European Union

Croatia Celebrates Joining the European Union

28th country in the beleaguered political union

|

Croatia became the 28th member of the beleaguered European Union today. Here's a video of the Croatian prime minister dismissing fears about Croatia joining the EU:

And here's some celebration video if it's needed for reference at some later point when Croatians aren't so hot to the EU anymore.

NEXT: Cirque de Soleil Performer Dies in Accident at Las Vegas Show

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. OK, whatever sort of real estate is currently defined as Croatia will definitely gain from access to the German treasury.
    But why did the EU allow that? Does the EU think adding 50 square miles of ‘The Republic of You and Me and I’m not sure about You’ is a net gain for the EU?

    1. Croatia is unusually good at soccer for a country their size (they were ranked 4th earlier this year, haven’t checked in awhile). That’s the gain for the EU.

      1. Brazil just beat Spain 3-0 for the FIFA Confederations Cup. Wife and I watched the game. I still don’t understand all the rules for this futebol.

        All I know is that most of the players are drama queen actors who fall down and put on one hell of an act at the slightest of contact with another player.

        1. While running full speed, even slight contact below the knee can and will send people tumbling. The instances of actual, verifiable flopping (and not just taking a second to rub down a smacked shin) are greater than the NBA, but not by a wide margin.

          I watched that game all the way through, also. Brilliant. Spain has been the Big Bad in world soccer for some years now, nice to see them get a right good thrashing.

          1. “Only slightly more flopping than the NBA!” is your endorsement? Holy shit.

            1. Not an endorsement, simply a statement of fact. Every sport has it’s version of “flopping”.

              A Yankees/Red Sox game lasts for 17 hours, because the batters step out of the box endlessly, and the pitchers check the bases three times each before making a pitch.

              When an NFL offense is running the no-huddle, defensive guys routinely wait to get off the field very slowly, acting like they have a “cramp”, just to give them a chance to breath and force the offense into a huddle.

              I’m not well-versed enough in sports outside of football, baseball, basketball, and soccer to make other comparisons, but it drives me batty when people act like soccer is the only sport on earth where players dive for calls.

              1. It just seems to me that it’s more overly dramatized than in other sports.

                I can’t watch baseball because it’s too slow. I like going to the games to watch people. But I have no idea how someone actually watches an entire season of baseball, like 200 games and endures the ‘pitcher throws a pitch, it’s a ball. Catcher now needs to go to pitcher mound and have a conference while other players throw ball around. 10 minutes later, pitcher throws another pitch…’

                1. I can’t watch baseball because it’s too slow.

                  You know, they have drugs for ADHD. You should see your doctor.

                  After that, you will be ready to watch test cricket.

              2. The offense in the NFL can still run a play. The offense has to let the defense substitute only if the offense itself substituted.

                And flopping sucks as does any instance of fooling the officials. But there’s no real way to combat it. Not without giving refs much more ability to determine the outcome of a game.

                1. The offense has to let the defense substitute only if the offense itself substituted.

                  Not if it’s an “injury”. In such a case, the defenseman cannot take the field for the following play, but that’s the only rule limiting it. That’s why there are suddenly so many cramps that spring up when an offense is really driving.

                  1. One way to stop that then is make it a 3-4 play sit out.

                  2. Under two minutes in the half the defensive team gets charged a timeout for that, don’t they?

                    1. Yeah, that’s what I thought. That’s the only time the offense should be running the no-huddle; Running it for 60 minutes is bullshit.

                2. And you’re right, btw. The only thing you can really do is already being done: if there’s indisputable video evidence after the game (showing no contact, etc.) that there was a flop, then fine the player. But that’s really all that can be done.

                  1. Or you could ban the player from playing the sport. For life. That would possibly make them man up a bit.

                    watch?v=of50I4M5Fh0

                  2. For the record, I am a soccer fan, moreso than in the NBA, and Jimbo here is dead wrong: the flops are way worse in soccer than in any other sport, by a country mile. And I say that *as a fan*.

              3. The baseball and American football examples you give aren’t really comparable to flopping; those are both instances of taking full advantage of the rules.

