A.M. Links: Car Salesman, Members of Congress Least Trusted Profession, U.S. Doesn't Want Internet Regulations on Table at ITU Conference, Private Expedition to the Moon?

|

  • at least he's not a congressman?

    Car salesmen, members of Congress, and ad men are at the bottom of the list of most trusted professions in Gallup's latest survey.

  • The military's highest court dismissed the judge in the Ft. Hood shooting case, calling into question his impartiality. The court tossed his order to have Nidal Hassan's beard forcibly removed.
  • American negotiators do not appear to want Internet regulations to be on the agenda at a telecom conference underway in Dubai.
  • Eight students were killed in an attack by rebels on a school in Damascus, according to Syrian state television.
  • Will there be a private expedition to the moon?
  • Voyager 1 is on the brink of entering interstellar space.
  • Support Reason's 2012 webathon today.

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? Send it to us!

The updated Reason app for Apple and Android now includes Reason 24/7!

Advertisement

NEXT: Eight Syrian Students Killed in Rebel Attack on School

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. I, for one, am impressed.

    2. Your comment is about as funny as a Chip Bok cartoon.

      1. a low blow, my friend, a very low blow

        1. OK, it’s as funny as a Henry Payne cartoon.

          Do you feel better now?

      2. so about as funny as the Bataan Death March?

  1. Car salesmen, members of Congress, and ad men are at the bottom of the list of most trusted professions in Gallup’s latest survey.

    The sad thing is we choose the first two.

    1. Eh, I think it’s only a matter of time before the current model of selling cars is gutted. Too many people are too informed thanks to the internet and the shysterism of classic 1950’s style car salesmanship cannot withstand shit like Kelly Blue Book, Car Reviews, and the ability to compare prices on the fly.

      As for Congress…we are fucked.

      1. That will only happen when the associations of car dealers stop having pull with state legislatures.

        1. Wait…that’s a thing? Mother fucking government is the mother fucking reason buying a car sucks so mother fucking much? WHY AM I NOT MOTHER FUCKING SURPRISED.

          FUCK

          1. Yeah, I was going to tell you that, but I thought it might be too painful. Sorry guy.

            In fact, some folks say the dealers are an even bigger lobby than the manufacturers–they are, after all, in every congressional district.

        2. That will only happen when the associations of car dealers stop having pull with state legislatures.

          Maybe for new cars. Last two cars I bought off CL, for waaay less than I would have paid at a used car dealership. Oh, and no taxes.

      2. My 72-year-old father bought a car through the internet last week. He got prices from a bunch of dealerships and went with the best price / most cooperation. His local guy was pretty pissed – tough shit.

        1. I love the sound of obsolesence in the morning…

    2. isn’t it a little childish and illogical to expect a car salesman to have perfect past and future mechanical knowledge of a car?

      a car salesman’s job is to help you save face and buy a car after all the lies you tell him.

      1. Maybe, but it’s not childish to have access to information that was science fiction 15 years ago and use it to your advantage. This is why children can program shit PhD’s in the 70s couldn’t even imagine.

        Also, I thought a car salesman’s job was to sell a car. If you know you can get a better deal somewhere else, there is no face to save. The hack must either give in or lose a sale. Welcome to the internet assholes.

        1. If you know you can get a better deal somewhere else, there is no face to save.

          there is if he can beat the other guys deal, but he can’t beat the deal you claimed you could get.

          I’m sure you don’t lie to car salesmen, but many people do.

          1. Posted this below as well. These squirrels suck.

            Then they should have a matching policy that requires the buyer to prove his claim via print/internet ad/something. That’s how I get reduced prices at Guitar Center, and I know those poor bastards are working for commission. This shit ain’t rocket science and if the car salesmen think it is, they deserve to go the way of Whale Oil producers.

          2. think about it logically. if the dealer could do it without the salesmen, why do they employ them? think your boss would keep you if you were superfluous?

            1. Apparently, they can keep them around if the system is somehow gamed via the state (see Nicole and Ted’s comments above).

              When it comes to logic, I am just extrapolating what the internet has done to other jobs/industries. The music industry is completely different, gutted even. Plenty of reviled record exec jobs are/have become obsolete. Stores like Best Buy are dieing. And let’s not even talk about Borders. A car may be more complicated and more expensive than these other products, but that doesn’t mean people aren’t smart enough to circumvent dead weight that drives up their cost.

              Moreover, their (car salesmen) time might be coming to an end thanks to a proliferation of information but that doesn’t mean it’s over yet. Hell, they might be able to adapt to the new situation, but it’s going to change. It’s a consumer’s market and the only way to stop it is through shoving guns up people’s asses. When Wal-Mart and Costco start selling cars, they can kiss their soon to be pointless middle-man jobs goodbye.

              1. Sorry, Drax, but you’re extrapolating a near-term phenomenon into the long-term future, and I don’t see it playing out that way.

                In the past year, I’ve noticed that Amazon has gotten increasingly less competitive, or Best Buy (and other stores) have gotten more so. I do instant price-checks constantly and I find that the stores are matching online retailers. Add in the convenience of being able to test the merch and that you can have it that day, and the stores are beating online retailers.

                Also, there is a business model that allegedly was going to end car salesmanship: CarMax. It’s been around for 20 years and it hasn’t happened yet.

                1. I did correct/hedge my bets by saying it “might” be the end of them. And your anecdote of Amazon is just that. My experience with them blows away every physical retail store I’ve dealt with. I also wonder how much the state taxes being imposed on Amazon now is hobbling their model? Sounds like the state protecting bullshit that needs to die to me. Not unlike food trucks in DC getting legislated to death so you can have the “privilege” of buying worse food for higher prices in a brick and mortar restaurant.

                  1. The observation about Amazon has become a general trend. Yes, Amazon used to blow away physical retail stores, but the stores rebounded much faster than I anticipated.

                    I used to hate Best Buy. Now I kind of don’t.

                    1. A LOT of brick-and-mortar stores are going to close. Not all of them. Places like Best Buy will still be viable in more densely populated areas, but outside of that Amazon is eating their breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

                    2. I bought a new laptop a couple of weeks ago, wanted to buy retail for the instant gratification and the only retail outlet that had passable service was CostCo. It took me more than 15 minuted to round up Best Buy’s salesman and then the pimple faced kid didn’t know shit about the computer he was supposed selling.

                      I wound up buying it from Amazon. I’m probably going to buy more and more stuff online as the retail shopping experience has gone to shit and turned into an irritation.

        2. Welcome to the internet assholes.

          Ahem. I’m not an internet asshole. I’m an asshole everywhere.

    3. My sister went into a car dealership recently knowing the exact model she wanted and the price she was willing to pay. She already had the check written out and didn’t bring her checkbook.

      The salesman at one point resorted to “but it’s better for me if you finance…”

      1. she really fucked them, other than they would have given her a better price with financing (because the lender would have paid the dealer a fee) that she could have paid off a few days later.

        1. Good for her for doing so and avoiding further debt.

        2. If she paid off the loan immediately, would she not then be fucking the lender? Whose graft is more important, a salesman’s or a banker’s?

          I do not owe you a livelihood. If your job is useful and can adapt to changing circumstances, then it should and will continue. If not, then it is useless and outmoded and should disappear.

    1. I will need to stock up on fine whiskey then, for medicinal purposes, of course.

      Any suggestions?

      Fun Medical Fact: Ethyl Alcohol and fomepizole is the antidote for ethylene glycol poisoning. Every hospital keeps booze and beer handy for poisoning by antifreeze.

      1. Why did they drip it into his stomach? Takes all the fun out of it. 😛

        It doesn’t seem to me that simply drinking it would appreciably delay entry of the alcohol into the blood stream, and then they wouldn’t have to shove a tube down his throat. I also seem to recall that you absorb some of the alcohol through the lining of your mouth, so it may actually delay transmission.

        1. They got to charge extra for the tube.

        2. You have to stay drunk for a looong time. Depends on the poison dosage, but the whole point is that you keep the ethanol BAC so high that ethanol is being preferentially absorbed by your tissue at such high rates that only “safe” levels of methanol or ethylene glycol get absorbed and broken down. In this guy’s case they kept him down for days.

          1. Gotcha. Still wouldn’t be as fun. XD

      2. I will need to stock up on fine whiskey then

        According to the link, the guy was saved by “whisky”, not “whiskey”. :-p

        1. VISKI! Teper’ rada? -P

          1. Ahem. Isn’t rada feminine? It’s rad for me, rado for you. :-p

            1. Your pedantry deserved an “a”, Theodore. Only pedants are neuter gender. -D

  2. Some more. 22 advice for nicole: Make sure you get one with a threaded barrel. Then buy a suppressor. Awesome fun!

    1. Isn’t nicole the one in Mordor…er…I mean Chicago? I really, really doubt that NFA stuff is legal there, though I could be wrong.

      1. I thought Mordor was New Jersey.

        1. Naw; that’s Isengard.

          1. Or perhaps Moria.

            1. What about Gary, Indiana? Cleveland? Detroit? St. Louis?

              1. Umm…I may have to consult the The Silmarillion for those…

              2. Top qualifiers for the Lost Kingdoms of Arnor, though I defer to Sarcasmic.

                1. Detroit is surely Thangorodrim?!

                  1. Thangorodrim is the winner.

              3. What about Gary, Indiana? Cleveland? Detroit? St. Louis?

                Angmar, Moria, The Withered Heath and Osgiliath. Naught but ruins and wastes.

                1. Or perhaps Minas Ithil, all of them?

      2. Oh, right. No fun for her, then.

    2. Yes, no fun on that order for me. Not yet at least.

  3. hey, anyone remember this minor kerfuffle?

    Color photo of George Zimmerman’s broken nose finally released
    http://www.examiner.com/articl…..y-released

    1. I thought he was a white hispanic, not a colored hispanic?

      1. The police and hospitals have special filters to make people appear darker.

    2. Was going to post this. Anyone still bitter clinging to the notion that Zimmerman is the bad guy here?

        1. I was thinking the same thing, given that I picked up the photo from Radley Balko. I am not one for an argument from authority, but if Balko says it…

      1. I don’t think anyone knows, or can know, who the “bad guy” was. To me, the bad guy is the one who initiated the use of force. Getting punched in the nose and knocked down does not mean that Zimmerman wasn’t that guy.

        1. Is there any evidence at all that Zimmerman was the guy who initiated the use of force? (Where “initiation of the use of force” != “annoyed some guy by trying to find out what he was doing.”)

          1. ^This.

            It’s still theoretically possible that Zimmerman pointed a gun at Martin, who knocked him down in a desperate attempt to defend himself. Except, once again, all the evidence points to Zimmerman telling the unvarnished truth. I’ve not seen a single instance of his story being contradicted by the evidence.

