Tiananmen Square

DOJ Insists Holder Didn't Lie, New IRS Head Wants Our Trust, China Celebrates Tiananmen Anniversary With Censorship: P.M. Links

|

Get Reason.com and Reason 24/7 content widgets for your websites.

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 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!

Advertisement

NEXT: Huge Divide Worldwide on Gay Acceptance

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. Newly appointed Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Daniel Werfel wants to regain the public’s trust.

    TRUST US OR ELSE.

    1. I trust them to steal from me. So, yes, in a way, I do trust them.

      1. Yes, the New Transparency.

        1. “NuTrans Speaks”

            1. I thought nutrans were banned?

              1. I’m so happy,
                Doin’ the nutrans dance.

              2. It’s all so NuTransitive.

    2. Newly appointed Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Daniel Werfel wants to regain the public’s trust.

      Has he stated that he will begin auditing all government officials first? Because that’d be a good place to start.

      1. First they came for the Congressmen and I said nothing because our nation’s laws regularly fuck me in the ass…

      2. It is good that the James Holmes link followed this one because I believe he has about the same liklihood of (re)gaining the public trust.

      3. Why bother? The IRS as a political tool to repress political enemies is the new normal. The majority of the country doesn’t seem to care, and the rest will follow when it’s their team at the helm.

    3. My strategy: Fire 10% of the workers every two weeks until the poll numbers start moving. My bet is after the second round Werfel could run for President.

      1. Excellent.

      2. “Fire 10% of the workers every two weeks until the poll numbers start moving.”

        This seemed to work for Obama during his first term… Or do you mean government workers?

      3. My strategy: Fire 10% of the workers every week for 10 weeks, then go home.

        1. 34.8% of them would still be left, though.

    4. regain our trust? Did the IRS ever have it??

      1. That should be a question on citizenship tests. If you say you trust the IRS, out you go. It’s the most un-American position possible.

  2. Which would seem to raise some Fifth Amendment concerns.

      1. What is this, some kind of sick firsting carpet bombing strategy?

        1. I wish. Unfortunately the caps lock and tab keys are very close to each other on my keyboard.

          1. They’re not close; your fingers are just fatter.

          2. As they are on most keyboards.

            1. On my keyboard they’re dating.

              1. I’ve removed the caps lock key from mine. Also the insert key. Disgusting.

          3. Practically adjacent even.

            But okay, excuse accepted. I will therefore not open a discussion about your Penguins.

            1. Man, what a beating they took yesterday, huh? You think the Bruins will sweep them? I do.

              1. Well, since you’re opening a discussion, Epi… yes, yes I do. I also found it especially tasty to watch Crosby fuck up so consistently.

                1. He needs his lucky jaw guard back.

              2. You think the Bruins will sweep them? I do.

                I think the Bruins can sweep if they just score the first 2 goals of game 3.

            2. Where were in the AM Links!

              1. I try to distribute my wisdom between AM and PM. Plus I have a bunch of meetings Tuesdays.

            3. I hope your city once again sees a clash between British troops and Colonials, Boston!

            4. So apparently on the flight from Yinz to Beantown there was a really obnoxiously loud crying baby on board… and the pilot asked if Sidney Crosby was on the plane!?? Get it??

              1. I honestly didn’t realize that the Penguins care so little about playing defense. Though, I guess when your best defenseman is really a forward, it makes sense.

                Also, Bylsma is a complete retard. He should be fired mid-series for not utilizing the last change. I bet even casual fans would understand that you don’t want your top lines playing against the Bergeron line.

              2. What’s the deal with the big blank space where the tweets are supposed to be? (I tried loading the article on multiple browsers. One of them briefly showed the text, and then when what I presume are the PNGs are supposed to show up, I got a big blank space. Just link to them, already.)

    1. Firstly, the system required to do this “would dramatically slow down the loading of the BBC homepage”, something which he said was “an issue of great importance to the site’s users”.

      See, I’m not the only person who complains about this stuff! 🙂

      1. How many time zones are there in the UK? Just show GMT. I really doubt that a clock displaying GMT would slow down anything.

  3. The War on Boys and Gun Hysteria

    Instead of admonishing children for chewing pop tarts in the shape of a gun, we fire every single teacher and principal who takes leaves of their damn senses. Lose your common sense, lose your job.

    1. Why the hell wasn’t this an official link?

      1. Because the people who compile the Mourning and Evening Lynx are a bunch of cosmotarians?

        1. But at least they know the difference between grief and the first half of the day.

          1. I’m not going to tow the lion either.

          2. There is no difference

          3. the difference between grief and the first half of the day.

            Coffee makes one bearable?

  4. President Obama’s approval ratings are dropping ? among people who follow the news. Among the less-well-informed, not so much.

    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in great numbers.

    1. But the “lamestream media” is not covering the fake scandals, we are told.

      1. But the scandals don’t matter. The fact that the Republicans are talking about them is going to kill them in 2014 right? So there is no way Obama’s approval rating could be following. Not with the Republicans doing all of this damage to themselves by talking about these scandals.

        1. The GOP is prematurely ejaculating again. They can’t stretch these scandals out until a major election.

          1. That is right. I think Obama actually misused the IRS to go after his political opponents and used the FBI to intimidate reporters knowing the GOP would talk about such things and ensure the Dems retake the house. Yeah that is it. What a genius he is.

            Suck that Obama cock harder Shreek.

            1. Obama is not the Machiavellian genius you give him credit for – speaking of your preoccupation with cock worship.

              1. Woosh?

            2. PB might have a point that these scandals might be old news by the next election cycle. That’s not saying it’s good news for Democratic politicians, just that it won’t be as bad as it would be if the election was in a couple months.

              The gun control proposals, though — that’s gonna be remembered years from now by gun owners.

          2. Just like the Dems were doing in 2005.

          3. You don’t need to “stretch” a scandal when 1) it’s already huge, and 2) the administration is dragging its feet and generally doing the opposite of all good scandal-management advice.

            1. That’s because they’re such innocent little doves who have never experienced a scandal before.

  5. President Obama’s approval ratings are dropping ? among people who follow the news.

    Well that leaves out MSNBC viewers, so that bloc is secure.

    1. I concur… it is a trap. But if I were in that situation, I would probably be tempted as well.

    2. Dude is already in a trap, a sexless marriage.

      1. except that for most of the last 19 years, she has not been interested in sex.

        !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Dude put up with a fifth of a century without poon? He deserves to never see a pussy again.

        1. If any man deserves the De-Luxe Pussy, it’s him.

        2. There has probably been some (low) level of sex. It’s just very “Okay, it’s your birthday. Have at it, please finish quickly.”

          1. That’s not poon. That’s no different than microwaving a pumpkin and boring a hole in the side.

            1. Wait, go over those instructions again. Do I have to get the pumpkin drunk?

            2. Ah, I see. I guess I’m not up on the terminology of Warty-rape, and therefore assumed poon just meant had sex.

            3. I’m confused, why do you need to bore a hole in the side?

              1. That’s why they call it a woodpecker, amirite?

    3. My GF said I could have sex with other women — but she would then have sex with other men.

      And it is waaaaay easier to get casual sex as a woman than a man.

      I regarded this as a trap, as it almost always is.

      1. “My GF said I could have sex with other women — but she would then have sex with other men.”

        Um, not really seeing a downside here, go join a swingers club.

        Oh and while it is easier for the women to find someone to have casual sex with, most women I have met have much stricter standards which actually makes it harder for them personally.

        1. If he still cares about her despite the lack of sex, knowing she is having sex with other men might be mighty painful.

          Which is why her knowing he is with other women would probably be a fail — because that would be really painful for her.

          He probably ought to try finding out WHY she isn’t interested in sex any more, rather than venturing into such an obviously messy situation.

          1. In this case I was responding to your comment, not the original article.

            Yes I get that most people are pained by their partner (Spouse, boyfriend, girlfriend, whatever) having sex with others. My comment was a direct rejection of this view of sexual exclusivity, if you are both interested in other people then stay together and occasionally see other people on the side, if you are open, honest and committed it is just going to make the 2 of you happier, or at least it should but it does require getting over that childish Jealousy emotion (not calling anyone who suffers from jealousy childish, just the emotion itself is, it is basically a toddler saying “My Toy, no one else can touch it” with regards to your partner)

              1. Indeed it could, or it could lead to compersion

            1. not calling anyone who suffers from jealousy childish, just the emotion itself is, it is basically a toddler saying “My Toy, no one else can touch it” with regards to your partner

              ^this^

              1. Is it necessarily jealousy if you’re hurt that someone with whom you are in a monogamous relationship has sex with someone else?

