Court Strikes Down Abortion Clinic Buffer Zone, US Soccer Team Fails Upward, Howard Baker Dies: P.M. Links


Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content.

NEXT: Professor: Epidemic of Campus Sexual Assault at UMich... Has Been Shrinking For a Decade

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 Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a 35-foot buffer zone blocking protests at abortion clinics in Massachusetts was too broad a restriction.

    They should build abortion clinics outside of free speech zones, like in campus quads or national parks.

    1. Ah, things are truly back to normal.

    2. Hello.

      What’s so complicated?

      They advanced on goal differential.

        1. “All your doubts and concerns should be addressed by this simple diagram.”

        2. Wtf was that? Looks like a temperature map the government sends me.

      1. Yeah, I don’t get it. You add up goals scored and goals against. Subtract the former from the latter.

        Not that hard.

        1. This is no different than the Lions losing at 1pm and hoping the Bears lose at 4pm to get into the playoffs on a tiebreaker. People complaining are morons.

          And yes, I know. The Lions and playoffs. Blah blah blah.

          1. Wouldn’t it be more like the Lions losing at 1 then waiting to see how many tds the Bears score?

            1. Yes, but that’s why they have the last games in each group done simultaneously. No one is “waiting” for anything, and thus no one can tank a game because of the result of another game, either.

            2. Yes. But each league has its tiebreakers set. I don’t think it’s constructive to complain what they are. Everyone knows going in.

              1. This.

      2. some complicated rules about the number of goals applies, and so the United States is moving on anyway.

        I mis-read that as “number of goats” and I didn’t even bat an eye.

        1. “and then some complicated rules about the number of goals applies, and so the United States is moving on anyway.”

          If you (Reason writer) find the rule complicated, you need to go back and repeat 2nd grade.

      3. Yes Yes, this is completely clear. We Americans are of limited comprehension.

        Now let us never speak of this again.

        And by “this” I mean Soccer.

  2. New York City’s financial chief has signed off on a settlement for the five men falsely accused of raping a jogger in Central Park in 1989. Though the amount has not been formally revealed, sources tell Reuters it’s $40 million.

    Today they’d be heroes for doing something about rape.

    1. When do those that were complicit in falsely convicting them go to jail?

      1. Their “innocence” is still quite arguable.

        1. Yeah I agree.

  3. The United States soccer team lost its World Cup match against Germany…

    We were waiting for the Russians to get there first.

    1. Steiner will hold them off!

    2. All the commentators were congratulating the US on such a great game and how well they did. I’m sitting there thinking “they lost, they didn’t score one single point” but I guess the final score isn’t so important in soccer. That’s one of the many reasons it’s a crappy sport to watch. Whenever someone misses the goal, they still talk about it like it was great. “He missed but it was such a great job he did.” Shaking my head, I don’t fucking get it.

      1. If we multiplied every goal by 6, would that help?

        1. Not really. It has nothing to do with the numbers. And I’ve heard ardent soccer fans say that a 6-0 or even a 14-7 football game is exciting. Are you shitting me? It’s not the whole thing that scoring is so difficult, it’s that scoring is so difficult and that makes scoring less important in the game, which makes it less of a sport and more of an art performance.

          1. Wait…FEWER scores make scoring LESS important?

            You’re starting to sound like Ann Coulter.

            1. Yes. When scores are routinely 1-0, 0-0, 1-1, the scoring becomes so rare that people have to care about other things, like how pretty the misses are.

              1. You’re out-retarding a complete retard.

      2. That’s because you’re provincial.

      3. They were playing against the best team in the tournament. Not getting fucking killed is doing well, sometimes.

        1. Best?

          I wouldn’t go that far.

          They actually look a little out of form.

          1. I know. But they’re up there.

            1. Yes.

              And they got a weak bracket so they can go far.

        2. ^This^

          Pre-World Cup rankings:

          Germany 2, Portugal 4, US 13.

          Germany d. Portugal 4-0.

          1. Rankings in soccer mean absolutely jack shit.


            The historical average rankings since 1970 according to ELO is:

            Brazil, Germany, Holland, Italy, England, Spain, Argentina, France.

            Pretty much spot on.

            Holland just overtook Italy taking advantage of that country’s eight year slumber.

            1. Rankings in soccer mean absolutely jack shit.

              Largely agree; I was just using them to provide some context for the US loss.

              1. The USA are fine. It’s a growing soccer country. Americans are either waaaayyyy too hard on them or too indifferent.

                Make up your minds.

      4. The group stage is about all three games and being better than at least two other teams across those games.

        It’s not hard to understand.

        Anyone using this as an excuse not to like the game is just being a dick and wouldn’t like the game anyway.

        1. People like you are a bigger impediment to soccer’s popularity in the US than most of the actual problems with soccer (with the exception of the complete lack of physicality).

          1. complete lack of physicality

            I literally do not understand this complaint. It strikes me as almost the exact same physicality as basketball. It’s not fucking golf.

            1. You don’t watch much basketball do you?

            2. You’ve never heard anyone call basketball players crybabies?

            3. Maybe Epi was right*, it’s probably best to ignore the people who engage in sports wars.

              *Immediately regrets typing that*

              1. I saw that! You can’t take it back!

                SPORT WAR is possibly more tedious than KULTUR WAR, as it has KULTUR WAR elements as part of it, plus REGION WAR elements, plus it’s approximately as stupid as an argument over which Twilight movie is the best. Sounds like fun!

                1. You know, it’s the people who are easily bored by simple debates and argument that have to move on to more stimulating forms of mental entertainment like german schiesse porn on the internet.

                  1. Speaking of which, hamilton, I saw your mom’s latest schiesse video, and I have to say it’s beneath her usual standards. I’m going to tell her that flat out tonight, too.

                    1. Fucking California laws make it really hard to put out real art nowadays.

                2. SPORT WAR is tedious as hell. Almost as tedious as baseball.

                3. Where are the squirrels when you need them?

              2. The interesting thing is that, for the most part, none of the pro-soccer people here are trying to rip on other sports because of their peculiarities.

            4. I agree, FN.

            5. Nonsense. It’s way more physical than basketball.

          2. What the hell are you on about?

        2. Anyone using this as an excuse not to like the game is just being a dick and wouldn’t like the game anyway.

          I wasn’t using tournament play to not like the entire “sport” of soccer. I was saying, in general, one of the many reasons why soccer sucks as a spectator sport.

          1. The point is, you’ll always find SOME reason to not like it. You’re not changing your mind. You’re just being a pain in the ass.

            Frankly, I don’t give a fuck if you don’t like it. Spending time and effort bringing up stupid reason A, B, or C doesn’t really matter as much as the fact that you’re here loudly proclaiming something you profess not to care about.

            1. I’m trying to find reasons to fucking like it and failing miserably. The only reason I’ve found so far is that they can’t interrupt play with commercials. But whenever a commentator congratulates a guy for how nice his missed goal was, I can’t watch it anymore.

