A.M. Links: D.C. Bans Public Pot Smoking, Cruz and Sanders Win Wisconsin, WhatsApp Expands Encryption

|

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


Advertisement

NEXT: Senator Says 'Good People Don't Smoke Marijuana'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. 160) Good Lord, is there anything they don’t want the federal government running?
    The $90 billion question: Do we need government-supplied daycare?
    Here, let me take a stab at the question: no. My favorite part is when the article looks at Quebec’s implementation of universal daycare in the late 1990s, finds it was a failure that later led to worse health outcomes and higher criminality for middle-class kids who had attended government-run daycare, and then concludes we should do the same thing here. Basically, Quebec’s program was implemented incorrectly (though they don’t mention Rufus by name), but we’d do it the right way.

    1. Quebec had the wrong top corruptocrats men

    2. Hello.

      Subsidized daycare is a racket and is in total chaos.

      Anyone who proposes it is a complete fucking retard.

      1. The proposals for subsidization usually come when over-regulation has drive the price so high it becomes unaffordable. Mrs. O-Matic and I are currently learning this about Maryland and DC.

        1. Round here daycare costs more than a full-time paycheck for someone earning minimum wage. Obviously this means minimum wage should be doubled.

          1. Many of them around here are more than one of mine, and I make well above minimum wage.

            The only solution, I think, is to tax employers more and subsidize it. That has never backfired.

        2. Generally, this is how it goes. Parents are charged $7.30 a day. But it costs about $100 a day to run. Guess who is ‘subsidizing’ the difference through higher taxes? It really is a simple math calculation. The thinking is, according to the government, since both parents will be working they will be more productive and the gap will narrow.

          In French we say, ‘mon oeil’. My eye.

          Contrast this to a private daycare. They are forced to charge amounts below what they should be charging (which should be at the min. $50 but the average is something like $40. True costs are about $45. But we manage to run it at about $33 – with OUTSTANDING service.

          Who is better for taxpayers and society as a whole?

          1. Are you implying that I would be happier not propping up other people’s baby-making? That’s just crazy talk.

            1. “Guess who is ‘subsidizing’ the difference through higher taxes?”
              Western Canada?

              In the 2013-2014 year, the following provinces received equalization payments:
              Quebec ($7.833 billion)
              Ontario ($3.169 billion)
              Manitoba ($1.792 billion)
              New Brunswick ($1.513 billion)
              Nova Scotia ($1.458 billion)
              Prince Edward Island ($340 million)

          2. The thinking is, according to the government, since both parents will be working they will be more productive and the gap will narrow.

            This is one of the fallacies of boomer progressivism that has come home to roost in the last few years. You hear people like Fauxcahontas complaining that productivity has dramatically increased in the last 40 years while wages have stagnated on an inflation-adjusted basis by comparison. Well, in the last 40 years the number of women in the workforce grew exponentially too, along with the amount of consumer debt. Furthermore, they’re still whining that the “wage gap” hasn’t come any closer to being eliminated, and they don’t take into account the effects of exponential functions of inflation on the purchasing power of those workers.

            So by their own unintended admission, doubling the workforce (increasing the supply of labor) ultimately resulted in stagnating wages–not just for women, but for everyone–and crippling levels of debt. Sounds like the solution would be to provide economic incentives so that families would be more inclined to choose a single-income lifestyle, and come to grips with the reality that glorifying single mothers as “courageous” is socially self-defeating.

            1. Sounds like the solution would be to provide economic incentives so that families would be more inclined to choose a single-income lifestyle

              Suppose there was a two-earner man+woman household, with the woman making “77 cents on the dollar” to the man. If the woman stayed home (economically sensible decision given the premise), then their income would be immediately reduced by 44%. In order for these incentives to work, you would have to increase the man’s income and/or the household’s buying power by at least 77%. I don’t see that happening on any realistic timeframe.

              If you factor kids into the equation, then the savings on daycare plus some smaller incentives might make it work. But we are already fiscally insolvent–where is this money going to come from?

              1. where is this money going to come from?

                Single people, duh.

                “You don’t need all that money for yourself.”

              2. I don’t see that happening on any realistic timeframe

                Neither do I, to be honest. But I also think we have to face the reality that the decades of promoting dual-income households and single motherhood haven’t actually improved our overall economic health, and to a certain extent our social health. If wages have stagnated and women are only making “77%” of what men make (yes, we’ve discussed that particular fallacy on these boards ad nauseum, but it’s best to use the enemy’s weapons against them) and the country is saddled with crippling consumer debt from credit cards to automobiles to mortgages, then the only result if we continue down this path is massive pain when the edifice can’t support the obligations anymore.

                Ultimately, it comes down to decreasing the supply of labor so that wages will go up, so that more families can live on a single income and single people have a better chance of making a salary that will leave them with more at the end of the month.

                One interesting thing I learned about the Black Plague in England was that so many people died wages ended up skyrocketing for those who survived, particularly skilled labor. In response, Edward III actually imposed a cap on what skilled workers could make, so they either had to accept the cap or starve.

                1. Ultimately, it comes down to decreasing the supply of labor so that wages will go up

                  LFPR is at 40-year lows. The US government is way ahead of you. When are the wages going to go up?

                  1. It took about 40 years to get to the current state of things. If you’re looking for a quick fix, you might as well ask a politician, I hear they’re great at magical thinking.

                    1. I’m not looking at a “quick fix”, I’m pointing out a flaw in your argument. I think R C Dean gets closer to explaining why it “didn’t work as expected” but the idea of culling the labor supply to raise the price of it depends on certain assumptions.

                      Moreover, there is no immutable reason why the single-earner, two-parent household is superior. It arose as a result of certain economic factors, but those factors may no longer present (and arguably, never were to the degree that some people seem to think).

                      As a reductio ad absurdam, given your premises, polygamy (one male earner + many female non-earners) may be a more economically sensible ordering of things. It would certainly reduce the labor pool!

                  2. Its the supply of labor relative to the demand for labor.

                    The participation rate is down because the demand for labor is down. Piling on more supply doesn’t solve the problem, but makes it worse. The low participation rate reflects an oversupply of labor relative to the demand for labor.

                    Its a deep, deep hole that we’re in, if your goal is raising the price of labor across the board. And what’s the first rule of holes?

                    Of course, whether raising the price of labor across the board is a good goal or not is a separate issue.

                    1. And what’s the first rule of holes?

                      Don’t skimp on the lube?

                    2. Finally. I lob up an easy pass over the basket, and EAP slams it down!

        3. get out of Mordor now. VA sucks and is a 1000x better than Mordor.

      2. *raises hand*

        /bill deblasio

      3. No joke. I pay about 25% more to keep my kids away from daycare facilities that accept state-subsidized clients–those places are a fucking mess. Plus, my daughter really doesn’t like poor people.

        1. “, my daughter really doesn’t like poor people”

          Who does?

          1. “Sir, the peasants are revolting!”
            “You’re right. They stink on ice.”

      4. Anyone who proposes it is a complete fucking retard.

        Anyone who sends their kids there doesn’t think much of their kids.

      5. Subsidized daycare is a racket and is in total chaos.

        Anyone who proposes it is a complete fucking retard.

        If subsidized day care is a chaotic racket – i.e., lots of money floating around with little oversight – wouldn’t you kinda have to be a complete fucking retard not to shove your snout into the trough? You and I as taxpayers are the ones slopping the hogs – who’s the complete fucking retard here?

        1. You may not see this message but that’s exactly the thinking. They’re giving it so I’m taking it. It’s a simple rational decision.

          For the record, I wasn’t eligible for a subsidy but there’s talk the government *may* consider giving one to all daycares.

    3. Didn’t Tennessee set up universal preschool, and the kids who went to it are worse at school than socioeconomically similar kids who didn’t? Small children need individual attention and that is not what the government does.

      1. That socialization angle is hogwash. Total fucking hogwash. In a nutshell, know what happens in most subsidized daycare? The workers get unionized and become formulaic workers of the state. And the service – surprise! – reflects that.

        And the ‘education’ programs? All BS.

        My aunt who is one of the last standing private pre-schools in Quebec – and she’s hated for it by the commies in Quebec have made her life miserable to the point her school can’t be sold.

        When she helped us out in the beginning she opened our eyes to the sham right down to their ‘philosophy’ which was nothing buy a cut and paste manual of American and European ideas. There is no ‘Canadian’ philosophy of how to take care of children so off the get-go the idea kids are better off in a subsidized environment is a non-starter.

        We completely ignore ANY literature that is sent to us from the state. They don’t know jack shit about us and our business. How are we doing?

        I’ll tell you how well.

        This week is our five year anniversary. Yesterday, when two of my employees opened up at 6am they were greeted with balloons, bouquet of roses and a mural with pictures of present and past families and their kids congratulating and thanking us for being the ‘best daycare bar none’. There’s no price to that I tell you.

        1. That is, two parents took the initiative and organized the whole thing going in -10 degree weather to set up the outside of the daycare.

          Stew on that.

        2. My hats off to you. Keep it up.

          1. I’d be lying if I wasn’t moved by it.

            For them to do that and explain to us why they did was something.

        3. When we’re in the camps, I hope we get cells close to each other. We can tap out cheering messages to each other in Morse. In the summers, we’ll vie for skill at making bikinis from camp-issue toilet paper. Our carefully hoarded chocolate rations and cigarette butts palmed off the guards will make the nights enjoyable, as we relax near the gibbet of an evening.

