Public schools

High School Senior Suspended For One Year, Won't Graduate on Time, Because He Hugged a Teacher

"Hug a teacher today" may be a thing, but it didn't help Sam McNair


hug a teacher get suspended
CBS Atlanta

A seventeen-year-old student giving his teacher a hug might not be nearly as self-evidently innocent as one six-year-old kissing another on the cheek, but it's hard to imagine how the action justifies a one year suspension. Via CBS Atlanta:

A Duluth High School senior has been suspended for one year and won't graduate on time for hugging a teacher last month.

Sam McNair, 17, was suspended last week when a school hearing officer found he violated the Gwinnett County Public Schools' rules on sexual harassment…

According to a discipline report, the teacher alleged McNair's cheeks and lips touched the back of her neck and cheek. 

McNair denied he kissed his teacher or sexually harassed her. 

McNair said he regularly hugs his teachers and has never been disciplined for it in the past. 

According to the discipline report, the teacher alleged she warned McNair that hugs were inappropriate but he disputes that. 

April McNair, Sam's mother, said she was dumbfounded when she was informed of the suspension and believes the district had a responsibility to notify her if her son's hugging was becoming problematic before it suspended him and derailed his college plans.

You can watch surveillance video of the hug that's part of the news segment here (screen capture's to the right).

McNair's mother makes a salient point. A one-year suspension for a non-violent act is certainly a gross over-reaction, more so given that McNair appears to have been otherwise scheduled to graduate at the end of the school year, even if he had previous (non-sexual harassment related) suspensions. His mother even believed her son, a student athlete, may have been able to qualify for college sports scholarships, a hypothesis that won't even be able to be tested now.  And Sam McNair won't get as much "due process" for the claim of sexual harassment against him as teachers tend to.

The whole premise of public schools is to offer universal access to education. Some opponents of charter schools complain that their ability to "select" students contributes to disparities in access to education. The argument is flimsy. Around the country, school choice is becoming more popular. In two of New Jersey's poorest cities, Newark and Camden, a full one in five students now attend a charter schools, much to the satisfaction of those students' parents. Demand for charter schools almost always outpaces supply, which is artificially throttled by government restrictions. But here's a public school that's decided to deny a student access to education for an entire year for something that didn't physically harm anyone or anything, for something, in fact, that some teachers advocates actually encourage. "Hug a teacher today", after all, is a thing, one for which restrictions clearly apply.

NEXT: Obamacare Contractor to Comply with Subpoena

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The whole premise of public schools is to offer universal access to education.

    Are you sure it’s not to train kids to comply with anything that anyone in authority tells them to do? Because that seems to be what actually happens.

    1. I thought the whole premise of public schools was to force people who don’t have children to subsidize parents’ government-provided day care through property taxes. The authority bit is just a bonus for the statists.

      1. As usual, you’re spectacularly wrong, Epi. The carrot and the stick aren’t different objects, but rather the same object viewed from different angles.

        Giving parents ‘free’ daycare is a way to snare their kids into indoctrination institutions, where you feed them a narrative that helps them accept the limits you impose on what they can do with their lives.

        1. I’m still mystified as to why you aren’t a public school teacher, Hugh. It seems so perfect for you. You have the pulse of the schools so perfectly. Wait, are you a public school janitor? That would explain it!

          1. Epi, you know perfectly well that, due to certain legal statutes, I don’t qualify for any job within 1,000 feet of a public school.

            1. I thought that had expired.

          2. The sole purpose of public schools is to provide a work force for the factories. This is not a secret… not even an open secret. The entire point is to provide minimum literacy, an ability to show up on time and follow a schedule and to do as you are told.

            When we were an agrarian country with an illiterate populous that was used to working to the rhythms of the farm, not the factory clock, this made perfect sense as a way to lift the nation and its people. It quickly became a way to ensure that there were two tiers to education – a public education for the workers and a private education for those who would be leaders.