                1. No, it could be the deception or betrayal of trust that is the problem.

                  The question is how would you react if they came to you and asked about opening the relationship up.

                  If you can freely discuss the parameters of possibly opening the relationship without becoming enraged that they want to do the dirty with others then it probably isn’t jealousy, if you can’t then it is.

            2. “… if you are open, honest and committed it is just going to make the 2 of you happier,…”

              That is an idiotic statement. If you are going outside the relationship for sex then you are not committed. That is why jealousy is not “childish” is a negative reaction to lack of commitment by the other person.

    4. Let’s get this out of the way though: never, ever ? ever! ? go the prostitution route. That is playing with fire (and STDs, crime, all kinds of things a lovely middle-aged man and concerned husband shouldn’t be near.) Repeat after me: Do not pay women for sex.

      Isn’t this what classy escorts are for?

      1. He never said WHY paying for sex was a bad idea. If the guy can put up with the emotionless sex from someone who isn’t into him, this might be a reasonable solution for this guy, short of getting his wife to start putting out for him again.

        And a sufficiently high caliber hooker could even fake like him enough to be emotionally satisfying.

    5. My girlfriend once said that when discussing what her plan for her hypothetical future husband was, since she had no desire for sex. (It eventually turned out to be related to the BC she was on)

      She also was very sexual for about a week after she got Fifty Shades.

    6. Should I?

      Dump your wife and find a nice, attractive woman who clicks with you and has a libido?

      Yes.

    7. Hmm, could be a trap or could be honesty on her part. I have known of multiple couples in this situation, and it ended up being a trap about 70% of the time, and her being honest wanting to stay with him but wishing he would just go bother someone else for sex the remaining 30%.

      That said in all but 1 of that 30% of cases there was an unspoken caveat that if any of their friends/family ever found out she would react like any other woman who had been cheated on would and deny she ever gave him permission.

      Personally if I ever ended up in this situation it wouldn’t matter one damn bit to me if it was a trap because I’d have issued an ultimatum a decade earlier than this guy, either you fix your libido, give me permission to have girlfriends, or we get divorced.

      1. not that easy dude.

        1. which part is not that easy?

          1. Issuing ultimatums to your spouse never comes to any good. Unless you like to think of your spouse as disposable property.

            1. Ah, Yes I am well aware of that. Still at some point if she is not willing or able to meet your needs, and when I say needs I mean needs, not wants, and will not allow you to have someone else meet them then I am sorry the marriage should not continue.

              The ultimatum is not the first step, it is the last. Basically saying “this marriage is not working for me I have tried everything else in my power to fix it to no avail, if these changes are not made I will have no choice but to leave”.

              He said this has been going on for 19 years, he should have demanded couples counseling and medical tests for her (to ensure that the lack of libido was not a medical issue) by the 5th year, 19 years is far too long to put up with her not meeting his needs.

            2. Oh I should also point out, that simply denying your needs for the rest of your life is thinking of yourself as a disposable property.

              Frankly if she can’t or won’t do ANYTHING to help him meet his needs she does not deserve him, even if everything else in their life is fine, she is basically taking advantage of and using him.

          2. Alimony.

    8. does she also want a “green light,”

      Ummm…what do you think she has been doing the last 19 years?

    9. My first wife had a very low libido – she actually told me that once a year was enough (we were 21 at that time) – which I put up with for 10 years. Luckily there were no kids (duh!) so at that point I pulled the plug on that marriage.

      My current wife and I were together for 10 years and all was fine in that respect ? and then the kids came along. Now I’m going on 5 plus years without (not this shit again!!).

      My take is that a woman who does not take her husband’s needs as her responsibility is giving him license to fulfill them elsewhere. I’m not saying that if she misses the regularly scheduled Friday fuck he has carte blanc to screw around from that day forward but if she takes the attitude that his needs are his problem then he has the right to discreetly solve that problem however he can.

    10. But what’s the downside?

  6. What are the chances that Buono campaign manages to portray Christie as a profligate asshole who burns taxpayer cash and infants, thus leading to Ms. Buono’s historic comeback?

    1. ONE PIC!? Fucking tease.

    2. I’ll be in my bunnnnnnnnhhhhhhhh… and I’m back.

      And there’s another one floating around that’s better.

    3. If you force every 20 year old to join the same club a lot of them are just going to goof off and party.

      Not that hard to understand.

  7. “Partisans aren’t closed off from reality, by this theory. They’re just lying.”

    1. I think most of us already knew that.

      1. Says you. I bet my Facebook friends, who are QUITE educated thank you, will be shocked – SHOCKED – that the Post printed a story about a made-up Koch-funded study like this one.

  8. Those of you with taste should be listening to the new Queens of the Stone Age album that came out today. Since I can’t find the full album on youtube, here’s Josh And The Hommes playing live.

  9. He said he knew nothing about prosecuting reporters…

    Pretending to aim at prosecuting them to obtain a warrant is another matter.

    1. That’s really weak sauce. It’s always hard with stuff like this from a perjury conviction angle, but politically, Holder is in trouble. What will happen is anyone’s guess.

  10. The climate warriors are getting desperate.
    The Mad Men of Climate Denial

    1. They’ve been desperate for a while now. They know they’re fucked and their scam is finished. It’ll take some time, but wait for “climate change” to start morphing into something else, just like “global warming” morphed into “climate change”.

      1. I noticed how no one on the list was a scientist, to give credence to their claim that there is a near universal consensus among scientists.

        1. Fortunately, scientific knowledge is not based on voting.

          Historically, nearly every scientific expert on any given subject has been wrong, until a few more enlightened scientists pointed them in a more accurate direction.

      2. Man Made Weather Escalation.

      3. Climate Austerity.

    2. An enemies list. Cute. We should forward it to Attack Watch.

      1. It’s too bad he’s such a cunt, since the guy actually has some illustrating talent. It’s derivative, but still not too bad.

  11. Kathleen Sebelius won’t change pediatric lung transplant policy despite pleas from family of sick girl.

    The U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services said she won’t intervene in an “incredibly agonizing” transplant decision about a dying Pennsylvania girl, noting that three other children in the same hospital are just as sick.
    Kathleen Sebelius told a Congressional panel Tuesday that medical experts should make those decisions.
    But relatives of 10-year-old Sarah Murnaghan said Sebelius’ remarks confused them because they want a policy change for all preadolescent children awaiting lung transplants, not just Sarah.

    1. I am not sure what the right decision here is. But I love it that Sibelius is getting crucified for it. That bitch wants the government making all of these decisions, she can be seen as a child killer for making them.

        1. But Sarah Palin was the stupid. She was totally wrong about that.

          1. Better not need a lung, Sarah, ’cause it ain’t goin’ to be forthcomin’.

      1. I am not sure what the right decision here is.

        Free market in organs.

        1. This +1000

          WTF does the govt have any right to determine what I can do with my organs or what I can put in my will about what to do with my organs?

          Jesus fucking christ it’s an embarassment to call this a ‘free country’

    2. Top. Woman.

    3. Today is the anniversary of Tank Guy standing alone in Tianamen Square. Couldn’t be a better delineation between courage and cowardice.

      1. I love how everyone just nods their head, “Yep, he was executed,” while just treating China like another liberal nation. Or writing about China like a country we should emulate in some way.

        There should be an international holiday for freedom called Tank Guy Day.

        1. Or writing about China like a country we should emulate in some way

          But the wind power!!! And the high speed rail!!! And dammit, their government gets things done!!!

          1. Funny how progressives can be so cool with most things Chinese while just last year a freaking huge percentage of African elephants were slaughtered to feed the Chinese demand for ivory.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03…..all&_r=0nd

        2. How can I turn a cuba libre into a chino libre, I’m celebrating Tank Guy Day?

          1. Well, I’m not sure about the Spanish. How do you say “Tank Guy” in Chinese? And what should be in a Tank Guy? Something that says freedom while also including insane levels of moxie. Tequila? Perhaps grain alcohol for the tank?