            Fact is, if it had been some methbilly jumping a law abiding black man, the media would be ranting and raving about malicious prosecution attempting to railroad someone who only acted in self defense. But because Martin was a young black kid and Zimmerman was not, the media spins a Mississippi Burning 2012 storyline. Anyone kept up on how many people were assaulted under the “Justice for Trayvon” banner? Because I remember at least 3 or 4 people beaten up, some of them with hammers and pipes and shit.

            Interesting times.

          2. Is there any evidence that he didn’t (other than his own word)?

            I seem to recall testimony from Martin’s girlfriend that indicated Zimmerman escalated (for what that’s worth).

            I just don’t think we have good information either way. A reasonable person could easily conclude that its likely Zimmerman initiated, since he went looking for Martin, with a gun, against the advice of police. Or, you could easily conclude the opposite, based on Martin’s mildly sketchy history.

            1. A reasonable person could easily conclude that its likely Zimmerman initiated, since he went looking for Martin, with a gun, against the advice of police. Or, you could easily conclude the opposite, based on Martin’s mildly sketchy history.

              Which means ‘not guilty’

              1. Probably. Hard to say, without seeing the full presentation. Seems like there’s enough to go to trial, at least, although there is the goofed-up self-defense statute which sure reads like the guy who starts the fight can end it with a gun and still claim self-defense.

            2. Escalated by using force? I don’t remember that bit.

              Is there any evidence that he didn’t (other than his own word)?

              I’d say that the way the physical evidence lines up with his story combined with his own word is evidence that he didn’t.

              Yeah, it’s possible that Zimmerman pulled the gun right off the bat and then let Martin beat the crap out of him before using it, but that doesn’t pass the laugh test, imo. Or that Zimmerman went up and grabbed Martin for some reason. It just doesn’t seem likely, or a reasonable conclusion, or anything backed by any evidence.

            3. Is there any evidence that he didn’t (other than his own word)?

              It’s not up to him to prove he’s innocent, it’s up to the prosecutor to prove he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Obviously public opinion has different rules (i.e., none) but so far every single bit of physical evidence has lined up with Zimmerman’s version of events. I mean….Occam’s Razor…either he’s telling the truth, or he has concocted an airtight cover story which just so happens to fit every single piece of physical evidence.

              I seem to recall testimony from Martin’s girlfriend that indicated Zimmerman escalated (for what that’s worth).

              She was on the phone with him. The phone. Not there, not on a video call. She didn’t see anything. She heard her boyfriend, but not Zimmerman, and I think I remember that it was a couple phone calls, not one seamless narration of the event. So I don’t think that is worth much of anything.

              1. Zimmerman could have escalated by grabbing Zimmerman (an assault and battery), short of pulling his gun.

                We basically have two unreliable witnesses here, as well as a batch of pretty inconclusive other evidence that can be argued to death.

                Anybody who reaches a firm conclusion on this based on what we know is fooling themselves. Worth taking to a jury.

                It’s not up to him to prove he’s innocent, it’s up to the prosecutor to prove he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

                Well, there’s no doubt at all that he killed Martin. The only issue is whether it was self-defense.

                Traditionally, someone claiming self-defense bears the burden of proving up their defense. I think the self-defense law here switches that presumption, but it doesn’t take proof beyond a reasonable doubt to beat it.

                I believe Martin has a rebuttable presumption that he acted in self-defense, but its a “preponderance of the evidence” presumption, meaning he loses if a jury thinks the preponderance of the evidence is that it wasn’t self-defense. We’re well into the zone of uncertainty on that issue, IMO.

                1. Zimmerman could have escalated by grabbing Zimmerman (an assault and battery), short of pulling his gun.

                  could have being the key phrase there.

                  No one is saying that it is outside the realm of possibility that Zimmerman attacked Martin. We just have absolutely no evidence that it happened. The ballistic evidence and the injuries Zimmerman sustained prove that when he shot Martin he was on his back and was being beaten in the face, bouncing his head off the sidewalk.

                  So for the Zimmerman has aggressor theory to hold up, he would have had to either:

                  A) approached Martin with a gun drawn, and yet be unable to fire the gun while Martin began punching him, not firing the gun at all during the struggle until Martin was straddling him raining blows on his face.

                  B) Zimmerman, a modestly build man in 30s approached a high school football player and initiated a physical confrontation. As far as I know, Martin’s body shows no signs of any injury excepting the ones on his knuckles and the gunshot wound. This is probably not conclusive, since he died minutes later, but maybe Groovus could weigh in on whether or not he’d show any bruises or what have you at autopsy.

                  I mean…it just doesn’t pass the smell test. Plus we come back again….there isn’t a single discrepancy that I’ve seen between Zimmerman’s story and the evidence.If there was, maybe I’d be more amenable to the Martin as innocent victim theory.

                  1. Given what Zimmerman was doing out there, I think its entirely possible that he grabbed Martin. If so, that makes him the aggressor, and I don’t think an aggressor can ever use lethal self-defense. The statute on this seems to open up that possibility.

                    Nobody doubts that Martin got the better of Zimmerman, but none of that really matters (unless you read the statute to allow an aggressor to use lethal self-defense). Under traditional self-defense principles, the overriding question is: who started the fight? And that’s what we just don’t know. Based on the little we do know, I think the odds are that Zimmerman did, by grabbing Martin, but who knows? Maybe Martin punched him during an otherwise verbal confrontation.

                  2. This is probably not conclusive, since he died minutes later, but maybe Groovus could weigh in on whether or not he’d show any bruises or what have you at autopsy.

                    Acute contusions are usually not readily visible post-mortem and take time to observe depending on the force applied. Acute superficial contusions are also more difficult to observe in darker complexioned individuals and they have to be on ice and the blood settles to directly observe them unless they are deep or patterned with accompanying edema.

                    The most conclusive way is to observe under lighting after the body exsanguinates and observe muscular contusions directly via cutdown.

                    This Quick View Slide presentation explains in more detail.

              2. The question ought to be, and I keep coming back to this, was the initiation of lethal force necessary?

                I buy the general gist of the story as we understand it: Zimmerman was on neighborhood watch, he saw Martin skulking around, he called the police who basically said “do nothing”, and then he confronted the kid himself.

                A teenager can indeed be quite dangerous. But a broken nose is not life-threatening. Zimmerman was in his own neighborhood, and had a call out to the police. He could have walked away at any point, and I’m not seeing a strong case that Martin had the intent to kill him.

                I cannot speak for Florida law, but as I see it, in self-defense, lethal force can only meet threat of life. If your life is not in danger, then the use of lethal force is unjustified.

                I don’t think Zimmerman should be on a murder rap. The situation was heated, it was dark, harsh words were undoubtedly said by all. Violence was most likely initiated by Martin, who was probably not under threat of violence himself. Zimmerman ought to be charged with manslaughter, and unless I’m missing some crucial facts here, were I on the jury, I would most likely convict, with a recommendation for a shorter sentence depending on how remorseful Zimmerman seemed.

                I just don’t see sufficient cause for anyone to have died here.

                1. A teenager can indeed be quite dangerous. But a broken nose is not life-threatening

                  That isn’t what happened. However it came to pass, at some point Zimmerman was on the ground, with Martin on top of him. Martin was punching Zimmerman in the face, which was bouncing the back of his head off the sidewalk. It’s very easy to die in that situation.

                  That is when Zimmerman fired his weapon upwards into Martin. Ballistic evidence proves this. The blood on the sidewalk and the injuries on the back of Zimmerman’s head prove this.

                  Zimmerman was absolutely in legitimate fear of his life, the question is whether or not he was the aggressor. If he pulled a gun on Martin, he’s guilty of several felonies, and I think you could make a capital murder case. If he attacked Martin with his bare hands, that’s assault and maybe the FL Stand Your Ground law protects him, depending on circumstances. If he was just talking to Martin, and Martin started the fight, then he’s the victim.

                2. In your view, how long can someone bounce your head off the sidewalk before lethal force is an acceptable way to make it stop? Or do you not think bouncing your head off the sidewalk presents enough risk of serious bodily injury or death?

                  1. In my view, somebody who starts a fight never has the option of ending it with a gun. You start a fight, you assume all associated risks, including the risk of getting curb-stomped. Its definitional, to me, that an aggressor cannot engage in self-defense.

                    Now, if you don’t start a fight, then getting your head bounced off the concrete justifies lethal self-defense.

                    1. In my view, somebody who starts a fight never has the option of ending it with a gun. You start a fight, you assume all associated risks, including the risk of getting curb-stomped. Its definitional, to me, that an aggressor cannot engage in self-defense.

                      So if, say, Martin started to walk way and Zimmerman grabbed him, Martin is then entitled to any physical response up to and including bashing Zimmerman’s brain all over the sidewalk?

                      It seems to me that Martin would be able to respond proportionately. The broken nose would probably be within the outer fringes of a proportionate response to behind grabbed. Continuing on to bash Zimmerman’s head on the sidewalk is disproportionate and, imo, would escalate the situation to the point where Zimmerman would be justified in shooting.

                    2. So if, say, Martin started to walk way and Zimmerman grabbed him, Martin is then entitled to any physical response up to and including bashing Zimmerman’s brain all over the sidewalk?

                      Not at all. Martin has to be in reasonable fear of his life to use lethal force. Probably wouldn’t be justified in this case.

                      It seems to me that Martin would be able to respond proportionately.

                      So, if a mugger/rapist accosts a woman, and she pulls a gun on him, the mugger/rapist is then entitled to pull his own gun, shoot her down, and claim self-defense?

                  2. Since my entire comment was predicated on the premise that Martin was not threatening Zimmerman’s life, if the opposite were true then the conclusion is obviously irrelevant.

                    Given the premise that Martin was beating Zimmerman to within an inch of his life, then I believe the use of lethal force may have been justified.

                    Of course, we could turn this exercise on its head. Perhaps Zimmerman brandished the gun, threatened Martin, who rushed him and was trying to subdue and disarm him.

                    There would still be enough doubt to let Zimmerman walk, barring any additional facts of which I am still unaware.

                    1. I am inclined though to agree in part with R C Dean insofar as starting a fight entails you to some manner of responsibility for its outcome.

                      Given the premises we’ve established, as I said, I’d let Zimmerman walk on murder or manslaughter charges. But you could still make a case for aggravated assault if Zimmerman admits he threw the first punch, or at the least you could make a case for criminal negligence (aka recklessness or endangerment) based upon Zimmerman initiating the confrontation and ignoring police advice.

                      I don’t think double jeopardy would apply, either, since the act he’s currently on trial for (killing Martin) is not the same as the act (in whatever manner interpreted) of starting the fight that led to his death.