            1. Your narrative falls apart when you realize that public schools don’t even achieve that minimal level of competency.

              1. well, I think he means they DID at first

                and like everything else, once the system started, it STILL continues to this day, regardless of how well it’s working

        2. A+ analysis!

        3. A+ analysis!

    2. Technically, that is an education.

  2. Charter schools are the least libertarian of the options, so I’m not sure why you’re in favor of them.

    1. -Charter schools are the least libertarian of the options, so I’m not sure why you’re in favor of them.

      There are some libertarians, Milton Friedman comes to mind, who supported public schools in their Libertopia. I imagine that comes with a premise that under any 100% market system there would be a fair amount of children whose parents could, or would not, procure anything resembling an adequate education.

      If one accepts this, then there would have to be some kind of public schools, but competing charter schools would, at least, be there.

      1. Yeah, I don’t see why charter schools would be the least libertarian option. Absent a “no public funding” option a voucher system would be the next most libertarian option, with charters next in line. The current location-based system with busing for various social engineering reasons is probably the least libertarian system you could imagine short of Harrison Bergeron.

        1. -The current location-based system with busing for various social engineering reasons is probably the least libertarian system you could imagine short of Harrison Bergeron.

          Exceedingly well put.

  3. the teacher alleged McNair’s cheeks and lips touched the back of her neck and cheek

    That’s certainly reason to suspend the kid for a year, fuck up his graduation, and fuck up potential sports scholarships. Absolutely. In fact, she should have accused him of rape so that he could have the stain of sex offender attached to him for life. I mean, he hugged her. The gall!

  4. Given the festering petri dish that is the typical high school, she should be wearing a hazmat suit

    1. Given the way this teacher is ruining this kid’s life, for the sake of all the other children she should be made to wear a Hazmat suit.

  5. David Brooks yearns for a dictatorship.

    Fukuyama describes what you might call the demotion of Pennsylvania Avenue. Legislative activity could once be understood by what happens at either end of that street. But now power is dispersed among the mass of rentier groups.

    In other words, diffuse power is evil. How dare people petition government for redress of grievances? It’s not like there’s a constitutional amendment about that or anything.

    But there is a way out: Make the executive branch more powerful.

    Here begins the rabbit hole.

    So how do you energize the executive? It’s a good idea to be tolerant of executive branch power grabs and to give agencies flexibility. We voters also need to change our voting criteria. It’s not enough to vote for somebody who agrees with your policy preferences. Presidential candidates need to answer two questions. How are you going to build a governing 60 percent majority that will enable you to drive the Washington policy process? What is your experience implementing policies through big organizations?

    Wow. We’re living in a period with the most powerful presidents of all time after the Bush/Obama powergrabs, and Brooks is such a delusional fascist that he thinks the problem is not enough unilateral power.

    1. And he uses the ocare fiasco in *support* of his thesis!

      1. Eduard, I am a bit surprised you oppose Obamacare. You seem sympathetic to ending or limiting abortions via governmental regulation in other contexts. Do you realize that if a pro-life administration could win the White House then just as the Obama administration could promulgate regulations defining insurance plans must offer contraception the next one could similarly declare that no insurance plan could offer abortion coverage, or could say that all insurance plans must cover and mandate ultrasounds before abortive procedures, or only cover abortions at providers with hospital admittance privileges. I would not be too hasty to get that overturned if I were you.

        1. That’s not even wrong. It’s just the sound of your ideological onanism.

          1. I am being serious. If you support states passing laws requiring these sort of things, then why not support Obamacare as a way to do it nationally?

            1. You should join the NoFap initiative. Right now, your comment simply boils down to “Oh God, I’m so clever, but I’m the only one who appreciates my sparkling wit…oh, oh, ohhh…*moan*”

              1. Again, if you are in favor of states doing it by statute, why oppose a perfect vehicle to do it federally? Every recent GOP administration has been ostensibly pro-life and they could impose these measures you approve by administrative fiat.

                1. Fap, fap, fap…”nobody else understands my liberal word salad, they must not be geniuses like m…mmm…mmmmmeee, oh God…”

                  1. You can simply say you have no intelligible principle upon which to answer.

                    1. Was it good for you? Do you want to cuddle yourself now?

                    2. Hi, Bo. I just wanted to take the time to point out that you are in fact alone here.

                      Maybe try not hanging out on campus on weekends. Go and see the real world. We have cookies!