                IMHO the hurry-up offense itself is the true envelope-pushing travesty; the spirit of the game is that the both sides are SUPPOSED to be able to make substitutions between plays. The NFL looked the other way when teams started doing the no-huddle when they were trailing with 2:00 left in the game because it made the game more exciting, but then that fuckstick Sam Wyche realized that you could gain an advantage by doing it through the whole game, and the league didn’t put its foot down. Fast forward 25 years and you’ve got Peyton Manning whining when they move the umpire and he can’t run plays every 2 seconds (not to mention the umpire pick route that built Lucas Oil Stadium), and no one says “Fuck you, Peyton!” but rather they move the umpire back to make him happy.

                1. There are many ways to play football and I like the hurry-up style. Lowers the value of hulkster lineman and raises the value of better athletes.

                  I would love to see a run-based blur offense with solid blocking TE and FBs.

                  1. Then, Warren, you’d probably like rugby, either Union or League.

                    I like being able to play hurry-up too, and it’s one of my great fears playing against as a children’s football coach. The mitigating factor is that children’s defenses aren’t too sophisticated, and most of the offenses don’t use many formations. Plus, not much substitution in the children’s game.

                    1. I’ve given Rugby and Aussie rules a look before.

                      And while I was entertained, the lack of blocking and forward passing prevents me from being totally entranced.

              4. And of course, that’s not the only problem soccer has from a US sports fan’s perspective; there’s also the fact that officials don’t have to explain their rulings during the game. They can disallow a goal or hand out a red card without ever having to explain to anyone, ever.

                1. And new readers of this string, have fun parsing which response belongs to which comment!

                  1. And new readers of this string people who don’t follow sports, have fun parsing which response belongs to which comment all of the above!

      2. So they win over ‘The Republic of Me and You and You’re not sure about Me’?

        1. No, they win over “The United States of America” and other similarly-sized nations which, in a rational world, would not lose to countries the size of New Jersey.

          1. Gojira| 6.30.13 @ 9:28PM |#
            “No, they win over “The United States of America” and other similarly-sized nations which, in a rational world, would not lose to countries the size of New Jersey.”

            Uh, a rational world might not give a hoot about three hours of people running back and forth, taking obvious nose dives and *maybe* getting one point.
            I sure don’t.

            1. Depends on your definition of “rational”. I’m sure Sevo has some pastimes which other people may not find enjoyable, and would label as irrational.

              1. I’m sure that’s true, and I don’t bother trying to sell them to other people.

                1. It’s alright; we all have a dream. Mine is to build a pipe organ which uses giant dildos for the pipes.

                  1. I had those dreams too before my doctor put me on the antipsychotic rx.

          2. Yes, truly national sports teams are the measure of a country. Especially in the sports that are fourth or fifth in popularity in the country being measured.

  2. So it’s looking like HnR will be waiting until tomorrow to mention the little protest underway in Egypt.

    1. error 404 on link

      1. Does that count as a pantsed link?

        1. SugarFree doesn’t wear pants

          1. Since his lower-half is nothing but weeping goiters it’s difficult to get pants over them.

            1. That’s why he invented the Utili Kilt

              1. And the suspender supported maxi-pad.

          2. he wears jorts

            1. Did you mean jarts?

              1. I think he meant sharts, and they’re not worn so much as dribbled.

      1. Can’t believe it.
        Says “An Error was Encountered”.
        So even sf’d links are given to the passive voice?

        1. A link was broken. An investigation was had. Procedures were followed.

          1. OFFICER SAFETY

            1. ISO. LATED. INCI. DENT.

  3. Does that mean their no longer harbouring war criminals?

    1. THEY’RE DAMMIT

      1. Did you lose the password to your other name? Maybe that’s where you kept your their/there/they’re delineator.

        1. yeah, that’s the ticket.

          1. If you change the “pants” part, shouldn’t you change the “fan” part?

            How about Trouserenthusiast?

            1. Quickly, what’s another word for ‘thesaurus’?

              1. Ma-braine

          2. You don’t really expect us to change ‘pansted the link’ to ‘trousered the link’, do you? It just doesn’t have that ring…

            1. He pantalooned the link?

              1. Archduke Pantaloonconnoisseur?

                If we’re going to make it more difficult, might as well go for it.

                1. Archduke PlusFoursLover

                  1. Archduke Spats-Smoocher

        2. De line, Ator! De line!

    2. Since it’s not a real word you can’t “harbour” anybody but you can harbor them.

    1. We are that much closer to world peace you cynical bastards!

      1. Wrong string.

        Anyway the Reason contributors won’t be covering the protests as, to a person, they don’t believe Egypt exists.