                    2. I am inclined though to agree in part with R C Dean insofar as starting a fight entails you to some manner of responsibility for its outcome.

                      Yeah, I am too. If Zimmerman threw the first punch, or laid hands on Martin, or ordered him to stay, or pointed a gun at him, then the whole thing is his fault and he’s committed several felonies.

                      Except we have no evidence that any of those things happened. His story matches the evidence, and the cops have had nine months to catch him in a contradiction or see if he changes his story. They have been unable to crack him or catch him lying. Now either he’s a cold blooded criminal mastermind who can lie without a trace of remorse or the whole thing went down the way he says it did.

                    3. Yeah, if Zimmerman used physical force, or the threat of physical force, then he is in the wrong and should be held accountable.

                      There’s just no evidence that he threw a punch first, or that he laid hands on Martin, or that he brandished the gun. Every single piece of evidence matches Zimmerman’s story.

                      What I think happened: a 17 year old kid was getting hassled and he popped the guy one. Guy hits back, fight ensues, the younger stronger guy gets the better of it, and now the kid is just pissed and is hitting away at the guy. Except the guy hes hitting can feel his head bouncing off the pavement, his vision might be getting dim, hes definitely in pain. So he draws and fires. One of things you notice about these kind of incidents, as opposed to gunowner shoots mugger or burglar incidents, is how quickly things get out of hand. No one expects anyone to die in the next few minutes.

                      What the whole thing illustrates to me is the importance of conflict avoidance while you are carrying a gun. I know when I carry that I don’t flip people the bird on the road, I don’t get in arguments over spots in the checkout line, and I never poke my nose around into anyone else’s conflicts. That’s what I take away from this whole mess more than anything else. It’s hard enough for the sheep to buy into the “paranoia” of protecting yourself. Anything other then a clear cut case of self defense can lead to losing your freedom, possibly the rest of your life.

      2. “Anyone still bitter clinging to the notion that Zimmerman is the bad guy here?”

        So Trayvon actually did receive the justice he so richly deserved?

    3. Eewww!!

  4. Seconds. Hand.

  5. Michael Moynihan and John Cusack in title fight to be world’s wussiest!

    1. Wow, he barely got out that “Fuck you.” I wonder how long it took him to psyche himself up to say that, though he is in the right.

      1. Has anybody watched any of that Oliver Stone dreck?

        Pravda and MSNBC reedit the ‘The Battleship Potemkin’.

        Hilariously biased and misinformed.

    2. Please don’t link to DailyBeastTV anymore (although given, I shouldn’t have clicked on it when I scrolled over).

    3. I’ll give Cusack props that, in spite of being a lefty douche (and a very fine actor), he did have the temerity to question the relevance of the emperor’s clothes before the election.

      1. I’m honestly not sure who’s more contempible, people who bitched about Obama but voted for him anyway because GIBSMEDAT, or the True Believers who make excuses for everything he does that they were screaming about just four years ago because BOOOOOOSH.

  6. The Return Of The Tax-And-Spend Democrats To D.C.
    http://news.investors.com/ibd-…..ocrats.htm

    Meanwhile, Obama’s former chief economist Larry Summers last week argued not only for a carbon tax, but a new tax on unhealthy food. “Mark my words, this one will come,” he promised. And several liberal House Democrats say the rate hikes on the “rich” are “just the beginning.” Among their ideas is to tax all investment income at regular income rates ? something even Obama hasn’t pushed . . . yet.

    The only risk to Obama is that if the public sees Democrats slathering over new ways to tax Americans, it will spoil his carefully manicured ? if completely bogus ? image of a fiscal moderate. Rather than play along, Republicans might be wise to start digging out all those old “tax and spend” ads that worked so well against Democrats in the past.

    1. How about a tax on bad economic advice?

    2. but a new tax on unhealthy food

      What the hell ever happened to “our bodies, our choice”?

      1. They now claim that they own your body and you are messing it up. So drop and give me fifty.

      2. Abortion is morally different from anything else you can do because, well, it just is. Seriously, I once got a progressive to admit explicitly that she didn’t see the point of being consistent. They really do give every indication of believing that they are exempt from the rules of logic.

      3. What the hell ever happened to “our bodies, our choice”?

        I’ve been asking this for…well, I’ve been asking it almost weekly since they got serious about passing the ACA.

        1. I remember close to 30 years ago when the anti-private property anti-smokers were proposing all the restrictions on smokers, there was a small group of people who responded, “The next thing you know, they’re going to tell us what we can and can’t eat.”

          That group was of course portrayed as crazy, but they were right.

          1. Anyone ever see that episode of Sliders where they end up in the extremely litigious universe and they need to provide proof of cholesterol level before purchasing a hamburger?

            We are almost there…

            1. Wait till poison snoopers become mandtory…

            2. People watched Sliders?

              1. That was the only episode I ever watched, and then only about 10 minutes of it. But the concept of a universe run by scumbag lawyers was hugely prophetic.

              2. I did until the original cast started sliding away.
                I gather there was a big change in writing staff too.

            3. Sliders. A show with the theme of unlimited universes and thus no possible scarcity which nevertheless had to hamhandedly throw in constant environmental themes.

        2. What the hell ever happened to “our bodies, our choice”?

          It became “Our bodies, your money.”

      4. A woman can still choose to put these unhealthy foods into her vagina, or not.

        1. As longas those foods are female. Because heterosexual vagina insertion is all patriarchal and male gazey and shit.

    3. How about a Yakuza-style tax on politicians?

      Lose a knuckle for every year they spend in office.

    4. Larry Summers last week argued not only for a carbon tax, but a new tax on unhealthy food.

      So we can all agree that to get less of something, you tax it.

      Businessmen are the rich…so… the intent of taxing the rich is to get LESS business…right?

      Can one of the lefties here please explain the logic in this? I’m sure there is some and I am a simple caveman.

      1. See, they only intend to raise money by taxing rich. So you don’t get less business by taxing the rich, you raise more money for the government, because that’s what you intended.

        1. Of course. I forgot about the Progressive Intent Law, which has the ability to suspend reality.

          Thx

      2. Logic is a Europhallologocentric, heteroplutopatriarchal construct used to oppress womyn and peoples of color.

    5. How come Larry wants to force his desperately needed diet plan on the rest of us?

  7. The military’s highest court dismissed the judge in the Ft. Hood shooting case, calling into question his impartiality.

    I wonder how much of the defense budget could be saved if the military stopped trying to prosecute political cases.

    1. Its a work place violence case, shouldn’t OSHA be prosecuting it?

      Also how is the Judge prejudiced by requiring a soldier to shave which is a requirement of all soldiers?

      1. Except that the Army has been granting religious based exemptions since 2010:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…..ommodation

        Not to mention the numerous shaving profiles.

    2. Probably not much, in the big picture, and it’s not like prosecuting someone for mass murder is all that political.

      1. There has to be some civilian political meddling from above. Put this case in front of a military jury and it will move along very quickly.

        1. Oh, no doubt that a bunch of this rigamarole is political, but I don’t think the actual need to prosecute is.

  8. The Literary Review’s Bad Sex Award is decided tonight, so it’s tweeting previous years’ nominees in the lead-up. Like this:

    She clawed at my underpants with her varnished nails until my cock sprang free, a springy mustard-pot surprise

    1. Ugh, mustard pot… If you’ve got a yellow discharge, its gonna be a hell of a surprise for her.

    2. WTF? If this is what your penis looks like, you need to stop with the sexy-times and get to a doctor.

      1. it’s not just disturbing boy-parts:

        She hadn’t shaved, and her fanny looked like a tropical fish or a bit of old carpet.

        More here

        1. I’m baffled as to how a tropical fish could be confused for a bit of old carpet.

          Maybe a pufferfish? Because it is all spiky? But old carpet is flattened out and threadbare. Of course, “tropical fish” makes you think “brightly colored”… which is also antithetical to the appearance of old carpet.

          1. Mayne it was supposed to be “a tropical fish on a piece of carpet.” Which I don’t get either.

            1. Maybe he used the wrong word and was going for ” smelled like a tropical fish or a bit of old carpet”?

              Because that makes more sense…

              and ewww?!?

            2. Pussy smells like fish. Girl pubes are often referred to as carpet. It’s metaphoric poetry. What’s not to get?

        2. They should put what work the quotes are from, but these are hilarious.

          1. Hey, who could live without this:
            “Oh, but sir, you must come to the house. Quick sir, if you please sir, the mistress sent me. There’s been a most awful shitting!”

            1. “His prick stared back at him with its one eye clouded by a single drop of pure seminal yearning”

              “she was like a plant growing over him, her little fist up his asshole planting a pearl in the most appreciate place.”

              That’s it, I’m now feeling so disgusted by sex that I’m ready to vote for Rick Santorum in 2016.

      2. Well if it’s that big around you might be ok.

        1. I was thinking the part jutting out at a sharp angle was the real issue.

          1. He didn’t say “mustard pot and dipper”. Jeez, man, give the guy some credit.

            1. Specificity is a key to good writing.

    3. Those are horrendous, but I’ve never seen a good sex scene in a book.

      1. “… *profusely* illustrated!”

  9. Will there be a private expedition to the moon?

    Ford Expedition? Get ready for Lunar Climate Change.

  10. That’s not a superstorm. This is a superstorm.

    1. Did it hit the Most Important People in the World? Huh? HUH?

      That’s what I thought.

  11. Eric Gibson: The Illegal Eagle and a Baldly Grasping IRS
    Only in the fantasy bazaar of the U.S. government’s imagination can an item that is worthless carry a multimillion-dollar price tag.

    what is this, old news week? anyways a followup:

    In the summer of 2011, the IRS sent the family an unsigned report appraising “Canyon” at $15 million. When they rejected the valuation, the government upped the ante: The appraisal was increased to $65 million, which yielded a $29.2 million tax bill. And the IRS levied a special “undervaluation penalty” of 40%, applied in cases where a party has made what the IRS deems a “gross understatement” of a property’s value. That added $11.2 million to the tab. Plus interest.

    Only in the fantasy bazaar of the U.S. government’s imagination can an item that is worthless carry a multimillion-dollar price tag.

    Ms. Sundell and Mr. Homem had another option: donate “Canyon” to a museum. But since they were declaring that it had no value, they would have to forfeit the charitable deductions that normally accrue to individuals in such cases. In the end, this is what they chose to do. “Canyon,” which had been on extended loan to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, now joins five other Rauschenberg combines at MoMA. In exchange, the government has dropped its $40 million-plus claim against Sonnabend’s estate.