                    3. -I just wanted to take the time to point out that you are in fact alone here.

                      What a sad comment, is this like a school to you?

                    4. Like a huge high school in a crappy teen movie.

    2. Surprisingly, the comments are pretty solidly against Brooks.

      Perhaps they realize there’s a good chance the next president is a Republican.

      1. It’s also because it’s David Brooks.

        You see, Brooks has a reputation for being the Times’ “conservative” even though he’s as big government as they come, just in a different way than liberals. This means it’s socially acceptable to criticize David Brooks when he says something stupid.

        On the other hand, if Dowd or Friedman said the same nonsense, you wouldn’t see any negative comments. I’ve seen Friedman say the most ludicrous things I’ve ever read and the comments are 90% on his side.

        1. Well, because Friedman is the quintessential American ‘public intellectual!’

          On a more serious note, I am not sure Brook’s arguing for a more ‘energetic’ or powerful executive disqualifies him from being a conservative. It was not that long ago that it was the Right championing a ‘unitary executive.’ Brooks may be guilty only of not flip-flopping on this now that the executive has a ‘D’ by his name.

          1. I think David Brooks is a pure statist, not a conservative in any real way.

            There are liberals and conservatives who are in favor of government power in certain instances. David Brooks is in favor of government power in all instances.

            This is the guy who literally used the term ‘National Greatness Conservatism.’ That phrase is so fascist it reads like a literary goosestep.

            1. Well, we differ in that I do not see being conservative ‘in any real way’ as naturally falling outside of the statist camp.

              As an undergrad I took a seminar course that happened that semester to be a history of conservatism in the US. We read Russell Kirks The Conservative Mind and Gary Nash’s the Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945. I would be hard pressed to name prominent conservatives we learned about that did not favor state power to, inter alia, enforce traditional morality and preserve national security.

              1. You’re missing my point. David Brooks shares statist beliefs in common with conservatives. He also shares statist beliefs in common with liberals.

                The reason he isn’t a conservative isn’t because conservatives aren’t statists. It’s because conservatives are statists about some issues and not about others.

                David Brooks is a firm believer in the total state. His belief in the wonder of government not only exceeds conservatives, but I’d argue it exceeds progressives.

                David Brooks honestly might be more statist than the progressive left.

                1. Fair enough.

                2. David Brooks: the unholy offspring of the pairing of the statist TEAMs. Pure statist.

              2. Well that’s nice, Bo.

                If you could please find me some prominent American progressives or leftists who were socially liberal (in the classical sense of the term) during the 30s, I’d love to hear about them. FDR, JFK, and just about every political figure on the left was just fine using government to enforce social edicts (traditional and otherwise), and doing it any other way was not particularly associated with the left until ~1960-1970.

                BTW, conservatism in the US for all intents and purposes didn’t exist until the New Deal. Conservatism until (and even including) the 30s was an intellectual vanity project more than an actual movement. To get to the modern conservatism as a mass movement, one must look at the general anti-communist and fusionist movements in the 50s.

                1. -BTW, conservatism in the US for all intents and purposes didn’t exist until the New Deal.

                  Where do you get that from?

                  -If you could please find me some prominent American progressives or leftists who were socially liberal (in the classical sense of the term) during the 30s, I’d love to hear about them.

                  Let us play this a bit differently. Can you name me any conservatives that were? I will give you a chance to respond and then I would be happy to name some prominent liberals who were.

                  1. I should also say it is a bit ‘ginned up’ game you are playing when we are talking about ‘traditional edicts’ and you pick liberals of the 1930’s, no (of course even liberals of 80 years ago were more traditional than now, it was 80 years ago)? But I will play even by your tilted rules.

                    1. Fuck you, your comment explicitly referenced pre-1945 conservatives — that is why I noted 1930 progressives. Have some internal consistency.