        1. “Anyway the Reason contributors won’t be covering the protests as, to a person, they don’t believe Egypt exists.”

          Not true. There is simply no way to separate the good guys from the bad ones, so what can you say about a massacre?

          1. From what I’ve seen of Egyptians while I was “over there” making the world safe for democracy, I think you could easily say about a massacre, “Some smokin’ hot chicks were just killed, and that’s a shame.”

            1. Having known a few smokin’ hot Egyptian chicks, I second this.

              1. There are definitely some hot middle eastern women. The Persians, especially.

                1. Seriously, all the girls in my Farsi class were stunning. It was hard to pay attention sometimes!

                  1. You know, it should be considered socially inappropriate and othering to talk about Persian women without posting pictures of them.

                    1. P.S.

                      Persian kunoichi (girl ninja). I would be in love, if I had a heart.

                      Aaaaand, one more. Rule of threes.

                    2. Holy. Shit.

            2. “I think you could easily say about a massacre, “Some smokin’ hot chicks were just killed, and that’s a shame.”

              Now there *is* a comment you can make about a massacre.

            3. If it was socially acceptable to wear burqas in West Virginia, you’d think all the women there were hot too.

  4. Um, just to be clear,

    European Union != Eurozone

    1. But I didn’t see any comments about Eurozone (whatever that is).
      Headline says Croatia ‘joined the EU’.

      1. Eurozone refers to the countries in the EU that use the euro.

      2. OK, whatever sort of real estate is currently defined as Croatia will definitely gain from access to the German treasury.

        The countries that Germany is propping up are countries that are in the Euro, like Greece & Spain, not countries that are in the EU but have their own currency. Poorer EU countries do get ‘stimulas’ subsidies, but those are mostly Hoovered by countries that got addicted to them in the first place, again Spain & Greece, rather than poorer countries that joined later. If fact that was the big contentious issue to expanding the EU was that countries like Spain didn’t want anyone to lose a dime of subsidy even if a country like Slovakia was actually poorer.

        1. So this is the ‘bigger victim’ competition?
          Is it played in a cow field with guys kicking a ball around and taking nose dives?

  5. The A-Team theme music!

    You can’t help yourself, it’s in your head now!

    1. Crimson and clover, over and over.

      1. Auuuuuugh!

      2. I feel like you should change the Archduke part too. How about Sultan Chapsobsessive?

        1. when you get a lordship, you go ahead and style yourself the way you please

        2. Emir Jodhpursabettor?

          1. Godking Breechesnut?

            1. Viscount Slacks

              1. Sir Archduke of Pantsingham?

              2. His Serene Grace, the Upholder of Dungarees.

                1. The Marchioness of Tullibardine.

                  Wait, no, that’s a 2/4 march for bagpipes. Sorry.

                  1. Where they wear kilts!

                    1. Bagpipe tune names are epic:

                      “The Desperate Battle of the Birds”
                      “The Big Spree”
                      “The Wee Spree”
                      “Doctor Ross’s 50th Welcome to the Argyllshire Gathering” (best 6/8 march EVAR)
                      “The Judging Was Bad”
                      “The Taking of Beaumont Hamel”
                      “Johnny With the Bandy Legs”

                      WHAT THE HELL ARE “BANDY” LEGS???!!!

                    2. WHAT THE HELL ARE “BANDY” LEGS???!!!

                      It’s what happens when Johnny didn’t drink enough milk.

  6. Crotia joins the Union. “Will there be meetings?”

    And it’s spring in Egypt.

    Everyone’s happy!

  7. Some commenters have suggested that the main political conflict in this century is not left vs. right, as the two are in often the same, but of localists vs. globalists, nationalists vs. multicultralists.

    1. I think of it more in terms of individualism vs statism.

      1. “Individualism” in the strict sense isn’t a very politically powerful ideology, especially outside of America. In America, from watching the political shows, the political debates, one might get the idea that the main issue in the elections is purely economic. However, if you talk to ordinary people, the main issues people vote on are race, religion, and culture. These issues can be better understood as a version of the localist vs. globalist debate, with the “conservaitves” the localists and the “liberals” the globalists. However, the Republican party hierarchy is unmistakeably more globalist than localist, this is reflected in the their support for free trade agreements, despite the opposition of the majority of the Republican people. If I had to choose which system was better, I would say localism, if only because it has not had a chance to display its tyranny. Both systems are basically statist.