    1. Only in the fantasy bazaar of the U.S. government’s imagination can an item that is worthless carry a multimillion-dollar price tag.

      Well they try to assign a value to education and tax everyone for it.

  12. Voyager 1 is on the brink of entering interstellar space.

    Pity the carbon-based units infesting Enterprise.

    1. That movie was one of the first dates my soon-to-be spouse and I went on. Memories!

      1. Your first date with your future husband was in 1979? Were one or both of you in a coma for a long time? If you touch someone, can you see the future?

        1. THere’s like, no good quotes from STTMP.

          1. “Why is any object we don’t understand always called ‘a thing’?”

            1. ‘Thang’ is too 90s.

          2. “My oath of celibacy is on record, Captain”

          3. “Now what do you suggest we do? Spank it?”

  13. It’s time to fix the charitable deduction

    What could possibly go wrong???

    The government could save even more money by converting the deduction into a tax credit, which would allow donors to claim a flat percentage of their donations. The CBO found that, if the charitable deduction were changed into a 25% credit with a floor of 2% of income, the government would cut the total subsidy by $11.9 billion a year, while donations would shrink by a mere $1 billion. A 15% credit would raise $24.6 billion, with donations falling by an estimated $10 billion, according to the CBO.

    In the long-term, the savings would be significant. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has estimated that changing the deduction to a 15% credit with a 2% floor would save the government $340 billion over the next decade, reducing the subsidy by 60%. Donations, meanwhile, would only decline by 4.9%.

    “No, fuck you, cut spending.”

    1. I like that a tax deduction on your money is now a cost to the government and that the government getting more of your money is now ‘government savings.’

      1. I like that too, if by like you mean “hate and feel like murdering the first IRS employee I see”.

    2. More social engineering via the tax code.

      We’d all be better off if we got rid of all the deductions. If I were to rank order the last ones to get rid of, I suppose the charitable deduction (narrowed, of course, to rule out deductions to religions (unconstitutional) and de facto political organizations) would be close to the top, I suppose.

      1. Wait, allowing deductions for contributions to religions is a law respecting establishment of religion? It seems to me that a non-neutral exclusion of religious contributions is much more likely to be unconstitutional.

        1. It seems to me that a non-neutral exclusion of religious contributions is much more likely to be unconstitutional.

          That’s exactly what happens. If I donated to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you better believe that I am going to get an investigation as to whether that’s a ‘bona-fide’ religious institution.

          1. Poor application of the principle doesn’t necessarily mean the principle is flawed. That it is unconstitutional to allow deductions for contributions to religious organizations, in particular, is a flawed principle.

            If the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster can get the required IRS status, the problem goes away. If it can’t, the problem is with the IRS, not with religious contributions.

            1. Right, so the only problem is that a government agency gets to define what is and isn’t a “religion.”

              1. No, the only problem is the government deciding that some should be taxed and others not.

        2. Wait, allowing deductions for contributions to religions is a law respecting establishment of religion?

          How is it not? Its an enormous bit of legal/economic favoritism based solely on religion.

          It seems to me that a non-neutral exclusion of religious contributions is much more likely to be unconstitutional.

          I wouldn’t exclude religious organizations per se. A religiously operated charity that meets the standards applicable to all charities could certainly qualify.

          The Constitutional problem is that religions get a benefit solely because they are religions. That strikes me as an establishment of religion.

      2. More social engineering via the tax code.

        All policies are social engineering of some sort, even the ones you like.

        1. Trivially true. But that’s not to say that we couldn’t get rid of a bunch of social engineering via the tax code by replacing it with something a lot simpler.

  14. Car salesmen, members of Congress, and ad men are at the bottom of the list of most trusted professions in Gallup’s latest survey.

    All far, far, below septic tank shit pumpers.

    1. …shit pumpers.

      That’s a new kink.com website right?

  15. Fuck me, it’s an enormous Russian trampoline

    1. Needs scantily clad wimminz.

      1. Needs scantily clad wimminz.

        And beer.

    2. Those photos must be faked. We can’t let Ivan gain trampoline superiority.

      1. Mr. President, we’re facing a giant trampoline GAP!

  16. Gaming the Fiscal Cliff
    Politics, profit, and pageantry
    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..williamson

    The so-called fiscal cliff is one installment in a series of manufactured crises, the purpose of which is to provide the political establishment with small problems it can solve or pretend to solve while steadfastly refusing to address the much thornier problem of the long-term non-sustainability of U.S. public finances. Watching the melodrama unfold, I sometimes think I should be reviewing it in my theater column over at The New Criterion rather than analyzing it for National Review.

  17. The Internal Revenue Service has released new rules … that passed Congress as part of the 2010 healthcare reform law.

    Released late on Friday, the new regulations include a 0.9 percent healthcare tax on wages …. The new rules leave some questions unanswered, tax experts said.

    Well, nobody claimed PPACA was a perfect law.

    1. “We have to pass it to know what’s in it.”

      GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

      1. I was trying to rage out more, but for a site called “Reason” they try to limit one’s rage to only 50 characters.

        1. They didn’t have character limits when Postrel was running the place.

          1. DRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINK!!

          2. Or third-party spam filters that censor “DRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINK!!”

          3. They didn’t have HERCULES when Postrel was running the place.

  18. Lovely feminists mock raising money for prostate cancer.

    How dare those men not put on a pink ribbon and run a 5K!

    1. I hope the girl grapes of every one of those harpies rots, putrifies, and falls out and preferably in the most painful way. With the firey singe of trichomoniasis as a palate cleanser.

      If there was ever a proper time to use the word “CUNT!”, this is it.

      1. “Though that campaign has raised millions of dollars, it does so in a self-proclaiming, patting-yourself-on-the-back kind of way.”

        Hahahaha. This is so ridiculously hypocritical given how histrionic breast cancer awareness events are.

        1. This is nice. Such a demonstrable lack of self-awareness means I can dismiss these people as non-sentient.

        2. what, you didn’t enjoy pink month in the NFL?

          1. I hate that. Hate it. Same in baseball – stupid pink bats. All posturing bullshit.

        3. I love the competition in the comments of “MY cancer is far more horrible than YOUR cancer, which isn’t even worthy of a ribbon!”

          I hope all of them die painful deaths.

      2. It’s a good thing only the blonde one is actually bangable, and that’d be with a paper bag over her head.

        But… but… one of them was on Real World in 1999!!!

    2. Slate is utterly unreadable (except for Prudence, which is good for lulz if nothing else). The rest of it is enragening.

      1. I agree. Salon, too. I used to consider Salon the “partially sane Slate” but after Greenwald left it’s pretty much exactly the same thing.

        1. Salon has been and always will be The Worst.

          1. What’s interesting is that Glenn Greenwald has emerged from the tempering fires of Salon as a voice of sanity in the Liberal wilderness. I neve thought I’d say that, but some of his articles in the last year or so have been pretty decent.

            1. I love Greenwald. He is my only reminder in a sea of stupid that it is possible to be liberal and yet logically consistent with one’s beliefs enough to call out the bullshit fom your team.

              That, and he remembers that there’s precious little point calling out people who aren’t in power.

              1. I think he learned a valuable lesson during the sockpuppetry fiasco at Salon. All of your “friends” in politics and journalism are fair weather. And, I respect the fact that he moved on from that debacle to become one of the more upstanding columnists on the web.

                1. Is there an abridged version of this “fiasco”? I never heard of it.

                  1. http://ace.mu.nu/archives/187585.php

                    Here you go. It’s a synopsis that also has links to articles about the situation.

                  2. Very abridged: it’s pretty clear Glenwald was commenting as multiple sockpuppets on his own articles for a time until someone figured it out.

                    Writing style is amazing: I outed Dave W over at the Agitator based on recognizing his style. It’s like a fingerprint.

              2. I love Greenwald. He is my only reminder in a sea of stupid that it is possible to be liberal and yet logically consistent with one’s beliefs enough to call out the bullshit fom your team.

                Honestly, it’s really Greenwald and not Maddow, Special Ed, or any of the other Obama-fellators at MSNBC that should have their own show, for this very reason.

          2. Every time I read either of Shite or Saloon, I feel unclean.

        2. Greenwald left Salon? When did that happen and where did he go?

      2. I kind of like Jon Katz’ articles about his Bedlam Farm. I hate giving those guys the hits, but I’m a sucker for good domesticated animal stories.

    3. Still no takers on my brown ribbon for colorectal cancer month… What am I doing wrong?

      1. it’s not the idea but how you’re making the ribbon brown that’s the problem

        1. There’s another way?

          1. yes. You won’t find it as pleasurable, but it will be less of a biohazard

    4. (Because one cannot simply donate to groups like the American Cancer Society?a stunt must be involved.)

      Yeah, like convincing the NFL to wear that stupid pink gear for a month.

  19. Robert Samuelson: Who’s not bargaining in good faith?
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    Supporting retirees is now the federal government’s main activity. There’s a huge redistribution from young to old ? a redistribution that will be made worse if retiree programs are largely excluded from deficit reduction, as many liberal groups urge. Either taxes will rise steeply or other federal programs (defense, food stamps, environmental protection) will be cut sharply. The young will pay more and get less. Or, given these unpalatable choices, true deficit reduction won’t happen.

    Doubters should ponder the numbers. In fiscal 2012, non-interest federal spending totaled $3.251 trillion. Of that, $762 billion went for Social Security, $469 billion for Medicare (insurance for the 65 and over population) and $251 billion for Medicaid (insurance for the poor ? two-thirds goes for long-term care for the aged and disabled). Altogether, that’s 46 percent of non-interest spending. Defense, $651 billion and declining, was 20 percent.

    1. That is why the GOP is fucked. The 46% of federal spending mentioned above goes to their base – the elderly.

      The “free stuff” otherwise is a small fraction of spending.

      1. a redistribution that will be made worse if retiree programs are largely excluded from deficit reduction, as many liberal groups urge.

        I didn’t know that the GOP was full of liberals now.

        1. Its ironic that Democrats are more protective of SS/Medicare. My parents are convinced Obama wants to shred their benefits (including Tricare). They also believe the death panel nonsense.

          1. My parents are convinced Obama wants to shred their benefits (including Tricare).

            Well that explains a lot.

            1. I am disappointed in this revelation. I was hoping that Shriek’s contempt for Team Red was based on something more interesting like being raped by a Congresscritter. But it is all just typical boring angsty crap about rebelling against mom and pop.

              1. hey Banjos, please accept my belated congratulations on the birth of Reason [sponsor’s name]

              2. Hon, let me mansplain it to you.

                Tricare means military dependent. My guess is Shriek is the son of a harsh navy guy – and his personality was molded by unstinting usage of both sodomy and the lash.