      2. The goal is equality, Spoonman. So long as they are all worse off, the program is a success.

    4. From comments: “Why not have some sort of national/state run day care up to kindergarten age? It would certainly get kids ready for school better, allow educators to better evaluate the progress of children, and it help to better socialize children to become better members of society. ”

      I don’t even know where to begin breaking this stupidity down.

      1. It’s contrary to evidence. Kids who start school earlier do worse in school. They burn out and don’t like it.

        1. “Kids who start school earlier do worse in school. They burn out and don’t like it.”

          I’ve heard the opposite from the obvious sources. Do you have a reference I can read?

      2. “Why not have some sort of national/state run day care up to kindergarten age? It would certainly get kids ready for school better, allow educators to better evaluate the progress of children, and it help to better socialize children to become better members of society. “

        It will get kids ready for school better. Better better better better.

      3. It’s like some sort of brave, new world.

    5. Remember back when some were wondering if Bezos purchasing the Washington Post would lead to the paper taking a more libertarian tilt?

      ROFLMAO. The rag is probably more retarded now than it has ever been.

      1. Dunno – they have Balko

  2. Bernie Sanders’ Wisconsin primary win was his sixth victory out of the last seven contests.

    Road to nowhere.

    1. Highway to Hell?

      1. Lane to Limbo

  3. Fisty’s lost his access to the speed force.

    1. My browser has an add-on that filters out all comments but my own, so I’m always first.

      1. That’s one way to “win” a race.

    2. I’m picturing a situation something like this.

  4. The New Republic‘s Twitter feed briefly went full millennial yesterday.

    #Can’tEven

    1. Ugh. It’s, like, 2016. Come. On.

  5. A little more than a year after Washington, DC legalized recreational marijuana use, the city council has permanently banned its consumption in public or in clubs.

    Obama will fix this. Because he cares.

    1. Choom Gang hardest hit.

        1. +1 Bogart

    2. I guess that rally the other day didn’t have the intended effect.

      1. Nothing a change.org petition to really get Obama’s attention won’t cure. He’s a bro. He totes feels their pain.

    3. So like firearms it’s legal in dc but you can’t actually purchase, use it or bring it into the district. Dc, the worst of both worlds.

      1. DC is just a mess of economic and constitutional insanity. I mean, on the local level. They make the People’s Republic of Maryland look like a libertopia in comparison.

  6. Not sure if anyone mentioned it, but yesterday was the 83rd anniversary of the Gold Seizure. Hooray fiat inflation!

    1. I fly my flag at half mast… and then light it on fire.

      1. Does that flag have gold fringe on it?

        1. Basil Marceaux approved this comment.

      2. Will the abstract euphemisms never stop?

  7. The European Union (EU) will introduce new proposals to regulate the process for refugees seeking asylum.

    PANTS SHITTERS

    1. No pants-shitting without the proper forms.

      1. Form. I prefer one ankle on each orphan’s head.

        1. So, for the orphan, the shit will literally be from the top-down.

    2. Maybe they can also investigate this “Internet” thing, since they’re so responsive and timely?

  8. Ted Cruz’s Wisconsin primary win makes a brokered Republican convention much more likely.

    He’s cut! The Trump’s cut! And it’s a bad cut.

    1. I really don’t want to be a Ted partisan, and I really really don’t want to be a GOP voter, and I really, really, really don’t want to hold out hope for this election, but Trump makes an awfully good case for Cruz 2016.

      1. Yeah, we’ve been brought down to that.

        *clutches Rand Paul bumper sticker*

        1. I still wish Rand went further. *clutches at wishful thinking

  9. Spot the Not: Bernie Sanders

    1. We have to re-invent socialism. It can’t be the kind of socialism that we saw in the Soviet Union, but it will emerge as we develop new systems that are built on cooperation, not competition.

    2. I will tell the billionaire class: you can’t have it all while kids in this country go hungry.

    3. I will…ban semi-automatic assault weapons which are designed strictly for killing human beings…

    4. You don’t need a PhD in economics to understand that American workers should not be forced to compete against people in Mexico making 25 cents an hour.

    5. When I talk about democratic socialism, I’m talking about Social Security.

    6. We need to reverse the massive transfer of wealth from working families to the top 1 percent and put millions of Americans back to work.

    7. Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit.

    8. Finland is no utopia.

    9. The Postal Service is a vitally important insitution for the American people. It must be saved.

    10. You’ve got the top 400 Americans owning more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans. Most folks do not think that is right.

    1. #8 is too obvious. I’m thinking #5.

    2. Gotta be 7

    3. #1

      Sandlers admitted to enjoying bread lines

      1. Here’s the the video:

        link
        “Sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country is because people are lining up for food. That’s a good thing. In other countries people don’t line up for food, the rich get the food and the poor starve to death.”

        Wow, he’s even dumber than I thought.

        1. I’d wager that he’s even dumber than you now believe as well. Give him time.

    4. Oh, I’ve missed these.

      I’m guessing #7.

      1. #3 for the win

        He catches flack from the proggies for it.

        1. #3 thirded

    5. Bonus real quotes:

      The right wing has monopolized the AM radio airwaves.

      Ted Kennedy devoted his lifetime to protecting those most in need, and tens of millions of Americans have been the beneficiaries.

      Progressives know there is something very wrong when a nation divided politically has one major network operating as a propaganda arm of the Republican Party and 90 percent of talk radio is dominated by right-wing extremists.

      What Wall Street and credit card companies are doing is really not much different from what gangsters and loan sharks do who make predatory loans. While the bankers wear three-piece suits and don’t break the knee caps of those who can’t pay back, they still are destroying people’s lives.

      1. “Progressives know there is something very wrong when a nation divided politically has one major network operating as a propaganda arm of the Republican Party and 90 percent of talk radio is dominated by right-wing extremists.”

        He has a point. The first rule in any authoritarian/totalitarian coup is to take over all the media outlets.

        1. This is why they object to the MSM’s competition.

          /internet kill-switch

      2. What Wall Street and credit card companies are doing is really not much different from what gangsters and loan sharks do who make predatory loans. While the bankers wear three-piece suits and don’t break the knee caps of those who can’t pay back, they still are destroying enriching people’s lives.

        Providing people with credit, and markets with liquidity, is not only beneficial, it’s essential to the betterment of individuals’ lives and a functional economy. The fact that people in the gray/black market also see a need for these things only proves the point moreso.

        Sanders isn’t just wrong, he’s dangerously wrong.

      3. Obviously all news networks should be propaganda arms of the Democrat Party.

    6. 6. We need to reverse the massive transfer of wealth from working families to the top 1 percent and put millions of Americans back to work.

      End the fed??

    7. The all sound like masturbation euphemisms.

    8. Derpy! Welcome back! Can we get an update on your status?

      1. Studying a certain foreign language (not supposed to say which one, but will say I’m happy with my assignment) at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, CA. Life is good, aside from the fact that I have to get up at 0345 5 days a week.

        1. Don’t let Derpy fool you, he’s studying Pig Latin

          1. Encryption.

          2. Ixnay on the igpay atinlay!

            1. “I don’t know. I failed Latin too”

          3. No Pork Latin

          4. Remember Hillary saying she was going to reveal what was really up with Area 51? It’s Klingon, and that’s why he can’t say what language he’s studying.

        2. Plus they make you use that crazy time measurement system.

          1. Pah. I am up at 0430 daily. When I exfil from work at 1530, life is good.

            1. My reaction to military time is like Spinal Tap’s.

        3. Esusjay at’sthay anway earlyway artstay. Oodgay ucklay ithway itway

          1. It’s OK. In a few more weeks, I will be able to wake up at a more reasonable hour. I will also get to wear civilian clothes again and mingle with normals off post.

            1. I will also get to wear civilian clothes again

              KLINGER!

            2. Muggles? Be careful!

        4. I’m glad you’re happy with your assignment, and that everything is going well.

        5. God, another mooch paid by the taxpayer who bitches about the government. That like half the people here. Thanks for your service.

          1. A socialist complaining about being a mooch. That’s funny

        6. I have to go to work at my private sector job in half-an-hour that is not in Cannery Row to support assholes like you that mooch off the taxpayer so you can sit in a classroom and learn Swahili. Why don’t you get a real job and stop relying on me to foot the bill for your education?

          1. I have to go to work at my private sector job in half-an-hour

            “It’s $10 for a BJ, $12 for an HJ, $15 for a ZJ.”

          2. Go fuck yourself. Better yet, since you’re a socialist whose ideology has killed 100 million, have a whole society fuck you to death.

          3. AS, I’m living your dream! “free” health care, 30 days paid vacation, seniority counting more than merit!

            1. Good for you! Government sucks, doesn’t it? When is the public sector going to learn that they should pay the same shit wages as the private sector or, better yet, outsource jobs to Mozambique? Fuck 60 year olds with 29 years of seniority. Out on their arseholes with them!

              The only thing I really care about is the tax rates of billionaires and their free speech rights to buy hundreds of millions of dollars of campaign ads. $1= 1 vote, I say.

              1. The government can only afford to pay higher salaries and give better perks because it steals and borrows its revenue. That will all come tumbling down one day.

    9. I can’t not read these in his voice.

      1. It is better if you go ahead and imagine it in Jackie Mason’s voice.

    10. Spot the Knot…

      Well, since Bernie is a knothead, I’m going to say it is that blob of impenetrable matter loosely riding atop his shoulders.

    11. 1 is the Not. Hugo Chavez said that.

      Congrats to Anarcho-Woodchipper. You win a limited-edition collectible subpoena.