                    2. Where did my comment reference pre-1945 conservatives? I mentioned Nash’s book which says ‘since 1945’ in the title.

                  2. Where do you get that from?

                    History (Eric Hobsbawm’s acclaimed histories of the 19th century and Paul Johnson’s History of the American People, in particular). There is not a single political party that self-identified (or that can be identified as) conservative until the New Deal. Our country was governed by a series of classically liberal parties until ~1900. Americans would have identified their system as unique and in contrast with both the continental European system and the Anglo monarchy, the Revolution was identified with the Whigs in general (Radical Whigs in particular), etc.

                    Let us play this a bit differently. Can you name me any conservatives that were?

                    Let’s not, because the *fact* of the matter is that the time period you reference does not contain many political figures and movements dedicated to social liberty in a classically defined manner. In the US, very few embryonic conservatives or New Dealers preoccupied themselves with license for sexual acts or most other kinds of social liberties; they defined themselves in terms of economic program and support/opposition towards managed societies on the lines being developed by radical centrists in Europe and by various proto-socialist reformists. Indeed, members of both groups routinely accused the other of being social libertines; do recall that the Jim Crow South was the region which cast the most votes in favor of FDR.

                    1. I would agree with most of your first paragraph (with some caveats, there were a handful of significant figures and movements that were socially liberal, especially for their day, up to 1900; but yes for the most part the dominant positions of major parties would have been one that strike us as conservative today [again, note the tilted playing field there, of course as we go back in the past everyone is more conservative in that sense]). I am not sure though what the relevance of all that is to our discussion.

                      -In the US, very few embryonic conservatives or New Dealers preoccupied themselves with license for sexual acts or most other kinds of social liberties

                      Well, since you asked, Margaret Sanger, Henry Wallace, and John Dewey came to mind. Would you like more?

    3. “How are you going to build a governing 60 percent majority that will enable you to drive the Washington policy process?”

      Put my opponents in camps. Next question.

    4. So, David Brooks posted this article on twitter. Here’s one of the comments:

      Dr. Scott Ralph ?@oolitic 21h
      .@nytdavidbrooks we have best President in decades. Flawed for sure. Not good enuf for U though. Of course Repugnatins get a pass. #putz #fb

      I have a feeling this guy is not a real doctor.

      1. It’s a doctorate in homeopathic medicine.

        “You’ve got a degree in baloney!”

        1. +1 bag of moon sapphires.

  6. A liberal black woman empowered by the state to take down another black man because of her adherence to socially “progressive” ideals and victimization.
    And this is a surprise how?

  7. I mean, if he’s gonna get that kind of punishment, he at least should have stuck his fat cock right in her tight ass and yanked some hair out of her empty head for a souvenir.

  8. Be afraid.

    Colorado gunman spotted running “military style.”

    1. I imagine he must have run like those green, plastic WWII toy soldiers I had a child that had their bayoneted guns over their head (what were those figures supposed to be up to, wading through a swamp I guess?).

  9. Media Matters declares victory in its War on Fox News

    Since its founding in 2004, the progressive watchdog group Media Matters for America has been a thorn in the side of Fox News. Its dozens of staffers monitor the network’s leadership, hosts, guests and financial dealings incessantly, calling out misinformation, conflicts of interest and evidence of a partisan agenda, in a bid to shed light on the workings of the right-wing echo chamber.

    But in the coming years, Fox will no longer be the center of Media Matters’ universe. That’s because the group believes it has effectively discredited the network’s desire to be seen as “fair and balanced.”

    “The war on Fox is over,” said Media Matters Executive Vice President Angelo Carusone. “And it’s not just that it’s over, but it was very successful. To a large extent, we won.”

    According to its strategic plan for the next three years, a copy of which was provided to The Huffington Post, Media Matters envisions shifting its focus to new, increasingly influential targets, including Spanish-language media, social media streams, alternative online outlets and morning and entertainment sources. It will enhance its state media and issue-based monitoring, as well as continue its focus on right-wing radio and legacy outlets.

    They won? You wouldn’t guess that based on Fox’s ratings.

    1. This is a silly statement from Media Matters, but I do not care much for the counterargument that something’s popularity demonstrates winning in any debate.