                1. And copious applications of rum to his broodmare during gestation.

                2. Ooh, I wonder when he started using meth to cope.

              3. I was hoping that Shriek’s contempt for Team Red was based on something more interesting like being raped by a Congresscritter.

                Somehow, though, that act turned Diane Rehm into a power-fellating big government lefty.

          2. hardly ironic considering the cradle to grave mentality of modern liberalism leftism progressivism. Where there are handouts, there is control… and votes to be won.

      2. then why don’t the Dems do something about it? Please tell me why, oh enlightened one.

        from the same article:

        Democrats have made Social Security into government’s largest “earmark,” supposedly unrelated to deficits and the nation’s budget problems. Social Security should be excluded from any deficit negotiation, because it “does not add one penny to our debt,” as Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois said last week. Aside from being technically wrong (Social Security contributes to deficits), this view is philosophically bankrupt.

        1. Whip Dick

          Nice band name.

          1. I should hope the members of the band (ha!) would be smarter than Durbin. That guy is dumb as a block of wood – but he will do anything, anything the Party demands and he is safe in the State that will send an insane, corrupt and AWOL Jackson kid to Congress with a thundering mandate – just before he resigns and pleas bargains out.

          2. Whip Dick

            Nice band name.

            Or insult.

        2. Social Security should be excluded from any deficit negotiation, because it “does not add one penny to our debt,” as Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois said last week. Aside from being technically wrong (Social Security contributes to deficits), this view is philosophically bankrupt.

          Considering that SS had a deficit last year, and the government has to sell bonds to make up the difference, it most assuredly is adding to the debt right now.

      3. And military spending is, what, four percent of GDP? That would be a “small fraction”, no?

      4. The “free stuff” otherwise is a small fraction of spending.

        $450 billion a year is hardly a “small fraction.”

    2. Forget class warfare. Watch what happens when the young realize exactly what they’ve been saddled with.

      (provided they are smart enough to realize why it happened… Always iffy.)

  20. The court tossed his order to have Nidal Hassan’s beard forcibly removed.

    Maj. Hasan thought to himself, “I want to grow a beard in tradition of my faith but grooming standards won’t permit it. I wish there was a way I could do it without having to resign my commission.”

    1. The ultimate gaming of the system?

    2. Genius! And he was correct about not really having to face much of a legal challenge….so far.

    3. Anyone who actually believes anything going on in these so-called “proceedings” is genuine would probably believe just about anything.

      This thing is one of the greatest farcical acts most of us will see in our lifetime. No doubt there are years of amusing entertainment still to come.

      1. Anyone who actually believes anything going on in these so-called “proceedings” is genuine would probably believe just about anything.

        Huh?

        1. This is all a bunch of stage theater for the media and the idiot masses. Hasan is never getting put on trial. Did that clear it up at all?

  21. and the anti-social basement dwellers rejoiced:

    Happy 20th B-Day, Text Message
    http://news.yahoo.com/happy-20…..-tech.html

    It was 20 years ago today that the first text message was sent. It was Dec. 3, 1992, and Neil Papworth, an engineer working in the UK, sent the world’s first short message service or SMS. It read “Merry Christmas.”

    1. Duckie was “The Predatory Bestie?

      Does it ever occur to these cunts that the Duckies of the world actually have feelings for them and aren’t JUST trying to get in their pants. (Of, course they are trying to get in their pants, but that doesn’t mean they don’t legitimately care for them.)

      1. Oops obviously hit the wrong reply.

        1. Highly entertaining follow up to the text of Merry Christmas though. Well done sir!

  22. Hate, hate, hate: The difference between a nice guy and and a Nice Guy is all in how attractive they are.

    And the countdown timer starts on an article about how they can’t find any guy to date…

    1. Not enough cringing betas around?

      1. Apparently the perfect guy is both humble and assertive.

        1. You know, one of the things I value most in my relationship with my husband is his willingness to tell me when I am full of shit. I honestly do not get these women who want men who cater to them.

          1. Hell’s Librarian is right on here. Of course, at one time I did not think I wanted someone to tell me when I was full of shit. Because I was a child.

            1. Sloopy calling me out on my bullshit is when I find him most attractive. Well that and his rants, his sexy, sexy rants.

              1. It took me a while to learn that women actually love to be told when they’re wrong. It’s the weirdest thing ever.

                But I love it.

                1. I tell women they are wrong all the time, it doesnt work for me.

                  Maybe I shouldnt start with “Listen you fucking cunt…”?

                  *Note to the humor impaired, I have never said that.

                2. Some women do not like to be told they are wrong. Those women should be steered clear of.

                  Same goes with men.

        2. Sounds like her perfect guy is one who doesn’t want to fuck her.

        3. “Apparently the perfect guy is both humble and assertive”

          Would it be too much trouble, sir, were I to kick your ass bloody?

    2. Maybe they’ll just write more porn about doing crossword puzzles with Rachel Maddow. No matter how many men run screaming in the other direction the moment you enter the room, Rachel Maddow will always be there for you.

    3. The Aspirational Fuck Buddy

      This is a feminist urban myth. NO dude, anywhere, no matter how cringy, is ever going to complain about not having to pretend to care to get laid. Never, ever, ever.

      1. But, but… they saw it in a movie. It has to be true.

        Of course, their hate for (500) Days of Summer is legendary.

        1. Wait…they hate 500 Days of Summer? Why would they hate 500 Days of Summer? Because the guy is too clingy? I sort of thought we were supposed to see that as a bad thing.

          1. Their hate is two-fold: They hate Zooey Deschanel because she is a Manic Pixie Dream Girl–their term that means little more than “the kind of girl we hate, right feminists?” at this point. And they hate the main character because he gets upset and shows emotions–something they say they want men to do, but always seem to recoil from when it occurs.

            There is also a flaw in their interpretation of Tom in that they didn’t watch the movie very closely or–more likely–ignored the part they found inconvenient… Summer told him she didn’t want to be his girlfriend, that she was ready for commitment, yet just a few months after they broke up, she’s engaged. So she was a liar. She lied to him the entire time. She knew he wanted more and she used him until she was satisfied. She did want to get married, just not to him. Which is a situation I’m sure most of them are familiar with and you’d expect them to have more sympathy for poor Tom–you know–that sweet sensitive guy they all say they want and then shit all over.

            1. Modern feminists really are just rage filled vessels of hate aren’t they? They try to wrap it in some sort of pseudo-ideology, but it’s all about being mad at the world that shunned you.

            2. No, no, no. See. This is what guys get wrong. You can’t just listen to a woman’s words. She was communicating with her pupil dilation, breathing, head tilt, and hand position that she really did want more. He was just too insensitive to get it!

              1. You can’t just listen to a woman’s words. She was communicating with her pupil dilation, breathing, head tilt, and hand position that she really did want more.

                Here’s a pro tip for the younger dudes here:

                Ignore everything a woman may say (or not say), signal (or not signal) or hint (or not hint) about how she wants you to be. Just be a fucking man; be a stand-up guy and the rest sorts itself out.

                DO NOT become the pale caricature that she has mapped out in her head. That’s her GBF, with whom she could never consummate her affection, beyond shoe shopping.

                1. Ignore everything a woman may say (or not say), signal (or not signal) or hint (or not hint) about how she wants you to be. Just be a fucking man; be a stand-up guy and the rest sorts itself out.

                  Amen brother. Unfortunately, it took me living through the Summer/Paul relationship to figure that out.

                  Still a little pissed about not receiving any royalties.

                2. JW nails it.

                3. Ignore everything a woman may say (or not say), signal (or not signal) or hint (or not hint) about how she wants you to be. Just be a fucking man; be a stand-up guy and the rest sorts itself out.

                  It’s more than that — be yourself, and if she doesn’t like that, she is the wrong person for you.

                  This isn’t to say that you shouldn’t listen to her and take constructive advice on stuff like showering more often if that’s a problem, but if, for example, you’re an introvert and she really wants an extrovert, it’s not gonna work. Cut your losses and find someone who digs you as is.

            3. I thought “Manic Pixie Dream Girl” meant “we think she’s cool too, but she’s so much cooler than us (or anyone real, and we cannot accept that).”

            4. Summer told him she didn’t want to be his girlfriend, that she was ready for commitment, yet just a few months after they broke up, she’s engaged. So she was a liar. She lied to him the entire time. She knew he wanted more and she used him until she was satisfied. She did want to get married, just not to him. Which is a situation I’m sure most of them are familiar with

              What, no girl would ever do that! I’m sure if that was the case, I’d have run into at some point.. Oh wait, I have (though not “get married”).

    4. Honestly, this is the worst edited article I’ve ever seen on a site that didn’t involve conspiracy theories about lizard people.

      When you were together, he was a butthole factory. A factory that makes only buttholes. Thanks for femsplaining the joke. Its still not funny.

    5. You’re losing sight of what’s important here. It’s right in the lede!

      The good news is: feminism happened, so men don’t get to just run around slapping our asses with impunity anymore.

      1. they do in Quebec. driving from Quebec City to Montreal a few years ago I stopped at a gas station. this old guy grabbed every woman’s ass in the little store. and nobody seemed to care.

      2. When I was about 5 (so about 1967) my parents and I (and my brothers and sister) got on an airplane in Greece, and as we were boarding the pilot pinched my mother’s ass. She hauled off and slugged him with her purse. My dad pulled her past him, but we didn’t get kicked off the plane for whatever reason.

        Anyway, your comment made me think of that.

      3. My wife tells me I have no comment.

        1. Probably the safest path to take, right?

        2. Somebody married SugarFree?

          1. I’ve been with my wife for 20 years. Poor thing.

            1. Time with her desiccated corpse doesn’t count, Sug.

              1. If she was dead I’d be out getting tons of widower ‘tang, not hanging around here with you goons.

      4. True story: I was watching Grey’s Anatomy with my girlfriend last night (really I was playing Angry Birds: Star Wars and she was watching) and this guy came in who would always grab at the women’s boobs or butt. Turned out he had some kind of frontal lobe tumor that reduced his hand movements to a primitive grasping form. I think I’ll start telling people I have that…

        1. Watching Grey’s Anatomy is an instant deal breaker here.

          1. i’m sure generic brand is heartbroken by your rejection

              1. oooh i like the blue fox stroller because it’s both girly-glam and pimptastic.

                I already have a Russian fur hat, weirdly – it was on sale in the gift shop of an exhibition of Russian imperial art. I bought it, popped it on, went outside, and nearly died of heatstroke in five minutes because this was Perth in springtime. But I didn’t care!

                1. The wife has one made of seal fur. Couldn’t find one made from baby seal fur. I love that woman!

                  1. The wife has one made of seal fur.

                    WHAT!?!?!?!? NOT CALADONIAN WHALE FUR?

