started buying up the surrounding smaller hospitals and then limiting access to doctors that joined their attached medical practice. Then they started consolidating into networks of hospitals. Likewise insurance companies were consolidating and only covering care at doctors that joined their “networks”. Eventually hospital chains started buying insurers and insurers started buying hospitals. In another 10-20 years we’re probably going to end up with a few companies like UPMC, Highmark, Aetna, etc. owning all of the medical practices in the state and anyone who wants to be a doctor is going to be essentially a low level employee of one of those companies. It’s understandable doctors don’t like the idea of just being employees, any more than all the other professions who went under similar transformations liked it. But it’s ultimately being driven by the same economies of scale that drove the process in almost every other industry. Regulation may be affecting how it ultimately ends up shaking out, but it would still be happening in some form even in a libertarian paradise.

    2. Well, might as well make them the low-paid state-slaves progressives would prefer them to be. Let’s get that number asymptotically closer to 100%.

      1. They obviously just haven’t been punched in the face hard enough.

    3. They can quit. They can find another job. They might not make the same pay, but that is life. If they stay with the job, that is a good sign they consider the compensation to be adequate, or at least preferable to their alternatives.

    4. I’m confused how they don’t have the option now.

  4. Eric Hobsbawm: A believer in the Red utopia to the very end
    The grotesque facts never got in the way of Eric Hobsbawm’s devotion to communism
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..y-end.html

    Throughout, there was a dogmatic refusal to accept that the Bolshevik Revolution had been a murderous failure. Asked by the Canadian academic and politician Michael Ignatieff on television whether the deaths of 20 million people in the USSR ? not to mention the 55 to 65 million victims of Mao’s Great Leap Forward ? might have been justified if this Red utopia had been realised, Hobsbawm muttered in the affirmative.

    forward! forward!

    1. As long as the state is moral it doesn’t matter how much immorality it is founded on.

    2. does that certify him as sociopath or psychopath?

      1. I believe “sycophant” is the word you are looking for.

    3. Barry: “And I’d like to thank Anita Dunn for suggesting our new campaign slogan…”

  5. “”””Georgia’s ruling pro-western party has conceded defeat to the pro-Russian opposition.””

    I would think that the voters were more concerned over which party was more pro-Georgian.

    1. Well, their existance as either a feudal dependancy of Moscow, or remaining relatively free seems to depend on outsiders – so, I would default “pro-western” to pro-indendant Georgia.

      1. Moscow is the only word out of place in that sentence if you put ‘country/’ after “pro- .

      2. Don’t forget we’re talking about a nation that still celebrates the fact Stalin was born there. Georgia was never “pro-Western” in the sense of adopting any of our values, it’s was purely the pragmatism of being able to pit us against Russia for their benefit. It was more a choice of whether the Georgians were going to be crushed by a police state run out of Moscow or a police state run out of Tblisi.

        1. I don’t think anyone can really talk about a monolithic Georgia wanting or leaning or celebrating a certain way.

          It’s a horribly balkanized state made out of an incredible number of competing divisions.

    2. I misread that as “pre-wrestling” party. I think I prefer my version.

  6. Samsung is suing Apple over the iPhone 5, saying that Apple’s new flagship product violates eight of its patents.

    More compatibility problems between Samsung and Apple.

    1. If. Only. I. Had. A. Fuck. To. Give.

      1. All this does is make me wish I had studied international law instead of whatever I studied. They have to be making a fortune.

        1. Now, fortunes…that’s something I can muster at least one fuck over.

  7. Samsung is suing Apple over the iPhone 5, saying that Apple’s new flagship product violates eight of its patents.

    Samsung copied the idea of competing through legislation from Apple!

    1. Can we kill software patents now? This is ridiculous.

      1. I am ready to kill all patents. The entertainment industry is calling for every new piece of digital technology to be approved by Congress before it can be sold. It is just not worth it anymore.

        1. digital technology to be approved by Congress

          “A series of tubes? APPROVED!”

        2. Don’t patents serve a useful function though? Why would you bother inventing anything if you won’t benefit from your IP?

          1. Software patents don’t. Click a single button and have the last payment information stored in a cookie for that website used again? That’s patentable? Fuck that.

            1. It’s incredible. I should have patented all my ad hoc code from the start.

              1. One time I wrote some code that would solve the Pythagorean theorem for you. I should be a billionaire by now.

          2. Because you want it?

            Did Linus Torvalds benefit from his creation*?

            *and, yes, yes, the GPL protects the copyright, but not in the way you are implying.

          3. Why indeed? Why would I try and come up with something at all? I think the patent system can be made fair and equitable, but its a silly question to ask why would people bother inventing things if they could be copied (the answer being you can still weasel out a fortune before your competitors catch on).

          4. cause I can.

      2. The problem isn’t the patent system per se, it’s that in a deliberate attempt to “encourage tech businesses” the patent office started handing out “business process patents” and “design patents” like they were candy.

        More rigorously applying the requirement that a patent application be for a genuinely new process with no prior art would clear up most of these issues.

        Amazon was given a patent on clicking on a button to buy something. That’s the problem with the modern patent system.

    2. Did Apple patent using litigation as a competitive club?

      1. I thought they patented copying other companies’ ideas and shoving them into spiffy looking boxes.

      2. I thought RIM did that.

      3. No but they did rip off Braun

  8. The Coming Collapse Of Consumption In China
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/go…..-in-china/

    And Chinese leaders are beginning to understand they cannot change the model. This month, the official Xinhua News Agency issued a story with this headline: “China Plans Slower Growth in Domestic Consumption.” No, Beijing’s leaders are not planning a smaller contribution of consumption to GDP, but, yes, that is what is in fact happening.