          2. Sino Libre and use rice wine or plum wine…and leches for garnish.

            1. Since it’s Chinese, it should have something weird in it, like ashes from a mummy or maybe guano.

            2. Oh wait, I have some, rum I procured “from a friend” in mason jars with no tax stamps. What says courage better than drinking white lightning?

        3. “There should be an international holiday for freedom called Tank Guy Day”

          I hereby officially declare June 4 as Tank Guy Day.

        4. I love how everyone just nods their head, “Yep, he was executed,” while just treating China like another liberal nation.

          I’m not even sure he was executed. Disappeared sounds closer to the truth.

          1. Um, I think that means dead. I suppose he could be rotting in some prison, but they have no problem killing people over there.

    4. When exactly did HHS get to decide how transplant rules were made? Sickening.

  12. Reposting this here (since I crave the attention): Michael Lind just can’t get that logic thing down quite right when it comes to libertarians (or much else).

    1. I refuse to read that. Every time leftists try to convince themselves that libertarians can’t answer X, X is inevitably a question that libertarians are constantly answering.

      1. Just click through for the subhead. It’s stupider than you think.

        1. I said I refuse, Nicole.

          1. NO MEANS NO NICOLE.

        2. Damn you, I read the subhead and lost 47 IQ points.

        3. I’m going to order an edition of Huemer’s book printed in tiny script on an iron bars, and when people use these dumb arguments that he dealt with in details, hit them in the balls with it. OH NO ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC

    2. Insert Bertolt Brecht’s quote about electing a new people.

    3. That was particularly frothy, even for Salon. The comments are like a trip through bedlam.

      1. For some reason, I can never get the comments on Salon to load. This is probably a very good thing.

        1. This is a good thing on nearly any site.

          1. Well, except this one of course.

            1. If not for the comments here I would have been gone in a week.

        2. What’s your browser? Maybe it’s a built safety mechanism.

          1. Generally Chrome, but like Not Sure I think I have this problem regardless of browser.

        3. I have this problem too.
          It’s probably a good thing though, I should stop trying to load them. 3 browsers later and I finally wise up.

    4. Even to admit such trade-offs?like higher infant mortality, in return for less government

      GAH. It burns!

      1. But moar government = far higher infant mortality, because taxation and regulation strangle innovation and human flourishing.

    5. Article summed up in a few short phrases:

      “Take THAT, you dirty strawman! And THAT! And THAT! And THAT!”

    6. Why are there no libertarian countries? If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?

      I don’t know, probably because governments aren’t all that keen on relinquishing their power. Plus whenever the status quo isn’t all that cracking, they have progtards like Michael Lind happily cheerleading the idea that they should have even more power.

      1. Because they are geographical entities, and libertarians are less than 10 percent of the population everywhere?

    7. Is Michael Lind Tony?

  13. The latest numbers from Statistics Canada’s Canadian Community Health Survey suggest nearly 30 per cent more women engage in risky drinking than a decade ago.

    Risky drinking is measured as five or more drinks at a sitting, once or more a month.

    How long are you sitting?

    1. Three twenty-minute intervals. But it been miraculously stopping in April since 1993.

    2. I love these “risky drinking” and “binge drinking” benchmarks. By these measures I’ve been a full blown alcoholic since age 17. In fact, it’s a miracle that my liver hasn’t shut down or I haven’t fallen off of a bridge in a drunken stupor.

      1. Absolutely, even if it was “five or more drinks at one sitting, once or more a month week” I’d still be borderline.

    3. They call consuming five drinks in one sitting “risky”. I call it “the first half”.

  14. Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims

    Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.

  15. Charles Rangel – Tea Party Patriot!

    http://livewire.talkingpointsm…..rom-irs-is

    1. Clancy,

      I told you to make sure and log out when you were done using my computer. If you do this again, I’m not going to warm your milk for you.

      Love,
      Mom

    2. Yeah, because there is no difference between being investigated for exercising your First Amendment rights and being investigated for failing to disclose income that you are required to disclose for an office that you voluntarily worked extremely hard to gain and keep.

  16. Uh oh, looks like Salon has us all figured out: Question for Libertarians: If You’re Approach is So Great Why Hasn’t It Been Tried Anywhere in the World?

    When you ask libertarians if they can point to a libertarian country, you are likely to get a baffled look, followed, in a few moments, by something like this reply: While there is no purely libertarian country, there are countries which have pursued policies of which libertarians would approve: Chile, with its experiment in privatized Social Security, for example, and Sweden, a big-government nation which, however, gives a role to vouchers in schooling.

    But this isn’t an adequate response. Libertarian theorists have the luxury of mixing and matching policies to create an imaginary utopia. A real country must function simultaneously in different realms?defense and the economy, law enforcement and some kind of system of support for the poor. Being able to point to one truly libertarian country would provide at least some evidence that libertarianism can work in the real world.

    1. Some political philosophies pass this test. For much of the global center-left, the ideal for several generations has been Nordic social democracy?what the late liberal economist Robert Heilbroner described as “a slightly idealized Sweden.” Other political philosophies pass the test, even if their exemplars flunk other tests. Until a few decades ago, supporters of communism in the West could point to the Soviet Union and other Marxist-Leninist dictatorships as examples of “really-existing socialism.” They argued that, while communist regimes fell short in the areas of democracy and civil rights, they proved that socialism can succeed in a large-scale modern industrial society.

      1. Now I just feel Othered.

        1. As well you should. Hey, ASM, Ham has posted that shit twice already. You’re late to the party.

        2. I was busy copying and pasting the quotes from the story before submitting, hence I didn’t see your above link.

          And I cannot be held accountable for OT links in other blog posts.

      2. Maybe they need to qualify their use of the word “succeed” as it related to Soviet regimes.

      3. By his logic, since there was a time before Democracy existed, Democracy was a terrible idea. After all, if Democracy is such a good idea, why did it take people so long to adopt it?!?!

        1. Or, the assumption that slave labor was necessary for thousands of years because slavery was the accepted norm.

          Are progressives suddenly asserting you can’t have a transformative change in a political system because there are few examples to draw from in history? Does not sound very progressive to me.

          1. There is nothing on earth more regressive, than a self-identifying Progressive.

        2. Point to the country where a true democracy is implemented.

          1. Fine. Since there was a time before REPUBLICS existed, REPUBLICS were a terrible idea.

            Are you happy now, Brett? What will it take to make you love me?

            1. Usually a fifth of whiskey, but some nights a handle.

            2. Are you happy now, Brett? What will it take to make you love me?

              Brett, you might want to put your rabbits in some kind of protective custody.

              1. Please, Jesse. Don’t pretend that you’ve never stalked a man online while weeping endlessly at the ruin that you’ve made of your own life.

                We’re not so different, you and I.

              2. Please. I’m living with a pregnant woman. Irish’s crazy would be a welcome relief from, “what do you think the baby is doing now?”

                Seriously, my newest get rich idea is to build a home ultrasound that hooks to the ipad or other tablet device. $150 for the device, $25 for the app. I’m kickstarting this bitch tomorrow.

                1. You don’t know pregnant crazy until she reads “what to Expect When You’re Pregnant.”

                  “Here’s 300 pages, in excruciating detail, about every possible fucking thing that could go wrong and kill your baby. But, don’t worry, it probably won’t happen. Probably.”

                  Those writers should be flayed, quartered, burned and buried. Fucking fuckers.

                  1. You don’t know pregnant crazy until she reads “what to Expect When You’re Pregnant.”

                    Luckily, I hid the book and she has pregnancy brain. But yeah, been through that phase.

                    1. Luckily, I hid the book and she has pregnancy brain.

                      A relationship based on hiding things from your wife and talking about it with internet strangers is the strongest relationship there is.

                    2. I hid the fact that I bought her an engagement ring, too. Does it make me an asshole that I’m telling you before I give it to her?

                    3. Hey, congrats! And yes.

                    4. Irish is just reeling you in with alternating affection and derision.

                    5. It’s called negging you son of a bitch.

                      Here are some examples of negging women:

                      For a girl with a belly shirt: “Did your shirt shrink in the laundry?”