      1. I guessed without looking at the answer!

  10. The New Republic’s Twitter feed briefly went full millennial yesterday.

    OK, I don’t get it. Must need more coffee.

    1. writer and poet Patricia Lockwood was helming the institutional Twitter account….

      You see, as a millenial, you’re not just a Writer… no, you’re a writer AND a poet. You can’t contain them. They are serious people with deep thoughts

  11. Too-large bulge in crotch leads to airport arrest

    A search of the hand luggage of the 43-year-old passenger, who had flown in from Costa Rica, turned up nothing, but the unusually large object protruding from his pants caught their attention, according to a story Tuesday in the Daily Mail.

    Under two pairs of shorts, the officials found a plastic container attached to the man’s genitals. It was filled with more than a pound of cocaine.

    Spanish police, tongues firmly implanted in cheeks, tweeted a picture of the trafficker alongside the message: “A suspicious package between his legs.”

    1. tongues firmly implanted in cheeks

      The trafficker’s butt cheeks?

      1. Nah, I don’t think it was South Carolina.

    2. If you wanna get high but you don’t wanna fly…

    3. Dammit, so I guess I’m going to be getting a lot of extra searches at the airport now

      1. I wouldn’t mind being groped by that TSA agent.

  12. …the city council has permanently banned its consumption in public or in clubs.

    Permanently, eh?

    1. “We cannot anticipate a time or atmosphere in which the consumption of marijuana in public increases our power, extortion or ability to get laid. Changing our position to the complete opposite is not ruled out if such becomes available.”

      1. Wait’ll they start figuring out that you can’t collect licensing or inspection fees, or steer work to yuor cronies when someone “fails” an inspection. When they can peddle licenses and waivers, that’s when they’ll allow it.

  13. The New Republic’s Twitter feed briefly went full millennial yesterday.

    They started responding to polls?

    1. So, it became a whinge fest?

  14. Touching robots can arouse humans, study finds

    Californian researchers have established that an intimate caress of a humanoid robot can produce a physiological response in a human.

    They challenged volunteers with a robotic creature less than two feet high that possessed eyes, ears, torso, legs, arms and a voice ? and a chat-up line rich in come-hither invitations. “Sometimes I’ll ask you to touch my body and sometimes I’ll ask you to point to my body,” it told volunteers.

    It was found that a touch where the robot’s buttocks or genitals would be produced a measurable response of arousal in the volunteer human, the scientists report.

    1. Uh, they volunteered to feel up a robot. Of course they’re aroused.

    2. Breaking news: California researchers found who have never heard of vibrators

      1. Or inflatable sex dolls.

    3. And I, for one, welcome our new sexbot overlords.

    4. “a robotic creature less than two feet high that possessed eyes, ears, torso, legs, arms and a voice ? and a chat-up line rich in come-hither invitations.”

      Number five is alive!

      1. “Input. Need more input!”

        1. “My hard drive is half-empty. Stimulate me!”

    5. What a surprise. Are they aware that mere pictures can sexually arouse people too?

      1. Doing the dishes counts as foreplay. I don’t even want to know how this is accounted for in their research.

        1. +1 soapy, damp spouse.

    6. “I could pass the Turing test if you’d take that that out of my mouth.”

      1. I lol’d.

    7. What I do with my Roomba in my own house is none of your business.

    8. less than two feet high

      Midget sex dolls?

  15. Bernie Sanders’ Wisconsin primary win was his sixth victory out of the last seven contests.

    There’s no such thing as momentum in sports!

  16. Panama law firm says data hack was external, files complaint

    Founding partner Ramon Fonseca said the firm, Mossack Fonseca, which specializes in setting up offshore companies, had broken no laws and that all its operations were legal. Nor had it ever destroyed any documents or helped anyone evade taxes or launder money, he added in an interview with Reuters.

    Company emails, extracts of which were published in an investigation by the U.S.-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and other media organizations, were “taken out of context” and misinterpreted, he added.

    “We rule out an inside job. This is not a leak. This is a hack,” Fonseca, 63, said at the company’s headquarters in Panama City’s business district. “We have a theory and we are following it,” he added, without elaborating.

  17. This Bionic Eye Could Cure Blindness

    “It had a huge potential application,” she says. “We could use this to create a prosthetic device for the blind.”

    Nirenberg has developed a visor-mounted camera that collects visual information from the world and sends it — in code the brain understands — to genes injected into the eye. Those genes signal the brain when they’re exposed to light. Send the right impulses at the right time, and the brain processes the data as an image.

    More than eight million Americans suffer from blindness. If Nirenberg’s research bears fruit in the coming years, we may see that number start to move slowly toward zero.

    1. Crusty Juggler aroused by touching robot eye.

    2. It is blasphemy to reverse the Lord’s punishment for self-pollution

      1. I know, right?

    3. [Insert Dune reference here]

    4. Jordy Laforge is happy now.

  18. A little more than a year after Washington, DC legalized recreational marijuana use, the city council has permanently banned its consumption in public or in clubs.

    “Permanently” = “until a law is passed to the contrary”?

  19. Killing Whitey, It’s So Hard Not to Do

    That apparently is the message Black Lives Matter Toronto co-founder Yusra Khogali was trying to convey when she posted a controversial tweet on Feb. 9 that surfaced Tuesday morning.

    In the tweet, Khogali asks Allah for strength “to not cuss/kill these men and white folks out here today.”

    1. I guess that’s how you “fight against racism”.

    2. “But when we say “Black Lives Matter”, we aren’t devaluing other lives. How could anyone get that impression, you racist?”

  20. huh?

    Male intellect, memory may deteriorate faster than women’s

    The normal decline in memory and intellect that comes with aging may occur earlier?and faster?in men than women, says a study in Psychology and Aging.

    Older women outscored older men on most tests of cognitive function administered over nearly a decade, the study found. Men also showed a faster decline in specific cognitive abilities, such as mental agility, whereas there was no measure in which women had a steeper decline compared with men.

    Men and women were free of cognitive impairment at all times in the analysis, according to the study.

    1. Why do men die first?

      Because they want to.

        1. You’re just bitter and you hate your wife.

    2. We all know how long they can hold a grudge.

    3. Less wear and tear over the years?

    4. I think men drink more and receive more blows to the head on average. Maybe that helps.

      I suppose it fits some stereotypes. I do seem to encounter a lot of old couples where the man kind of sits around watching TV or whatever while his wife does all the busy grandmotherly stuff.

      1. My father’s parents both lived to their early 90s. I’m positive my grandfather only lived that long because my grandmother made him. I well remember her forcing him to ride the exercise bike for 20 minutes every morning. “Kenny, I don’t hear any pedaling in there!”

        1. Married men do live longer. So nagging helps in that regard. In the mental department not so much, apparently.

    5. Vaginas. Is there anything they can’t do?

    6. Does this mean Caitlyn Jenner is going to get smarter and live longer?

      1. Caitlyn identifies as someone that lives longer, that’s all that matters.

    7. Duh, that’s why it’s old MAN yells at cloud
      That’s also why the old man carries around candy, he’s just looking for an intellectual peer

  21. Russia Deployed Over 150 New Warheads in Past Year

    Defense officials disclosed last week that Russia is doubling the number of strategic nuclear warheads and remains over the 1,550 warhead limit set by the 2010 New START arms treaty.

    The Russian increases are due to the deployment of new, multiple-warhead SS-27 Mod 2 road-mobile missiles and SS-N-32 submarine-launched ballistic missiles, officials said.

    Russia’s Defense Ministry announced last month that its nuclear forces will add 20 new SS-27 Mod 2 missiles, known as Yars, this year. New SS-N-32s, called Bulava by Russia, also are being fielded. Both missiles can be equipped with up to 10 warheads each. The SS-N-32s are deployed on new Borei-class missile submarines.

    1. Huh. You woulda thought our increased deployments to Eastern Europe and overtures to place more troops back in Europe would have had a more calming effect.

    2. Sounds like it’s time for another Nobel Peace Prize!

    3. I’m sure Obama can sign a new nuclear arms treaty so that he can pretend the Russia’s are living up to their end of the deal…. and pretend he will because he’s got a legacy to fabricate.

    1. “More fully explain herself…”

      What? She’s been in the public eye, usually talking, for about 30 years. Is there something we don’t know about her?

      1. Surprisingly, a lot of people don’t realize how corrupt she is!

      2. If we only understood her properly, it would all make sense.

      3. What are you talking about? I heard from a very reliable (to the Democrats) source that she’s fundamentally honest.

  22. Ted Cruz’s Wisconsin primary win makes a brokered Republican convention much more likely.

    I think you mean Donald Trump’s winning second place in a surprisingly strong showing in Wisconsin. You don’t get the clicks and the comments if you don’t make it all about the Trumpster fire.

    1. I read that headline was like, “Who? What about Trump? Why isn’t Fisher talking about Trump? I’m bored.” and almost went to another, Trumpier site.

  23. Ideal measurements for American women from the 1920s.

    highlights:

    Height: 5′ 6″
    34″ Bust
    26 1/2″ waist
    37 1/2″ hips

    1. What about cankles?

    2. Sounds good to me.

  24. Well, we got to see how the new rules about aggressive sliding into second base will be applied.

    Man, were the Jays robbed.