    Technocrats can see what is about to occur: Chinese consumption is now on the verge of collapsing.

    1. Chinese consumption is now on the verge of collapsing.

      They’re just now getting past tuberculosis?

    2. When I was there a couple years ago, the young people were bitching about government imposed inflation and how their new-found power to buy electronic baubles was quickly evaporating.

      1. I can hear those complaints in the cafeteria today. Are copying them, or are we all copying the Japanese? Somebody should have patented QE.

        1. Somebody should have patented QE.

          Indeed. Maybe *then* we’d get to audit the Fed.

  9. Leftwing fascism

    This contempt for the freedom of speech is rapidly becoming commonplace on the Left. Washington Square News is the student newspaper of New York University, but it is editorially and financially independent from the university, and has a circulation of about 60,000 in lower Manhattan ? one of the nation’s foremost epicenters of the far Left. An indication of how quickly the restriction of the freedom of speech has become a fashionable opinion among the Leftist intelligentsia at universities and elsewhere came last Wednesday, when the News ran a piece calling for restrictions on the First Amendment.

    Referring to the AFDI ads, author Faria Mardhani wrote: “The decision that the United States must now make is whether hate speech like this should be legal. Do values of free speech override the values of equality and of preventing profound personal offense to any singular group? Was the First Amendment passed with the intention of grouping very diverse people into one entity and then vilifying them?”

    http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-ne…..epage=true

    Disgusting.

    1. Do values of free speech override the values of equality

      What the hell are the values of equality?

      1. Equality of outcomes. They want everyone to be obedient drones in service of the state.

        1. Even so, what does it have to do with freedom of speech?

          1. How else do you think they start getting everyone in line? If everyone thinks the same, or at least appears to, and is afraid to speak out then what’s next?

            1. Thought crime. It’s not just the stuff of fanciful sci-fi books.

              1. to catch a predator is thought crime

                1. WTF?

                2. to catch a predator is thought crime

                  Yes it is.

                  You know, about 1% of your comments actually make sense, this being one of them.

          2. Even so, what does it have to do with freedom of speech?

            Everyone should have an “equal voice” is one that I hear. Meaning, of course, that those who are well-off (and non-leftist, of course) need to be muzzled. For teh fairness.

      2. exactly…author seems not to understand the difference between a right and a value

    2. I wonder if they would be in favor of infringement of editorials in favor of infringement of the First Amendment?

      No More Hate Speech Against the First Amendment!

      1. nah..they mostly favor banning any thought that is counter to theirs. See, it’s only “hate speech” if you go after liberal sacred cows. Anyone else’s are fair game.

        1. nah..they mostly favor banning any thought that is counter to theirs. See, it’s only “hate speech” if you go after liberal sacred cows. Anyone else’s are fair game racist.

    3. Referring to the AFDI ads, author Faria Mardhani

      This is why people think Muslims are hopeless. Even the ones who try to sound reasonable (that is, they write articles instead of riot at embassies) come off sounding like they just “hate us for our freedoms”?. Whether or not that is actually the case is not really relevant since there are zero to few Muslim voices who openly oppose it.

    4. All fascism is left-wing.

      1. But it’s nationalist! It can’t be left-wing if it’s nationalist!

        1. National Socialist German Workers Party

          Yeah, sounds very right-wing indeed, very monarchist/aristocratic/restore-the-old-guard.

        2. He’s right, though. Well, not really, since left-wing is an inherently useless definition. But at any rate, if right-left mainly refers to economics, then fascism and Nazism are center-left.

          1. Not really center left, though it is definitely closer to center than say, communism. Center left would be something more akin to what the US has right now; a mixed bag of capitalism with a leavening of socialism. Fascism, OTOH, differed from straight socialism only in that they didn’t completely nationalize private companies (which is why socialists and communists hated fascists so much; they considered them to be apostates because they didn’t go all the way). It was still a command economy, almost entirely under state control.

    5. Do values of free speech override the values of equality and of preventing profound personal offense to any singular group?

      Um… Yes. Why is this so difficult to understand? Free speech is a right. Rights override “values”, which usually just means whatever the author/speaker values.

      1. Why is this so difficult to understand? Free speech is a right.

        It’s *impossible* for “them” to understand. “Free speech” is just another false religion.

    6. reading some of the comments, however, I am heartened. The vast majority of people took Mardhani to task.

    7. Was the First Amendment passed with the intention of grouping very diverse people into one entity and then vilifying them?

      No! And if it weren’t for the exclusively hateful, ignorant, troglodytic Republicans we could have done something about it.

      More serious answer: No, it was founded to stop Congress from doing anything about it if someone did so.

      Anyway, I don’t think a religion that conducts a modern Kristallnacht against Buddhists because they saw a picture on Facebook really gets to whine about being villified. Yeah, I wouldn’t want to be a German in 1950, but life’s a bitch.

    8. This contempt for the freedom of speech is rapidly becoming became commonplace on the Left a generation ago.

      FIFM.

      Seriously, the campus ‘speech codes’ and general ‘PC’ started in the early 90s. The socialists are predictably expanded those from their base to the general public.

    9. An indication of how quickly the restriction of the freedom of speech has become a fashionable opinion among the Leftist intelligentsia at universities and elsewhere came last Wednesday, when the News ran a piece calling for restrictions on the First Amendment.

      Not really surprising, considering that this new push started up in Salon. These people all basically know each other since they run in the same journalistic circles and they all think alike, so it was inevitable that this would start to diffuse within the broader progressive narrative.

    10. As stupid as the paper sounds, this is also really stupid: “lower Manhattan ? one of the nation’s foremost epicenters of the far Left.”