              1. Then don’t. More importantly, try to avoid showing off your loudly-demonstrated “attempts” here by sharing how miserable you are in trying to like it.

              2. Batters in baseball get compliments for outs all the time.

                Usually win the fielder makes a great catch.

                Same for soccer. Goalie or defender making a great save doesnt make the shot not awesome.

                I agree, somewhat, when the ball isnt on the goal though. You put it a foot over and it wasnt a great shot. You cant score if its not on frame.

        3. Speaking of dick in the game… now I find soccer boringly incomprehsible but I have to admit many, if not most, of the players are rather hot. When they aren’t simpering on the ground like a baby of course.

          1. I was really impressed with the French and the Swiss game. They were pushing past one another and beating up on one another without any diving.

            The French. And the Swiss.

            Most macho….?

    3. Wholly Jeebus. The first time comments are working since the Nixon Administration and there are 100+ comments about soccer?


      1. Now Now, let’ s not further disturb the wasp nest.

        Not soccer, “football”

      2. I will finally switch to Reasonable if there is the ability to hide posts about chick sports played in Europe.

        1. Do you has a sad?

  4. Humanity Surprised It Still Hasn’t Figured Out Better Alternative To Letting Power-Hungry Assholes Decide Everything

    When pressed for further comment, however, every member of humanity agreed that the current system, though deeply flawed, remains far better than one in which they actually have to make decisions for themselves.

    1. Not every member of humanity, but certainly appears the vast majority of humanity. Sure, it’s The Onion, so fake news. But actually, it’s actually more real than fake.

      1. Sure, it’s The Onion, so fake news

        Uhh, the Onion became a paper of record several years ago.

    2. Funny. I just wish it didn’t swirl down the “better Top Men” toilet at the end.

  5. The German government has canceled a contract with Verizon in the wake of Edward Snowden’s disclosures about U.S. surveillance there.

    You know who else cancelled contracts with companies that had ties with the US government?

    1. The US government?

    2. Hugo Chavez, socialist hero.

    3. Fidel Castro?… And then the mobsters hired to kill him?

  6. Dog owner confronts police about them shooting his dog

    Dog was in the back yard behind the fence. Cop decides to jump the fence and kill the dog.

    Because FYTW!

    Nothing else will ever happen.

  7. Texas Police Officer: Cops Killing People is Justified Because the Bible Says So

    Eipper has considered himself a professional warrior in the service of his country for the past 23 years. He served three years as a helicopter pilot in the Army, then 16 years on the Wichita Falls Police Department SWAT team as a sniper and team leader of the gang unit.

    But after studying the Bible with the help of Grace Church Pastor Tom Rodgers, today Eipper is confident that Jesus Christ supports warriors and anyone acting in self-defense.

    1. Those are some serious blinders he’s got on there.

    2. First rule of religion: The Word of God, when correctly interpreted, agrees with whatever the person interpreting it wanted to believe anyway.

    3. It’s shit like this that makes you wish God was real so this guy would get told off good once he dies.

    4. A sniper and a helicopter pilot? Warrior? I bet he sees himself shirtless with a battle axe.

      1. To crush the criminals..
        To see them riding behind you…
        To hear the lamenting of their lawyers..

  8. In addition to striking down President Barack Obama’s attempt to bypass the Senate to appoint people to the National Labor Relations Board, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a 35-foot buffer zone blocking protests at abortion clinics in Massachusetts was too broad a restriction. The court has two cases left to announce, including the Hobby Lobby Obamacare birth control case.

    Wrong and wrong. The executive is the rock that beats the legislative paper, and obviously, the right to abortion trumps any BS speech rights.

    1. Uh, paper beats rock…

      1. Rock always wins.

        1. Good old rock, nothing beats it.

  9. The United States soccer team lost its World Cup match against Germany, but Ghana also lost to Portugal, and then some complicated rules about the number of goals applies, and so the United States is moving on anyway.

    It’s a bold strategy Cotton, let’s see if it pays off for them.

    1. And the Average Joe’s beat the Germans in a *shocking* upset.

  10. Police dogs injure someone in B.C. every two days, says Pivot Legal Society

    According to the report, police service dogs are the leading cause of injuries by municipal police. But unlike service weapons, there are no uniform policies governing their deployment.

    1. But if you kill one in self defense, you go to jail. Cops can shoot your dogs, though, and nothing will happen.

      1. All dogs are equal, but police dogs are more equal than others.

  11. Your eyes do not deceive you:

    Maybe Obamacare Didn’t Save The U.S. Economy After All

    Obamacare is going to have to return its hero’s cape, and we’re all going to have to learn to think twice before we over-react to shaky economic data.

    Two months ago, President Barack Obama’s signature health-care reform law was widely credited with saving the U.S. economy from shrinking in the first quarter by giving a huge jolt to health-care spending. On Wednesday, we found out that had all been a mirage.

    Using more-solid data than it had two months ago, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis found that health spending actually shrank in the first quarter, weakening overall consumer spending and contributing to a terrible quarter for the broader economy. Gross domestic product shrank at a 2.9 percent annualized rate in the quarter, the worst since the depths of the Great Recession, with health spending alone shaving 0.16 percentage points from growth.

    When you have lost Huffpo…

    1. “Two months ago, President Barack Obama’s signature health-care reform law was widely credited with saving the U.S. economy from shrinking in the first quarter by giving a huge jolt to health-care spending.”

      So O-care was supposed to save us from bankruptcy by cutting medical costs, and yet two months ago, it was lauded as saving us from bankruptcy by increasing medical costs.
      So the Euros, paying nothing at all for the best medical care in the world (so I’m told) are now destitute? Or rich?
      Which is it?

      1. Shh, they’re starting to realize what a colossal shit storm it is, so let’s just be happy about that.

      2. Exactly! Now, back to the World Cup!

    2. Don’t wory, I’m sure they’ll declare that Hilary will save us from utter and total ruin any day now. Barry is now expendable.

    3. These idiots have only the barest conception of how GDP works. It never occurred to them that an industry which relied on exponential growth in costs and was subject to a law where people HAD to buy expensive, subsidized plans might have a serious impact on overall GDP.

      Like productivity, they think it just happens like magic no matter what laws are implemented.

  12. P.M. Leaks

    Is this a new series at Reason?

    1. Every bit of information posted was illegally obtained by Edward Snowden and leaked to Reason.

    2. Should be Daily Squirrel Happy Hour

    3. Did Shackford urgently need to attend nature’s call when he posted this?

        1. Well played.

        2. Bravo.

  13. The German government has canceled a contract with Verizon in the wake of Edward Snowden’s disclosures about U.S. surveillance there.

    Wir k?nnen euch nicht erh?ren.

    1. Good! Can you hear me now?

  14. Todd Akin: Hillary Clinton a hypocrite for defending alleged child rapist

    “It is incredibly hypocritical that Hillary Clinton would carry on about an imagined ‘Republican war on women’ when she once got a child rapist off the hook who she knew to be guilty, and laughed about how she did it when interviewed,” Akin told the Daily Mail in an interview published Wednesday. “In the process, she delegitimized the legitimate claims of the 12-year-old victim and then slandered the victim to justify her tactics.”