                      “Your roots are showing.”

                      “Your nose is a little red. You’re like an Eskimo. Cool.”

                      “You know, you look just like my little sister. Weird.”

                      How could any of these not work, Jesse? HOW?!

                    6. negging, the only slightly more retarded younger brother of the pickup line.

                      Baby, you must be tired, because you’ve been running around in my mind all day!

                    7. I hid the fact that I bought her an engagement ring, too.

                      AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

                      (semi-obligatory)

                    8. Other than the two months salary recommendation, are there any other guidelines to follow when it comes to buying engagement rings? Asking for a friend…

                    9. I know a lot of people these days go ring shopping together. A lot of women have stuff in mind that they know they like. Obviously this ruins the element of surprise. I would say, just get something nice, but it would be good if you at least knew what kind of metal she prefers (e.g., white gold vs. yellow). Settings can be changed of course so it’s not like a killer thing.

                    10. Congrats.

                      Been married to my best friend for over 40 years.

                      … Hobbit

                    11. Surely, Irish, you’re not expecting an honest relationship to survive more than a couple weeks or a suggestion for a threesome.

                      “Is she prettier than me?”

                      Go ahead, answer that one honestly.

                    12. ‘She satisfies a different set of urges’ doesn’t work that well either.

                    13. Actually, I brain farted. It’s “What to Expect when You’re Expecting,” but you got the idea.

                  2. Dude, I did research before buying any pregnancy books and heard that one was a freak show of phantom fears, so I didn’t get it for my wife. Got The Joy of Pregnancy instead, much nicer.

                  3. At least get the title right. It’s What to Expect When You’re Expecting.

                    1. I did. Thirty minutes earlier.

                2. Make a slightly more powerful model that does abortions and you’ll be farting through silk.

                3. Dr. Topol from Scripps in San Diego has an EKG device that he hooks to his Iphone… dude is printing money.

            3. Point on the doll where a true democracy touched you.

        3. That’s because a progressive’s hubris has no limit. They truly believe humankind can not ever become any smarter than they currently are. And since they are the most enlightened class of people currently alive, they are hence the brightest humans the world will ever know.

    2. Ooh, enjoy the comments:

      ARealNewYorker
      TUESDAY, JUN 4, 2013 12:54 PM PDT
      So tired of the “at gunpoint” meme! First of all, most libertarians see themselves in the position of the bagman and act like they haven’t committed a crime.

      “Well, sure, he had no property and nothing to invest, so we told him we’d give him some saltines in exchange for eighteen hour workdays, but he was free to refuse it! And when he didn’t, and got mad at us for being total dickheads, we sicked our armed guards on him because, well, freeeeeedoooooMMMM!”

      Anyway, I guess there are two points:

      1. There’s more than one way to steal the fruits of labor. Some people do it after the labor’s done, and others do it by having the power to give someone a shitty deal in exchange for labor beforehand.

      2. Just because you outsource violence to the state, or private armed guards if you’re of the Murray Rothbard persuasion, doesn’t mean you’re not complicit in violence.

      Wait – a third point!

      3. Is the slow death of starvation better than the quick death of the commissar’s bullet?

      I don’t know, is it?

      1. If you are THAT dependent on any single entity, you are well and truly fucked. The only people who really experience dependency of that magnitude are on the government teet and not at the mercy of some robber baron who owns every asset in a town where there is no escape and you work in his salt mines, or NO SALTINE CRACKERS FOR YOU!.

      2. 3. Is the slow death of starvation better than the quick death of the commissar’s bullet?

        Since socialism has killed people in both ways, maybe you should ask your progressive friends.

        1. Yeah, how about starving and 15 seconds before subcumbing, they hand you a sandwich and BANG!

          Why’s it gotta be one or the other?

      3. vishnu13
        TUESDAY, JUN 4, 2013 03:37 PM MDT
        Why won’t Krugman debate some guy named Murphy? I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest he won’t debate this guy because he’s a kook. What good comes of taking kooks so seriously?

        Also, that Murphy guy probably doesn’t even have a beard!!!!

      4. And an actual decent comment:


        Zeke_666
        TUESDAY, JUN 4, 2013 12:47 PM MDT
        This is like asking ‘if no-rape societies are so good then why are there no examples of any?’.

        The answer is simple: one cannot choose not to be raped. The whole point is that it’s involuntary. Asking why there are no libertarian countries assumes that one can choose not to have the fruits of their labor stolen at gunpoint.

    3. Here is the adequate response: because of the vast overwhelming numbers of fuckhead statist scum like you, Michael.

      1. You said that already.

        1. It bears repeating, nicole.

          1. I’m just lashing out because I held myself back from repeating my version.

            1. Self-control? You’re not even remotely drunk enough this afternoon. You need to get working on that.

            2. Don’t hold back, Nicole, let the anger flow…

      2. I love this response:

        “Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children.

        In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.”

        ? Robert Higgs

        1. Of course Marxists could and did make that exact same argument in the 19th Century. How did that work out?

          1. Marxists were always talking about murdering the bosses. Genocide is built into the system.

          2. Engels advocated genocide against the Magyars, so what the devil are you talking about? They were never advocates for peace, or denied bloodstained hands to be useful for advancing their cause.

        2. It is always the way of the statist to demand perfection out of non-statist systems, while simultaneously ignoring the massive, endemic flaws in their statism.

          Essentially, they’re projecting.

    4. Of course every socialist will tell you that their system has never been tried either. You know, those millions of dead people under socialist regimes were the result of it never really being tried

    5. Wouldn’t there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?

      There was such a country, once upon a time. It was called the United States of America. We got the criminalized drugs, closed borders, welfare state and Prussian-style public education system through varying degrees of racism and class warfare.

      Until a few decades ago, supporters of communism in the West could point to the Soviet Union and other Marxist-Leninist dictatorships as examples of “really-existing socialism.” They argued that, while communist regimes fell short in the areas of democracy and civil rights, they proved that socialism can succeed in a large-scale modern industrial society.

      Once who put a gun to their hands, starve them, and prevent them from escaping, socialism really can succeed!

    6. Because the pirates sank the Floating Nation of the Free?

  17. http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/IRS…../id/507850

    Rep. Jim McDermott, a Washington Democrat, said Republicans are looking to create a conspiracy that doesn’t exist.

    Speaking to representatives of the tea party groups at the witness table, he said: “None of your organizations were kept from organizing or silenced. We’re talking about whether or not the American taxpayers will subsidize your work. We’re talking about a tax break.”

    All your monies belong to us!

    1. Further, we’re more than happy to give those exact same tax breaks to folks we like.

    2. So I guess McDermott is totally okay with the next Republican administration denying welfare benefits to anyone who votes Democrat. I mean talking about whether or not the American taxpayers will subsidize your work, so it is okay right?

      1. McDermott has long been one of the scuzziest of scuzzballs in Congress, which is saying a lot.

    3. It can’t repeated enough: The absence of taking is not same as giving.

  18. Holder had no knowledge of a reporter being charged with a crime. He just knew that his department was telling a court that a journalist was a criminal. And that is totally different.

  19. “Attorney General Eric Holder didn’t lie…”

    He, well, mis-spoke.

  20. Arrested Development Season4 re-edited into chronological order

    1. I am told by several people it is absolutely horrible, just dreadful.

      1. It’s not; it’s still funny, but it’s different and some of the plotting and episode structure changes they made are offputting and make it feel like it isn’t AD. I’ve only watched five or six so far, though.

        1. It’s funny. It takes a while to get going. It’s worth the payoff for the last 4 episodes.

        2. Not a fan. But the fans I do know tell me they don’t like the new structure. It is less of an ensemble. And they don’t like how they were not able to get the entire old cast together. Basically, it is a half assed attempt to make Larry David some quick cash.

          1. And they don’t like how they were not able to get the entire old cast together.

            Which characters are they missing?

            1. I have no idea. I am just repeating what I was told.

            2. I think he meant ‘weren’t able to get the entire old cast together AT ONCE.’ That’s pretty accurate. Everyone is off doing their own thing and they don’t really interact that much.

              1. Hmm, that I can see. But so far (again 5 episodes in), I haven’t noticed any major characters outright missing.

            3. There aren’t many scenes with everyone together. Schedule conflicts, from what I heard.

      2. I am 5 episodes in. The first 2 were awful (and made me really dislike my favorite character). The ones since have improved quite a bit.