      Yes, Wall St., that epicenter of the far Left…

      I mean, I know that’s where Occupy started. But Occupy started there because other people were there…

      (Fave personal Occutard story: I sometimes travel to lower Manhattan for work, a few blocks away from Zuccotti Park. There’s an Herm?s store between the two. I was walking down the sidewalk last winter behind a couple of punk-types, when the guy pointed at the store and said to the girl, “That’s a rich-people store.” Indeed, kids, indeed.)

      1. There’s more to lower Manhattan than Wall St.

        The East and West Village.

  10. Mark Zuckerberg met with Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev. For this particular meeting he felt a suit and tie was appropriate.

    One wants to look one’s best when a long trip to the Lubyanka may be the result.

  11. Almost sixty percent of doctors would quit today if given the option. Turns out most doctors didn’t get into medicine to become glorified bureaucrats.

    I wasn’t aware that option was off the table. Thank god slavery hasn’t been completely outlawed and we can continue to force doctors to treat us.

    1. Read your ACA. Healthcare is a right, and someone has to provide that right.

    2. The 13th Amendment is a living document. Times change.

      1. The 13th amendment doesn’t apply to military conscription.

        It also doesn’t apply to anything connected to criminal justice.

        So if the doctors won’t work, we can just draft them and make them work. Or we can set up a penaltax and if they don’t pay it force them to work using the criminal justice and probation systems.

        1. Imprisonment for criminals is explicitly allowed in the 13th, but I have never understood why military conscription doesn’t count as involuntary servitude.

          1. I have never understood why military conscription doesn’t count as involuntary servitude.

            “Fuck you, that’s why.”

          2. No kidding – literally a slave army like the Mamlukes. Abolishing conscription was a great accomplishment for this country.

            1. Has it actually been abolished, or is it just not politically feasible at this time?

              1. Well, abolished in the sense that they don’t do it anymore. It could start up again. You still have to register when you turn 18.

        2. The 13th amendment has a draft exception written in?

          1. No but it was always understood that it wouldn’t affect the draft. They clearly didn’t mean it to affect the draft.

            1. The draft was very unpopular duing the Civil War, so Im not 100% sure you are correct.

              They probably didnt have the support to come out and say it, but I think it would have been popular with the masses if they had.

              1. Sure it was. But it wasn’t unpopular with the radical Republicans who wrote the amendment.

            2. But then why wouldn’t they have written it that way, if they didn’t intend for it to affect the draft? Especially considering the recent experience of the NY draft riots, I would assume they would want the draft authority to be explicit.

              1. They did explicitly allow imprisonment of criminals, so yeah, it seems like they should have mentioned the draft too if they didn;t mean it to apply there.

                1. What part of “living Constitution” don’t you people understand?

              2. Probably because they didn’t consider drafting slavery, since they paid you once they drafted you. Or that it was such a fundamental ‘necessity’ that they didn’t think it needed to be called out?

                1. “Involuntary servitude” is much broader than chattel slavery, and includes such things as debt peonage and the like, which was not unknown to the US, as that is how many colonists came over. Don’t know if there was much of it still around in the 19th century, but they knew how to say slavery if they meant only slavery.

                  1. I’m thinking we should bring back indentured servitude. Learn a trade without going into debt!

                    1. Wasnt that the point of the Army’s commercials pre-Afghanistan?

                    2. Exactly. If it’s good for America, it’s good for American business.

                    3. As “benefits” take up a larger and larger part of total compensation, you could argue we are on that path already. Wait until your employer starts offering gift cards to the company grocery store as part of your compensation.

                  2. That is true RC. But they also knew what “involuntary servitude” meant. And it didn’t mean the draft. It is their term. They get to define it. Could it have precluded the draft? Sure. But that is not what they meant it to do.

                    1. It is their term. They get to define it.

                      They get to use it, yes. Is their any record of their intent, which could be a guide in applying it? If they use a term that can naturally/easily be read to preclude the draft, and failed to preserve the draft, then its an open issue subject to being resolved against the draft. Their intent is a factor in resolving it, but the language on the page is what is dispositive.

                    2. I am curious as to what the discussions were around the 13th. It clearly was meant to go beyond banning slavery. And it’s possible that anti-draft feeling was running high after the war. Still, I’m pretty sure the courts have already dismissed 13th Amendment challenges to the draft.

            3. It also doesn’t prevent the president from sending millions of citizens to concentration camps with nothing more than an executive order.

              1. I remember there were a few talking heads suggest the President use just that power to round up the Ay-rabs post-9/11.

    3. Thank god slavery hasn’t been completely outlawed

      You get to keep 100% of your labor? Cool, where do you live? Because partial slavery still exists where I live.

      1. Good point. But not cool for ruining my punchline.

      2. I look at it like it’s 100% slavery 30-50% of the time. Not sure which is worse because both lines of thinking will put me in the grave next week via an ultra heart attack (this occurs when your heart literally rips loose from it’s bindings and beats your other vital organs into a fine orange paste over 20 seconds).

  12. Mark Zuckerberg met with Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev. For this particular meeting he felt a suit and tie was appropriate.

    You don’t want to go there looking like a prol.

      1. Sorry man, it’s true. If you show up in Russia they’ll instantly arrest you for trying to stowaway one of their tourist space launches.

          1. How funny–looks like the whole film is on YouTube. With Lloyd Bridges! In Mission Control! Picked the wrong week to stop sniffin’ glue.

          2. I knew no one would just want to live in Florida.

            1. While I was unable to stowaway on any Moon missions, I did go up with Deke and the crew for Apollo-Soyuz. The Russians thought it was hilarious and kept making fun of the Americans for having such lax security.