        1. It’s a false choice. Comparative advantage — you can go global, local, and everything in between wherever it makes the most sense.

        2. In America, from watching the political shows, the political debates, one might get the idea that the main issue in the elections is purely economic. However, if you talk to ordinary people, the main issues people vote on are race, religion, and culture.

          I’m not sure I agree. Convince me more.

          1. I’ve had the fortune to live in both one of the most conservative areas in the country, rural Alabama, and one of the most liberal areas, Boulder County, Colorado.

            In Alabama, the main political issues people care about are the “values” issues. Race, though most prefer not to talk openly about it, is the other main issue. While most people are economically conservative, it is something many people know or care about. Few of them will run a large business or pay the maximum tax rate, so they care little personally about these issues.

            In Boulder County, liberalism is mainly represented by repudiation of Christianity, feminism, and liberal views on race. Few know much of anything about economic policy. One can question their views on it without incident, however if one questions liberal views on feminism or race, they’ll ostracize you.

            1. In Alabama, the main political issues people care about are the “values” issues

              Ok. I can see that.

              Race, though most prefer not to talk openly about it, is the other main issue.

              In 2013, what “race” issues are there to vote on?

              While most people are economically conservative, it is something many people know or care about. Few of them will run a large business or pay the maximum tax rate, so they care little personally about these issues.

              Why do you believe one has to run a large business or be in a high tax bracket to care about economic issues? The majority of Americans own or work for some small business. A small business owner is definitely interested in economic issues, like how the onerous demands of Obamacare are going to put him out of business.

              1. “In 2013, what “race” issues are there to vote on?”

                Immigration is the big one. But more than that, race is still a tense issue there. The races see voting democrat or republican as a way of showing their racial awareness.

                1. You’re not fooling me.

                  I’ve been to the Red House.

              2. In 2013, what “race” issues are there to vote on?

                I’d imagine the biggest would be the race of people elected to office, but often the palette to choose from is pretty limited.

            2. In Alabama, the main political issues people care about are the “values” issues. Race, though most prefer not to talk openly about it, is the other main issue. In Boulder County, liberalism is mainly represented by repudiation of Christianity, feminism, and liberal views on race.

              This is interesting, considering that politics can’t have much effect on values or race.

    2. 444| 6.30.13 @ 9:38PM |#
      “Some commenters have suggested that the main political conflict in this century is not left vs. right, as the two are in often the same, but of localists vs. globalists, nationalists vs. multicultralists.”

      Who suggested that?

      1. I missed that also. Must be because of work. Work should be banned.

      2. Some commenters [sic] have suggested that the main political conflict in this century is not left vs. right, as the two are in often [sic] the same, but of localists vs. globalists, nationalists vs. multicultralists [sic].”

        Who suggested that?

        One guess.

        That person also tends to tends to make atrocious spelling and grammar mistakes as well.

        1. tends to tends to

          That was the squirrels’ fault, by the way…

          1. Joez sez hai!

    3. It is interesting that you used those examples because I don’t think localist maps neatly to nationalist, and the same for globalist to multiculturalist. A lot of progressives are very into localism in things like food and economy because “corporations are evil” and are very into multiculturalism (from a distance). On the right you have a lot of people that fans of global trade and the like but have very nationalistic attitudes about culture.

      1. On the right you have a lot of people that fans of global trade and the like but have very nationalistic attitudes about culture.

        Which Right? If you’re talking about North American neoconservatives, then, yes, that animal does exist. With the European Right free trade and cultural protectionism don’t often go hand in hand from what I’ve seen.

        1. Yeah, I was thinking neocons. I forgot Europe existed when writing this comment. My world didn’t change in the least bit as a result.

      2. and are very into multiculturalism (from a distance).

        They’ve always seemed to be to me a lot more into multi-colorism than actual multiculturalism.

        1. I dunno. The left has been obsessed with the more “enlightened” culture of white Europe for a while.

          1. That explains their embrace of Swedish concepts like choice and competition in public education and prohibiting abortions after 18 weeks gestation.

            Oh wait a minute.

            1. Leftists embrace the democratic socialism of northern Europe that they heard references to in college and on NPR and read a little about in the Times, all of which is a rather partial and idealized picture of what goes on there.