      1. How else do you define winning? The number of people who voluntarily watch the network is the only metric.

        1. Do you think the contestant that gets the most votes and wins American Idol is necessarily the best singer?

          1. No, but the one who gets the most votes is the winner.

            1. Why are you splitting hairs with New Tulpa? Are you lonely?

              1. I find this comment interesting. As I noted about you the other day you seem committed to not engaging in any actual debate with anyone that disagrees with you about any point of political policy or philosophy. You usually just curse the person out or snark and that is it.

                Given this is a website devoted to political policy and philosophy, how lonely must you be to come on and engage in not a thing it is set up for? Do you just take time to show up here to express your position or feelings like some twitter moment?

                1. Snark? He’s right. You just don’t recognize when you’ve had your ass handed to you.

                  1. My *ss is ‘handed to me’ by ‘Why are you splitting hairs with New Tulpa? Are you lonely?’?

                    1. I have seen more substantive, less-self referential arguments on How I Met Your Mother.

                    2. Did you just censor the word ass? Holy fuck.

                    3. Fuckin a right!

                    4. I mentioned this on another thread. It may surprise you but I was raised, and continue to be a member of, quite conservative (theologically speaking) churches, and I do not swear (and my notion of what a swear is may be more broad than yours).

                    5. So you have a principled stance on naughty words (a stance which has nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity, btw — which does contain plenty of ‘strong language’ in the original languages from which it derives), but can’t be bothered to articulate a stance on partial birth abortions.

                      That’s fucked up, yo.

                    6. -but can’t be bothered to articulate a stance on partial birth abortions.

                      What are you getting at specifically? I imagine it has something to do with a previous conversation we have had that you did not care for.

                    7. Well I didn’t read that thread. I still think there is no difference between typing *ss and ass. It’s swearing either way. Why not just substitute butt or something.

                    8. -Why not just substitute

                      Well, then I imagine I might hear about not accurately quoting someone.

                  2. Don’t bother, playa. He’s abjectly incapable of getting it. It’s both hilarious and sad. I prefer the hilarious part, though.

                    1. It’s basically prey drive. I try to control it, but sometimes I can’t.

                    2. It surprises me your bluff is not called here more often.

          2. If more people are watching Fox now than before Media Matters campaign, Fox has won. There is no other metric to judge a TV network.

            How do you figure Fox hasn’t won here?

            1. -There is no other metric to judge a TV network.

              It depends on what you are measuring them on.

              Do you think Duck Dynasty to be a better television show than Breaking Bad? The former has much higher ratings.

              1. I can’t imagine Fox News fares any worse in public opinion polls than CNN or the lunatic asylum that is MSNBC.

                Who could possible think Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, and Melissa Harris Perry are more trustworthy and less biased than O’Reilly, Hannity, and Megyn Kelly?

                All of those people are pundits paid to provide commentary on news events.

                1. If your criteria is popularity then yes ratings answers the debate, but it is also circular. I think you can see from the example I mentioned (Duck Dynasty v. Breaking Bad) that media can be judged by criteria other than popularity.

                  1. Okay, but it’s all subjective. What makes the people who prefer Duck Dynasty to Breaking Bad objectively wrong?

                    You can’t even compare the two since one is reality TV and the other is scripted drama. Both are entertaining in their own separate ways.

                    Comparing Fox to MSNBC and CNN is like arguing about which trashy VH1 reality show is more edifying.

                    1. Let me use another example: if Reason runs an article refuting, point by point, some numbskull’s article at Daily Kos, would the fact that Daily Kos still had more hits or readers establish anything?

              2. Demographics, shithead, demographics.

                1. What do you mean?

            2. It is clear that Media Matters won because nobody would admit to watching Fox in polite company. And by “polite company” they mean anywhere in the country where liberals dominate, like the northeast, south Florida and the pacific coast. That and the persistent use of the “Faux” insult-spelling in online posts are clear indicators of a resounding victory.

              1. As I said, I think Media Matters saying they ‘won’ against Fox is (characteristically) silly of them. My only point is that I do not think that anyone wins any debate by criteria of popularity.

                1. Bo –

                  You’re being purposefully obtuse – others have explained and failed…. I’ll likely fail too, but here goes.