  13. Opinion: Future looks bright for America
    http://thehill.com/opinion/col…..or-america

    The only thing that stands in the way of all this good movement is the fiscal policies of the federal government.

    Even there, we are beginning to see some glimmer of hope. More and more, there are serious and, hopefully, purposeful efforts to try to push towards a comprehensive resolution of our looming fiscal instability.

    When this election is concluded, it is actually possible to see a pathway to a substantive agreement that will involve controlling entitlement spending and tax reform based on lower rates that encourage investment. Look around, being an American is good.

  14. Apparently, perceived deliciousness is mutual between humans and pigs. I ate both bacon and sausage today to affirm my apex predator status.

    An Oregon man trying to feed his 700-pound hogs was eaten by the animals Thursday, and sheriff’s deputies are trying to determine what led up to his death.

    1. trying to determine what led up to his death

      Two enter one leaves!

      1. Because of the unusual circumstances surrounding Garner’s death, detectives haven’t ruled out foul play.

        Ah, HA! The chickens helped the hogs.

    2. Hog farms are useful for getting rid of hookers. Dead ones anyway.

      1. COCKSUCKA!
        /Wu

      2. Get the sled Johnny.

        /Al

      3. Or German butchers.

        1. someone else has been watching Hell on Wheels this season. Damn fine show.

      4. And when you got your six pieces, you gotta get rid of them, because it’s no good leaving it in the deep freeze for your mum to discover, now is it? Then I hear the best thing to do is feed them to pigs. You got to starve the pigs for a few days, then the sight of a chopped-up body will look like curry to a pisshead. You gotta shave the heads of your victims, and pull the teeth out for the sake of the piggies’ digestion. You could do this afterwards, of course, but you don’t want to go sievin’ through pig shit, now do you? They will go through bone like butter. You need at least sixteen pigs to finish the job in one sitting, so be wary of any man who keeps a pig farm. They will go through a body that weighs 200 pounds in about eight minutes. That means that a single pig can consume two pounds of uncooked flesh every minute. Hence the expression, “as greedy as a pig”.

        /Brick Top

        1. Hylochoerus Meinertzhageni …
          Does that ring a bell from high school biology, doctor? No? I could list its most conspicuous features if that would help jog the memory.

          Three pairs of incisors, one pair of elongated canines, three pairs of molars, four pairs of pre-molars upper and lower, for a total of forty-four teeth.

          The meal will begin with an apertivo tartare. Your feet. The main course – the rest of you – won’t be served until seven hours later, but during that time
          you’ll be able to enjoy the effects of the consumed appetizer with a full-bodied saline drip.

          Much as I’d love to, I won’t be joining you at the table since I can’t move, but I will be watching a 3-camera video feed here, and I’ll try to stay awake. (he smiles as much as he’s able; then)guess you wish now you’d fed the rest of me to the dogs? Hmmm?

          /Mason Verger

    3. maybe the pig was named Old Major? Just sayin’

    4. Zoidberg: Alright, anteater number one. Who are you protecting? Is it anteater number two? Don’t stick your tongue out at me! I need a name!
      Anteater 1: wklerjklwej
      Zoidberg: What? How do you spell that?

    5. FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD!

  15. Opinion: Future looks bright for America
    http://thehill.com/opinion/col…..or-america

  16. War! 17 weird ways we used (and use) animals for battle
    http://dvice.com/archives/2012…..-and-l.php

    Man has long warred against man, bringing all manner of bloody machination to rend the opposition limb from limb. For as long as man has been capable of throwing stones, he has also brought with him all manner of beast. You will likely recall stories of courageous horses, mules, dogs and perhaps carrier pigeons, but animals have “enjoyed” far stranger uses in battle. Here, commonplace creatures have been called upon to fulfill the strangest of roles.

    Here’s our list of the 17 strangest, most under-sung animal war heroes ever called to battle.

    1. Fucking Soviets. Strapping mines to dogs and teaching them to run under tanks? No Hell is horrible enough.

      1. Better than doing it to people. I’m certainly not a fan of killing animals for no good reason, but I think it is a bit funny how many people seem to react more negatively to a dog getting killed than a person. Seems like no worse a thing to do than to strap a gun to an 18 year old kid and sending him over the top.

        1. but I think it is a bit funny how many people seem to react more negatively to a dog getting killed than a person.

          It’s simply because dogs are worth more than 95% of the people.

          1. People have rights. Dogs don’t. Yes, dogs can be great companions, but they are also tools. If all soldiers going into harm’s way could somehow be replaced by dogs, I’d do it in a second.

            1. Between a dog and a cop…

              …is there any question?

              1. Sometimes they’re officially the same thing.

          2. I like animals, too, but the family dog or cat can be replaced same day. Try doing that with a person.

            1. It takes 9 months, but it can be done too.

              1. ask a parent who lost a child and put down dog if replacement was equivalent.

                1. Why do we care about their feelings?

                  They’re both either fungible or non-fungible assets.

        2. I think one thing that upsets people is that the way you’d train the dog is by making him think it’s a game, setting up rewards, etc.

          So the dog trusts his handler and thinks they’re playing that fun game again and then BLAMMIE! pieces of dog all over the underside of a tank.

          1. The feeling of betrayal won’t last long.

          2. I certainly don’t feel good about the idea. But there is nothing good about war. And blowing up a few dogs is pretty far down on the list of horrible things that people do to fight wars.
            In any case, I guess it is good that it didn’t work to well. They’ll probably have robots that can do the same thing soon without being afraid of gunfire. Replacing people with robots is definitely better than replacing them with dogs.

          3. there are far worse offenses committed in the name of war than mistreating an animal.

            1. Oh, sure. (To both you and Zeb.)

              In the end, standard libertarian disclaimer that animals are property. If the Wehrmacht is coming for my kids, there’s no piece of my property I won’t set on fire and throw at them. And that goes for dogs and cats too.