      3. It isn’t terrible, but for some reason they made Michael into a complete and utter idiot.

        He’s supposed to be the straight man but he’s just plain obnoxious now.

        Still, lot’s of solid material and laughs to be had.

        1. It isn’t terrible, but for some reason they made Michael into a complete and utter idiot.

          He’s supposed to be the straight man but he’s just plain obnoxious now.

          Through the first episode I said “Holy shit this season is going to be retarded” because of this issue.

          1. It gets worse, as far as Michael goes.

      4. I found Arrested Development 4 to be unwatchable after slightly more than the first episode.

        It’s just not funny, at least to me. It fn THINKS it is funny, but not the same thing.

        1. Did you watch the rest of the season? The first episode was pretty bad, but I think it gets really funny.

      5. I really can’t understand why people like that show so much. It certainly has it’s funny moments, but watching a bunch of overacting about idiots and their absurdly stupid choices does nothing but enrage me.

        I also get pissy about the “I ate the bones” KFC commercials, though. Seriously, IT FUCKING SAYS BONELESS ON THE BOX! YOU FUCKING ORDERED BONELESS CHICKEN. YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON!

        1. watching a bunch of overacting about idiots and their absurdly stupid choices does nothing but enrage me.

          I avoid “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia” for the same reason.

          1. I have to watch an ad to watch and ad? Fuck you YouTube!

        2. Not to mention that the boneless chicken is basically a scam, they take piece of chicken with 4 – 5 ozs of meat on it, trim it off the bone which leaves 1 – 1.5 ozs of scraps and a 3 oz chunk of meat then sell you the 3 ozs for the same price they would have sold you the 4.5 oz one and use the scraps to make Pot Pie or chicken nuggets

          1. If you think that’s scam, just think that they could have sold you a whole uncooked chicken for even less $/oz. Dirty bastards.

      6. Anyone who hates Arrested Development season 4 is worse than Epi’s mom.

        1. And also worse than me, because I like it.

          1. Are you saying you’re not Epi’s mom?

            1. I don’t think so. I don’t think I’ve ever blacked out long enough for something like that to happen…

              1. I think if something like that happened you’d have to black out as a survival mechanism.

  21. High school student body awards “cutest couple” yearbook award to gay couple.

    Only linking because like 10 of my Facebook friends have shared this story because it’s cool to be down with tolerance.

    1. Where’s my goddamn South Park episode about “You idiots, tolerance is about putting up with things you don’t like, but are none of your business, not worshipping those things.”

      1. That would be a good episode.

        1. I think its called “Death Camp of Tolerance” where the gerbil makes the epic quest through Mr. Slave’s GI tract and the kids get sentenced to tolerance re-education camps.

          1. Oh, I thought you were proposing a hypothetical one. And I thought you had a really good premise. See if I ever credit you again.

            1. “SimpsonsSouth Park did it!”

  22. High school student body awards “cutest couple” yearbook award to gay couple.

    Only linking because like 10 of my Facebook friends have shared this story because it’s cool to be down with tolerance.

    1. Only linking because like 10 of my Facebook friends have shared this story because it’s cool to be down with [socially acceptable forms of] tolerance.

      1. I’d seriously love for some Mormon kids to set up a polygamous relationship in their local high school just to troll the Tolerance Police.

  23. Amazon gets rights to Dora, Sponge Bob

    thanks to you bastards, I can’t stop laughing anytime Dora comes up.

    1. Is Amazon becoming a new Netflix? Is it worth getting?

      1. free if you’re an amazon prime member.

      2. Yes and yes. (I find very frequently that if something isn’t available on Netflix, it’s on AMZN.)

        1. I’m sold!

        2. moreflicks.com

    2. DORA! DORA!!!

      1. Now how much would you pay again?

        1. Ten. Fucking. Grand.

          1. Fifteen if Diago is forced to watch.

            1. Diego (like I give a fuck how he spells his name).

              1. Just as long as this is the soundtrack to said Dora sodomy.

        2. Enough About Palin| 2.21.13 @ 4:56PM

          Every word out of Dora the Explorer’s mouth gets me rock hard.

          Heroic Mulatto| 2.21.13 @ 5:00PM

          Wait, what?

          Enough About Palin| 2.21.13 @ 5:11PM

          At the risk of repeating what I have posted here a number of times over the years, I would pay ten grand to fuck Dora the Explorer up the ass. Ten. Grand.

          1. Art Vandelay| 2.21.13 @ 6:02PM |#

            The episode when Dora tries anal is fantastic.

            I’m glad I didn’t read this while attending lecture because I just started laughing out loud when I read that.

          2. I laughed, but at the same time this is extra horrible to me because one of the girls in a preschool I used to volunteer at looks exactly like a real life version of Dora the Explorer. And she’s three years old. If I have kids, I pray they never run into Enough about Palin haha

  24. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06……html?_r=0

    WASHINGTON ? Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, disclosed on Tuesday that she had made telephone calls to three companies regulated by her department and urged them to help a nonprofit group promote President Obama’s health care law.

    The action is not in impeaching Obama. The action is impeaching pretty much his entire cabinet. If there is a cabinet member who is not guilty of a felony while in office, I am unaware of it.

  25. A Wisconsin man suspected of downloading child pornography must surrender the passwords for his encrypted files today or face jail. Which would seem to raise some Fifth Amendment concerns.

    Not to me.

    The Fifth Amendment prohibits compelled testimony against yourself.

    It is by no means obvious – and the caselaw is neither extremely clear nor univocal – that “providing an encryption key” is testimony that incriminates you, in general.

    (It would be, and thus a matter of Fifth Amendment privilege, if the mere fact of being able to decrypt the file/volume was evidence of a crime in itself; if there was some law against encrypting that device or using the encryption in question somehow, that would apply the Fifth Amendment.

    It’s not remotely clear that being compelled to decrypt files, where the fact of therefore proving you had control of the device at that level is not a crime, is protected by the Fifth Amendment.

    As I said, the case law is less than clear, and tends to depend on very specific factual findings in the individual cases (see Fricosu, etc.)… it is not so that one can say that “being made to reveal a key is automatically a violation of the Fifth Amendment”, however.)

    1. But it really won’t buy the government much leverage in a case like this. You can only be held for so long on contempt charges. You can’t be held forever and certainly not as long as child porn charges will get you. And being convicted of contempt doesn’t make you a sex offender. So anyone guilty of a serious offense will just accept the contempt conviction.

      1. And this goes back to why there needs to be a two password system on encryptions. One password to unlock, and another password that seems legit to zero fill drive.

        1. I am told there are systems out there that do that. There are also systems that have an entire interior virtual system that exists inside another system. So you have a normal computer that looks and works like any other computer that is encrypted. Then within that there is an entire other operating system that is nearly impossible to detect. Then you give the cops the password to your first system and go on your marry way.

          1. TrueCrypt is your friend.

    2. Can you be forced to open a door behind which a bloody knife might be? Nope. The government can go in there with a warrant but they can’t make you open the door.

      1. pretty much. It’s like them demanding you to tell them where you dumped the body. They are forcing this person to give them information to incriminate him.

        1. Yeah, this one needs to be fought all the way to SCOTUS. Even admitting to knowing the passwords means admitting the stuff is yours, not the mention that giving up evidence of actual pics is way more incriminating than the government alleging that they think there might be pics on an encrypted drive if only they could figure out how to open it, which they can’t.

          The guy would be a fool to comply with demands to give up passwords.

        2. It’s like them demanding you to tell them where you dumped the body.

          The 5th Amendment applies to logical fallacies?

    3. Two thoughts:

      1. The prosecution have the evidence their warrants sought in their possession. They just lack the expertise/knowledge/comprehension/whatever to decipher the evidence. That’s their problem, not his.

      2. Being forced to give the encryption key is effectively being forced to shore up the prosecution’s case against you. Don’t see how that couldn’t be a valid 5th amendment against incriminating yourself.

      Kind of beside the point since they allegedly defeated whatever encryption there was on another drive and that drive is said to contain evidence of the crime.