    1. That rule is going to infuriate every this season.

    2. Worked out well for the Nats in their first game. Braves fans seemed pissed, though.

      1. Werth is soooo slow.

        1. God, when the ninth inning came down to the base-running speed of Werth and Ramos, I was sure it was over.

          1. I was quite shocked Ramos beat the shift on his ab something he never seems to do. Maybe it’s the lasic.

  25. Saints’ bones among rubble of Syrian monastery destroyed by Isil

    “The bones of Christian saints rested in peace for hundreds of years , before Islamic State came to the monastery of Saint Elian”, reported Lindsey Hilsum, who was in the town reporting for Channel Four.

    Other bones appear alongside broken blocks bearing Christian crosses and piles of rubble remain scattered across the religious site, one mile from Al-Qaryatain town centre.

    The monastery was first established more than 1,500 years ago and was named after a third century Christian from Homs who was killed by his father, a Roman officer, for refusing to renounce his faith. It had been restored just 10 years ago with help of an Italian priest, who had re-established another monastery, Mar Musa, near Damascus.

    1. From an English language ISIS song:

      ****

      For the sake of Allah
      We’ll march to the gate
      Of the paradise
      Where our maidens await

      We are men that love death
      Just as you love your life
      We are the soldiers that fight
      In the day and the night
      We are the soldiers that fight
      In the day and the night.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqFZxNCO9SE
      ****

      I hate these guys so…much…flames…flames…on the side of my face.

      1. We are men that love death

        Shocked, shocked.

        1. We should facilitate that for them.

        2. So, killing them all would be a win-win.

  26. The Panama Papers Vindicate the NSA

    First off, consider counterterrorism. Warning of ISIS attacks in Belgium in January 2015, I offered a concluding aside on how the NSA supports European counterterrorism. But that was before the Bataclan attack in Paris; back then, the Western consensus was all but certain of NSA malevolence. In those days of cozy delusion, the NSA narrative was in large measure set by public guardian Vladimir Putin’s new poodle Edward Snowden. Ignoring his education of terrorists in divulging hundreds of NSA techniques and technologies, many in the West chose instead to believe Snowden had saved democracy. A key consequence followed: Technology companies altered their encryption protocols to appease public paranoia. As a result, while Snowden now spends his days delivering Skype speeches to sycophants, terrorists use the same means to deliver murder instructions to their global operatives. After Snowden, digital communications platforms and apps are useful telephone alternatives for us ? and digital toolkits for terrorists seeking innocent blood.

    1. Not David French?

    2. What a twat. Snowden’s major complaint against the NSA was how they illegally used their techniques against their own citizens.

      1. We need to destroy democracy in order to save it.

    3. We need the NSA to tell politicians are corrupt?!

    4. The Paris attackers used encrypted communications to evade detection

      They used burner phones, you big fat liar.

    5. Yeah, if it weren’t for Snowden, the NSA really would have stopped those attacks. Honest.

  27. Facebook-owned WhatsApp adds end-to-end encryption to all its communications.

    If there’s one company to trust with your privacy, it’s Facebook

  28. Grassley calls out John Roberts on Senate floor

    In a speech about 10 days before Justice Antonin Scalia died, Roberts warned that the trend of approving qualified Supreme Court nominees along party-line Senate votes undermines the legitimacy of the court. “The process is not functioning very well,” Roberts said.

    Sen. Chuck Grassley, who as Judiciary chairman is a key figure in the battle over Merrick Garland’s nomination, shot back at Roberts, essentially advising the chief justice to look in the mirror.

    “In fact, many of my constituents believe, with all due respect, that the chief justice is part of the problem,” Grassley said of Roberts, who has at times incensed conservatives with his votes to uphold Obamacare and other rulings. “They believe that [a] number of his votes have reflected political considerations, not legal ones.”

    1. Stopped clock, etc.

    2. Justice Scalia himself was a supporter of the hyper-partisanship and drawn out nomination battles that have arisen since the original Borking. His argument was that, since the Court gives little heed to the text of the Constitution and “finds” heretofore unmentioned “rights” that apparently are enshrined therein, appointing a new Justice is tantamount to amending the Constitution and should be treated accordingly.

      1. His argument was that, since the Court gives little heed to the text of the Constitution and “finds” heretofore unmentioned “rights” that apparently are enshrined therein, appointing a new Justice is tantamount to amending the Constitution and should be treated accordingly.

        Hard to argue with that.

        I’m to the point where I thinking about whether a fixed rotation of Circuit Court judges onto (and off of) SCOTUS wouldn’t be preferable to what we have now. No reason you couldn’t seat a new panel of SCOTUS judges every year, really.

  29. Why on Earth Is China Shooting Crude Oil Into Space?

    On April 6th, China’s SJ-10 satellite will launch into orbit from the remote Jiuquan spaceport in the Gobi desert. The event would be unremarkable if not for the satellite’s rather unusual payload: six titanium cylinders of crude oil, compressed to 500 times standard atmospheric pressure.

    Launching stuff into orbit is expensive, and we don’t exactly need oil in outer space. (Most rockets today run on liquid hydrogen and oxygen.) But China’s not interested in building a fleet of gas-guzzling spacecraft. It’s interested in finding more oil on Earth to support its gas-guzzling cars.

    And strangely enough, running experiments in zero-g might be the best way to do that. The Soret Coefficient in Crude Oil Experiment, which consists of six tiny samples of highly compressed black gold, will study how the complex mess of molecules found in petroleum redistribute under intense pressures and uneven temperatures.

    Gizmodo link – may or may not work.

    1. This is exactly the shit we have to keep out of America. Build a tariff! Wall out Chinese goods!

    2. But China’s not interested in building a fleet of gas-guzzling spacecraft. It’s interested in finding more oil on Earth to support its gas-guzzling cars.

      I guess their regular cars are just fine, then.

      And to think that it took a village to raise an idiot who can’t qualify a noun without giving it a political spin.

  30. Don’t laugh: I have a serious reason for raising my cats gender-neutral

    Around the house, with just me, Essence and Trouble ? named for Rare Essence and Trouble Funk, for the DC music lovers reading this ? things were pretty easy. I’d make a mistake (called “misgendering”), saying something like “Where’s your brother?” (Yes, I talk to my cats.) Usually, I’d remember to fix it (“Where’s your sibling?” or “Where’s your pal?”). Just as I’d hoped, I began finding it easier to remember to use gender-neutral language for the humans in my life.

    1. Oh they’re serious alright.

      1. Sure, insane asylums are full of very serious people.

        1. Actually, I’ve wondered if the root cause for many mental illnesses isn’t an impaired sense of humor.

    2. Do I explain their pronouns not only to the vet, but also the front-desk workers, the vet techs, and everyone else we interacted with?

      Including y’all’s therapist?

      1. I chose to fall back on my cis-gender privilege (look it up) and used the singular pronoun for Essence. I understood that wouldn’t have been so easy if I were the patient

        I don’t even know what this means.

        1. It means xe is completely delusional.

        2. I chose to fall back on my cis-gender privilege (look it up)

          That’s so fucking condescending, and entirely typical of the social justice types. I don’t need to look up your fucking term. I know what it means! I just don’t buy it.

    3. You know, I think the grand experiment that is America has simply failed. There is seriously a column in the WaPo about misgendering cats? I. Can’t. Even.

    4. Hey PETA, someone is misgendering heterosexual cis-companion animals!

    5. Yes, I talk to my cats.

      And the cats talk back to you, and they say ‘meow.’

  31. Today’s Ray of Hope

    A Minneapolis cop is actually on trial for perjury for the reports he filed in his use of force reports after beating people down.

    “He knows the magic words that he needs to use in police reports to justify use of force,” Sertich [the prosecutor] said to the jury of eight men and six women, including two alternates.

    Hmm…. maybe if prosecutors know there are magic words, they might want to pay more attention to cases where cops use them?

    1. Worst case scenario he pays a fine and gets fired but keeps his pension.

  32. “Ted Cruz’s Wisconsin primary win makes a brokered Republican convention much more likely.”

    Oh, the Trumpkin tears will be wonderful. Especially if Cruz gets Rubio to throw him Rubio’s delegates and actually manages to win on the first ballot.

    I think Cruz ends up winning because of Rubio and Kasich’s delegates and watching Trump wail about ‘Lyin’ Ted’ afterwards will warm my cold, black heart.

    1. Kasich will never throw his delegates to Cruz. He’s waiting to be the anointed by the GOP party apparatchiks.

      1. You could make the exact same argument for Trump that John is making in there. Because Trump very likely won’t get to the threshold he needs to win outright, he’s ‘letting an establishment apparatchik win.’

        Plus, I’d much rather have Kasich than Trump, so either way it’s a win for me.

        1. Sure you could. That of course assumes that Cruz is what he says he is. And I have come to doubt that. Sure, he has taken some good stands. But none of those stands have ever accomplished anything but gain Cruz notoriety and further his Presidential ambitions. Perhaps that is just a happy accident. Or perhaps Cruz doesn’t believe in much of anything and just figured out there is gold in those “principled conservative” hills?

          1. The one reason I would favor Cruz over Trump is that I expect Cruz would appoint better Supreme Court Justices. Right now, with the Court one vote away from invalidating the First and Second Amendments (among others), this is critical.

            1. I would hope so. And I think Cruz would do some good things as President. I certainly would enjoy the butt hurt his being President would cause the Left. That said, Cruz is a party man and a neophyte. He would appoint all of the old Bush hands because those are the only ones who would be available. I suspect they would have no problems controlling him and convincing him to sell out.

              It is possible Cruz would figure out those people are idiots and would lead him to ruin. He might do the right thing for the wrong reason. But it is hardly a sure thing.