              But that’s the rational voice speaking. The rational voice has to suppress the sentiment that betraying an animal that trusts you and likes you is bad.

              1. and likewise, I will agree with your statement that screwing with an animal just because you can is sorry behavior.

            2. Like environmental violations and art theft?

      2. A few tanks were disabled this way, but, sadly for the Soviets, half of these were their own. Worse was that the dogs had not been trained around gunfire, and often ran fearfully back to their trainers, exploding amongst the Soviet ranks.

        lol, karmic justice

        1. And right there you have the full justification for field testing a new product before release.

          1. Red Army Quality Kontrol section was shot. New section in place now, Comrade.

      3. I’m sure the dunphys of the world are OK with using dogs this way.

    2. Article totally missed:

      Badger bombs
      Hedgehog scattering catapults
      Trebucows
      Bee guns
      Facecrabs

      1. You forgot snake whips.

        1. I didn’t. I am pro-snake abuse.

      2. And salmonella-infected pet turtles.

    3. At least this slideshow can be defeated in Opera by going into User Mode.

      (Doesn’t everybody hate lists posted as slideshows?)

      1. Fuck Bleacher Report for dividing up a 1000 word article I’d be interested in reading into 32 different slides.

    4. Starving I understand but why on earth did the Romans want craven attack pigs??

  17. For this particular meeting he felt a suit and tie was appropriate.

    A tie? Is that what you capitalist Americans call a vodka bib?

  18. Open source brew fridge for all of us homebrewers. Arduino and RaspberryPi controlled. I’ll have to look and see why he needed the RPi. Seems like an arduino alone can run a display, 2 thermostats and a PID controller.

    1. Tried my first Harpoon UFO Pumpkin over the weekend – quite tasty. Have to scour the countryside looking for more this weekend.

      1. My favorite remains Shipyard’s Smashed Pumpkin. If you want real over-the-top spiciness, try the Autumn Ale Brew from the Woodstock Inn.

        1. Both Shipyard and Harpoon are good, but my favorite is Southern Tier Pumpking.

    2. Man, I really need to get on that level for brewing. The exactitude of the beer recipes is what is scaring me off, though. When I cook it’s mostly just estimates and “Hmm, this looks like it would be good.” What is a good place to start if I was to upgrade to the complete 5 gallon system? Should I stick with extracts for now or am I fretting for nothing?

      1. Here is all the equipment you need if you just want to make ales, or have the proper environment for lagering, in 5 gallon increments. Honestly, I don’t worry about it too much. I’ve made 3 batches now. The first one came in a little low on the initial specific gravity test, so I added some sugar. It came out fine — as in, not sweet.

        Based on my mashing experience for, uh, ethanol “fuel” extracting the sugars from malts isn’t that hard. Just leave them in hot water for a while. If you have doubts, an extra hour isn’t going to hurt anything. Unless you’re getting up to the 20% sugars by weight. Then you have to watch out for carmelization. But for standard beer levels, no problem.

        1. Temperature control is very important for mashing beer grains. If you denature the wrong enzymes at the wrong times it can wreck a beer’s mouthfeel and flavor.

      2. I’ve made some quite good beer using extracts. Making 5 gallon batches, you have a lot of ability to experiment. Unless you want to invest in all the mashing gear right now, I’d recommend scaling up to 5 gallon batches with extracts first. I’m sure there are lots of other places, but I hove found that Williams Brewing has very good extracts and other ingredients.

      3. Should I stick with extracts for now or am I fretting for nothing?

        Yes.

        Really, there is no wrong answer. All-grain seems daunting until you do it, then you wonder why you didnt switch sooner.

        If you no someone, volunteer to be a beer wench for someone else’s all-grain session to see how its done (plus a 3rd and 4th hand come in handy at times – so they will appreciate it).

        Dont worry about exactness of recipes, it isnt like souffle that will crash. It isnt like cooking where you can adjust on the fly, but get the recipe in advance and dont worry about whether you should use 8 ozs of Crystal-60 or 16 ozs or Crystal-40. Pick something and go with it.

        And if you really want to get into designing recipes, buy “Designing Greet Beers” by Ray Daniels. Its the best recipe book that contains zero recipes.

      4. My recollection of brewing is that there are one, maybe two things you have to be fanatical about:

        (1) Cleanliness/sanitation. All your gear has to be absolutely sanitized. Period.

        (2) Temperature, and even this one has some flexibility. The main thing is don’t let it get too warm while its fermenting.

        Everything else is pretty much in the “Hmm, why not?” category, as long as you use a little common sense.

        And, yes, extracts are just fine.

  19. Awesome Vintage Calculators
    http://www.darkroastedblend.co…..ators.html

    These days it seems like there’s another new gadget every other week, whether it’s a phone, handheld device, tablet computer, laptop or some other hi-tech innovation. We’ve certainly come a long way from the days when everyone was getting the latest pocket calculator, marveling at the technology of these machines when they came into the mainstream back in the seventies.

    1. I played on a Canon Canola when I was a kid and I had a Little Professor. Probably why I have so many geometric progressions memorized.

      The HP 42s is still my favorite.

      1. I, too, had the Little Professor. In fact, I might still have it somewhere. Wonder if it works?

        1. Are you sure you aren’t just confusing that with your sliderule?

          1. Little before my time. My dad used one at some point, because he had one in his study, but I don’t think he used it after college.

  20. Mitt Ryan to turn America into Guinea!

    Awesomely histrionic article about how little the USG spends compared to other countries (if we ignore healthcare!) And how if we institute the Ryan plan that we’ll turn into Guinea. I live next door to Guinea, and actually it’s pretty nice compared to Liberia.