    When it comes to laying low and not embarrassing his party, Todd Akin has a way of shutting that whole thing down.

    1. Defending the guy is doing her job. Laughing about setting a child rapist free when you know he did it is definitely worthy of criticism.

      1. Hillary volunteered for that job, and it’s a bit questionable to defend a child rapist with a “she’s a lying slut and was asking for it” defense.

  15. Gary Oldman apologizes for Playboy article.

    I should be an example and an inspiration, and I’m an a-hole. And I’m 56, and I should know better.

    Kind of disappointed, I can see why he’d want to apologize for some of the things he said. Kimmel jokes “In general, defending Mel Gibson is not a good thing to do, in any way.”

    Gary Oldman even ritually apologizes better than Jonah Hill.

    1. A quick search found many celebrities defending Mel Gibson.

      This doesn’t mean much since these Hollywood guys often stand up for each other when they do bad stuff, but it shows Oldman isn’t alone.

      1. Say what you want about Mel Gibson, but the son of a bitch knows story structure!

        1. It was great the way he remade Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

        2. Military Leader: Those are not ideas, those are special effects.

          Michael Bay: I don’t see the difference.

          Military Leader: I know you don’t!

  16. “We conclude that the President lacked the power to make the recess appointments here at issue,” declared Justice Breyer.

    “We conclude that the Supreme Court lacks the power to conclude that the President lacked the power to make the recess appointments here at issue,” replied the White House.

    1. This administration has been pummeled unanimously by the SCOTUS so many times now that it is getting painful to watch.

      1. Look, you can’t expect a constitutional scholar like Obama to understand the constitutional limits to executive power. HE IS THE LAW!

        1. Obligatory.…..dgaf-31963

  17. Strange bedfellows

    [Ralph Reed,] known for his vehement opposition to LGBT rights is engaged in work on Capitol Hill on behalf of the cable juggernaut that owns the progressive-leaning network MSNBC, according to two sources familiar with the industry.

    According to sources, Reed’s conservative outreach on Capitol Hill is short of the legal definition of lobbying. Reed would have to register with Comcast if he were to engage in official lobbying for the company.

    Ralph Reed and MSNBC working together in a way sure to make everyone uncomfortable? More please!

  18. Too funny. An Australian and Italian psychiatrist (clients here) have described Canada’s public system as “archaic” and “borderline third world.”

    In addition to an American, Belgian, French, German who have all passed through my daycare. What more, they can’t understand the excessive pride behind it.

    I can but just nod and agree.

    1. It’s because public healthcare has trumpeted as a symbol for Canadian nationalism for years. I’ve gotten plenty of arguments about how ‘you aren’t a real Canadian’ if you don’t support national healthcare. No matter how bad wait times or service could possibly get, Canadians can still get an elitist high off of ‘well, unlike the U.S., we have FREE HEALTHCARE.’

      1. There Ain’t No Such Thing As Free Healthcare!

      2. I know.

        It’s the ‘at least we’re not American’ philosophy.

    2. Public = Pride.
      Private = Rapacious and Shameful.

      1. Can I play, too? Just came from a meeting of regional county public health care leaders.

        For them:

        Public Servant’s Salary = Pride.
        Anything considered “Profit” = Rapacious and Shameful.

    3. You are doing the lords work by pointing this out.

  19. …Boulder County in Colorado has used the ruling as a reason to start handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

    They fear people might come to recognize they don’t need to cut the state in on their coupling up?

  20. The Supreme Court’s abortion buffer-zone ruling.…..8_6k47.pdf

    The court struck down Massachusetts’ 35-foot buffer zone law by a 9-0 vote. But the justices didn’t agree on *why* the law was unconstitutional.

    A majority – the four liberals plus Chief Justice John “penaltax” Roberts – said the law was excessive in comparison to the evils it purported to address. The majority suggested narrower laws aimed at clinic protesters.

    A minority – Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito – pointed out that it’s discriminatory to restrict demonstrators in front of one type of building – abortion clinics – while exempting demonstrators in front of other types of buildings (IRS offices, etc.). The minority also showed that the law effectively allowed clinic “escorts” to promote the clinic’s work – and disparage the prolifers within the buffer zone, while the prolifers couldn’t speak within the zone.

    The majority tried to get around the problem by suggesting that, as far as the evidence suggested, the clinics weren’t having their escorts endorse abortion within the buffer zone, though as the minority argued, the law permits it and there was testimony this did happen, in the form of pro-clinic and anti-protester remarks to clients. The majority finessed this issue because they didn’t want to admit the law singled out the protesters’ speech because of its content.


      So the court recognizes that many protesters use “aggressive methods”, but they side with the sweet little lady who claims to be kindly offering pamphlets, rather than with the women who are being frightened away from medical care. If there is a buffer zone, poor Ms McCullen is denied her right to be condescending, but if there is no buffer zone, patients are denied the right to seek legal medical treatment without harassment.
      I fail to see how this “unrefuted” claim that their tactics of suppression actually work is relevant to their claim that their right to lie to patients trumps the patients’ rights to care.
      But I wonder how the court deals with the stark reality that abortion clinics need volunteer clinic escorts to help women get through the lines of shouting protesters? Isn’t the fact of their existence evidence that there is a problem with access? Apparently not. The escorts are the problem.

      It’s clear where the judges’ sympathies lie.
      It’s great when the courts are on the side of justice, but not so great when you’ve got bought & paid-for clowns of the reactionary right, like Roberts and Scalia, calling the shots.

      1. Yes, Justice Ginsburg is part of a right-wing conspiracy, along with all of her eight colleagues.

        This author is with the 0 side of a 9-0 opinion. Yet the pro-lifers are the extremists!

        1. “Speech is free, but only for the people I agree with.”

          1. The right to have an abortion, while inherent in the Constitution, trumps whatever the Constitution actually says. That makes perfect sense because shut up yes it does.

      2. I haven’t read the ruling and don’t know the details of the case, but if what the first comments says is true, wtf kind of ruling was it? Did the ruling actually prevent a “sidewalk councilor” (whom the patient voluntarily asked for help) from blocking people from handing her literature? What’s the justification for that (if true)?

        1. And the buffer zone still stands around the Supreme Court? Come on.

        2. Oops. The sidewalk councilor is apparently the person doing the bothering, not anyone attempting to prevent the bothering.

        3. The majority and minority butted heads about the escorts.

          The majority said the law doesn’t allow escorts to praise abortion within the buffer zone, or in any event there was no evidence they had.

          The minority called BS, saying that the law does indeed allow escorts to praise abortion within the zone – while banning prolifers from criticizing abortion. And the minority cited testimony of escorts using their one-sided free-speech privilege.

          1. Again, it was 9-0, with the 5-4 division being over *why* it’s unconstitutional.

    2. Assholes. To Roberts, Kagan, etc., it’s not a matter of principle, but of degree. They are still making up parts of the Constitution that don’t exist.