      1. Edit to #2

        2. Being forced to give the encryption key if there is incriminating information is effectively being forced to shore up the prosecution’s case against you. Don’t see how that couldn’t be a valid 5th amendment against incriminating yourself.

      2. Kind of beside the point since they allegedly defeated whatever encryption there was on another drive and that drive is said to contain evidence of the crime.

        Not really. You giving up evidence proving you knew how to access 16 drives full of child porn is far more damning than the government opening up a single drive which has porn you claim you had no knowledge of, that someone else put there.

        17 counts is worse than 1, in any event.

        1. I say its beside the point because the cracked drive should be sufficient for a conviction.

          Given how much other information is probably contained on the drive, I doubt there would be any difficulty in proving the cracked drive is his and that he was aware of the contents.

          Forcing him to give the encryption key is more about trying to establish a precedent that the 5th amendment doesn’t protect you from having to divulge encryption keys.

      3. Also, what if I decide I want to keep large collections of random numbers on my disk. And they want to compel me to decrypt it, and I say “thats not encyptted material, it’s just random numbers” ? That’s crap. Possesion of random digits should be illegal.

      4. Just tell them you forgot.

    4. I think the point is that if he gives the key, he is by that very fact acknowledging that he has it – that is, acknowledging that he knows how to access the alleged porn.

      It’s like being forced to reveal where the body is buried – it’s incriminating to admit this. So even if they only want the body’s location so they can dig it up and do an autopsy, in the course of getting the info they’ve forced the suspect to admit something damaging.

      1. I see that matrix already used the where’s-the-body analogy.

    5. Not to me.

      The Fifth Amendment prohibits compelled testimony against yourself.

      It is by no means obvious – and the caselaw is neither extremely clear nor univocal – that “providing an encryption key” is testimony that incriminates you, in general.

      There is NO upside to exempting your digital life from the 5th (and also 4th) amendments. None.

  26. I just saw the new Star Trek. I’ll be sure to ignore Suderman reviews in the future I think the sequel may have been even better than the 2009 original.

    1. Yeah, I thought it was. My friend, who saw it with me, did not think it was as good as the original.

      The only bad part was the last 15 minutes or so. But Cumberbatch totally owned that role.

      1. Funny I only hated the first 10 min or so.

        1. did you ever watch “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan”?

    2. Me too. Much better.

    1. LAY OFF I’M STARVING

    2. So is Sarc going to come along and say that she’s too fat?

    3. There’s a lotta boob outside of that dress.

      1. She should save her pennies and get them reduced. A good surgeon could give her large Cs or Ds that would be works of art.

        1. You don’t have much of a filter, do you John?

      2. There’s a lot of arm fat, too.

        If it’s true she has a good reason to bitch.

    4. Sensationalist headlines!

      The teen eventually agreed to obscure her bosom with a shawl and was allowed in.

      1. Yeah. I wasn’t actually siding with the girl. I saw the dress she was wearing, and it looked like a struggle to contain her. Perhaps they were right that finding a dress that fits busty girls is difficult, but she could do things to prevent a massive amount of cleavage from showing.

    5. A big girl is supposed to have big breasts.

    1. Sounds like friends joking with each other. Wait. Is the woman species even capable of friendship? Nicole, what do pick-up artists have to say about this?

      1. Women in offices are like those Beta fighting fish. You have to keep them separated or they fight to the death.

        1. They’re more like hens. They only get pecked to death if they show weakness.

      2. We have a herd.

      3. In some of the clips I thought I could sense clear hostility in the anchor’s voice and laugh.

        1. I can’t believe enough people would keep watching that crap to keep her on the air.

          Shut up and let me hear the weather!

    2. Hmm, do friends use the other persons name in every sentence?

      Nicole.
      Carol.
      Nicole.
      Carol

      Wait. The pick up artist books tell you that is how you know someone is attracted to you, repetition of your name.

      Nicole!
      Oh, Carol!

      1. I think the anchor was negging (which sounds racist somehow) the weather lady. She’s a PUL (pick up lesbian).

        Seriously that wasn’t even passive aggressive, or even micro-aggression. How about we go with pico-aggression?

        It seemed as though they were just messing around.

  27. http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news…..15701.html

    Money doesn’t make you any less of a douche bag.

    1. Wait a minute – he built an elaborate wedding set without the permission of the Cali Coastal commission, but someone at the Commission says:

      “”Mr. Parker has been extremely cooperative and actively involved in working with Coastal Commission staff to reach this resolution which both addresses our Coastal Act concerns and will result in greater coastal access and conservation in the Big Sur and Monterey Peninsula areas,””

      i wish more douchebags could be like this.

    2. However, it will get you a bottle-blonde.

  28. I posted this last night (or actually early this morning) because I’m too busy during the day to play in these little reindeer games, but I have a break so here it is.

    The apocalypse is upon us-The Boston Globe argues against affirmative action

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/met…..story.html

    1. So the guy isn’t categorically opposed to a highly qualified white person being appointed president of a community college. He hasn’t committed himself against the more “nuanced” form of affirmative action which uses race a a “plus factor” when choosing between similarly-qualified candidates. Not saying the columnist supports the “plus factor” variety of AA, he simply hasn’t committed himself in that particular column.

      1. You have to understand that this was printed in the Boston Globe Metro section, which is so far left it makes the NYT look like tea partiers.

        Roxbury and its School systems has been a victim of leftist race based affirmative action for years, and it remains an educational sinkhole because of it. To read someone from the The Globe argue that “just because he’s white doesn’t mean he wouldn’t do a good job running RCC” is borderline treasonous in some circles.

        1. I think I get it. OK, I admit I was nit-picking at this guy’s courage.

        2. The activist referenced in the column, Sadiki Kambon, is a long time caller to political talk shows.

          Do you recognize his first name? I remember he would often call Gene Burns when Gene was with WRKO from 1985-1992.

          Sadiki would also call Avi Nelson and the late great David Brudnoy (who, btw called me “a truculent libertarian”).

          1. You? Truculent? Surely he was joking!

            1. One time he had Robert Bork as his guest and after I had challenged and grilled Bork on his embrace of judicial deference to legislative enactments, Bork said that he would rather face the questions posed by Teddy K. and the judiciary committee.

          2. I vaguely remember Sadiki. I left Boston for good in 1990 and haven’t kept up much except when I went home to visit my folks.

            My parents were big participants in the Metco Busing program, and I was paired up with this kid Darnell from Roxbury who went to our public school in Belmont. We had no idea it was an obnoxious liberal feel-good program at the time (I was 7), I just remember being glad I was friends was Darnell because he was easily the fastest and most talented athlete in school, and he would always pick me for his teams which meant I got to win a lot of pick up games despite my complete lack of athletic talent.

            I went back on his bus a few times to his Moms apartment in Roxbury and I remember feeling unbelievably guilty for how good a life I had living in Belmont.

            1. In Sadiki’s world, the state would have forcibly removed your family in Belmont and transported you to Roxbury whereas Darnell’s family would have been moved into your family’s Belmont home.

  29. LA Times mourns death of 1,300 pound shark captured by fisherman off the coast of Huntington Beach.

    my chief reaction wasn’t admiration for the fishermen but sadness for the magnificent ocean predator caught 15 miles out of Huntington Beach.

    Not that fishing can’t be great sport or that landing the shark wasn’t a challenge. But short of getting an official weigh-in, the same thrills could have been experienced through catch and release.

    Nor did I buy the self-aggrandizing quote by one of the fishermen: “This thing is definitely a killing machine. Any wrong step and I could have went out of the boat and to the bottom of the ocean.”

    The shark was just out there in its natural environment ? 15 miles offshore, where we don’t have many swimmers hanging out. Its nature and its job as an apex predator in its natural environment is to do a certain amount of killing of other sea life. And if falling out of the boat would have brought this guy to the bottom of the ocean, he needs to stop wearing lead pants.

    1. Its nature and its job as an apex predator in its natural environment is to do a certain amount of killing of other sea life

      Man is the apex predator for the fucking planet. So by this argument, I should do a certain amount of killing just because it’s my natural job.