    This is part is utterly amazing:
    In principle, a government’s spending has three motivations: 1) it can provide something more efficiently than the private sector, 2) it can ensure quality in a way that the private sector can’t, or 3) the private sector alone doesn’t have an incentive to provide enough of the item in question.

    1. 1 and 2 are right out.

    2. it can provide something more efficiently than the private sector

      Say what? What planet does this person live on?

      Number 3 is the only one that counts and even that one needs to be limited in scope.

      1. Don’t forget killing people and breaking shit.

    3. If you take those three principles seriously, then you don’t spend unless one of them can be satisfied.

      Which would knock out most spending.

    4. They left out all the bullshit political reasons.

  21. Turns out most doctors didn’t get into medicine to become glorified bureaucrats.

    This isn’t a bug; it’s a feature.

    In MA, they’re doing everything they can to stop new practices from opening, and to stop the expansion of existing practices. Obamacare will follow Romneycare’s lead there.

    It’s already essentially impossible to open a new hospital anywhere.

    What’s happening is pretty straightforward: the left would rather have medical care not be available for anyone, than have it be available based on ability to pay. They want to take out the ability to pay aspect, but not appear to have rationing. The only way to achieve that is to drive the providers out.

    If there are huge provider gaps, the left can say, “We’re not rationing. You can have all the care you want, as soon as you can get an appointment.”

    If the rate of technological advance slows to a crawl, the number of situations where an expensive new treatment is only available to people who can pay will decrease. And that’s what’s important to the left. They’d rather have no new treatments become available, then have new treatments that save some people while others know the treatments exist but can’t afford them.

    1. First ruin the system, then tell people the only solution is single payer, then scapegoat Doctors as rich vampires making fortunes off of sick people, then unionize the Doctors, no matter the specialty or talent, same pay for everybody topping out at around $150 K. The end.

      1. Then use you the government control over health care as an excuse to control every other aspect of their lives down to when and where they exercise and what they eat.

        1. Of course people will cheat on their diet and exercise, so they will have to be monitored.

      2. Or … is it only the beginning?

    2. Yep, this is the modern psychotic left in a nutshell: it’s not fair that some people are miserable, therefore all of us have to be miserable.

      1. said the leftist on his way to his boutique physician group practice.

  22. Rambling (but short)..uh..editorial, I guess, on how the Koch brothers own all the think tanks, and that neo-Thatcherism is using tactics of Marxism so that KORPORASHUNZ can rule the world.
    Comments (as is usual for the Brits) run the gamut from insano-leftist agreement, to saliently rebutting the idiot author on every point. Kind of like here, only with fewer Star Trek and Broken Arrow references.

    1. Kind of like here, only with fewer Star Trek and Broken Arrow references as well as zero discussions of necrophilia, Cthulhu, monocles, and the glories of child-factory slavery.

      FTFY

      1. You’ll get my Cthulhu, monocle and child labor riffs when your pry them out of my cold, dead keyboard!

    2. Your link, she no work.

        1. Monbiot’s a old-schooler from the Wesley Mouch school of villain naming (an alma mater he shares with Sandra Fluke).

  23. Elizabeth Warren, only minutes before tonight’s second high-stakes face off with U.S. Sen. Scott Brown in Lowell’s Tsongas Center, released a list of her corporate clients in a last-ditch effort to blunt criticisms that the consumer advocate has profited from big corporations while she claims to fight for the little guy.

    Massachusetts voters care about what’s best for the little guy?

    1. Don’t forget joe lives there.

    2. profited from big corporations while she claims to fight for the little guy.

      Isn’t this what they’re electing someone to do?

    3. Why would she provide more evidence that she was practicing law without a license? She ought to talk to a real lawyer.

      1. Honest Injun?

      2. I live in MA and have yet to hear about this outside of Reason. I hear quite a few ads about this race too, so it’s pretty weird that this hasn’t come up at all.

        1. Let’s hope that Brown is keeping it for release a little later in the campaign, to put a fresh gloss on the issue of her character and fitness.

          The Legal Insurrection blog is leading the charge on this. I don’t think there’s any question that she violated Massachusetts law. Ideally, a client who lost would come after her for a refund of their fees on the grounds that she defrauded them.

          Short of that, of course, somebody has to force this into the public conversation, either with an ad or a debate attack. Because its perfectly clear the DemOp media in Massachusetts isn’t going to run this story otherwise.

          1. So is this kind of a big deal in your lawyer circles?

            1. Nobody in Texas pays any attention to what goes on in Massachusetts.

              1. So the Texan hatred for yankees overcomes the professional unionism?

  24. Georgia’s ruling pro-western party

    Mississippi?

  25. Here is a rare “libertarian” blog that does not have wingnut commenters.

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/otbabout1/

    1. So…that’s a link to horse fucking porn right?

    2. I suggest you go and stay there.

    3. Interesting that my work filter doesn’t block reason but does block that.

    4. We aim to have informed, polite conversation about the issues which we find interesting.

      How do you have a “polite conversation” about s**** f******?

    5. Re: Palin’s Buttwipe,

      James Joyner. Publisher/Editor-in-Chief James Joyner has been Managing Editor of the Atlantic Council since September 2007 and editor of Outside The Beltway since January 2003. He has published dozens of columns for publications including The Atlantic, Foreign Policy, The National Interest, CNN, Politico, Reason, Legal Affairs, Human Events, Washington Examiner, The New Individualist, and TCS Daily and is a regular commentator on world affairs on venues including BBC, NPR, C-SPAN, Al Jazeera, CNN, and MSNBC. A more-or-less complete listing can be found here.