            2. Not to mention the rampant discrimination against anyone with an Arab-sounding name in France…

        2. Indeed. Self-proclaimed multiculturalists would never tolerate open expressions of southern culture or explicitly “Christian” culture(when expressed by whites).

          1. Leave Paula Deen ALONE!!

            *sobs*

            1. I’m sure there is a porn in the works called Daula Peen starring an over the hill porn actress who uses gobs of butter as lube.

              1. Paula ream

      3. Yes, but those liberals are not inherently localist for localism’s own sake. They “buy local” because they oppose corporations. Their opposition to free trade is because they are socialists, not because they have nationalistic attitudes. They oppose importing Mexican products but support importing Mexican workers, because they can’t control the workers, and the working conditions and regulations and the like, when they’re in Mexico. If you actually talk to the Republican base, they oppose free trade.

        1. BUY MURCAN! DON’T LET ‘EM TUK RRR JERBZZZ!

          DERKA DERRRR!!

        2. They oppose importing Mexican products but support importing Mexican workers, because they can’t control the workers, and the working conditions and regulations and the like, when they’re in Mexico.

          True dat.

        3. However, at the extremes “buy local” is a slogan of those who oppose division of labor. They’d be against trade even if it were between co-ops. They’ll make some concessions as necessary, but they really wish society were mostly small autarkic communities, preferably of people who are largely do-it-yourselfers.

          1. Because div. of labor is alienating.

            1. Well I certainly DO feel alienated from all the labor I haven’t done. Leisure time is bad, mkay.

    4. Some commenters have suggested that

      That’s a half assed Obamism there.

      You’ve gotta condense it all the way if you want to emulate your master – Some say… or his longer brother There are those who say…

      that the main political conflict in this century is not left vs. right, as the two are in often the same,

      The left-right dichotomy is completely obsolete at this point, with the labels serving to obfuscate. Individuals that self identify as either left or right hold some positions contrary to their comrades and simpatico with their erstwhile opponents on the opposite wing.

      Beyond that, the idea that all dimensions of political opinion can be aggregated into two opposing camps is itself ridiculous.

      but of localists vs. globalists, nationalists vs. multicultralists.

      These labels are themselves an extremely misleading oversimplification.

      Someone who believes in decentralized political authority and embraces global trade would be characterized as a globalist, while someone who advocates for centralized political authority while rejecting and seeking to limit global trade would be characterized as a localist.

      Likewise, progressives style themselves as multiculturalists and disparage their opponents as nationalists. All while repressing any divergence of opinion in the cultures they dominate, while the decentralized political philosophy of their opponents means interacting with a multitude of cultures.

    5. The Left-Right spectrum is an antiquated and purposefully inaccurate tool of political analysis (when people start talking about left-right to me in real life, I ask them who do the rightists support for king. Their confusion then gives me the opportunity to escape). The political conflict, insofar as those under the libertarian banner are usually concerned is individual liberty vs. collectivism and command economy vs. free markets.

    6. The main conflict is between groups of socialists: social conservative socialists and social liberal socialists.

      There is no meaningful difference whatsoever. The both sides are hopeless statists.

  8. Quick, bug their embassy!

    1. “I’m not touching you!”

      1. “Why does the ambassador keep hitting himself”?

  9. Sunday threads were a lot better when Lucy Steigerwald was around.

    1. today we learned that Pirelli tires are susceptible to blowing up.

      1. They blowed up REAL good!

        I have Pirellis on the Mustang – P Zero Neros. Have found them to be EXCELLENT tires.

        Guess the Euros have moar trubble with ’em. Maybe they should try Hoosiers?

      2. People only go to an F1 race to see a tire explode.

    2. Was she fired or did she quit?

      1. I believe she was invited to leave. She seemed quite upset about it. 🙁 she’s been writing for some other sites, plus doing her blog, so seems like she’s landed on her feet, which is great.

        1. I loved her stuff AND she was cute. I like a semi-thick-waisted petite redhead.

        2. What happened to cause her leaving?

          1. She just wasn’t cocktail party material. And worse, she didn’t care.

            1. RESPECT!

          2. All I know is that it happened a couple of days after she praised me in a thread and said I was a positive influence on Reason, keeping people intellectually honest. Then, poof, gone.