                  If Fox markets itself as “fair and balanced” and MediaMatters claims to have destroyed that, then Fox should’ve lost viewers.

                  So ratings is an objective measure of MediaMatters’ success, even though MediaMatters could be correct and Fox wrong on every single disagreement they’ve ever had – the metric is still a fair measurement given MediaMatters’ supposed purpose for being.

                  Of course MediaMatters proved themselves years ago to be untrustworthy to the point that even skimming anything the publish is time better spent banging your head against a wall… but for some reason I cannot resist your tripe on this one.

                  Ratings fair metric.

                  Why? Because of MediaMatter’s stated goal and stated success.

                  If MediaMatters were a President, right now they’re Bush standing in front of a “Mission Accomplished” banner – but for some reason you don’t see that (or actively choose not too – starting to lean in that direction).

                  Or maybe like others have noted, you think this is clever? To try to pick very specific, narrow arguments in order to “win” against the libertarians while supporting some group they hate?

                  If so – you should know it doesn’t make you look clever – it comes across only as hubris combined with ignorance.

            3. If Fox News were supporting Obamacare and had higher ratings, I might say Media Matters won. (I’m not saying this is what actually happened, of course.)

      2. If your goal is to discredit a news network, and that news network has only gotten more popular and influential during the last 8 years, then I’d say you’ve lost the argument.

        Unless their goal was just convincing a generation of smug liberals that anyone who disagrees with them lives in a ‘right-wing echo chamber’ funded by KKKorporations.

        1. Do even conservative Republicans think Fox is giving them reliably unbiased news? The ones I know who watch acknowledge that it is biased and one sided, but they like that bias and side.

          1. If they are still watching Fox, than Fox has not lost. The only thing that matters to Fox is ad revenue. If they are continuing to increase their viewership, their ad revenue is increasing. How is this not winning for Fox?

          2. That’s what “Fair and Balanced” means. You don’t balance something unbiased. It doesn’t need balance. It’s neutral, zero, nada.

            “Fair and Balanced” means “we’re +1 but we have -1 here to give you the other perspective in order to achieve a net 0.”

            How exactly did you get into law school with such a tenuous grasp on the English language?

            1. Do you think Fox watchers think that is what it means? Most I know wink when they say that phrase, what they mean is ‘Fox levels the media playing field.’

              1. Watch as Bo the Tedious reads the minds of millions of people and decides he ‘s better than them! Be astounded as he routinely misses the point! Try to control your urge to vomit as he repeatedly picks nits in a desperate attempt to make himself sound intelligent!

        2. When you use phrases like “To a large extent, we won.”, it means you lost.

          Also, how do they feel about the direct payments to “journalist” Ed Shultz?

      3. Re: Bo Cara Esq.,

        […]but I do not care much for the counterargument that something’s popularity demonstrates winning in any debate.

        When discussing facts, the popularity of a cable channel becomes very relevant to the discussion.

        You’re confusing ratings with an Ad Populum fallacy, where the latter refers to arguments per s? and not the objective measure i.e. ratings or purchases.

  10. I almost wish the rest of the students would arrange to play this at graduation.

    It’s quite a shame how the atmosphere has changed since that song came out. These days nobody would get away with making a song like that, and ABBA was such a squeaky-clean group too.

    Songs about bitches and hos are alright now, though. Shall we celebrate the progress?

    1. Everything today needs to be an outrage. I suppose it’s to be expected with instantaneous news cycles, 24/7 reporting and uncountable news sources. In order to be successful in such a market you need to sensationalize everything. Controversy sells better than sex.

  11. Gentlemen, there is a solution to this sort of extreme, third wave feminist bullshit and many of you already know what it is: leave the bitches alone.

    Completely alone. Until they go crazy talking to their cats well into menopause.

    Don’t touch them. Don’t talk to them. Don’t look at them. Don’t acknowledge the vast efforts they go through to look pretty. The only time you should acknowledge one of these bitches even exists is to point and laugh at them when they trip and fall in a puddle or struggle to open a pickle jar.

  12. Gun-controllers are finally building local infrastructure after Newtown, and they’re ready and waiting.

    Ready and waiting for what, you ask?