      For being the editor-in-chief of a blog that fancies itself “Outside” the beltway, you can’t get more beltwarian than that.

      I smell a rat.

      Here is a rare “libertarian” blog that does not have wingnut commenters.

      If you start commenting, then they will have at least one. Oh, and at least one certified economics ignoramus to boot.

  26. Cop punches woman in the face at a parade

    No apparent provocation, but she gets charged with disorderly conduct.

    1. We figured this out last night. He was just trying to knock the spray string out of her hand, and her face got in the way.

    2. She violated the rules of fist etiquette.

      1. That dude’s got so many rules who hasn’t broken them?

  27. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..finds.html

    Couples who share housework 50% more likely to get divorced. The question is is it the sharing of housework that causes the divorce or is it that the type of woman who demands the man do housework is more likely to have her husband divorce her?

    1. What about households where the husband is fucking the maid?

      1. Depends on whether the husband is into that kind of thing. NTTAWWT

      2. He gets to screw the maid, she gets to screw the pool guy. Problem solved.

        1. Then they fight over whether the pool guy or maid gets more money.

    2. The question is is it the sharing of housework that causes the divorce or is it that the type of woman who demands the man do housework is more likely to have her husband divorce her?

      Or is that the type of man who accepts this is more likely to have his wife divorce him?

      1. Winner winner, poultry supper.

    3. I agree with the article that the main problem there is conversation.

      If at your office every morning nobody had a defined role, but just got together every day and awkwardly and passive-aggressively talked about who would do what, everybody would hate each other within a week.

      I bet it would be more stable to have the husband do everything than have who does what always be up for debate.

      1. Except for the inevitable exasperation the wife would feel because the husband “did it wrong”.

        1. “You must be doing it on purpose!”

        2. I suspect this is a big part of the stress in these marriages.

          If you want it done your way, sweetie, then do it yourself. If you want me to do it, then you’re getting it done my way. Up to you, really, which of us does it.

    4. Or lots of “ur doin’ it wrong” from the other spouse leading to petty squabbles, etc?

      1. I think it’s more “I did it last time” followed by “Yeah but I did the laundry” yadda yadda yadda.

        People who write pop fluff about marriage are always all, “The important thing is communication!” but all communication has a non-zero chance of turning into conflict.

        The more settled issues you have, the less communication you have, but also the less conflict you have.

        If you share housework by saying, “I will always do all vacuuming, and you will always do all laundry. No trades,” you have a good chance to make it work. If you haggle over every task, it won’t work.

        1. You have a point.

        2. The other issue is standards. It is unusual that two people would do the same task exactly the same way to the exact same standard. One side, usually but not always the woman, is more type A and does things to a higher standard than the other. It helps to divide tasks. But even that doesn’t work if both parties don’t agree to let the other do their tasks without bitching and interference. If you don’t like the way your spouse does the laundry, do it yourself of learn to live with their way. But you cannot expect to make them do it your way. A lot of women don’t get that.

          1. But you cannot expect to make them do it your way. A lot of women don’t get that.

            “But I can change him!”

            1. Yes, you can always change him into an ex-husband.

              1. Bravo.

    5. Re: John,

      The question is is it the sharing of housework that causes the divorce or is it that the type of woman who demands the man do housework is more likely to have her husband divorce her?

      Yeah, that one.

    6. My wife has never asked me to do much, but I’ve always been the type to help out when anyone is doing anything, and to do what I see that needs to be done. Consequently, I do almost all of the housework, and mostly solely raise the kids. I’ve suspected for a while that being so nice and helpful might be my downfall. Apparently, there’s a study that agrees.

      1. I do a ton of stuff around the house including laundry, grocery shopping, dishes and scrubbing pots and pans, feeding the kid and getting them ready for activities, on top of the more traditional husband stuff around the house (trash out, light bulb replacement, light repairs, etc.). Guess what? It isn’t good enough. The more I do the more complaining I hear.

        I dream daily of pulling the rip cord on the whole thing.

        My advice to newly married guys, or guys contemplating marriage: Do not get heavily involved in the housework. Better yet, do not get involved at all with a woman that beleives she is entitled to slave to do her bidding.

      2. Have you tried the Dean approach (more diplomatically, of course:

        “If you want it done your way, sweetie, then do it yourself. If you want me to do it, then you’re getting it done my way. Up to you, really, which of us does it.”

    1. I’ll bet *he* has trouble getting through airport security.

    2. He can curl 400 pounds but only bench 500? That’s retarded.

      1. not if all you do is work arms. The anomaly to me is the relatively thin – in terms of proportion – forearms on this guy.

      1. Duh, bitches loves biceps.

    3. 5’11” and 270? jaysus. I wouldn’t have guessed more than 200. That shirt must be hiding a huge frame.

      Obligatory Gregg Valentino link.

      1. Those biceps are 31 inches. They’ve got to be adding a ton of weight.

        1. Biceps? It’s his triceps that are absurd!

    4. For those who don’t know, his arms look that way due to Synthol use, basically an inert oil that is injected into muscle tissue and is temporarily trapped there. Bodybuilders would use small amounts before a competition, but this guy has apparently used buckets of it. I’d guess he has some kind of major body dysmorphia issues.

      That’s why his forearms, etc., are relatively weak-looking; he did not develop the bicep muscles through strength training.

      1. Except he denies that totally.

        And Synthol doesn’t allow you to curl 400 lbs.

        1. You believed those claims???

          The video shows him doing an exercise called barbell bent-over rows with 315 pounds. He’s “cheating”, i.e., using momentum and body english to swing the bar toward himself, and even still barely gets 1/3 of the full range of motion for that exercise. I doubt he could lift 400 pounds off the floor.