            1. You prolly think this song is about you

              1. Never been a George Harrison fan.

              2. He’s so vain.

    3. Zelim ici kupovati.

      1. I want to go buy?

  10. Martin Brodeur just picked his own son at the NHL entry draft.

    1. Wow – I didn’t realize he was that old.

      Or is his son 10 and he’s picking him a bit early?

      1. Brodeur is 41 — about a month older than I am.

        He also slept with his sister-in-law. Apparently Qu?becois women are both hot and crazy.

        1. The Qu?becois women are both hot and crazy.

          You were so close on that too.

  11. OT: Headline on CNN right now…

    GUNS IN AMERICA
    Morgan Spurlock’s “Inside Man” provides an inside and in-depth look at the issue of firearms — as viewed from behind the counter of a gun store. “One way or another, it’s a fear-driven market,” Spurlock says.

    Sounds like it will be very objective.

    1. OMG ITS ON MY TV RIGHT NOW!
      SHOOT IT! SHOOT IT!

      1. Morgan Spurlock is even less credible than Micheal Moore.

        1. That is one hell of an accusation there. I don’t plan on watching it so I’ll take your word for it, but that is some elite company of douchebagery.

          1. Spurlock is a world-class douche. I’d say he’s even douche-er than Moore in that Spurlock is a holier-than-thou Vegan food nanny.

            1. That’s some tough competition. I’ve seen Moore’s work but I never watched Super Size Me, as I’m not a fatty and don’t give a shit about other people’s bad choices as long as they’re not picking my pocket or breaking my leg in the process.

              Of course, if you want socialized medicine, then other people’s choices do become your business.

          2. On the other hand Michael Spurlock is awesome.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..=endscreen

            Whenever I need a bit of a smile I watch that or Ronde pick-sixing McNabb in the Championship game. Yes, I’m a doofus.

      1. That is the messiest paragraph I have read in a long time.

        “31,000 firearm deaths”

        How many of those were justifiable?

        “55,000 violent deaths”

        Why are we talking about 55K violent deaths when you started off talking about gun violence, which you just stated was the cause of only 31,000 deaths? Which is it: 31,000 or 55,000?

        “More than 38,000 people in the country are suicides”

        Uh, so fucking what?

        1. “31,000 firearm deaths”

          How many of those were justifiable?

          Well, 2/3 of them were suicides. This is why they use ‘gun deaths’ and not ‘homicides.’

          “More than 38,000 people in the country are suicides”

          Uh, so fucking what?

          Why are suicides that have nothing to do with guns being mentioned in this gun article?

          1. Seriously, we have 31,000 gun deaths but 38,000 suicides…why are they in the same article?

            1. $60 billion worth of economic damage. These right wing nuts will stop at nothing to sabotage the Obama recovery.

              1. These right wing nuts will stop at nothing to sabotage the Obama recovery.

                Wrong. These right wing nuts are providing necessary stimulus.

                I notice it’s never stimulus when they talk about how much money people are forced to spend due to obesity or gun violence.

        2. Though it varies from year to year, I believe that suicides typically account for somewhere in the neighborhood of 60% of gun deaths. Which means, assuming the above numbers are correct, that more people commit suicides w/out guns than with. But I’m sure those 18,000 people that did commit suicide with a gun wouldn’t have found any other way to do it if they didn’t have access to a gun.

          1. The US suicide rate is middle of the pack for the world and comparable to Canada’s.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…..icide_rate

            1. Wow. Greenland must really suck.

          2. That may not be necessarily so, our side says that a lot but we can’t prove it.

            I don’t like conceding anything but this is one of our weaker arguments.

            1. Admitedly just a sample of one but a buddy of mine who was a gun owner (handguns, rifles, and a shotgun) committed suicide by taping a hose from the exhaust of his car to the inside of the rear window of his car. He just took a nap with the engine running.

              It is painless and allows the person to change their minds to some degree. A lot of people who commit suicide really only want to attempt it – Want to hope something will save them and change everything. Guns don’t allow that option.

              I think the most attractive thing about suicide by gun is that it is not so psychologically immediate. Most beings have an innate fear of the things that would obviously kill us – jumping off a high structure, slashing our wrists, etc. While we intellectually know that a gun barrel against our temple would produce rapid death our animal selves don’t get it so strongly.

              1. I didn’t think that suicide method was possible anymore with a cat converter in the mix. All that would do is slowly asphyxiate you as the oxygen content in the car was replaced with CO2 (not CO).