    3. Well, GKC, I may be one of the most abortion-friendly posters here, but (a) I completely agree with striking down this law, (b) thank you for posting more about the reasoning, because I hadn’t read about the actual opinion and was hoping for an H&R story, and (c) fuck the majority, what the fucking fuck, the minority is right on.

      1. I’m curious if anyone has ever contemplated banning Jehovah’s Witnesses from potentially protesting blood transfusions?

        1. I don’t know, but *this* law doesn’t address that problem. You aren’t in violation of the law if you protest a Red Cross place.

          1. I’m just reading a lot of dissenting opinions online stating that because the pro-life protestors are interfering with a medical decision, their opinions don’t count and aren’t protected by the First Amendment.

            I completely disagree with this reasoning, but does it also apply to other medical matters, or is it an argument that’s only brought up in matters of abortion?

            1. I guess you’re talking about dissenting opinions in the prog-o-sphere.

              I found many images – lots from the UK – of “animal-rights” demonstrators in front of labs where animal experiments were conducted.

              I don’t know if there’s special laws for them, too.

              1. …but I doubt it.

                1. Ah, I see there’s a federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, and here’s an animal rights activist protesting her prosecution in Salon.

                  It seems she spent time in prison in part for taking part in a demonstration in front of an executive’s house and calling for the house to be burned down. She was convicted in *federal* court – a Massachusetts court acquitted her. After all, she observed the state’s *13 foot* buffer zone which the state put around this private residence. Because a private residence needs less protection against an arson-advocating mob than an abortion clinic needs against pro-lifers.


                  1. (the protest seems to relate to medical research on animals)

                    1. And of course buffer zones are necessary vis-a-vis abortion clinics.


                      So in short, yes, in Salon’s world, you can gather in front of an executive’s house and threaten to burn it, in the name of animal rights, but you can’t talk to patients going in to an abortion clinic.

      2. I too agree with the ruling, but the reasoning behind it seems fucked up.

      3. Well, GKC, I may be one of the most abortion-friendly posters here,

        I dispute this. I’m not just pro-choice, I’m for mandatory abortions (provided I fathered ’em).

    4. Do I get a buffer zone if I have to pass demonstrators outside McDonald’s?…..y-capital/

      1. Isn’t it interesting that nurses can picket hospitals and nobody wants “buffer zones”? Abortion clinics are special, I guess.

  21. Don’t let the doctor doTHIS to your newborn.

    1. I won’t lie…I thought it was circumcision.

      Turns out, it’s calling your baby a boy simply because he has dangly bits (or a girl simply because she doesn’t). The stigma!

      1. Eh, it can go badly for kids. I have someone in my extended family who looked mostly male but needed a bit of stitching up at birth and then further surgical intervention as an adult. When he went in as an adult they did some tests and said “oops, you’re biologically a female, sorry about that.” Bit of a mind-fuck that.

        That’s of course one of the outlier cases that they’re talking about with the 1 or 2% though.

        1. I couldn’t figure out whether the article criticized this rare surgery or the practice of assigning all babies to one sex or the other.

          1. It’s definitely the latter, which is all sorts of retarded.

            I’m just saying there’s a grain of truth buried in about the middle of the article that sometimes doctors make snap decisions or are too arbitrary based on a very cursory exam at birth.

            1. Oh, I wouldn’t be at all surprised.

            2. What kills me about that piece is that one of my libertarian arguments about respecting/accepting transgender folks is the idea that some doctor looking at a baby’s crotch is not the “science is settled” moment people think it is when it comes to gender identification and arguing that people should avoid appeals to authority on the basis of the doctor’s observation. Now I can’t use that argument because people will think of this nonsense and think that’s what I mean.

              1. She definitely does the entire discussion a disservice by conflating the two issues. I’m not really sure what she expects people to do for children who are born biologically one sex, but feel alienated from it for whatever reason later.

                That’s a lot different than recommending more thorough testing for those born with ambiguous genitalia and realizing that there’s a percentage of the population that doesn’t biologically fit cleanly into male or female.

      2. Me too. This lady is fucking retarded.

        Male and female are BIOLOGICAL DISTINCTIONS. If you have a penis and testes, YOU ARE A MALE! If you have XX chromosomes and a vagina, YOU ARE A FEMALE! Sorry, that’s biology not social distinctions. Boy/girl man/woman are social distinctions, but male and female are not. And males are typically classified boys and females classified girls.

        Hundreds of thousands of years of basic human classifications.

        But LADY (if you can call yourself such), why even stop with boy/girl assignments? Why do you even name your child? What gives YOU that right? Shouldn’t your child pick their own name? Why should they even be considered human beings? Maybe they want to be a dolphin? LET THEM BE A DOLPHIN! WHO ARE YOU, MOM, TO TELL THEM OTHERWISE? You’re just a close minded bigot if you won’t let your precious snowflake be a dolphin.

    2. Good comments.
      “Slate, as hard as I’m trying, I still can’t find the link to the original Onion article.”

      1. This was another on-target comment:

        Doctor! Doctor! What is it?” “It’s a beautiful baby!” “Boy or a girl?” Gruff voice: “Madame…we do not use those terms here!” /takes the baby off to CPS.

      2. and this one:

        To the editors at Slate: you should be concerned. People are hacking into your main site and posting stupid bulls**t under your publication’s name. Just thought you should know.

    3. It’s a boy or a girl, based on nothing more than a cursory assessment of your offspring’s genitals.

      *Now* can we have that Universal DNA Database?

    4. And I thought this was going to be a story about babies born with both or undefined genitalia being surgically altered to create a specific gender assignment.

    5. “That doctor (and the power structure behind him) plays a pivotal role in imposing those limits on helpless infants, without their consent, and without your informed consent as a parent.”

      What the actual fuck?

    6. Hey, don’t blame the doctor, the slut bitches at our ultrasound appointment said we were having a boy the first go round and a girl the second.

    7. More evidence of the mental illness that is so prevalent in the modern progressive movement.

      The isn’t mental retardation; this is batshit crazy.

      1. The = This.

        IOW: The woman isn’t retarded; she’s batshit crazy.

  22. Ann Coutler is still retarded: Soccer popularity demonstrates moral decay of America induced by immigrants and liberals

    I resent the force-fed aspect of soccer. The same people trying to push soccer on Americans are the ones demanding that we love HBO’s “Girls,” light-rail, Beyonce and Hillary Clinton. The number of New York Times articles claiming soccer is “catching on” is exceeded only by the ones pretending women’s basketball is fascinating.


    Remember when the media tried to foist British soccer star David Beckham and his permanently camera-ready wife on us a few years ago? Their arrival in America was heralded with 24-7 news coverage. That lasted about two days. Ratings tanked. No one cared.

    If more “Americans” are watching soccer today, it’s only because of the demographic switch effected by Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 immigration law. I promise you: No American whose great-grandfather was born here is watching soccer. One can only hope that, in addition to learning English, these new Americans will drop their soccer fetish with time.