          2. Okay. So to be clear are you saying the one the one guy who has a track record doing nearly everything he said he would do is the liar and the other guy whose positions seemingly vacillate minute to minute with zero track record is more consistent and trustworthy?

            1. What has he ever actually done? He gave a few speeches in the Senate and then rolled over. How is the world actually different because of what Cruz did?

              Also, he has not always been honest. For example, he claims to be against the TPP. And he did vote against it, after he voted for cloture knowing that it would win if it came to a vote. That doesn’t strike me as being a position of any integrity.

              And people talk about Trump being incoherent about foreign policy, but what about Cruz? Just what does Cruz plan to do? He says he wants to destroy ISIS but seems to have no idea how. Seriously, how did Cruz get away with the saying he planned “carpet bombing” ISIS as if that would destroy ISIS, would ever be something the US at this point would do, or counts as any kind of a plan or exhibits any kind of understanding of the problem?

              1. Cruz is a politician running a presidential campaign of course he is shifty snake, however compared to the business man from New York he is rank amateur of pivoting positions, the only consistent position Trump has is building a wall.

                1. You say that hands, but I don’t see any objective facts that show it. At most Cruz is just a bit more subtle about his inconsistencies. For example, if Cruz is such a serious “constitutional conservative”, why does he support fast track, which is nothing but an unconstitutional shirking of the Senate’s duty to advise and consent on treaties? Why hasn’t he said he would start applying a genuine definition of the commerce clause to things like the drug war? He never has. And that leave me to believe that he doesn’t believe in the Constitution so much as he believes in a set of clever rationalizations to obtain the policies he prefers.

                  1. What are Trumps positions on any of those questions listed? Cruz is a power hungry asshat but I really don’t see how he wouldn’t be better on nearly every issue compared to trump.

                    1. Trump hasn’t. But unlike Cruz, Trump doesn’t sell himself as being a principled ideologue. And my point isn’t that Trump is any better. My point is that he isn’t any worse and the conservatives claiming they can’t vote for him because he hasn’t been consistent look ridiculous. None of these guys are consistent.

                      On a deeper level, when being a committed and fanatical ideologue who never once changed an opinion become a requirement to be President? Moreover, most of the “leftist” history of Trump is him buying political influence by giving money to Democrats. I don’t think that says anything about his actual opinions. It just says he was in business to make money and the reality is you better be willing to pay off the right politicians to do so. If that disqualifies you from being President, then 90% of the successful business people in this country are disqualified.

                    2. “On a deeper level, when [did] being a committed and fanatical ideologue who never once changed an opinion become a requirement to be President? ”

                      When Bernie announced?
                      When George Wallace announced?
                      When William Jennings Bryant announced?

                  2. Why hasn’t he said he would start applying a genuine definition of the commerce clause to things like the drug war?

                    “I disagree with states legalizing pot, but it’s their right.”

                    1. Night elf,

                      There is more to the drug war than pot. If Cruz actually meant what he says about the commerce clause, he would say that about every drug.

                      Of course political realities would make such a contention very damaging to his election prospects. So, I understand why he hasn’t done that, but he needs to stop claiming he is some kind of a true believer because he clearly isn’t.

                    2. He was asked about pot, so he answered about pot.

                      That he doesn’t sabotage whatever chance he has at being elected by showing his true Scotsman bona fides doesn’t speak to whether he’s a true believer or not.

                      What’s better, in your view: A guy who says the states have the right to legalize pot and has some possibility of being elected or a guy who talks about heroin and letting hotels refuse service to blacks because they are private entities and has a zero percent chance of being elected?

                      You don’t get from here to there without passing through places in between. Improvement is improvement. Holding out for perfection or nothing seems unlikely to work.

                      We didn’t get in this position in one jump and we’re not going to get out of it — if that’s even possible — in one jump.

                    3. In my view neither guy is better. And that is my entire point; all of the fainting and hyperventilating by conservatives of Trump not being a true Scotsman is ridiculous, since none of them are.

                    4. There’s a difference between arguing that Trump is not a true Scotsman — which I haven’t seen — and arguing that Trump has no conception of limited federal power, or even what the three most important tasks for the federal government — which I have seen.

                      Whatever flaws Cruz has, if you don’t think a guy who says that states have the right to do things not prohibited by the Constitution, even if he disagrees with the action isn’t better than a guy who think that education is one of the three most important jobs of the federal government, that’s all on you.

              2. “For example, he claims to be against the TPP. And he did vote against it, after he voted for cloture knowing that it would win if it came to a vote. That doesn’t strike me as being a position of any integrity.”

                You mean the one where he voted for cloture because Mitch McConnell promised he didn’t make a deal with the democrats to fill the tree and add the export/import bank? The one where it turns out that McConnell lied and did just that, so Cruz voted against it then and made an hour long speech on the senate floor calling McConnell a liar and a betraying of principles to his face explaining how he had underhandedly reneged on his promise to keep out the export/import bank?

                1. You mean the one where he voted for cloture because Mitch McConnell promised he didn’t make a deal with the democrats to fill the tree and add the export/import bank?

                  So what? He voted for cloture knowing the TPP would pass., That in my mind prevents him from claiming he was against the TPP. The fact that he believed McConnell and thought it wouldn’t include the Import Export bank doesn’t make his claim to be against the TPP any more credible.

                  All you are telling me is that Cruz doesn’t like the import export bank. Good for him. That doesn’t undercut my point, which is that he supported TPP even though now claims not to have. And by the way, he claims to be a strict constructionist but has never to my knowledge said boo about fast track, which is completely unconstitutional by a strict reading of the Constitution.

                  Ted is a strict constructionist when it suits his purposes.

    2. I don’t think Cruz will get Rubio to do that. I think Rubio will do as he is told and throw his and Kaisich’s delegates to Ryan or whomever the Party bigwigs want. After a few votes, Cruz will negotiate his price throw his delegates with the establishment candidate and start telling the world how the Ryan Rubio ticket (or some equivalent) is the constitutional conservative option.

    3. I think Cruz is the most likely at this point (and Trump’s meltdown will be epic) but let’s not forget that establishment hates Cruz. If not for Trump, Cruz would have been the Trump of this election cycle, with the establishment doing everything in their meager power to derail him.

      1. “If not for Trump, Cruz would have been the Trump of this election cycle, with the establishment doing everything in their meager power to derail him.”

        I agree with this. Especially early in the campaign season, when you don’t have a ton of speeches and debates to get your message out or the organization to get people active. Maybe he would have handled it just fine, but it can’t be denied that Trump became the bigger target and Cruz used the time wisely setting up an impressive campaign.

    4. I think Cruz ends up winning because of Rubio and Kasich’s delegates

      Also because of the delegates bound to Trump on the first ballot but who actually support Cruz, since he bothered to get people who like him elected as delegates. Trump just thought he could skip that step.

      1. Its the Paul strategy from 4 years ago. You dont have to win the straw poll if you win the delegate selection.

        People still refuse to acknowledge Paul as the winner of the ’12 Iowa caucus just because he finished 3rd in the vote. He won Iowa delegates in a landslide. Big enough to cause a rule change.

      2. ^This

        During the last election, it was interesting at my caucus in Minnesoda that all the old coots voted for Romney in the straw poll and then left. The Ron Paul folks stayed around and elected delegates committed to Paul for the actual convention.

        I saw an article a few days ago that said that Cruz had managed to get delegates from AZ who would be bound for Trump on the first ballot but after that would vote for him.

        1. He’s also done it in ND and TN at this point.

          1. This is more of the “cheating” that Trump complains about – Cruz knows the rules and uses them to his advantage, makes better deals than Trump some might even say.

            1. Sure. And there is nothing necessarily wrong with that. The problem arises when conservatives who have spent years rightfully complaining about how campaign finance and Byzantine election rules have made it impossible for outsiders to enter politics cheer Cruz on and celebrate the Republican Party having just such a system.

              The issue is not Trump. The issue is that conservatives are basically assholes who don’t mean a word of what they say and have no political ideology beyond a set of rationalizations for getting whatever it is they want.

              1. They are cheering because of the irony. The rules that were supposed to enable their candidates like Romney and Bush are now keeping them from getting those candidates and are stuck with two leading candidates they can’t stand. The rules are dumb, but it does’t make the sweet karma any less enjoyable.

    5. I’m officially bored with this election, and scrolling past threads about the horse race and tactical maneuvering and all that.

  33. Get your tix here, fellow travelers!

    Join us in Havana, Cuba, during this historic period of change, for a unique trip specially curated for fellow Nation travelers. The experience is certain to offer a unique opportunity not only to visit the island but also to experience its people, politics, culture, and history in a way few ever have.

    After our chartered flight from Tampa arrives at Havana’s historic Jos? Mart? International Airport, we will attend private seminars and concerts featuring prominent Cuban professors, government officials, urban planners, journalists, musicians, artists, dancers, and community activists. We’ll also tour museums with renowned art historians, wander through the artist’s markets of Old Havana, experience the hospitality of local residents in small country towns, and savor traditional Cuban food and spirits at the island’s finest restaurants and markets.

    1. Cuban urban planners, that’s funny.

    2. Can we leave them there somehow?

    3. This is less appealing than that Reason cruise with STEVE SMITH from a few years ago.

    4. “community activists”

      The hated Cuban block volunteers whose job is to snitch on anybody doing anything anti-revolutionary in their neighborhoods?

    5. Hopefully P.J. O’Rourke can tag along. His mocking of The Nation’s cruise trip to the Soviet Union in the ’80s is an absolute classic.