                1. This didn’t happen last week. It was in a mid-70’s Monte Carlo so I doubt the ancient catalytic converter made much of a difference.

          3. Not sure about that. Guns are a popular choice for suicide because of the relative certainty and quickness of death once the trigger is pulled (assuming they pick the right part of themselves to shoot). Most other methods fall short in one of those two respects OR require a great deal of planning.

      2. A national survey published in March by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press reported that nearly half (48%) of gun owners say the main reason they own a gun is for protection, up from 26% who gave that answer in 1999.

        The findings make no sense, since violent crime in the country overall has dropped by 48% since 1993, according to Kellermann.

        They might have something to do with each other, if you think about it for more than two seconds…

        1. I also like that the decrease in gun violence is proof that we should have gun control. So if there had been an increase in gun violence, I assume that this would be evidence that gun ownership makes sense? I doubt they’d be making that argument.

        2. Does the average person know or care that violent crime is down? My parents live in a very safe smallish town but every few years when something bad does happen, my mom talks about wanting to buy a gun.

          1. Yeah, but she doesn’t, and the reason is because she lives in a “very safe” area. If that changed (for real), so would she.

            1. I think it has more to do with my dad talking her out of it.

          2. This is actually a big problem. News programs have always focused disproportionately on violent crime since that draws eyeballs, going back to the days of Jack the Ripper. The 24/7 news cycle has only exacerbated this warping of perception.

            I was already a gun owner when the local Pittsburgh stations spent days covering the Pitt students who got grabbed off the sidewalk, dragged down the street, and had their heads bashed against car mirrors as part of some gang initiation ritual last summer… but if I hadn’t been a gun owner I would have gone out the next day and gotten one. There are some fucked up dynamics in certain segments of our society.

        3. That, and the gun owners in 2013 and gun owners in 1999 are mostly not the same people, something these comparison polls never seem to notice. The skeet shooting and duck hunting communities are not the growing demographics in this country.

        4. Kellerman, bringing the same integrity to the anti-gunners that Michael Mann does to the Gaia worshippers. Remember, it’s OK to deceive those ignorant rednecks if your cause is just.

      3. Red herrings are the oldest trick in the book, and much easier for a substandard writer than crafting a good logical fallacy.

    2. Spurlock is a douche, but that quote seems perfectly correct as far as it goes. Most new gun buyers are buying for self-defense (which ipso facto is a product of fear) or fear of govt bans.

      But you’re right, it won’t be objective.

    3. It never ceases to amaze me how often leftists sneer at their political opponents for being “fear-driven,” seemingly without noticing how often they run around screaming in fear about rapacious businesses and looming Christian theocracy and the return of slavery and deadly pollution and global warming and all the other things they are constantly whipping up fear about.

    1. Eww. That first picture of Jagger looks like an empty skin suit more than a living person. Where are his eyes…

    2. I’ve often heard that Keith Richards died of an OD in 1979 and they keep him in a deep freeze. Whenever it is time to go on tour they pump him full of the drugs he was doing at the time and he is good to go.

      Look at these pictures and prove me wrong.

  12. So my wife, while giving instructions to one of our kids to help with a back zit just said “Poke round a bit and see if you got it.”

    Yes, gross. However what I want to know is there any situation that the instructions “Poke round a bit and see if you got it.” will lead to a not-nasty or dangerous outcome?

    1. home dentistry?

    2. Drunken anal.

    3. Basic library research?

    4. Affixing fuses to dynamite?

    5. Sounds like foreplay with rather.

  13. Politics seems even more tiresome than usual tonight. So Blood Eagle.

  14. Are you sure your car is as clean as it can be?

    1. I think it’s funny that the protests are now actually pro-freedom and Obama is less talkative than he was back when the protesters were just crazed fundamentalists trying to enforce theocracy.

      Why does he always come out in favor of the religious fundamentalists?

      1. Huh? The protesters back in 2011 were roughly the same segments of society they are now, educated people sick of being oppressed. The nature of the oppressor has just changed.

        1. The protests in 2011 were educated people sick of being oppressed, mixed with a healthy smattering of Muslim Brotherhood extremists that managed to get their guy elected president.

          The guy who came out of the 2011 protests on top ran with a party that fully admits its goal is to implement Islamic law.