    1. While I disagree with Ann’s incitefully* racist theory about soccer popularity, I do agree that watching soccer is about as exciting as watching golf or bowling or Game of Thrones.

      * – Ha!

    2. Skeletor will always be retarded.

    3. Oh Ann. She manages to KULTUR WAR everything. It’s just so fucking pathetic.

    4. Ann Coulter is a shrieking harpy, and is very, very stupid about things she doesn’t fully understand but decides to get her claws into anyway.

      Soccer fandom in the US is like any other fucking sport’s fandom – it cuts across the entire political spectrum.

      Fuck you, Ann.

      1. Whenever I see her on TV I see that protruding Adam’s Apple and think she must be transsexual Male to Female.

        That would be one of the great irony/hypocrisy stories of all time if she really were trans.

        1. I don’t see it. If she had a dick, she’d be running around sticking it in people’s ears. They’d never be able to keep it a secret.

      2. Not wanting to support Ms Coulter in any manner, but surely you must concede that soccer fandom skews towards the socio-economic elite.

        And within that upper or upper middle class soccer fandom, it tends towards the center-left.

        Although it in no way is meaningful towards libertarians, but wouldn’t you guess that half again as many Democrats are soccer fans than Republicans?

        1. I surely must not, though in this country it tends to be a game for the middle class rather than the dirt poor (except for immigrant communities of all sorts – I’m not even thinking that much about the people from the Americas; I see lots of very poor southeast Asians and Africans playing alongside people of all walks).

          I used to think it skewed toward Dems/the Left, but experience has disabused me of that notion. If there is a skew, it’s small enough not to be all that significant. Many of the players in my O-30 league here in bluest Akron, OH wouldn’t be caught dead voting for Dems.

          It’s a convenient assumption if you want to avoid thinking much about it, and probably provides a nice, repeatable meme that can be used to plop people in a box so you can safely ignore them. I don’t think it really applies as much as you think it does.

    5. Anne Coulter also thinks Mozart’s music is objectively anti-life and that all conservatives should listen to Rochmaninoff instead.

      1. R sucks balls, whereas Mozart is exquisite.

        However, Bach – Johan S. – is the best ever.

        Carry on.

    6. “The same people trying to push soccer on Americans are the ones demanding that we love HBO’s “Girls,” light-rail, Beyonce and Hillary Clinton.”

      Bite me.

      And I don’t even like soccer (as my joke indicates).

      1. Are you letting the abortion buffer zone thing go now? Or did they take too long to address it?

        1. …he said, in response to a comment about soccer.

          1. He asked in response to the others only post in the thread at the time.

            1. *smooches*

      2. What is funny, of course, is that 98% of the commenters on HnR also hate “Girls”, light-rail, and Hillary Clinton. They probably are more split on Beyonce, though, depending on whether they fall into the John or Sarcasmic camp.

        1. I don’t care which camp you’re in. Everyone wants to split Beyonce. Hell, even Tonio and jessie’d probably have a go.

    7. I’d fuck her.

      1. The Adam’s Apple is a dead giveaway. Careful!

      2. Will people please stop saying this?

    8. She’s just click trolling. Trying hard to stay relevant.

    9. Anne Coulter is a retard who seriously stated that the 1965 immigration law has led to a demographic shift equivalent to genocide.

    10. If more “Americans” are watching soccer today

      Oh, excellent. A+ trolling.

    11. Can we put Marcotte and Coulter in a cage match to the death? And then Kill the winner?

      Bill Maher could referee, and then we could kill him in the post show.

      1. Coulter would clearly win, and then kill Maher and escape, thus setting an enraged REDHARPIE on an unsuspecting world.

        HBO’s next SERIES! You’re WELCOME!


        *not a typo

        1. I can see the posters now.

          “The Chin vs The Larynx”

          “May the most testosterone win.”

          1. THREADWINNER

    12. Despite my argument above, this is even more retarded that not using head-to-head as the primary tiebreaker.

      More Americans are watching World Cup soccer because:

      1) the American team sucks less

      2) they want to be cool and edgy like the Europeans

      3) baseball, the only competition at this time of year, has gotten slower and slower

      1. 4) Now that we have a big-screen HD TV, the game is a lot more interesting to watch.

        I’m betting that’s the case across a lot of America as well. Now you can see things, like the way the ball spins and bends, that wasn’t obvious to casual fans before.

        1. There might be something to it. Wide screen and HD were made for soccer (and hockey). They help the viewer tremendously.

          1. As does having subscriptions to Amazon Prime and Netflix. I can binge watch Archer or Orphan Black and never once have to worry about watching soc, I mean, football. Thank you capitalism!

  23. Did someone through the One Ring into Mount Doom? Because the Nazgul are acting all non-Nazgul-ish.

  24. Thief targets defenseless elderly men who comply with “common sense” gun regulations.

    Gawker and commenters are overjoyed.

    It’s a clusterfuck of retardation and mendacity.

    1. Christ, what a bunch of assholes. I’d like to see Adam Weinstein pistol-whipped by one of the victims.

    2. That both sets of victims were armed

      Are you armed if the arms are in a bag in the back seat?

      1. And unloaded in compliance with “common sense” gun regulations.

      2. Sure, just like if I take a pistol and disassemble it into different parts and carry it in a sack, I am totally armed and thus disprove the utility of guns if someone jumps me and shoves a gun in my face.

        But again, they are gleeful that two senior citizens were ambush and robbed because they were going home after engaging in activity they hate.

        The lowest form of scum are Gawkerites.

    3. Damn, Yury’s Gun Range is where I go. Maybe if the stupid corrupt Philly PD wouldn’t “lose” people’s CC permit applications and drag their feet in giving them out…

    4. lJN9yQQDBepFa Yesterday 2:14pm

      It is called predators going after old and disarmed prey.

      The anti-self-defense crowd her smugly think that they somehow would have been even safer because the condescending attitudes would magically serve as a bullet shield.

      cepalg ? UlJN9yQQDBepFa Yesterday 2:17pm

      nah, we’re safer on grounds we don’t carry around easily-transportable highly-fungible hundred-dollar-plus pieces of ego-boosting jewelry everywhere we go.

      stealing a TV is hard. stealing a gun is really, really easy.

      Yeah, stealing a gun is soooo easy. Armed citizens are absolutely useless. Only the cops should have guns. Nobody would ever try and steal guns from the police, especially two cops eating at Subway. Those thugs from the Gawker article were the ballsiest…

  25. ?Peggy and Joan?I?m always rooting for them.? ?Obama on how the issues these Mad Men characters face remind him of his grandmother #EqualPay

    ? The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 26, 2014

    Didn’t Joan sleep her way into a partnership? #WarOnMen

    1. Don’t bother Obama with details! His laser-like focus has already moved on to the next issue.

    1. No, they’ve always been pretty consistent about using the issue du jour to beat men and Republicans about the head

  26. New ways of measuring the economy-Gross Output and Gross Domestic Expenditure-are here and GO will be reported by the government.