    A leader of one of the groups (Third Way) says: “if there is a tragedy that specifically involves one of the policies we’re talking about, were [sic] going to see more swift action.”

    California Congressman Mike Thompson, head of a Dem gun violence task force, says: “I hope there’s not a next time, but if there is we’ve laid the groundwork, we’ve got momentum across the country.”…..01153.html

    1. If we had just made a law against murder, Newtown would have never happened!

      1. If we had banned schools in Newtown that massacre would never have happened. /derp-squared

        1. Mind. Blown.

    2. I waded through a couple articles in that link. Too funny. They write about the NRA the way a televangelist talks about satan.

      I love how the left has to paint a faceless, monolithic picture of their opponent. This tells me they simply cannot accept that what they are opposing is the will of the majority of Americans. That gun ownership has become so much closer to the mainstream than their fevered fantasies try to imagine it.

      1. Many liberals say they admire organizations run by passionate, informed, non-partisan grass roots.

        Well, the NRA is probably the most grass-roots political organization in this country. Its members are likely the most informed about the issues they care about than any other. And they are genuinely non-partisan, willing to support Democrats if they have good records.

        1. “Many liberals say they admire organizations run by passionate, informed, non-partisan grass roots.”

          I honestly believe that this is part of their ire, and why they have to focus on the NRA as not human. To see it as the type of issue-focused organization supported primarily by donations from millions of individuals would make them feel the the effort is futile. Worse yet, it would make them feel wrong.

          1. They are Animist Fundies, just like Westboro, and should certainly be treated as such.

    3. Gee Golly Willikers, Mikey! You’ve laid groundwork? You’re sure gonna take a naturally paranoid demographic or people who spent the last five years stockpiling food, weapons, and ammunition by storm.

      We’ll never see it coming.

  13. The Beer Topped Burger

    PYT is a Philadelphia restaurant known for its wackier menu offerings, like bacon taco shells and spaghetti bun burgers. According to Grub Street, its latest creation is called a “beerger.” Customers must show ID, validating that they are of drinking age, before ordering the new offering. The burger apparently features a whole lot of Pabst Blue Ribbon beer that is frozen, then covered in wonton wrappers along with cheddar cheese. The beer package is then breaded in crushed pretzels and fried. The outcome is then placed atop a burger.

    Would you try PYT’s beerger?

    PBR? Really? I guess it’s economical and you wouldn’t taste it.

    1. So it’s basically a burger with ice cubes?

      1. Also, this food would be exempt from drinking age laws.

    2. Not with PBR, no way in hell. Ugh, just the thought of that swill makes me sick.

      1. The article did say that the restaurant was known for “its wackier menu offerings”.

        1. “Wackier” would have been to use Petrus sour ale or Ayinger Celebrator. Not fucking PBR. If they wanted to really be disgusting they should have used Rainier.

          1. I don’t really have much of a tolerance for novelty foods. I find them stupid and pointless. For example, when traveling about 10 years ago, my brother (the older, lame one) insisted on eating at the restaurant with the “world’s largest cheeseburger”. It was so big that they serve it like a pizza (wedge shaped slices). It was exactly as disgusting as it sounds. Pounds and pounds of flavorless, under seasoned, utility grade ground beef. I was so fucking pissed.

            1. Novelty foods are absurd. There are reasons for the size and ratios of particular dishes, and “novelty” dishes specifically turn that on its head. What’s the point of such a huge cheeseburger? It certainly isn’t flavor, which is sort of the, you know, main point of enjoying food. Or the world’s hottest chili, for instance; again, what is the point of something so hot you can’t even taste it?

              Give me my foie gras and uni and I’m happy, because FLAVOR and TEXTURE.

              1. Really hot chilis actually have awesome flavor. It’s just either having a tolerance or using dilution.

                I make a flank steak marinade with fatalis, ghosts, lime, cumin, cilantro and garlic that is barely spicy. It’s so fucking good I’ve had panties thrown at me at bbqs.