          1. There go the goalposts!

            Was Morsi involved with the protests in any way? No. The protesters got rid of Mubarak and the MB swept in to fill the vacuum. Doesn’t mean the protesters were Brotherhood partisans, any more than the Ron Paul supporters protesting the Iraq War were really Democrats because a Democrat won the subsequent election.

          2. After the Benghazi debacle and subsequent ‘so-called-scandals’ Dear Leader has decided to stick with science. Behold AGW fix. Too bad he wasn’t around during the Cretaceous. I might have been able to ride a tax-funded ankylosaur to work.

    2. Thank heavens we have Obama on the job, sending fighter planes and tanks to the Egyptian government and training their police in riot control. Oh, wait….

    1. Yes it is, my father was killed working for the LAFD.

    2. Baked potato shelters didn’t save ’em.

      RIP

    3. We could use some of that 1970s global cooling around here right now, ugh.

  15. Re: George Zimmerman,

    Ni**er is more racist than Cr***er

    This assumption was somewhat complicated Thursday during testimony by 19-year-old Rachel Jeantel, a friend of Martin’s who was talking to him by cellphone shortly before he was shot. Sidebar: Poor Jeantel. Whether she is a credible witness will be determined by the jury, but the rest of us really ought to cut the girl some slack. She is young, obviously playing on alien turf and having a tough-enough time on the witness stand without further commentary. She may, indeed, be the best argument yet for keeping cameras out of the courtroom, but that is another discussion.

    No, we shouldn’t cut the illiterate perjurer any slack. We should be preparing charges against her, and the bar should be conducting an ethics investigation on the prosecutor to determine whether or not the state coached the illiterate perjurer.

    Martin’s use of the term “cracker” doesn’t make him a racist any more than Zimmerman’s resentment of “punks” necessarily makes him a murderous racial profiler.

    These words, and the case built upon them, ultimately may prove little more than an abundance of superfluous breath.

    Kathleen Parker writes for The Washington Post

    Zimmerman never called Martin a ni**er but let’s just pretend he did because…racist?

    1. I had no idea that “punk” was preferentially applied to African Americans. Though I also didn’t know that Hispanics fall into the “cracker” category, so maybe I’m just not hip with the score.

      1. The original (?) meaning of “punk” was passive homosexual, a.k.a. “butt boy.” When Sam Spade calls Wilmer a punk in the Maltese Falcon, that’s what he meant (though it was obscure enough slang at the time to get past the censors).

        1. That’s fucked up.

    2. You must be a racist bigot. You lame ass cracker. (Cursive is the language of the oppressor?)

    3. No, we shouldn’t cut the illiterate perjurer any slack.

      Yes. Rachel Jeantel PERJURED HERSELF. I am amazed that the left’s discussion of this trial simply ignores the fact that she broke the law and lied under oath, instead trying to make the whole thing about how bad we should feel for her because she’s on ‘alien turf.’

      If she’d given bad testimony but hadn’t lied, I’d be giving her the benefit of the doubt. That’s not what happened though. She committed a crime in an effort to convict someone who likely shouldn’t be convicted.

      1. Technically it’s not perjury until/unless it causes the wrong verdict to be rendered (which is why Bill Clinton’s lying under oath wasn’t legally perjury as the case was settled).

        Proving she is actually lying, as opposed to misremembering, would be tough too.

      1. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. How could I abandon you people, o ye of little faith?

      Though my job doesn’t allow surfing at work, so you’ll have to catch me after hours.

  16. These images are pretty great, especially now that Facebook has enabled inserting photos into your comments.

    From Gizmodo

    Ad Agency Publicis Singapore created an advertisement for Crisis Relief Singapore that says, “Liking isn’t helping”. It shows people who are in clearly need of help surrounded by a crowd of thumbs up (which are photoshopped in). It makes your stomach turn and hits home a little bit, supporting a cause by liking it isn’t doing much.

    1. What a bunch of ungrateful clods. Liking raises awareness of the thing liked, which is why companies are always trying to get people to “like” their pages and posts about their products. Would CRS prefer that all those people did nothing to spread the word?

      Knowing how most of Big Charity works, my guess is that some employees see potential “administrative costs” dollar signs when they see all those likes.

      1. You’re totes right Tulpa, thank you for showing me the error of my ways.

        1. Stick with me kid, I’ll teach you how to roll like the LAOLs roll.

        2. +1 Goalpost move

  17. I had no idea Sam Donaldson had become prime minister of Croatia.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.