    1. I suppose GO is defined as whatever the hell the government deems it to be.

  27. Alaska bear falls through skylight into party, eats all the cupcakes

    This is why bears don’t get invited to parties.

    A young bear fell through an Alaska couple’s skylight while they were preparing to celebrate their child’s birthday, sending the humans scurrying out the room while he feasted on cupcakes.

    Scott said officials believe this bear might have been the same one that entered another occupied home in the same neighbourhood.

    Juneau police officers had to kill the juvenile male, because it posed a threat to human life, Scott said.

    “We don’t take killing or destroying bears lightly,” Scott said. “People were inside that building. I think it was appropriate for that given the situation.”

    The best part of the article is that they replace three feet with one metre in the pull quote: “The next thing you know, there’s this bear that, I mean, literally, fell right from the skylight. It was like (one metre) away from me.” Canada is trying to efface America’s cultural heritage!

    1. Next month I hope to see lots of Alaska bears. In Alaska.

      1. Oh nice! I’ve tried to convince people unsuccessfully to go to Alaska with me in the past.

        Not even fare sales could tempt them. I need better friends.

        Take and post pictures.

        1. Had the same problem a few years ago. I was invited to Anchorage to lecture, all expenses paid, so had a nice hotel, rental car, and a meals per diem. Tried to convince several friends that all they’d need to pay for was airfare getting there and back and they’d get to see Alaska.

          Typical response was, “I’ve seen snow, thanks.”

          This was for a visit in July, by the way. Even the midnight sun couldn’t convince anyone.

          1. By the way, everything is very expensive in Alaska. At least in July. Not only the airfare. So, your friends made a big mistake turning down your offer.

      2. Let me re-post this:

        “A young bear fell through an Alaska couple’s skylight while they were preparing to celebrate their child’s birthday, sending the humans scurrying out the room while he feasted on cupcakes….

        “”I was literally in the room, and I heard this cracking,” [Glenn] Merrill told the paper, describing the sound of the skylight’s plexiglass creaking under the bear. “And the next thing you know, there’s this bear that, I mean, literally, fell right from (the skylight). It was like one metre away from me.””…..-1.2688030

        1. shoot, that’s what I get reading the comments from bottom to top.

          1. But the point is, I got to the story first.

  28. it’s only complicated if you’re a female, because 1st grade math.

  29. This article claims that Wal-Mart’s red pen ‘fact check’ is based on falsehoods. I offer it here as a sacrifice to cross-examination:…..ostpopular

    1. The Times’ facts were right because it’s the Times!

  30. the Supreme Court ruled unanimously

    Wow, what’s going on today?

    1. Skwerlz have moved on the Supremes.

      Be afr….no, wait, you probably were already afraid of them. Be….intrigued with the possibilities.

  31. Today in lazy police artist news

    Seriously, don’t miss the picture. “I’ll just photoshop some hair on her, that should be good enough. Oh wait, it sucks. …Fuck it, good enough.”

    1. How did they get a picture of your mom?

      1. Didn’t you read the article? Craigslist escort listings.

        1. Of course, the same way I get pictures of your mom.

    2. It’s an alien from “Close Encounters” with Epi’s wig.


    3. Jesus, my daughter could have done better than that when she was five.

    4. I Believe.

    5. In this undated booking photo released by Walworth County Sheriff’s Office, Steven Zelich is seen.

      Good work, writer and editors!

      his daughter had struggled with mental illness since adolescence and her seven children were placed in foster care with him in 2010

      Coercive eugenics is looking better all the time.

  32. You fags done talking about kickball?


    1. You sir, have balls. Great balls of brass.

      *moves away slowly*

      1. Kickbrassball?

  33. Neil DeGrasse Tyson makes an excellent point, but Larry Summers is still right

    This is gonna piss off all the usual suspects.

    For simplicity I’m excluding applied sciences?like engineering?but off the top of my head I can think of a few applied sciences where women outnumber men: medicine, veterinary medicine, public health. What these stats indicate is that there isn’t an aggregate gender divide that is replicated across all the sciences. ?there isn’t some massive prejudicial force that prevents women from entering science in general.

    1. Public health is neither “applied” nor a “science.”

      1. Its Michael Dukakis meets Hildebeast.

  34. ***Game of Throne SPOILERS

    Game of Thrones is starting to get rather boring, so naturally they’re going to cut out the zombie

    Unfortunately for Fairley, and for the fans, it looks like Catelyn Stark is staying where she is: six feet under. Fairley spoke with Entertainment Weekly about the omission of her character in the finale of Season 4 and all but confirmed she won’t be returning to the fantasy series.

    “Yeah, the character’s dead. She’s dead,” Fairley said. The actress went on to defend the option to leave out her character’s arc in Season 4.

    “You respect the writers’ decision,” Fairley said. “They can’t stick to the books 100 percent. They have got to keep it dramatic and exciting, and extraneous stuff along the way gets lost in order to maintain the quality of brilliant show.” Which basically means we can say goodbye to any hope of seeing Lady Stoneheart during Season 5.

    They could always recast her though since the severe makeup required will do most of the impact.

    1. That’s stupid. Really, really stupid.

    2. I am firmly of the belief that the show’s writers are completely off on their own tangent at this point. They’ll take ideas from the books and from what Martin has told them is the ultimate story arc of the series, but they’re going to do whatever they want from now on. I believe this is primarily motivated by Martin writing the rest of the books so slowly, combined with a need to deal with rapidly aging child actors.

      I can’t blame them, but let’s be frank; they’re not even remotely as good of writers as Martin, and the more they deviate from the thing that made it so good in the first place (the books), the worse the show is going to get.

      1. The show really started to come apart at the seams this season and I can’t imagine that changing when there are going to expand the story line to Dorne as well as Arya in Braavos. The stuff beyond the Wall will feel like a completely different series.

        That being said I think inspired casting for Doran Martell and Ariana Martell could infuse some life into it. I would like to see Brian Cox as Doran and Freida Pinto as Arianne.

        1. Dude, they haven’t even mentioned the Sand Snakes (other than Oberyn saying he had daughters). I think Dorne is going to get almost entirely glossed over. I think the majority of book four is going to get chucked, and they’re going to focus on Stannis and the Wall, the consolidation of power in Westeros, and Tyrion’s escape. They have to keep on with Dany but that plot line would be brutal to put into a TV show, so I think they’re going to skip much of it and go right to the dragons escaping (and without the “help” of Quentyn Martell).

          I mean, will Arya even go and join the Faceless Men? I think we have to be prepared for deviations that are actually just a completely different story.

          1. I don’t think anyone mentioned the Sand Snakes until A Feast for Crows, did they? At most they mentioned them once. Cutting out Doran and Arianne and the attempt on Myrcella would be the dumbest choice they’ve made yet. It would be like cutting out Aegon. Wait, shit. I better not give them ideas.

            Instead of doing ASOIAF, they really would have been better served to do a Dunk and Egg buddy comedy action series in the style of the A-Team. They could ride around, defeat enemies of the week, and Dunk and egg could learn important life lessons together. Fuck, we should get a time machine and go to 1988 and make this series.