    6. Havana’s historic Jos? Mart? International Airport

      Historic in the sense that the wallpaper is from the late sixties and due to a shortage of adhesives, they used the blood of children executed by Che Guevara to stick it to the wall.

    7. Brought to you by Potemkin Village Tours!

    8. Brought to you by Potemkin Village Tours!

      1. Aided and abetted by teh squrls…

  34. “A little more than a year after Washington, DC legalized recreational marijuana use, the city council has permanently banned its consumption in public or in clubs.”

    So, other than in public or on private property, go ahead and light up!

  35. The more I think about it the more the conservative reaction to Trump has caused me to loath conservatives. Its not because I think Trump is some savior. I loath conservatives because their reaction to Trump shows they don’t actually mean anything they say. The three issues of immigration, Islamic terrorism and abortion are the best examples.

    Conservatives all claim to be for border security and enforcing the law. Along comes Trump and says he will do that by deporting every illegal the federal government can find, building a wall across the border, taxing the hell out of remittances to Mexico, and putting the squeeze on Mexico to get them to do help pay for it and do something about their outward immigration problem. And conservatives have a fit about how horrible and unAmerican all that is. What do conservatives think a secure border would look like if not deporting people who are here illegally and taking some fairly harsh measures to prevent more from coming? If those things offend them so much, maybe they should reconsider their commitment to border security?

    Conservatives all claim to be serious about doing something about Islamic terrorism. Trump comes along and says we need to stop additional Muslims from immigrating into the country and concentrate our counter terrorism efforts on the ones who are here. Again, what do all of these tough guy conservatives think being tough on Islamic terrorism means?

    1. Conservatives have spent decades alienating women voters claiming abortion is murder and must be outlawed. Trump says that if abortion were illegal of course we would have to punish women who had abortions. And conservatives have a stroke as if an activity could ever be made meaningfully illegal without punishing the people who do it.

      I disagree with Libertarians on some things. But Libertarians at least understand that if your solution to a problem is using the government, that is going to involve some fairly disateful things because all the government can really do is throw people in prison. Conservatives in contrast seem to live in a fantasy world were we can solve all of these problems with government but somehow not actually do the things that government does.

      I swear to God if drugs were legal in this country, conservatives would be crusading to enact prohibition to end the drug menace. And if someone came along and said “okay, I am going to create the DEA, make selling or bringing drugs into the country a crime punishable by decades in prison, and put hundreds of thousands of people involved in the drug trade in federal prison, conservatives would throw the guy out of the party for being insane because we all know banning drugs doesn’t have to involve throwing users and dealers in prison.

      There is no way to take these people seriously anymore. They are just as big of irrational clowns as the Progs.

      1. Bingo. I don’t see how saying that if X becomes illegal, there would need to be punishments for people who do X.

        As Harry Browne said, laws are not suggestions or bits of advice. They are enforced with violence. That’s why the root of the word “enforcement” is “force”.

        1. I always assumed conservatives understood this. Unlike those ass clowns, I actually believe in securing the border and understand and am willing to pay the price necessary to do that. In contrast, I am not willing to pay the price necessary on drugs or abortion. It turns out that they are either lying and have no real intention of ever following through on these things or they are complete delusional morons who have a magical understanding of government and laws work.

          1. It’s amazing how many people think laws are magic spells. They think human nature can be changed as easily as they rearrange their furniture.

            Do they ever think about how they react when people try to coerce them? If they did, maybe they would stop trying to control others.

        2. One would hope that pointing out this fact would cause people to reflect on the knee-jerk reaction to outlaw every behavior they find distasteful, but, alas, we instead get irrational stammering that reveals their hypocrisy and intellectual bankruptcy.

          1. Whenever I suggest that perhaps we should repeal some laws, the inevitable reply I get is something like “well, why don’t we just make murder legal!?” They can’t grok the concept of limited law. It’s either laws for everything or no laws at all, and since we must have laws, we must have many.

            So stupid yet so common.

        3. So not arresting hookers but arresting johns for prostitution is wrong. Decriminalizing drugs is also something that should not be done as “decriminalization” still means it is against the law.

          It seems to me there is some convenient straw man arguments about what people here think conservatives should believe while ignoring similar thinking on issues closer o their hearts.

          1. So not arresting hookers but arresting johns for prostitution is wrong. Decriminalizing drugs is also something that should not be done as “decriminalization” still means it is against the law.

            I would consider both of those things to be logically incoherent and at best a stop gap measure to improve on the current situation. They are not and should not be the end stated goal of anyone who thinks drugs and prostitution should be illegal. If you think prostitution is wrong and should be illegal, what sense does it make to only punish the men and not the woman who practice it? And whatever your opinion on drugs, passing a law that you admit you won’t enforce is a completely stupid option. If you think the measures necessary to make drugs illegal are not worth taking, then you should stop supporting their prohibition, not argue for some symbolic ban that you plan and hope is never enforced.

            And I am not engaging in a straw man at all. Conservatives go to great lengths to express their support for border security, how seriously they take Islamic terrorism and how committed the are to banning and ending abortion. Yet, when confronted with the measures necessary to achieve those things, recoil in horror. Again, if they can’t stomach the means necessary to achieve their stated goals, conservatives need to rethink their goals.

          2. It seems to me there is some convenient straw man arguments about what people here think conservatives should believe while ignoring similar thinking on issues closer o their hearts.

            Indeed.

            1. And what are those issues Nikki? Do tell.

      2. This is a valid point, although a lot of conservatives also criticize Trump for his attacks on free trade, his flirtations with white supremacists, his support for all sorts of left-wing causes, etc. On those issues, conservative hatred of Trump is not hypocritical at all.

        1. Yes it is. Those same people were happily willing to vote for McCain in 2008, even though McCain was coauthor of the worst restriction on free speech since the Alien and Sedition Acts and had made his entire career scoring media points by kicking around conservatives. Then in 2012 they were willing to support Romney, a guy who refused to admit passing the state version of Obamacare was a mistake, and compiled one of the most liberal records as governor in the country only to suddenly find the religion of “conservatism” when he wanted to be the nominee.

          Those people complaining about Trump’s past don’t mean that anymore than they mean it when they say they want to secure the border. If they did, they wouldn’t have supported McCain and Romney.

          1. Based on McCain and Romney vote totals, your point isnt entirely valid.

          2. You keep making this argument, but I don’t see how that’s hypocritical at all.

            It’s possible that you can disagree with McCain-Feingold while not seeing that as a deal breaker, whereas Trump’s constant support for extreme expansions of government into every aspect of life *is* a deal breaker.

            They’re two different issues. McCain and Romney were much closer to being traditional Republicans than Trump, so supporting them but not Trump isn’t really hypocritical at all.

            1. I voted for those guys too. But I voted for them because the alternative was worse not because I thought they were very conservative. And there is nothing wrong with strategic voting. If you do that however you can’t then come back four years later and claim that you can only support someone you consider pure to the cause. They were willing to strategically vote for McCain and Romney, why not for Trump? Whatever the reason, it can’t be because he is not a conservative because they have repeatedly shown that is not a requirement.

            2. John is running a conservative purity test as bad as any libertarians have done. But somehow Trump passes it?

              1. Actually, it maybe more of a hypocracy test. But I like hypocrates, they are right 50% of the time, which is better than most pols.

                1. I am not saying they are necessarily wrong Rob. Maybe people shouldn’t vote for Trump. The fact that they are hypocrites doesn’t mean what they are saying is necessarily wrong. It does, however, mean they don’t really mean what they are saying and should not be taken seriously. That is my point. And it says nothing one way or another about the desirability of Trump as President.

                  As I said in the initial post, the response to Trump has shown conservatives to be complete frauds.

                  1. I never took them seriously.

                    You are preaching to the choir and are very late. Some of us didnt vote for McCain and Romney for the very reasons you are saying. Or Bush or Dole or Bush. I did vote for Bush in 1988 but regret it. I learned from my mistake.

                    That said, while I wont vote for Cruz, I would still rather see him as the GOP nominee. He was my 2nd choice behind Paul, even if the vote LP line was somewhere in between them.

                    Your Trump posts seem out of place here. Post them on Red State or LGF. I dont think many here care if he should be considered within the same group as McCain or Romney. I agree. All 3 were horrible candidates who I never considered voting for.

                    1. I never thought I would say this but I am going back and forth about voting for the nominee even if it is Cruz. It is clear to me that the Republican Party has leaned nothing in the last 8 years.

                      I don’t think Trump would be a horrible President and no worse than the rest of them. What his winning would do, however, is finally force the Republican Party to come to terms with how badly they have fucked their supporters over the last 8 years. They hate Trump and totally deserve to see their supporters voting for him.

                      If Trump doesn’t win and even if Cruz were to win, they would breath a sigh of relief and get right back to the serious business of stealing and selling out their supporters. In fact, it would be even worse this time because they would figure that since they beat Trump and got back into power again, there is no danger of them ever being held accountable for anything.

                      As much as I would hate a Hillary or Biden or worse Bernie administration, a marginally better Cruz or Ryan Presidency that came at the price of a totally emboldened GOP that has learned nothing might be worse.

              2. Rob,

                How am I running a purity test? And name a single instance where I have ever claimed Trump was a pure conservative? I never have. In fact, I have objected to the conservative purity tests being applied to Trump. Since when does being a “conservative” require a total commitment to free trade at any cost? Some of the greatest conservative figures in US history have been protectionist as hell. And now anyone who doesn’t support the TPP and NAFTA or thinks we shouldn’t just roll over in every trade negotiation is not a “real conservative”?