                    You. Are. Dead. To. Me. FdA.

                2. oooh i like the blue fox stroller because it’s both girly-glam and pimptastic.

                  Your wish is my command. -D

      5. Clearly she’s never been to Italy.

    6. The article and the comments suggest that they’re actively trying to be self-unaware. I like the post by some guy who explains how he got branded a “Nice Guy” for not being a doormat who gets tons of womansplaining responses telling him what he does wrong in life and how it’s his fault the girl didn’t like him.

    7. And then I went and read past the lede…

      Calling you “turkey legs” because your thighs touch at the top, unlike his last girlfriend.

      Um…

      Also, way to make My Fair Lady all about mansplaining. WTF? WTF?

      1. Calling you “turkey legs” because your thighs touch at the top, unlike his last girlfriend.

        This comes up a lot on Jezebel.

        1. Wow I have been missing out. Is it always “turkey legs”? Do guys really seriously complain about this?

          (This is also one of the things that’s super popular as thinspo–pictures of girls whose thighs don’t touch. Interessant.)

          1. Not always “turkey legs,” but the thigh-touching comes up a lot. As well as horror stories about “chub rub,” in which dozens of them them chime in on the comments about having a bad case of it all the time.

            1. Wow, it really is like looking into a mirror and seeing only the worst, craziest parts of yourself reflected…

              Also, fuck this comment:

              My best friend is dealing with a Nice Guy at work right now. Driving her NUTS. He’s constantly saying they should get drinks, he wants to take her out for dinner, he’ll come help her do (x), he’ll help her plan my bridal shower, etc. etc. She has never accepted ANY of these offers, they have never seen each other outside of work, and yet when she straight up told him that she wasn’t interested in seeing him, he got all offended and said “I’m just being a Nice Guy!”

              First response:

              Has she tried saying , “I’m sorry but I can’t make time to hang out with you outside of work?” I’m not victim-blaming, but I personally found it was a huge relief when I just learned to say, “Thanks for the invite, but I’m not interested.” instead of what I had sort of been trained to say over the years to “not be rude”, which were things like, “Oh, I’d love to but I’m just too busy right now!” or “That sounds really fun but I can’t. Maybe another time?” I love saying no to people (politely but firmly) now that I’ve realised I can.

              Omigod, learning how to say no?!?!?

              1. when she straight up told him that she wasn’t interested in seeing him, he got all offended and said “I’m just being a Nice Guy!”

                Holy fuck. The unrelenting narcissism is strong in this one. He was being NICE, you know, helpful, not trying to fuck you, at least not outright.

                Either that or she concocted this bullshit response out the whole cloth.

              2. Omigod, learning how to say no?!?!?

                I went through a period in my late 20’s where women I knew would enthusiastically agree to going out and then vanish into thin air.

                1. I’m in my late 20s and this happens from time to time. It’s weird, because if they just said no, I’d say “oh, ok.” and leave it at that, but by agreeing, they get my hopes up and I end up realizing what’s really going on about the time I send a text saying “how come you ignored the last two texts?”. Which is kinda embarrassing.

                  1. Weird that two people say this happens/ed to them, at the same age. And frankly, an age where women should be a little more grown-up about such things. I mean, if you can’t say no to a date, how are you going to say no to…well, god forbid I should do any “victim-blaming.”

                  2. Atan, my two cents to you is ignore all of them, lead-on the ones who seem intereted, and don’t get serious until your mid 30’s. Unless, of course, you meet a libertarian female that likes to go to the sporting event of your favorite team, and/or likes to hunt/fish.

                2. Could be worse. A buddy of mine was in a bar, walking past a couple when the girl caught his arm and pretended to know him. She intro’d him to her date and after a little conversation whispered in his ear to take her to the men’s room.

                  Turns out she was on a first date with a guy from work who she found boring and her way out of it was to give herself to some random guy right there in front of the co-worker/date.

                  Tokyo can be a strange place.

              3. yet when she straight up told him that she wasn’t interested in seeing him

                stuffthatneverhappened.txt

          2. Do guys really seriously complain about this?

            No.

        2. I’m pretty sure at Jezebel their legs don’t just touch at the top. Whenever I read an article there, I get the feeling it was written by a girl whose legs touch from the thigh all the way down to the floor.

    8. The lack of self awareness and disconnect areipainful.

      “I want a man to love me for who I am, but he has to bend to my ideals to get more than a passing look”

    9. Duckie was “The Predatory Bestie?

      Does it ever occur to these cunts that the Duckies of the world actually have feelings for them and aren’t JUST trying to get in their pants? (Of, course they are trying to get in their pants, but that doesn’t mean they don’t legitimately care for them.)

    10. Good Christ they are fucking repetitive….buy a fucking vibrator and get on with your lesbian aspirations.

  23. Framing the Issue.

    A majority of Americans say that if the country goes over the fiscal cliff on Dec. 31, congressional Republicans should bear the brunt of the blame, according to a new Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll, the latest sign that the GOP faces a perilous path on the issue between now and the end of the year.

    Nothing says Serious Journalism? like framing the issue in exactly the manner you’d like the outcome to unfold, weeks before we get there.

    1. This fact makes me want to Hulk out. We are a nation of retard children.

      1. “Spin” used to be an ironic joke. I once thought people would get too smart for it, but it has become so ingrained in our public discourse that people have become inured to it.

      2. Who is this “we” you speak of?

        We (the reason.com/libertarian crowd/etc.) are surrounded by a nation of retard children.

        FIFY

        1. I disagree completely. Perhaps if you said it again.

        2. This past election has finally forced me to abandon the concept that “people are good, deep down.”

          No, no they’re not. They’re selfish, self-absorbed fucks who don’t care who they take down with them, as long as they get their free shit.

      3. Who is this “we” you speak of?

        We (the reason.com/libertarian crowd/etc.) are surrounded by a nation of retard children.

        FIFY

        1. &*^%^&^% #$%$^#%$ Squirrels.

    2. A majority of Americans say that if the country goes over the fiscal cliff on Dec. 31, congressional Republicans should bear the brunt of the blame

      Of course, a majority of Americans also think this administration is doing a good enough job to give him another four years…

  24. Hey Brett L, if you’re out there, thanks for the Redskins win last night. I really appreciate it.

    1. You’re welcome. I am now 1-11 in picking NYG games. I’m picking Eli again next week, too. If he wants to fuck me out of winning the pick’em, I’ll fuck him out of the playoffs.

      1. I haven’t the foggiest idea how they lost that game last night, but Hail to the Redskins, baby.

      2. Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, dude, you would do better flipping a coin.

        1. That’s why I started taking it personally.

        2. I’ll laugh my ass off if he does that and still gets them all wrong. Probability is a funny beast.

          1. I’ve already moved on to plan b… I take NYG to win and don’t feel as bad when they lose.

            I started to do this and got my only win of the season on try 2. Then I thought, “there’s no fucking way they beat the Packers.”

            So yeah. Either Eli and I win together or we lose together.

            1. I approve this strategy.

              Also, that Cowboys/Redskins game week 17 could be really interesting.

        3. And he’s doing really really well in all other games. Way better than a coin.

      3. Where the fuck were you during the Super Bowl Brett goddammit.

        1. Going to Texans this week? I’ve got a group of 8 for this one. Thinking of making some ribs and turkey chili (for my Indian friend).

          1. I’m Indian (well of Indian descent, dot not feather) and tend to go for beef while tailgating.

            Not sure about Texans – I sold 2 tickets and kept 2, but I am leaning against it as I have Stuff To Do earlier that evening. Niners, on the other hand… that one is tempting. I had put the tix up for sale at work but no takers, so I’m reconsidering.

            1. I talked to him specifically to make sure it was okay, and he said go with turkey.

              Skipping the Texans? It’s a #1 vs #2 seed matchup!

              Right now I’ve got 3 tickets to the 49ers, but they’re all separate. I’m trying to get rid of one because it’s proving to be harder than I thought to get people to go if they can’t sit with me.

              1. Yeah, I know. It should be an awesome game. Sunday at 1 and I’m solid, MNF in December – I’m getting too old for this 🙂 But I’m wavering.

                1. Do it! I’ll let you have some tailgate beef.

    1. Terrible news! Having sex with strangers puts you at risk for STDs!

      1. You’re just slut shaming!

  25. Why is The Hobbit making some moviegoers sick?
    http://theweek.com/article/ind…..goers-sick

    When you watch a film, explains Adrian Bejan, a professor of mechanical engineering at Duke University, your eye combines “long and fast horizontal sweeps with short and slower vertical movements to process the picture.” But this faster camera speed “requires the eye to sweep up and down faster than usual in close-ups to absorb unparalleled detail on a big screen,” causing a significant amount of cognitive and eye strain. This technique “works for the big snowy mountains, but in close-ups the picture strobes,” said one moviegoer. “I left loving the movie but feeling sick.” Another audience member was more blunt: “My eyes cannot take everything in, it’s dizzying,” he said. “Now I have a migraine.”

    1. THree words: Dragon Barf Bags

      1. What, are they asbestos lined?

    2. Pansies. When I saw Cloverfield, the guy in front of me got motion sickness and barfed all over the floor. My wife got sick too, but managed hold down her lunch.

      1. Was it like one of those situations common amongst small children, where one barfs, and then the barf makes someone else sick so he barfs, and then it’s like a barf chain reaction? (Have seen this in action in a pre-school, OMG what a nighmare)

        1. +Lardass Barf-o-Rama

          Also, Barfman approves.

          1. Haha. I guess this scenario probably isn’t that uncommon in hospitals either.

            I had a c-section, and whatever they gave me for pain killer made me ralph repeatedly (because barfing every five minutes is just what you want after major surgery), and the nurse went “OH MY GOD!!” and ran out of the room. I would have laughed, except, you know, barfing.

            1. Nope. In the Path lab, the secret to dealing with the more “peculiar” odours is to rub Vicks Vapo-Rub under the lip or in your mask. Filters out the most unpleasant of scents.

              I have a really strong constitution, so very few smells really bother me.

              Yeah, yakking after a C-Sec is not a good idea. I hope you were given an anti-emetic stat. Better yet, a good old-fashioned doobie would have done the trick. I bet she was a brand new nurse fresh outta school.

              1. rub Vicks Vapo-Rub under the lip or in your mask

                Good old Silence of the Lambs. I recall the characters rubbing menthol under their noses with one of the corpses being unearthed.

        2. I am a serial-barfer. Have been since I was a child. There are literally dozens of us!

          1. Is that like sneezing three times in a row really quick so everyone gets annoyed about having to wait to say “god bless you”? Or more like morning sickness?