            1. Do…do you mean 1998? Because Martin hadn’t written any ASOIAF stuff in 1988.

              I think that the diaspora of the characters that happens in the books is going to be severely curtailed in the show. Will we have Aegon? I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if we didn’t. Will Arya join the Faceless Men? Same there. Just think of trying to write a teleplay for Arya walking around learning to be “no one”. Or of Tyrion drunk on a barge for a few weeks. Or of Dany trying to keep the city under control for months.

              I think thinking of the future of the TV show in terms of the books is a mistake, because I predict that are going off on their own so drastically that the books will be a completely different story.

              1. No, 1988. That way we wouldn’t have to pay GRRM anything. But really, a Xenia, Warrior Princess or Adventures of Hercules set in Westeros and with gigantic amounts of blood and tits would be awesome.

                1. That would never have flown in 1988. Shit, dude, the most racy even HBO did in 1990 was Dream On. You think they’d do the level of stuff they do now? Dream on.

              2. The problem is that you then end up with a vastly inferior tv/movie product replacing the book in the public’s consciousness.

                1. Which is precisely what we have now.

                  1. Basically, Game of Thrones reenforces something I noticed during the Harry Potter movies. NEVER try to adapt a book series that’s still being written. Adapting book to film or TV necessarily requires removing material, and until the source is complete, it’s often impossible to evaluate how important particular things are to the series as a whole.

                    The Harry Potter films started out great but became increasingly shitty as the series went on because increasingly the films were missing exposition that was necessary to understand their stories because it had been editted out of an earlier film.

                    Game of Thrones is running into the same problem. They’re cutting out stuff that’s likely going to come back to bite them when the next book comes out.

                    1. Interesting.

                      I’ve always wondered how Dickens could possibly write good novels when (in some cases) he was having them published as newspaper serials before he had finished writing them.

              3. I think that the diaspora of the characters that happens in the books is going to be severely curtailed in the show.

                People don’t like to say it, but this is why fantasy writers shouldn’t be indulged with describing every detail of what happens with an epic like this. Some things are better left to the imagination or put in a few “and then a bunch of shit happened” summaries. I wouldn’t be surprised if they actually combined a bunch of material from FFC and DWD into next year, and then spend the following one season for WOW and whatever else Martin’s outlines have, and finishing it off at six seasons.

          2. For the record, they’re casting for Oberyn’s daughters, though I think they only put out casting for 4 of them. They’re also casting for the Prince.

      2. David Benioff: Watch this: AWESOM-O, given the current trends of the HBO-watching public, can you come up with an idea for an episode that will generate a hundred million tweets?
        AWESOM-O: Um…okay. How about this: Littlefinger is, like, in love with some girl, but then it turns out that the girl is actually a dragon or something.
        Staffer 2: [thinking over this idea, then writing it down] Oh, perfect!

        1. AWESOM-O: Um…Ned Stark comes back from the dead played by Adam Sandler?

      3. Even if they aren’t going to cleave to the books 100 or even 65 percent, leaving out Lady Stoneheart is pretty egregious. Maybe they feel that they can’t do a substantive arc with her and the BoB, given that it’s mostly “kill Freys and Lannisters and their sympathizers,” but there’s ways to integrate it in there without devoting much screen time to it.

        Maybe the writers will allude to it by showing scenes of various Freys hanging from trees or mutilated throughout Westeros, just to show that someone or something is targeting them with extreme prejudice.

    3. They’re not going to recast. They’re just going to keep ruining everything interesting — hence you shall be watching alone next season, kid.

      1. Odd-numbered seasons follow the book closely and are great, even-numbered seasons make stupid changes for no reason and are terrible. Maybe it’s some sort of homage to the Star Trek movies.

      2. Oh well, at least we have ‘Hannibal’.

        1. YES.

  35. Fun for geometry nerds. I’m stuck at level 20.

  36. Guess who:

    There’s absolutely nothing “peaceable” about assembling while armed with weapons of death. If the only thing keeping intact the peaceable aspect of the open carry protests is that they haven’t yet discharged one or more of their AR-15s into a crowd, I’m not so sure the First Amendment protects the open carry gangs.

    What we’re witnessing from these groups should absolutely be considered a form of “terrorism,” thinly disguised as a defiant protest in support of the Second Amendment. Make no mistake, like the Bundy radicals, they’re itching for a fight. They want to be arrested. They want a nation in which the open carrying of deadly weapons is commonplace — with the critical downside that once the guns are accepted fashion accessories and the public is desensitized, actual homicidal mass shooters can more successfully blend into crowds without having to conceal a damn thing.

    It defies reason that in the wake of these mass shootings gun laws continue to become more permissible, rather than more restrictive. More astonishing is the reality that open carry gatherings in public places, especially in locations where the open carriers aren’t welcome, isn’t a more contentious issue. The logical endgame here is a society in which every third or fourth white guy you bump into at McDonald’s is armed with a retail product that can kill you on the spot.

    1. Are you intentionally hiding the answer, or did you SF it? Either way, I’m thinking Marcotte.

    2. Most men could rather easily beat most women to death if they chose to. Marcotte appears not to realize that the fact that they don’t suggests that it’s going to be all right if people carry weapons.

      And it’s funny that she is scared that the gun people are demonstrating strength. What does she think the point of a demonstration is? It’s saying “Look, we can assemble an army. Give us what we want or there will be violence.” A mob isn’t more threatening because they have weapons. The mob itself is a threat.

      1. She’s pissed that their mob is as threatening as her’s is, despite it’s smaller size.

      1. Oh wow, look at that.

        That said, open carry demonstrators are the Folsom Street Fair of the gun rights movement. All they’re doing is convincing babies like this guy that gun people are dangerous.

        1. Honestly, I don’t think that this guy needed any more convincing. I haven’t heard of a single person changing their mind towards more gun control because of these people.

          And this guy hates them because he’s afraid that they might reduce stigma.

          While I have seen some clownish stupidity, it’s not a bad thing that some of the grabbers are afraid that they’ll succeed in reducing stigma.

        2. “open carry demonstrators are the Folsom Street Fair of the gun rights movement”


          (Longer: Words totally fail me.)

      2. Cesca’s just Marcotte with a micropenis.

  37. Guy really wanted a Big Mac

    A harrowing scene unfolded at a McDonald’s in New York City after a man walked into the restaurant with a knife sticking out of his back


  38. An enzyme is coming to eat the cocaine right out of your body!

    Apparently there’s an enzyme that efficiently breaks down cocaine, but the enzyme breaks down at body temp in about 12 minutes. Meddling scientists have developed one that is highly resistant to heat and more active than the original.

    According to a recently-published research paper, the modified enzyme fully protected mice from lethal doses of cocaine for at least 3 days, by far the longest protective effect observed yet. That means the enzyme could be useful both as a short-term antidote, and as a long-term addiction-fighting therapy.