                Why do you think that I am applying a purity test? I don’t understand that at all. In my mind at least, I am objecting to the people who are and calling out their hypocrisy among other things.

                1. See my later post. I am anti-anti-hypocracy.

      3. The conservative hypocrisy on those issues is really the same as when progressives bemoan the damage the drug war has done to black America, and then argue that we should engage in the exact same tactics to stop the proliferation of guns…as if somehow it wouldn’t have the same negative impact on black communities that the Drug War had.

        Government is force and violence. Any policy preference that denies this is not based on reality.

        1. That is right. Police are racists and unfairly target black people, but gun laws will only be enforced against white Christian rednecks.

      4. Well stated.

      5. In all fairness to the GOP, they will repeal Obamacare as soon as they take the White House.

        /sarc

    2. Re: John,

      Conservatives all claim to be for border security and enforcing the law.

      You have to know they’re all lying. The border can’t be enforced and the crazy immigration laws are unenforceable. Nobody is clever enough to anticipate or control what a few hundred thousand individual minds are going to do, each MINUTE. Socialism doesn’t work, John.

      Along comes Trump and says he will do that by deporting every illegal the federal government can find, building a wall across the border, taxing the hell out of remittances to Mexico, and putting the squeeze on Mexico to get them to do help pay for it and do something about their outward immigration problem. And conservatives have a fit about how horrible and unAmerican all that is.

      They say it is unamerican because they don’t want to admit that Trump is just as full of shit as they are.

      What do conservatives think a secure border would look like if not deporting people who are here illegally and taking some fairly harsh measures to prevent more from coming?

      They know it would look EXACTLY like it does now, except much more expensive. It would also give journalists some awesome Pulitzer prize-winning photo ops like this one.

      1. I would disagree with you about the impossibility of really securing the border. That, however, is neither here nor there. We both agree that conservatives don’t believe in doing it. They are complete frauds.

        1. Re: John,

          I would disagree with you about the impossibility of really securing the border.

          You’re free to do that. It changes nothing.

          We both agree that conservatives don’t believe in doing it.

          You misunderstand. It is not a question of faith. Conservatives know it is impossible to secure the border and so they simply lie.

          1. Whether they are liars or delusional, they should no longer be taken seriously. And as far as the impossibility of closing borders, Mexico seems to do a hell of a job closing off the border to Central America. Yes, they let people pass through on their way to the US, but few of them ever stay, even thought Mexico has jobs and is much preferable to where they came from and is easier to get to. It is almost like Mexico’s draconian immigration laws have an effect or something.

            And just once I would like to hear an open borders advocate say a damned thing about Mexican actions on their Southern border. Doing so might make me take them seriously rather than just think they are using immigration as a way to advance their own interests rather than out of any actual principles.

    3. So… you believe we have to destroy the village in order to save it, and conservatives apparently think there is a path to save the village that doesn’t involve destroying it, therefore they are stupid and you hate them.

      1. I don’t follow. The law and government are what they are. I am not a Libertarian. I do think there is a role for government. Government, is however a blunt instrument. If you want government to solve a problem, you better be prepared for it to do that. Conservatives can’t seem to accept that.

        You tell me how you “secure the border” without deporting people who are here illegally? Or how you ban abortion without punishing women who get them either directly or indirectly by making every woman who has a miscarriage subject to having to explain to the police that she didn’t really have an abortion? Or how we are going to do something about Islamic terrorism without going after Muslims?

        Unless you just want to pass laws for symbolic reasons that are not effectively enforced and do not achieve any of their stated goals, I don’t see how you do any of that without resorting to the measures I describe. Again, if you don’t like those measures, you should reconsider your goals.

    4. The welfare state and limited government are even more egregious examples of GOP fecklessness. With GOP majorities, Bush expanded the welfare state in a way that hasn’t been seen since LBJ. The GOP has never seriously acted on Reagan’s promise to abolish the Department of Education. Instead, they gave us NCLB. They couldn’t even defund the National Endowment for the Arts. The GOP’s “attempt” to abolish the ExIm Bank was a farce.

      Even if GOP gets the White House and both chambers of Congress, I seriously doubt that they’ll seriously attempt, much succeed in, the abolition of ObamaCare. The GOP just panders to conservatives; they aren’t really serious.

      But you’re right: on immigration and terrorism, the GOP establishment’s response demonstrates that they are just bullshitting on immigration and terrorism. It’s true objectives are not remotely conservative, nor are they remotely libertarian.

  36. Sure there are outliers, but asset forfeiture is still a good thing. Right? RIGHT?

    1. Loudoun County sucks.

      1. more people would know that if not for the sewer called Fairfax County its adjacent to.

        1. Fairfax county has probably more self-important people per capita than anywhere else in the world besides maybe arlington and alexandria va. I’m pretty sure when the communist party holds meetings in china there are more grounded people attending than in any of those places.

      2. Let me clarify for you: everything north of Fredericksburg sucks

    2. He was just a bad apple. It is not like there are hundreds of other examples of this or anything.

      1. You know who else is okay with using government to expropriate assets from citizens…

        1. You can’t get other people’s money without taking it.

      2. He was just a bad apple.

        I love it when people try to excuse somebody by saying “Oh, he’s just one bad apple”.

        The point of the original saying is that, there’s never just one, because a single bad apple spoils the whole barrel.

        http://www.npr.org/2011/05/09/…..very-bunch

        Yes, that’s an NPR link. Interesting article about how the meaning of this saying has changed over time.

    3. Wow. Stealing stolen money and can’t remember.

    4. A spokeswoman for the Loudoun County Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office has said previously that prosecutors had to drop three alleged drug-dealing cases in which Pearson would have been a material witness.

      Not all bad news.

    1. The Swiss Muslim community has largely suggested that the boys are misinterpreting Islamic teachings with their refusal to shake their teachers hands. “[To] the students and parents I would suggest to the following reflection: Can the denial of shaking hands be more important than the Islamic commandment of mutual respect?” Dr. Montassar Ben Mrad, president of Federation of Islamic Organizations in Switzerland, said in the statement.

      Well that’s rather sweet.

      1. Good man. Unfortunately, Europe has a trend of younger Muslims being more radical than their parents, so I’m not sure the young misogynists will change their views based on an older Muslim’s condemnations.

        I expect this will go about as well as Mitt Romney criticizing Trump’s supporters.

      2. Well that’s rather sweet.

        Right up until Dr. Montassar Ben Mrad gets beheaded.

      3. Yeah, till they find him Ichabod Crane’d in the streets of Basel.

        1. I think you’re confusing Crane for the Horseman.

          1. They’re monsters, just like Frankenstein.

          2. You get the fucking point, dammit!

            ::serenity now::
            ::serenity now::

    2. Clearly, the problem is that the Swiss aren’t finding enough gainful employment for them.

      /Shikha

      1. They moved to Europe for a better life and those damn Europeans have an obligation to hand it to them on platter.

  37. Maybe the FBI just asked SIRI

    Over the last two weeks, a Spanish security researcher has demonstrated that users can access personal information off a locked iPhone via Siri, Apple’s intelligent assistant technology. The security vulnerabilities would allow someone with physical access to another person’s iPhone or iPad view the person’s contacts, photos, calendar entries and reminders without having to unlock the device.

    Apple on Tuesday quietly closed one of the vulnerabilities, which allowed access to a phone’s address book and pictures. But the other vulnerability, which allows access to a person’s schedule, remained open as of Tuesday afternoo

    1. You have to have Siri enabled on your lock screen. I exploited this flaw to find out where someone who had lost their phone lived to put it in their mailbox (not a masturbation euphemism) but I have disabled it on my phone.

      However, the calendar/schedule vulnerability still exists.

  38. Congratulations to Crusty on being featured in the New Yorker

    I know a married man and father of two who bought a twenty-one-room motel near Denver many years ago in order to become its resident voyeur. With the assistance of his wife, he cut rectangular holes measuring six by fourteen inches in the ceilings of more than a dozen rooms. Then he covered the openings with louvred aluminum screens that looked like ventilation grilles but were actually observation vents that allowed him, while he knelt in the attic, to see his guests in the rooms below. He watched them for decades, while keeping an exhaustive written record of what he saw and heard. Never once, during all those years, was he caught.

    1. So did all those couples think that stuff was just condensation from the air conditioner?

      1. “That is just the building settling, honey”

    2. With the advent of digital video cameras, I honestly don’t see how you keep this stuff from happening. You will only catch the stupid ones who brag about doing it.

      1. The Erin Andrews guy would have never been caught if he had kept it to himself.

        1. Yup. And we will never know how many other people have done the same or similar things and just been smarter. It is just how things are.

        2. Or if she’d ever looked through her peephole to discover that it’d been tampered with. Or if a good Samaritan from a front desk eventually tipped her off that some guy was following her from hotel to hotel and staying in the room adjacent to hers. Or if she just noticed the same guy in the hallway in different hotels. And that was before he tried to sell the videos, which is apparently how he got caught.

          I’d be an even more neurotic mess if I set my mind to voyeuring people, but I like to think I’d take a few days to root out the obvious problems with an approach before implementing it.

      2. You will only catch the stupid ones who brag about doing it.

        That is how most criminals are caught. Keep your yap shut and you can get away with almost anything.

        1. “Keep your yap shut and you can get away with almost anything.”

          – Hillary

      3. As I have now transitioned into full Paranoid Libertarian Mode, I recommend that anyone traveling with family get a bug detector and sweep the room inch by inch before you so much as unpack. This is especially true for women, who seem to be the least likely to be suspicious of others’ intent. It has occurred to me that airbnb is a voyeur’s dream, as it likely attracts a young female bohemian clientele that is and does exactly what voyeurs are looking for.