            1. No, they will get only one “God bless you” after the initial sneeze and they will like it!

              1. the first is a “God bless you” and the next one gets a “YOU’RE RUINING EVERYTHING”

            2. No, I barf when I see (and sometimes just hear) someone else barfing. It’s gotten better as I’ve gotten older, I can usually stop myself. But when I was a kid it was immediate, like HL’s scenario. We’d be in class and a kid would throw up, then I’d throw up. We even had another kid in 3rd grade (that was in the 70s, when everyone came to school sick as hell) for a while, so: Barf… Barf… BARF!

              The only upside is that I’m the boot and rally sort.

              1. Oh yeah, I’m pretty much the same way. Also with the rally. I’ve known people who are like “I haven’t thrown up in 10 years!” and I’m like…so what? I get motion sickness all the time, and throwing up can be a big relief.

              2. “How would you like a NICE PORK SANDWICH SERVED IN DIRTY ASHTRAY?!”

                (hoo-wulp)

                1. Groovus darling, like I was saying yesterday, I threw up almost everyday of my pregnancy. Before my gestating days, I would only puke when tequila was involved. My non educated based theory as to why my nausea lasted well past typical first trimester morning sickness was due to my petite frame and having my organs crushed. Does that sound right or do you think there is something else that could have caused it?

                  1. So, uh, Banjos, now that you are a mom…how long before your libertarian instincts wear off? I mean, we still love you and all, but we know what’s coming.

                    Or maybe I should be asking Groovus…

                    1. One is capable of raising chilluns without turning into an overprotective totalitarian cunt. My biggest frustration with parenting sloopy’s kids is dealing with the state and trying to undue any damage that has already been done to them. Sloop’s wonderful 14 year old daughter is more than capable of driving and wants to work and instead of being able to expose her to such awesome freedoms, we have to wait until she is 16. Until then we let her drive on our farm and pay her do work on the farm. We expose them to a lot of adult content, honestly answer any questions they have and try to give them as much freedom and responsibility they want. Unfortunately their mother has done a lot of damage in scaring the crap out of them about the outside world and strictly locks them inside as much as possible. We try hard to push them to get out and be independent when they are with us.

                    2. One is capable of raising chilluns without turning into an overprotective totalitarian cunt.

                      I knew you were still safe when you started posting about people “using meth to cope” less than two days after the birth 😉

                  2. My non educated based theory as to why my nausea lasted well past typical first trimester morning sickness was due to my petite frame and having my organs crushed. Does that sound right or do you think there is something else that could have caused it?

                    Nausea is generally attributed to the swirling cauldron of hormones you become whence pregnant. However, it is true that the smaller the frame, the more frequent the bouts of pukiness.

                    Since the stomach in particular and the accompanying nerves are overstimulated by the girth of the baby(or babies, as Princess Kate is suspected of having twins D/T her hyperemesis gravidarum, most common with women carrying multiple babies), your theory has more than a grain of validity. -D

                    Incidentally, this is precisely the reason why thalidomide was developed, and was an excellent anti-emetic for pregnant women, until it was found it caused “flipper babies.”

                    Also, congratulations Banjos. Do keep us posted on the Wee One. I would like know how and when the omphalocele is resolved.

          2. Don’t they call your kind “bulimic”? NOW I UNDERSTAND HOW YOU MANSPLAIN EVERYTHING!

          3. the superb six-pack and heavily eroded molars were a clue

          4. I wonder if serial barfing is a vestigial instinctive defense mechanism developed to protect people from ingesting food that’s gone over or toxic. One barfs, the rest who’ve been eating from the communal kill barf too just to be sure.

        3. I’ve seen it on a C-130 packed full of paratroopers. That wasn’t pretty.

          1. I love when somebody has to pull in to that defecation station.

      2. When director Paul Mazursky was a TCM Guest Programmer, one of the movies he selected was King Kong (the 1933 version). He explained to Robert Osborne that he first saw it with a friend when they were both around 10 years old, and one of the scenes made his friend throw up all over the floor. Mazursky said that it was then that he realized he wanted to become a filmmaker and make people throw up like his friend did.

    3. Because they have to go back two more times to finish watching it?

  26. Republicans might be wise to start digging out all those old “tax and spend” ads that worked so well against Democrats in the past.

    Because the Republicans’ “Borrow and Spend” philosophy is such a superior alternative.

    Stones, glass houses, et c.

    1. Hence I am in favor of the “no, fuck you, cut spending” approach.

  27. Private lunar expedition? Better not be US based. The regulations!

    1. “Space OSHA says you need artificial gravity, deflector shields and a twenty minute break every four hours.”

  28. Psychiatrists just barely edge Chiropractors, while getting creamed by Clergy and college professors. Real Doctors are tied with Engineers.
    Nurses come in at over twice as trusted as Psychiatrists.

    Tell me how mental illness is just like any other illness again?

    1. Everyone knows that science is only valid if its practitioners win popularity contests.

      1. Medicine, not science.
        Psychiatrists are essentially tied with chiropractors.

        1. The point is the same.

        2. Chiropractic is neither medicine nor science.

          1. Old chiropractic, yes. New chiropractic is really just amped-up medical massage.

            1. “Honey, honey… calm down… it was a medical massage.”

            2. It seems you’ve said the same thing twice. (Randian)

              1. Yes and no. Therapeutic massage can be medicinal in nature, in the broad us of medicine as “The science or practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease”

                1. Depends on which definitions one chooses, I guess. Most definitions of “medicine” specify “the science of” or “the science and art of” either of which leave chiropractic by the wayside. “Medical” massage too, for that matter. Both of course are intensive and reliant on the “art”. And both feel pretty good, FTM.

          2. Which is why it’s on par with psychiatry.

            1. Chiropractic is at least totally voluntary. Excepting I can’t get an insurance plan that won’t pay for it.

    2. Tell me how mental illness is just like any other illness again?

      Because people see crazy people on the street all the time and they can tell that they are crazy!

  29. Apparently completely fudging the numbers and specific government programs affected only merits “1 Pinocchio” because “fuck you, that’s why!”

    1. The link has Geithner’s name in it. As I mentioned yesterday, every time his name is mentioned, the first thing to say should be to remind everybody that he was a tax cheat.

      1. I find referring to him as Turbo-Tax Timmy usually does the trick. People either get the joke or ask.

  30. Hear the new propaganda, same as the old propaganda.

    This administration is so lazy that it can’t even come up with its own original material. Of course, it sure helps a lot when 90% of the media has their lips around your cock.

    Get ready for our next great little war everyone, because it’s right around the corner!

    1. And the nominees are:

      1. Syrian intervention 2013.
      2. Syrian Peacekeeping force.
      3. Syrian Surge 2014.
      4. Retreat from Syria 2015.

      1. Pfff, short wars are so gauche now. The war need to go for at least 8 years to be cool anymore.

    2. Obama warned Syrian President Bashar Assad Monday that the use of chemical weapons by the regime would be “totally unacceptable.”

      He then added, “Please just continue using cluster bombs, the way God, uh, Allah, intended.”

    3. Those are balls!

    4. I guess we’re concerned after Saddam Hussein moved his WMDs from Iraq to Syria after tha Coalition’s 2003 Easter Egg Hunt.

      1. That couldn’t have happened. The Obamatrons told me that Bush was a lying liar who lies.

      2. So when we invade Syria…

        It will obviously be ‘BUSH’s FAULT’

      3. Mythical WMDs, the war excuse that keeps on giving.

    5. The support Obama gives to Islamist terrorists against a secular government makes the ‘Obama is a sekrit muslim’ theory almost seem plausible.

  31. Not stealing is costing federal “workers.”

    In a Monday letter outlining the plan to President Obama, House GOP leaders, led by Speaker John A. Boehner (Ohio), did not detail how their plan would affect the federal workforce, but they did say it would include “hundreds of billions in savings in other mandatory spending, including reforms to Federal employee compensation”[.]

    The resolution’s estimated cost to workers is $368 billion over 10 years.

    Federal employee leaders have denounced the GOP budget document, which “freezes federal pay through 2015,” […] and calls for federal employees to make an unspecified “more equitable contribution to their retirement plans.” It also calls for reducing the workforce by 10 percent through attrition by 2015.

    “It is well past time for the House leadership to put forward a plan based on shared sacrifice,” she added, “and not to call on federal employees for even greater contributions.”

    Although a current freeze on basic federal pay […] [is] already costing federal workers $103 billion over 10 years, the Republican budget says they are “immune from the effects of the recession.”

    Stealing less is “sacrifice”, not stealing is a “contribution” from the parasite class.

    I fucking hate liberals.

    1. I hope it does “cost” the assholes. God/Satan/Spaghetti Monster willing, these “workers” will be stocking shelves, picking fruit, and/or handing out discount blow jobs behind the Shoney’s in order to get by.

    2. Ah, yes, the old trope that government workers are entitled to increases, so that not getting an increase is taking from them.

      We’re doomed, folks. Your working assumption should be trillion dollar deficits until there is a collapse. Feel free to speculate on what the collapse will look like, when it will happen, etc., but your planning should be focussed on “How do I survive and profit from the fiscal collapse of the US government?”. Because there will be huge profits to be made, and we might as well make them.

      1. I’m already building a Thunderdome in my back yard.

      2. Survive? Ammo. And lots of it.

        Profit? The ability to make ammo. And lots of it.

      3. Ammo, canned foods, seeds

      4. Personally, I doubt that the collapse will take us all the way back to a Hobbesian state of nature, so there may be other options besides ammo and seeds.

        1. I’ll just wave at you from here, RC. -)) At least UKR is getting their fundamental government restructuring out of the way now.

      5. As a federal worker (Dept of the Army), I am all for pay freezes and changes to benefit structure. I’d like to see them pay a flat amount towards insurances. So a single person, like myself, gets X amount to spend on health, dental, and eye insurance. If I choose plans that are more costly, then I incur those costs. If I choose more thrifty plans, then allowed that savings to go into a HSA.

        Increase my pension contribution. I don’t care, but I doubt I’ll get much of it anyway. Change from High-3 to High-5 for workers with more than 10 years to retirement.

        I don’t think attrition will solve all the problems. Some agencies have a bigger need for staffing than others. Merge redundant agencies and slash the unnecessary positions.

        Some agencies are necessary, but the government doing it is not necessary. Let those agencies be privatized and have little to no federal oversight.

  32. calls for federal employees to make an unspecified “more equitable contribution to their retirement plans.”

    Why should they do that? It’s all funny money, anyway.