          You’re correct in that Synthol does not increase the user’s strength.

    5. Ugh, that is disturbing…but, to each their own, I guess.

  28. How libertarians actually help people. Bob Heinlein once sent Ted Sturgeon (who, if you haven’t read is both the best and worst short story writer of the 20th century) about 25 ideas and a check for $100 after Sturgeon lamented in a letter that he was stuck and out of ideas. The whole letter is now published.

    The incredibly generous letter in question ? sent by Heinlein just two days after being asked for help and directly responsible for two of Sturgeon’s subsequent stories (“And Now the News” and “The Other Man”) ? can be read, in full, below.

    1. I read Ted Sturgeon’s “The Cosmic Rape” when I found it in a used book store. Its a fascinating short read.

      1. Slow Sculpture won bot the Nebula in 1970 and the Hugo in 1971 and remains my favorite Ted Sturgeon story.

    2. Ah, yes. And Now the News is a “touching” story.

  29. Great quote from the always good Theodore Dalrymple

    It is difficult now to imagine a modern university intellectual saying something as simple and unequivocal as “I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it.” He would be more likely to think, if not actually to say out loud or in public, “I disagree with what you say and therefore rationalise to the death my right to suppress it.” In public, he would be more circumspect, presenting a suppression of freedom as an actual increase in freedom; that is to say of real freedom, not the kind the leaves everyone free to sleep under a bridge. But he would know perfectly well in his heart that what he was after was power: the greatest power of all, that to shape, mould and colour indelibly the thought of others, a power to which he believes that he has a right by virtue of his superior intellect, training and zeal for the public good.

    http://davidthompson.typepad.c…..urity.html

    Basically nearly all of our intellectual class need to be shot or at least stripped of any position of authority.

    1. Basically nearly all of our intellectual class need to be shot or at least stripped of any position of authority

      Mind if we start with the lawyers?

      1. Sure. But only if we shoot the law professors first.

        1. you need some time to settle your affairs?

          1. I am not a law professor. I will be like one of the zeeks who ran the trains.

  30. At issue is how the new “Medicare tax” will apply to real-estate transactions.

    Passed in 2010 to help fund the health-care overhaul, this 3.8% surtax kicks in next year on many forms of investment income?including some interest, dividends, rents and capital gains.

    While its effect on home sales won’t be as far-reaching as many fear, the Medicare tax could pack a punch for certain investors. It is not a sales tax. And it won’t apply to home-sale gains excluded from income under current law. But it could affect investors with outsize gains or gains from the sale of a vacation home or investment property.

    http://professional.wsj.com/ar…..reno64-wsj

  31. Chicago cop charged with sexual misconduct with a prisoner after telling a tranny prostitute he will let him go if the tranny will let him suck his dick. DNA evidence collected from the shemale victim looks to be pretty damning.

    FTA: Stewart, who appeared in court wearing slacks and a red and white jacket, is an active member of the Calvary Missionary Baptist Church, Kuzas said. He also volunteers with the Breast Cancer Walk and works with children participating in track-and-field activities at Douglas Park, Kuzas said, asking for Stewart to be released on his own recognizance.

    Was he planning on working his way up to being Caster Semenya’s personal trainer?

    1. So nobody’s gonna touch the “Cop Blows Tranny Prostitute” story, huh? Not even a South Park “Butters Bottom Bitch” reference? I am disappoint.

      1. Not touching that with your dick, dude.

      2. Around here, “Cop Blows Tranny Prostitute In Exchange for Lenient Treatment” is pretty much man-bites-dog.

        1. Fuck me. Joke botched. Carry on.

  32. Canada cutting regs per the 24/7 newsfeed but this does not jibe:

    The Canadian Food Inspection Agency should better collaborate with the provinces on streamlining meat hygiene requirements and recognizing dairy equivalency. The government will also pursue “broad legislative and regulatory renewal” as well as make Canadian sanitary standards for dairy products equivalent to those in the United States;

    I guess they had to throw a bone to the control freaks to get the rest of the reforms through.

    1. More likely it’s a sop to the Canadian Local Milk Bag Producers Guild Those sneaky fucks have been out to restrict Ziploc’s entry into the market for decades.

  33. Off-duty cop apparently thinks it’s funny to brandish a firearm and slap a kid in the face.

    Worst line of the article is the last one: Taylor is the 23rd MPD officer or employee to be arrested this year.

    Stay classy, Memphis PD.

    1. You know, I saw the movie remake/demake of 21 Jump Street this weekend, and although I thought it was pretty funny and had a nice twist on the nerd/asshole high school relationship, the portrayal of cops as idiotic thugs fighting a drug war and itching for the moment to shoot people while initiating violent explosions almost soured the experience. I blame you assholes for reminding me about those assholes in blue. Fuck.

    2. On the other hand, at least they’re bothering to arrest their fellow officers.

  34. What’s the pick em standings (with that points per weekly win thing)?

    I was one Dallas win away from tying for first this week. Damn you Romo! Next week looks like another one with a lot of high scores. Though I am surprised with the spread on the Brady-Manning game.

    1. Shit, I think I was 2 field goals away from running away with an upset. In hindsight, picking Tampa Bay was a bad idea.

      1. When the MNF started I checked to see what everyone picked and saw I was the only person in the top 10 or so to take Dallas. I thought it was gonna be so awesome.

  35. “Come and take it”, said the Texicans. Happy Texas Revolution Day.

    1. Thank goodness Romo wasn’t commanding at Gonzales, or he would have turned the damn cannon over.

      1. As sucky as that performance was, I don’t think he should be credited with 5 interceptions. That 3rd one was clearly a fumble.

  36. Why do we have to turn the professionals that society needs the most into bureaucrats?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.