                1. Everybody knows that poblanos and arb?ls have the best flavor. Everybody.

                  1. It’s a different sort of flavor.

                    A lot of the hots/supers have a very citrusy smell and taste. It’s good for mixing with fruit.

                    If you can get some, try some fatalis (sp? whatevs). They are really fucking good. I’ve concentrated on growing them in the past few years as they are extremely versatile. They are a bit hotter than strong habaneros (not the little orange ones from walmart).

                2. I make a flank steak marinade with fatalis, ghosts, lime, cumin, cilantro and garlic that is barely spicy. It’s so fucking good I’ve had panties thrown at me at bbqs.


                  1. I basically take a flank steak, score it diagonal to the grain and throw it into a ziploc bag. I then toss in about 4-5 peppers, the juice of 4 limes and their rinds, a couple medium crushed garlic cloves, a couple tablespoons of soy sauce and then flavor with the cilantro and cumin until I can smell them in the marinade.

                    I also make a bloody mary flank that’s really good. The marinade is just a bloody mary but with some extra worchestire and tabasco. Cook both rare and thinly cut against the grain.

                    1. Thanks I’ll have to try it next time I pick up some fresh peppers from my granddad.

                3. Those things Warty is throwing at you only look like panties.

              2. But then there are some flavors and textures I have no interest in knowing about. Like the street vendor in Bangkok with a wok full of frying scorpions. It could be like a cross between corn chips and buttery lobster but I just lack the adventurous tongue to go there.

            2. I don’t really have much of a tolerance for novelty foods.

              And yet you rave about sriracha. :-p

      2. Not with PBR, no way in hell. Ugh, just the thought of that swill makes me sick.

        Your glib, contentless, 80 character reply isn’t up to the philosophical standards that this comment section strives for. Instead of some brainless proto-tweet, why don’t you explain to us, from first principles, why this burger makes you sick? Or are you intellectually incapable of providing a logical argument?

        Why don’t you just go back to insulting the members that enrich Reason’s intellectual environment and bashing David Brooks? You’re much more suited to that than attempting an argument.

        1. General, is it all right if I call you New Tulpa 2? Or New New Tulpa? Or Tulpa III? Just as long as I stop calling you Shirley.

          1. I wanna be Tulpa DCLXVI: The Reckoning

            In a world of lawless glibertarians, one man has the courage to bring law and order to anarchy…

            1. That made me think of this.

        2. clap…….clap……..clap

    3. Could I get it made with a Julius Echter?
      At least there would be wheat in the bun.

  14. This is beyond parody.

  15. Progressive group uses Mandela’s death to rally against racist Republican voter ID laws; turns out Mandiba might not have agreed with that assessment

    1. I think the shirt Mandela is wearing references voter registration but the laws the left here oppose deal with ID for actual voting.

        1. I stand corrected, mea culpa. It is a pretty embarrassing stance for the Wisconsin group then I would say.

          1. Are libertarians the only people in the world that don’t believe in voter fraud?

            Every other country in the world does. Democrats do, they are just in favor of it.

            But according to Libertarians, nope, not a problem, let everyone vote as often as they want. And then they turn around and say voting is meaningless, anyway.

            1. Lots of libertarians here and otherwise favor things like voter ID laws, though some, myself included do not. For myself it is part of generally disliking the ‘papers please’ stance of the government. Also, my work on LP ballot drive attempts has taught me that both of the Big Two work hard to suppress votes and options, and many of these ID laws come coupled or are sponsored by the same people/groups that limit third party ballot access and drives.

              1. Big Two work hard to suppress votes and options, and many of these ID laws come coupled or are sponsored by the same people/groups that limit third party ballot access and drives.

                So you’re against it because if it passes some groups might enforce it?

  16. In come the bottom feeding, blood sucking attorneys!

    1. That was for you, Bo.

  17. just before I saw the paycheck which was of $9192, I didn’t believe …that…my mom in-law was like really bringing home money in their spare time from there new laptop.. there brothers friend had bean doing this 4 only about nine months and just repayed the debts on their cottage and purchased a great Aston Martin DB5. browse this site

    1. my mom in-law was like really bringing home money in their spare time

      Is your mother-in-law a MPD sufferer?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.