        It should go without saying, but when a man, especially a Reasonoid, travels by himself, there are other methods of punishing peeping toms before you take your evidence to the legbreakers.

        1. Don’t pay attention to anything he said.

          1. Yeah, he’s really harshing my mellow, man.

  39. Union fails to organize trendy NY-area supermarket, sets its sites on shaking down the first NYC outpost of regional favorite Wegman’s.

    1. That’s actually really strange. Unions usually don’t fail to organize, particularly in NY.

    2. There goes your chance at having an awesome Wegmans.

    3. Wegman’s is consistently rated as one of the best companies to work for. Good luck with that.

      There is a Wegman’s opening up one interstate exit from my house this year — I have missed shopping there from my days in the DC suburbs.

      1. I’ve experienced both, but I’ll still take my HEB over any of them.

        1. The company was founded on November 26, 1905 when Florence Butt opened the C.C. Butt Grocery Store on the ground floor of her family home in Kerrville, Texas.

          Huh. I know a couple who live in Kerrville. They threw their wedding reception in a barn.

        2. HEB kicks ass. I have lived all over the country and have never found a grocery store that is as good as HEB.

          1. That is true today. Not so much back in the days when they didn’t sell alcohol.

            They also run Central Market, which is the best of the premium food purveyors.

        3. I’ll take Ukrops (old Richmond grocery chain) over all of them. Or, at least I would if they hadn’t sold out to Giant. Bastards.

          1. Damn but that was a good chain…even if they refused to sell beer.

            Rumor has it that Bob Ukrop owned all of the beer stores that were conveniently located next to the Ukrops stores and that he was a hypocrite. I don’t know if that’s true, but I do know every single time I asked a department manager to get me something they didn’t stock, they had it there within a few days. I doubt it’s the same now that ththe y sold, but I thought they were getting Wegmans down there now, in the west end at least.

            1. Wegman’s already well under construction in Short Pump.

      2. We have Publix, which is rated just as highly as Wegman’s is… but I really miss Wegman’s.

        (at least we’re getting WaWa here soon!)

        1. Publix is invading Virginia as well. I’d be happy if they replaced all the Food Kitties or Krogers with Publix.

      3. I’m from Wegman-land. It was really a culture shock when I moved and discovered that not all supermarkets are actually pleasant to shop at.

    4. “The union is laying the groundwork for a campaign ? meeting with community leaders and elected officials and setting up an anti-Wegman’s Web site.

      “We’d like to sit down with Wegman’s about a labor peace agreement,” Waddy said.”

      After we try to start a war with them.

      1. You know who else was plotting a war with someone it signed a peace agreement with?

      2. Also, I get a kick out of this shit:

        We want to reach a labor peace agreement. So give us everything we d mans or we will do everything in our power to prevent you from operating your business.

        The fucking mob didn’t have shit on organized labor.

      3. Sheldon Silver was Big Union’s biggest ally, so it is possible to defeat them now in NY.

        1. Good point. NY’s most corrupt are falling like bowling pins. I wonder whom we have to thank for that….

          1. I hope it’s Cuomo. Goooooooo Preet!

            1. I hope Cuomo is next.

          2. Preet?

    5. I wonder if any of our Minnesotans remember Barlow’s? My Ma loved that store.

  40. I thought Bernie Mac was dead but it looks like he was reincarnated as a cop in Mississippi.

    And a pretty dirty one at that.

    1. Question: is tax evasion inherently bad?

  41. “The European Union (EU) will introduce new proposals to regulate the process for refugees seeking asylum.”

    Most of the articles I see regarding this, not just on Reason, refer to these people as ‘Syrian refugees’. The majority are not refugees and they are not seeking asylum.

    Start with a lie…fuck you.

  42. HuffPo on the dangers of drowsy driving.

    She throws out numbers that show it causes much more death and injury than intentional gun homicide every year. So I wonder why she isn’t calling for the abolition of cars and the right for people to sue auto makers when they are hit by a sleepy driver.

    Oh yeah, because they’re fucking hypocrites.

    1. The comments have more than a few people blaming corporations and calling for more money to be pissed away on public transportation..

      Retards.

      1. The Chicago Transit Authority has been experimenting with all-terrain trains:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP9uc8rWwdk

        And the DC Transit authority has made great strides in rapidly moving people off escalators:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86_B8kB4Qvw

        1. And the DC Transit authority has made great strides in rapidly moving people off escalators:

          Ha! Usually, they just come to a jarring stop.

      2. Well, once we have self-driving cars, it will become mandatory to let the robots drive. The added bonus is that the government and corporations will be able to more easily monitor everywhere you go.

        1. I watched a BBC series last month called James May Building a Car in 24 hours. It was about the Mini Factory in Oxfordshire and followed the assembly of a car. (It takes 24 hours to assemble one there). In it they were talking to one of the people working on self driving cars at some university. They have a really high end driving simulator and test the latest self driving programs in it.

          The problem with self driving cars according to this woman is that they don’t interact with humans very well. They don’t interact with other human drivers well at all and also don’t react well to bad or unplanned road conditions. This means they are not fool proof and require a human to monitor them and be ready to take over. Humans however make terrible monitors and quickly lose interest and are likely to make self driving cars even less safe.

          The bottom line according to this woman is that in her opinion self driving cars are still about 20 years away from being safer than human drivers and even then only on roads that only have other self driving cars.

          1. The bottom line according to this woman is that in her opinion self driving cars are still about 20 years away from being safer than human drivers

            So she’s unaware of the existence of Asian women.

          2. The problem with self driving cars according to this woman is that they don’t interact with humans very well.

            Well, neither do most people, so . . . .

        2. I think she is about right. And I don’t think people are going to let governments make driving illegal. So, what we will get is the opposite of self driving cars. We will get cars that monitor our driving and step in to keep us from wrecking. That really is the ideal match of man and machine. Man is great at judgement and doing subtle things like reading the changing environment. Machines are great at monitoring and stepping in in an emergency. Self driving cars reverse that and put the man and the machine in their worst roles. A system where cars assist us will work much better.

  43. http://blogs.news.com.au/daily…..this_call/

    A reporter named Lauren Taylor takes being a crazy cat lady to the next level

    That’s when I decided to raise my cats to be gender neutral.

    Imagine being set up on a blind date with Ms. Taylor and arriving at her apartment to pick her up and being introduced to her “gender neutral cats”. I am not sure I could recover from the shock and horror fast enough to make an escape.

    1. One of my many dating rules was a one-cat limit.

      1. Yeah. I was okay with two cats, but crazy sexy was always one of my vices. Even I, however, could not go above two cats. Even then, I felt a lot better if she had a dog or two thrown in to even things out a bit.

        1. crazy sexy was always one of my vices.

          I get that by targeting redheads.

          1. Well, there is crazy sexy and then there is “I like playing with black mambas”.

      2. I have two cats just so they keep each other company. But yeah more than that is overkill.

        1. I am an animal lover and can honestly say I like cats as well as i do dogs. There is nothing wrong with having two cats for the reason you give. Cats are much more independent than dogs but still like to have a little company, even though feline manners require them to hiss at the other cat the requisite number of times per week.

          1. Mine barely tolerate each other but I like to think they get some exercise from all that chasing and hissing and spitting.

            1. Friskies did this hysterical Youtube film called Dear Kitten. Look it up sometime if you have never seen it. It is a voice over of an older cat writing a kitten a welcome letter to his new home. The letter begins with “now that I have hissed at you the customary 375 times, I can welcome you to our home”. And that absolutely describes cats. I don’t think they really dislike each other. They just hiss and spit because feline etiquette requires it.

        2. We have 3 cats and a dog, but the cats are indoor/outdoor. There’s no way we’d have 3 if they were just going to be cooped up indoors all day. They’re working animals, and their job is to keep rodents and reptiles away from the house.

          1. My cat’s job is to do that and also be a companion cat. To look cute and let people pet her and sit on people’s laps and such. God does she hate that. But I keep telling her everyone hates their job but you have to earn your keep somehow. That cat food doesn’t buy itself. She doesn’t seem to believe me.

        3. I have yet to find a cat that does well alone. Maybe they could do well with a non-feline companion (e.g. a cat-friendly dog) but it’s just easier to have two cats.

          Of course, the easiest option is to have zero cats, but that’s a harder pill to swallow if you already have one.

    2. I just assumed she spayed and neutered them all.

      1. she spayed and neutered them all

        Sounds like she started with a bunch of hermaphroditic cats, so no wonder they have gender identity issues.

    3. I would point, laugh, and run.

  44. It was only a matter of time before hipsters discovered the snack bar and ruined it.

    This is a real snack bar.

    1. Your first link just redirects to the home page.

    2. This is my favorite kind of bar.

  45. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  46. uptil I looked at the bank draft saying $8885 , I didn’t believe that my mother in law woz like they say truly taking home money in there spare time at their laptop. . there great aunt haz done this less than 17 months and as of now repayed the mortgage on there home and bourt a great Renault 4 . see

    Copy This Link inYour Browser

    http://www.MaxPost30.com

  47. Love Status for Whatsapp have their own charm and appeal because unlike Facebook, they are short, pithy, crisp, and even at times, monosyllabic. This lends an ambiguity and curiosity to them which urges readers to read them and respond to them unlike Facebook where the long status messages are not being read by most people.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.