    I don’t see how this will be an addiction-fighting therapy. It has the benefit of being less likely to kill someone when they keep doing more and more without effect like the vaccine would do, but I’d assume at that point folks would just switch to something else.

    1. Wait, they’re making a drug to waste perfectly good cocaine? Fuck, give it to me and I’ll find some strippers to waste it with.

      1. It might be great to have before your surprise urine drug test.

      2. Keep your cocaine. Glass is far superior. And if it’s just about the strippers, crystal makes ’em hornier anyway.

        1. I see you’ve never done coke. Or if you have, it wasn’t good (pure) coke. You should try it.

          1. Many, many times. Sometimes shit, sometimes cut with nothing but ether. High is too short and the comedown is too heavy. And while you feel more powerful mentally on the coke than the crystal, you actually are more powerful mentally on the crystal.

            But understand, I’m referring to snorting both. Smoking either gives me massive headaches.

            1. Either you’ve been deceived about it not always being shit, or you have a different metabolism that just about everyone else. A good coke high lasts quite some time and feels fucking amazing. The euphoria is incredible, and if you’ve never had the pure coke euphoria, you really don’t know how amazingly different it is. What you described is literally the exact way to describe shit coke. The more throat drip, the shittier it is.

              1. The better quality of either, the longer it lasts. So it;s possibly my metabolism then, but to be sure, define “quite some time” for me. Cause the glass lasts almost twice as long. Coke-head friends used to rave about the stuff we picked up in Austin. And it was many, many times better than anything else we picked up elsewhere in Texas. Over the years I occasionally run across similar in other high quality in other states/countries. I get almost (granted, not quite) as good on the euphoria on glass as good coke, along with all of the other pluses I mentioned.

                1. I’ve done a lot more coke and in fact only did crystal a very long time ago. At the time though, I actually thought the crystal was a “cleaner” buzz with a more gradual let down to it.

                  1. the crystal was a “cleaner” buzz with a more gradual let down to it.


  39. I remember when the soccer commentary in the P.M. links was limited to me and Pantsfan spoiling the CL for each other.

    Shackford succeeded with his comment bait. Who gives a fuck what sports other people like/don’t like?

    1. A friend of a friend did a simple website to aggregate photos of players and sort them by country and team. This has been the only thing that has made my shallow self even vaguely interested in sports.

      So far Russian player Aleksandr Kerzhkov has been the random click I’ve been most impressed with.

      What the hell happened to Pantsfan? Is he Trouser-pod or do libertarians have a tendency to obsess about pants in a weird way?

      1. So is he a twink? An otter? He looks pretty twinky to me, but what do I know.

        1. Wait, is otter a hairy twink? I thought that was a baby bear.

        2. Jock. Were he waxed below the eyebrows he would be a passable twink in some of the earlier pictures where he looks less toned. Probably not hairy enough to be an otter.

          1. You gays and your rigid taxonomy. Heh, heh, rigid.

          2. jesse, where would you place Justin Bieber in the taxonomy? Just curious.

            1. where would you place Justin Bieber in the taxonomy?

              And where’s asking for a friend?

              1. I’m not ashamed of anything, grizzly.

            2. And what would you place in Justin Bieber?

            3. At what age?

              He’s clearly trying to transition into jock, but is kind of scrawny and ends up just a toned twink. Earlier in his career he would’ve fallen off the standard taxonomy since “chicken” seems to have fallen into disuse in the US (I’ve seen it referenced occasionally in British slang) to indicate the “barely legal” end of the twink spectrum.

              And to answer Warty’s question: nothing, my doctor says I need to cut back on my hate-fucking, it’s messing with my blood pressure.

      2. Not Xabi Alonso?

        Don’t know if Pantsfan changed his name or not.

        1. I have a particular soft spot for the dark hair/pale blue eyes combo, but that Xabi fellow is certainly easy on the eyes too.

    2. I don’t know, but some people sure do like to show off how much they don’t like it.

      Which is weird.

      I’d have joined in during the CL season, but I’m usually at work during that.

      1. These people who say that the game has no physicality are my favorite. Cool story, bro. I see you’ve never played it. Or watched it.

        1. They should play in my indoor league. People get checked into the boards regularly and half the time the refs are too lazy to call a foul.

          1. My indoor soccer league as a kid was very violent. And, as an untouchable goalie, I could throw people trying to block my view of penalty kicks right on the ground and the refs didn’t even blink.

            1. Hm. Indoor soccer/judo. Sounds fun.

              1. Yeah, I actually used to flip some of the blockers over my hip or trip them, so…exactly.

          2. I hadn’t played since I was a kid until I joined my friends’ rec league team a few summers ago. I had forgotten what a joy it was to flatten cocky, mouthy, little quick kids who think that soccer’s not a contact sport. It’s so much fun. The more you hit them, the more they talk, and the more you hit them.

            1. Cocky, mouthy, little shits stay the same once they reach O-30 and still think they’re God’s gift to the game.

              They get stupider, though, because then when you flatten them, they and their dickhead buddies threaten to kill you even though you are twice their size and have a bunch of former college players and football players on your team.

        2. Yeah, that’s weird.

          Maybe AYSO U-tiny coed is not physical.

          Once you get to U-14 or so, that’s ALL it is (unfortunately, in the bulk of the US). Then again, I see some kids these days who are doing things with the ball that I never could have dreamed of at that age, and I’ve seen it a LOT lately.

      2. Well if you’re going to argue use this one:

        If the group game results had been the exact same but in reverse order everyone would be talking about how we got through to the group stages from a last minute goal by John Brooks instead of failing our way out of the group. Same set of results. I’m excited, we did exactly what we needed to do and how I predicted we would get through when the groups were announced, goal difference on 4 points.

  40. Glad I don’t to root for these losers anymore.

  41. Holy fucking shit.

    Killing random people on the road to Mosul. Very graphic. I consider myself pretty desensitized, but christ. Is that ISIS?

    1. It must be. Ah, the joys of the Religion of Peace.

    2. Waiting to hear how Bush forced them to do it. Chapman will be along any minute now, I’m sure.

      1. Everyone knows that Muslims never killed one another before Bush got involved.

  42. “The State Department has received confirmation that Meriam Ibrahim Ishag has been released on bail and is no longer being detained at a Sudanese police station. She and her family are in a safe location and the Government of Sudan has assured us of the family’s continued safety. The Embassy remains highly engaged in Ms. Ishag’s case. We will provide more information as it becomes available consistent with privacy laws.”…..228507.htm

    1. Well at least there’s some improvement in the case. Still not against public flogging for the officials who authorized her arrest in the first place though.


    There’s a movie, ’80s I think about two guys who travel to Europe. A running gag is that Europeans think they’re nutty for wanting a hamburger. The movie ends with them and the European girlfriends they brought home with them grilling and the girlfriends admitting that a well made hamburger is actually quite good.

    1. When I was in Europe in the early ’80s, I was rather surprised that Europeans didn’t seem to know how to make hamburgers. Even the ones at Euro chains like Wimpy were substandard.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.