  30. Dear Prudence: Am I cheating on my husband by constantly hugging my coworker?

    About a month ago, I was having a very bad day at work and a male co-worker/friend told me I looked like I could use a hug. Prudie, I did need a hug and he gave me one and I started crying because I couldn’t remember the last time I had received nonsexual affection from someone without begging. My co-worker asked why I was crying and when I told him he said he loved his wife very much, but she wasn’t affectionate either and he knew exactly how I was feeling. Since that day we’ve been meeting in his or my office after work a couple of times a week to hug each other. And that’s all we do?there is no groping or kissing or even talking going on, we just hold each other for five to 10 minutes and then we go home. I like having a hug buddy and I’ve found my relationship with my husband is actually getting stronger because I am not so needy for affection from him. Of course, I have not told him about hugging my co-worker and I’m sure if I did he’d be upset, but I don’t feel like what I’m doing is cheating. Is it?

    1. “I will love him, and hug him, and squeeze him, and I will call him George.”

      1. Is it bad that I know that quote?

        1. It would be pretty bad if you didn’t. Were you never a child?

          1. Dude, it’s ProL. He’s always been old. Like, super old and stuff.

            1. I am glad everyone else is finally starting to come to this realization.

              1. When Episiarch has gone off to sodomize a thin-crust pizza, I’ll reveal to you that we’re actually pretty close in age.

                1. Pro Lib, when the universe was formed in the crucible of the big bang you were already 17 years old.

                  1. I think you just called me God, dude.

                    1. “What does god need with a law degree?”

                    2. Hey, it’s not me claiming that I’m God. I deny it completely. But Auric, well, he’s got some issue here I’m not sure I understand. But I’ll accept his sacrifices and tribute in the meantime.

                    3. Where should we store the infant ashes ProLib Ba’al?

                    4. No, yuck.

                      If I were to be a reluctant object of worship, I would accept cash and burnt offerings of thin pizza. Also, cast out all incumbent politicians. Please.

                    5. No, I called you a celebrated pooper.

                    6. You dare to blaspheme your god? Wow, I wouldn’t do that. What if I’m wrathful?

                      Again, I reject the whole concept, but still.

                    7. I find your lack of Futurama disturbing.

        2. But you know it from Looney Tunes, not Steinbeck. I don’t know if that’s bad…or good.

          1. Ugh, Steinbeck. Anyone who’s read Steinbeck on purpose is no comrade of mine.

            1. I’m inclined to agree with you, and it appears Warty agrees as well. Which is problematic, because he’s essentially a bigger, rapey-er Lennie. Warty likes to hug people. Really, really violently.

              1. Well, he’s certain abominable. Not sure about the snowman part.

              2. And sweatily! Don’t forget the sweat.

    2. we just hold each other for five to 10 minutes and then we go home.

      Holy cow, yes, yes it is.

      If it makes you feel guilty, there’s a very good chance it’s cheating.

      1. It’s not ‘cheating’ but the guy would probably not be okay if he knew about it.

        Cheating? No.

        Wrong? Probably.

        1. My definition of cheating would be interaction with another person that you’ve agreed (either explicitly or implicitly) will only be between the two of you. If her husband was okay when her spending 10 minutes hugging other guys, it’s not cheating. But if he was okay with that kind of thing, she wouldn’t be worried about it.

      2. Five to 10 minutes isn’t a hug, it’s an embrace.

    3. Her poor dumb husband.

      1. If we take the letter writer at her word, then her husband is kind of an asshole. If you love someone shouldn’t you want to show non-sexual physical affection with a hug or putting an arm around them while sitting on the couch?

    4. Dear Starved,

      Pretty soon you’ll actually be having sex with your husband again and that beta loser at work will have to find someone else to dry hump.

    5. And Japan was way ahead of Prudie. Of course.

    6. I’ve found my relationship with my husband is actually getting stronger because I am not so needy for affection from him.

      You see Irish? Nobody likes needy.

    7. Yeah, your cheating. And the middle ground you a making for yourself is a more painful place to be than outright fucking or making a vow to yourself to not physically touch men who are not your husband.

      1. Yeah, youre cheating.

        I’m doing this to force myself to edit better before hand.

        1. EDIT BUTTON

          1. I appreciate that. You see, calling me out like that incentivizes me. One day I’m going to more syntactically correct than all of you alls!

            1. I’m not calling you out. I’m calling Reason out…. for having registration but no EDIT BUTTON.

              1. Ah, I was thinking the preview button, what you meant was that feature on many other sites that allow you to edit your post after its published. No, worries. My reply above was meant in jest either way.

          2. FIRST, MAKE PREVIEW WORK.

            1. How does preview not work for you people?

              1. When I click “Preview” I get a page that consists only of my screen name as a mailto link, in the upper left of the page. This is with Safari 5.1.9 on OS X 10.6.8, but I get the same result with Firefox.

                1. It’s because you have an email address linked to your handle. Notice Brandon has no problem with his dull blue handle, but you with your linky handle fail (as do I). The problem seems to be browser and Reasonable independent. It doesn’t seem to be a problem with linked websites, only linked emails.

                  1. Interesting. I will try to delete the email and see if that works.

                    1. Hey, it worked. That’s a weird bug. Thanks for the fix, jesse.in.mb. It’s not as if anyone emails me from here, anyway.

                    2. Wow. Nice bug hunting jesse! Rather than delete my email address though it’d be nice if someone at the reason.com world HQ could work on a fix?

    8. “I couldn’t remember the last time I had received nonsexual affection from someone without begging

      Jesus fucking Christ!

    9. Yep, Cheating.

      I won’t necessarily say she is wrong to be doing it, but the fact that she apparently cannot talk about it with her husband and feels guilty means that she knows that he almost certainly is not ok with it. Cheating = breaking the rules of the relationship (either spoken or unspoken) not merely having sex with someone else.

      1. Pretty much the same as my 5:31 post, so I agree.

        However, I think she is wrong to be doing it. I understand why she would want that, but it’s still wrong for her to do it while in a relationship with him. If he won’t show her affection, and she needs to get it from somewhere, break up and then you can hug your coworkers.

        1. What kind of fucking baby needs a goddamn scheduled hug every week?

          Why doesn’t she get a goddamn bankie or something?

          And you know her hug-buddy is thinking about boning her, and the tits squeezed against the chest are foreplay.

          1. And you know her hug-buddy is thinking about boning her, and the tits squeezed against the chest are foreplay.

            Yeah. The hug buddy is either gay or wants to have sex.

            I don’t know how women sometimes don’t realize this.

            1. Now don’t get me wrong, I do think you can have real platonic relationships with women, but when cuddling, hugging, holding hands happens the guy wants more than friendship.

              1. Now don’t get me wrong, I do think you can have real platonic relationships with women, but when cuddling, hugging, holding hands happens the guy wants more than friendship.

                Clearly I wasn’t trying to argue that platonic relationships with women aren’t possible. I have several. I don’t generally hug them for 10 minutes, and if I did, I’d hope that they’d be bright enough to realize what my goals were.

                1. I got ya, I just didn’t want my post to be arguing the same.

            2. Yeah. The hug buddy is either gay or wants to have sex.

              I don’t know how women sometimes don’t realize this.

              They should be able to pick it up from this part:

              My co-worker asked why I was crying and when I told him he said he loved his wife very much, but she wasn’t affectionate either and he knew exactly how I was feeling.

              1. It’s an evolutionary adaptation for men to always overestimate their chances, because the reproductive cost of doing so is far smaller than the cost of missed opportunities.

            3. Or the hug buddy could be married to a voracious sexual beast who has no time for his cuddling. Maybe he’s married to the reincarnation of Ayn Rand (which may mean he’s gay).

        2. Well it would certainly be better if she was honest and upfront with her husband about her needs and demanded he either meet them or allow her to seek to have them met elsewhere but within the text of the letter it appears that she has made this known to him and he is either unwilling or unable to meet her needs.

          This leaves her in a very difficult situation of moral calculus, end what is otherwise a very good relationship over this one issue, engage in the soul crushing task of suppressing her needs for the sake of the marriage, or cheat.

          In general I do not believe there is a single right answer when this dilemma presents itself and in some cases (some I have personal knowledge of because I knew the couple) I think cheating is the least bad option.