  33. oh yes – another vacuum tube project. This time I’m restoring a mid-1950s Heathkit W-2 “Williamson” amplifier.
    http://6streetbridge.blogspot……ifier.html

    1. Sort of related…

      Lord, can you tell me why my Peavey Valve King sucks so much? Goddamn thing refuses to work with new tubes.

      1. because it’s a Peavey?

        seriously – is the tone rotten or low volume or no sound at all?

        1. It just makes screeching explosive garbled noise. You know, like nails on a chalkboard coupled with the screams of Billions being incinerated on Alderaan.

          1. Perfect, then?

          2. ah, it’s oscillating away. Try swapping tubes around, or try another batch. Personally I detest recent production tubes, but use them for more *ahem* budget applications.

    2. Also related.

      Is the best way to get surround sound with a tube amp to get 5 dedicated mono blocks, one to each channel?

      What’s the best way to normalize the volume so that all of the channels match?

      1. it’s kind of a waste of tubes, but sure. Since I’m not really into surround, I would probably just go with solid-state from Parasound or some other really good company.

        I like volume pots on my amps so I can adjust the gain so it is suitable for the speaker.

      2. Surround Tubes is more of an intellectual exercise for me.

        I have a pretty nice analog setup that I enjoy very much. Just upgraded tubes too.

  34. If you know you can get a better deal somewhere else, there is no face to save.

    there is if he can beat the other guys deal, but he can’t beat the deal you claimed you could get.

    I’m sure you don’t lie to car salesmen, but many people do.

    1. Then they should have a matching policy that requires the buyer to prove his claim via print/internet ad/something. That’s how I get reduced prices at Guitar Center, and I know those poor bastards are working for commission. This shit ain’t rocket science and if the car salesmen think it is, they deserve to go the way of Whale Oil producers.

  35. Car salesmen, members of Congress, and ad men are at the bottom of the list of most trusted professions in Gallup’s latest survey.

    I’d put job recruiters down there, too. Holy fuck, are those people despicable.

    1. I fucking hate them too. I recently updated my Monster resume, and the usual spate of recruitment emails came in. To me, it’s just one step up from out-and-out spam, especially when they say “You’d be great for this job”, for which I meet none of the requirements.

      1. That actually happened to me a few years ago–I was applying for IT-type work with Dish, and the job they called me in to interview for turned out to be a marketing position. I flat-out told the interviewers, “I don’t think I’m the person you’re looking for.”

  36. There are a couple ways to read this. First, we trust people we have no choice but to trust. Nurses and doctors and engineers and professors and priests and psychologists aren’t merely professionals, they’re experts in fields where expertise comes at a high price. Most of those jobs require significant post-secondary education in something the average person doesn’t know much about.

    So how does this explain lawyers being near the bottom of the list?

    1. I think what they mean is that they’re not merely professionals, but cartel members, for the most part. Somehow people seem to see through that for lawyers and no one else. It’s one of life’s great mysteries.

    2. First, we trust people we have no choice but to trust.

      I suppose this works on a collective level, but on an individual level, there’s no reason I can’t distrust any particular professional.

      Nurses and doctors and engineers and professors and priests and psychologists

      The first three, maybe the last one, perhaps. I “have no choice” but to trust professors and priests? Really? Because at this point, I can’t name a single priest that I “trust”, and maybe a few professors.

      1. Doctor, nurse, engineer: three academic paths where they WILL fail your ass. Well, I don’t know about Industrial engineering. Its tough to fail at making spreadsheets.

        1. You misspelled Imaginary Engineering.

    1. Wouldn’t that be nice. I just paid $3.59/gal for heating oil.

      1. shrike can’t be happy about this, as his hero Obama hates people who drive gas-powered cars – other than Obama, himself, that is.

  37. Amsterdam to create ‘scum villages’

    Amsterdam is to create “Scum villages” where nuisance neighbours and anti-social tenants will be exiled from the city and rehoused in caravans or containers with “minimal services” under constant police supervision.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..lages.html

    1. I believe this idea went formally by the term, “Coventry”?

      1. I thought it was referred to as “Australia”?

        1. ah, go stick your head up a dead bear’s bum

    2. From what I saw last time I was in Amsterdam, the village will need to include a mosque.

    3. As a tourist, Amsterdam is fucking great. I can get high, walk out of the coffee shop and cross the street and fuck the woman/man/whatever of my choosing. And all legally.

      But I’m sure as fuck glad I don’t live there.

      1. If you were reasonably wealthy, I think Amsterdam could be a great place to live.

        There are some pretty scuzzy neighborhoods, and I’m not sure, really, what the overall crime rate is, but it has always been one of my favorite cities.

        1. It’s absolutely one of my favorite cities. As a tourist.

          I would imagine that crime, outside of the city center, is pretty high. From what I was able to see on my last visit, most of the city is a series of glorified housing projects that cost fuck tons of money. Surely there are really snazzy neighborhoods, but I’d say that, because of the prohibitive cost of EVERYTHING, and the onerous taxation, most people are probably pretty poor.

          The city center is like fucking Disney World and is not representative of the rest of the city.

          1. Well, yeah. That’s why I’d want to be wealthy enough to live in the city center.

            1. But then you’d have to deal with the perpetual party that is the Amsterdam City Center. Loud, crowded, and full of fucking tourists!

        2. If you were reasonably wealthy, I think Amsterdam could be a great place to live.

          Paris is the winner for me.

    4. I thought the Scum Village was wherever Shrike lives.

    5. When I was in Amsterdam in ’09, the sheer amount of litter, vomit, and grafitti in Rembrandt Square was impressive.

  38. It’s time to post links highlighting our selfless public school teachers:

    First-grade teacher in San Diego busted for child porn

    What better job for an aficionado of child pornography than elementary school teacher? That’s exactly the career path John Raymond Kinloch took until he was busted last week on child porn charges.

    The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that Kinloch, a 41-year-old first-grade teacher at Wolf Canyon Elementary School in Chula Vista, California, was arrested Friday on three criminal counts: possession of child pornography, using a minor in an obscene manner and luring a minor for a sex offense.

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/12…..z2E6Cpzx8V

  39. They dedicate their live to “the children”

    Teacher accused of locking kindergartner in dark room

    CALDWELL, Idaho (KTVB) — A kindergarten teacher in Caldwell has been investigated for isolating a 5-year-old boy in a dark room at school for at least an hour. And that’s just the beginning of the investigation.

    The kindergarten teacher forgot she had placed the boy in the room. She left school for the day and left the boy behind.

    James Cagle says he and his wife began to panic Wednesday when their 5-year-old son Tanner did not come home from school.

    After about 45 minutes, Cagle says he and his wife went to Washington Elementary School to look for Tanner who attends morning kindergarten.

    He says his wife and a school secretary went back to the kindergarten classroom area and found Tanner in a room, adjacent to the classrooms, in the dark.

    “He was scared. He was crying. He had urinated on himself. You know just think about that. A five-year-old boy,” said James Cagle.

    Cagle says his son had been in the room for an hour and a half, possibly an hour and 45 minutes.

    http://www.wcsh6.com/news/nati…..-dark-room

    1. Craig James has a 5 year old?

  40. Saw a cat take down a squirrel on my morning walk. It was just like a wee version of Wild Kingdom.

  41. Teachers, building self-esteem one child at a time:

    Texas Teacher Tying Bathroom Breaks to Good Behavior Results in Student ‘Accident’

    NBCDFW.com is reporting that a second-grade teacher at J.O. Davis Elementary in Irving, Texas, had a system in which her students were awarded extra bathroom breaks for good behavior. The system is causing a controversy because of an “accident.”

    Bathroom breaks awarded with “Boyd Bucks”

    According to NBCDFW.com, the teacher, who is in her first year, would award her students something called “Boyd Bucks” for good behavior which could be redeemed for privileges such as extra bathroom breaks beyond the three allowed during the school day. The system was meant to provide some positive reinforcement to instill discipline in the classroom.

    Second-grade student has an “accident” for lack of “Boyd Bucks”
    The system went sideways, according to the NBCDFW.com story, when one of her charges, an honor roll student, had an overwhelming call of nature and a lack of Boyd Bucks, suffered an “accident” when he was denied a bathroom break by his teacher. This led to the student’s humiliation and a very angry mother.

    http://news.yahoo.com/texas-te…..00078.html

    1. Why the hell are they limiting someone to 3 bathroom breaks in a day in the first place?

      1. Freaks gotta control.

    2. I imagine I would last about half-a-day in grade school at this point if I was that age.

    3. What kind of school has second graders on an honor roll?

      1. The kind of school that has a 2nd grade honor roll is the same kind of school where the honor roll and the list of all attending students are same thing.

      2. If they don’t have an honor roll, how will the kids feel good about themselves for showing up to school?

  42. Voyager 1 is on the brink of entering interstellar space.

    Yawn. Been hearing the same thing for a couple of years now.

  43. “California urged to assess energy reform”
    Surprisingly (?), it seems no one stopped to figure out what all the energy regulations are going to cost businesses and the public!
    Now, a state agency is suggesting someone take a look at the cumulative effects.
    Naah. Who cares? All those regs are meant in the best intentions….
    http://www.sfgate.com/business…..088222.php

  44. Good Lord!

    Lucy Steigerwald ?@LucyStag
    I am the only person in human history who gets increased self-esteem after reading Hit and Run comments.

    1. False. It makes me feel good to remember how old Pro Lib is.

  45. what a great band name: Lesbian Daddy

  46. Is Lesbian Daddy the best band name ever?

  47. Relating to the discussion in the comments of Lucy’s article this morning.

    Drill instructor reportedly ready for daughter return in indefensible adoption

    I… really don’t even know what to say about this… I’m just glad he’s getting his daughter back.

  48. Henry Blodget lectures us all on why Unions are awesome, and Americans really need to learn to “Share more”.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs…..25z;_ylv=3

    “…now the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Now, it’s all about stock performance–to the point where even good companies are now quietly shafting other constituencies that should benefit from their existence.

    Most notably: Rank and file employees.

    Great companies in a healthy and balanced economy don’t view employees as “inputs.” They don’t view them as “costs.” They don’t try to pay them “as little as they have to to keep them from quitting.” They view their employees as the extremely valuable assets they are (or should be). Most importantly, they share their wealth with them.

    This is the same Henry Blodget, FYI, who has been banned from the Securities Industry for life for fraud, who pumped up worthless tech-stocks in exchange for massive bonuses…

    Share a little, Henry?

  49. Well, if what he said was true that companies today pay employees “as little as they have to to keep them from quitting”, then yes, that is not a very healthy approach. But most companies do not behave that way, except when when economic times are as tough as they are right now. And it is not the unions out there saving the day, either. Some employees are grossly overpaid, just as others are underpaid. Those both happen because of union interference (and government as well)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.