        3. Moronic. You’re both moronic.

    10. The only women that men non-sexually hug are their nanas, moms and sisters. Even cousins should stay back.

      1. Only the good looking ones.

    11. I think this one from the same page is probably more messed up:

      I am considering having a child with my married ex-boyfriend. We recently reconnected and have spent time together, without things going too far. I still love him and he claims he never stopped loving me. After our breakup I cut all ties, but knew of the marriage through mutual friends. After seven years, he sought me out. It was great catching up with him because I really missed our friendship. I don’t want to cause issues in his current relationship. However, my clock is ticking and he is the only man I’ve ever considered being a parent with. I’m getting older and I’m in a great place with my career and finances. I date, but no one seriously. I want to start a family, and I know my ex will be a great dad. If he agrees to start a family with me, I am even willing to keep the baby’s paternity a secret. I know this is inappropriate, but it doesn’t necessarily feel “wrong.” How out of line would it be to bring this up with him?

      I am very confused by the bold part.

      1. It’s especially perplexing with the “great dad” bit right before.

        Maybe they’d never tell the wife that the kid was his, and then he’d help raise the kid as a surrogate father because children need a father figure and she and the ex are good friends now?

        Irish, as our resident bunny boiler, what’s your take on this?

        1. I don’t even know what is going on with that question. This woman seems to inhabit a world very much unlike our own.

      2. She thinks she’ll be happy enough with the little bit of time she’ll (and the kid)have with him as he sneaks around.

        And guess what lady, the kid is gonna wanna know who his pa is, and if he knows, the kid isn’t bound to keep anything secret.

      3. How fucking self-absorbed can this woman be to even consider this scenario?

        I wish I could hack her to death with a machete all Rwanda-style.

      4. I don’t want to cause issues… but I really do want to cause a major issue.

      5. If this is your idea of a good idea, then you’re not ready to be a parent.

        Good job, Prudie.

  31. Krugman is pissed when people don’t massage the numbers.

    Klein tries really hard to keep his temper even; too hard, I think, because I wonder how many readers will stay with him all the way through. But to cut to the chase, Roy claims that Obamacare will cause soaring insurance rates, using a comparison that is completely fraudulent ? and I say fraudulent, not wrong, because he is indeed enough of a policy wonk here to know that he is pulling a fast one.

    1. Only Paul Krugman could read Ezra Klein and come to the conclusion that Klein’s primary fault is not getting angry enough.

    2. Right now, California has a basically unregulated individual market, in which insurers are free to reject whoever they choose, and charge whatever rates they choose. This means that a few young, healthy people with no record of prior medical problems can get cheap plans; these are, of course, precisely the people who need insurance least, and these plans are cheap not just because they’re only available to the very healthy but because they don’t provide much insurance. If you’re not healthy or wealthy enough to get by with this kind of insurance, too bad.

      So making healthy people pay for their healthy privilege by forcing them to buy shit they don’t need is the solution?

      1. , California has a basically unregulated individual market

        I wonder if managed to keep a straight face while typing that.

        1. Generic Stranger| 6.4.13 @ 7:43PM |#
          “California has a basically unregulated individual market”

          Compared to N Korea, Cuba, and well, Canada before you were ‘allowed’ to buy medical care, yeah.

      2. Right now, California has a basically unregulated individual market, in which insurers are free to reject whoever they choose, and charge whatever rates they choose.

        Imma call bullfuckingshit on this one.

        1. ding ding you win the prize.

          There is NOTHING more regulated in california than insurance, not even the fucking energy industry

  32. Momre lying with statistics.

    This one has all the most used manipulations, but in it’s chutzpa, it adds one more that is rarely attempted.

    Salary differs noticeably between male and female students. Men are much more likely to appear in the highest pay brackets than women: Of the students who expect to earn more than $110,000 in their first year of work, three-quarters are male. Of those who will earn $90,000 to $110,000, men represent nearly two thirds. And those numbers come from a pool of respondents which included more women than men, suggesting that the true tallies are in fact slightly more weighted in men’s favor.

    The how do you feel you are going to be paid statistic. Surely one of the most scientifically rigorous methods available when measuring the wage gap.

    1. Admittedly, the sample sizes are small. But the same holds true in consulting.

      THAT MEANS EVERYTHING IS BULLSHIT! Jesus fucking christ. Fucking motherfuckers can’t even.

  33. Did anyone else notice Roger Federer lost today?

    1. Isn’t he like a race car driver or something? I thought they only had races on the weekend?

    2. Tsonga beat his ass in straight sets.

      1. Tsonga beat him?!? Wow, Roger’s getting old. Tsonga is a very, very good player, but he’s bottom half top ten and those guys almost never pull off a victory over top half top ten.

    3. To Tsonga, at the French Open. Not a huge upset by any stretch, Tsonga is a tough out.

      I think Federer is getting old, but jesus does he have a pretty impressive legacy. Not sure what he has left to prove anymore.

      1. Federer Career Singles Records-

        Australian Open W (2004, 2006, 2007, 2010)
        French Open W (2009)
        Wimbledon W (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012)
        US Open W (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008)

        Yeah, his best days are behind him but that’s a pretty amazing career.

        1. Greatest male tennis player of all time. Sorry Pete Sampras. Sorry Bjorn Borg.

          Greatest male athlete of all time? One could make a decent argument in favor of the proposition.

          1. I would support both arguments, particularly because Federer achieved these ridiculous feats in the modern age, in a non-team sport where there are no teammates to bail you out when you want to take a few plays off.

            Once he fixed his backhand in the early 2000’s McEnroe said that Federer would be virtually weakness free, and he was right. He could play any surface, and style and beat you handily. When he was in his prime he had literally no weak parts to his game at all.

            1. Federer has been bandied about as “the greatest ever”, though I dislike comparisons of that source because you just have no idea what a Rod Laver or a Fred Perry could have done with modern equipment and training methods. Fuck, Djokovich sleeps in some hyperbaric chamber or some shit as part of the regimen that he used to become top three.

              1. It is pretty much a pointless argument, I’ve made the same defense of Russell vs. Jordan for the same reason.

                Different era’s, etc.

                This is true especially in tennis too because the racquet technology alone gives a ridiculous amount of advantage.

                1. Yup. The strings alone make a huge difference. Everyone uses polyester strings now, everyone. With the light rackets and high-grip strings, fast strokes create massive topspin, which was not the game even 30 years ago.

            2. He could play on any surface, but his clay record was really unimpressive, especially when compared to the rest of his achievements.

              I’m not prepared to call him the greatest male athlete ever. There’s a guy by the name of Jim Thorpe who has something to say about that.

  34. Huge props today to Safariland bullet resistant vest company. As of today, there have been over 1800 documented officer “saves” due to the wearing of a Safariland vest. That’s 1800 officers alive who would be dead save for their vest.

    I’m wearing mine now…

    And now back to your regularly scheduled wanking…

    1. Huge props today to Safariland bullet resistant vest company. As of today, there have been over 1800 documented officer “saves” due to the wearing of a Safariland vest. That’s 1800 officers alive who would be dead save for their vest.

      This number strikes me as bullshit. What sort of time frame are we talking about? Based on the statistics that I’ve seen, not enough police officers get shot for this vest to have saved 1800 of them, unless we’re talking about a 30 year period.

      1. What stats have you SEEN for officers gettting shot. 50-70 are shot and killed per year. many many many times that many are shot every yr. Heck, I know tons of officers walking around today who have been shot. 3 guys from my unit were shot on one detail. All were saved by their vests.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safariland

        Safariland been around a long time. Hypothetical 100 saves per year = 1800 over a 18 yr period, for example.

        1. btw, safariland extensively documents every save.

          Save club

          http://www.safariland.com/body…..-Club.aspx

      2. Maybe they’re counting saves from being shot by other officers in the hail of panic fire.

        1. That probably accounts for about 1/2 or so . . .

          1. Safariland huh? How is no one pointing out how “dog whistle” racists that name is? Where do you go on safari? Oh African grasslands, mmmhmmm. And what is the common version of the people who went on them? Oh the Great White Hunter, mmmhmmm. And what demographic segment of society does most of the shooting at cops? Well if I had to wager a guess…

  35. Sounds like some serious smack. Wow.

    http://www.WorldPrivacy.tk

  36. http://wp.me/p2KckS-Re < Link. Coercion. The Central Crime.

    If it’s not coercion. It’s not a crime.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.